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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Dudeface wrote:You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.

Yup, agreed.

ITC is essentially a set of pre-existing conditions, which you are completely aware of, and can build to tailor to a specific one - is there generalship in that? Where's the initiative, the flexibility?

I think you guys are vastly over-simplifying. What is your experience with ITC?

I'll hold my hands up and say minimal, but the quotes you have there were in relation to a statement from Slayer stating that the best general was one who had pre-calculated and refined a list into a position where they get the win. Hence my response is that you shouldn't be able to machine to simply be mechanically superior 100% of the time due to a lack of variables.

Dudeface wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Dudeface wrote:You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.

Yup, agreed.

ITC is essentially a set of pre-existing conditions, which you are completely aware of, and can build to tailor to a specific one - is there generalship in that? Where's the initiative, the flexibility?

I think you guys are vastly over-simplifying. What is your experience with ITC?

I'll hold my hands up and say minimal, but the quotes you have there were in relation to a statement from Slayer stating that the best general was one who had pre-calculated and refined a list into a position where they get the win. Hence my response is that you shouldn't be able to machine to simply be mechanically superior 100% of the time due to a lack of variables.

Seeing as one of the variables proposed here was letting who you like more determine the winner, why would I take those people seriously?

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Spoiler:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.

Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).

People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.

Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.

Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.

While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).

But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.

Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.

Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.

And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.

I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.

Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!

And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.

Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.

Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.

Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.

And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.

I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".

Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.

That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.

But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.

Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.

Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.

I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament? You're really not grounded in reality are you?

You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.

Regards sportsmanship, you've shown multiple times in multiple threads that it's not something you value and seem unable to understand the value in players having a pleasant time against just WAAC. There is definitely an argument that it can be affected by social circles, I won't argue that, but I'll leave that point since we're evidently on the opposite sides of the coin.

I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.

It really isn't.

What's not reasonable about me bringing a 2000 point army against a 2000 point army and expecting a fair game?

No, you said you won't accomodate people using a bad army. Thats whats unreasonable. Would you accommodate someone who's only just started playing? How about someone who can't afford a new army? There's any number of reasons people play "bad" armies, why should they not be allowed to enjoy the game as well? What makes you so special that only your fun matters?

New people can accidentally end up with significantly better armies, like someone starting Iron Hands or Custodes vs someone starting Tyranids or Dark Angels. Also I'm not made of money either. So why should anyone accommodate anyone because of GW's shoddy writing that you're defending?

What's that got to do with sportsmanship at a tournament?

You're gonna need to realize this is a different conversation with Yoyo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament?

I think a better general would be one who doesn't get to pick their objectives to suit their own plan, and is more capable of having a flexible, versatile strategy.

As I understand, ITC is about the player picking their objectives. GW missions are more about "here's your objectives, go complete them".

A general who can win a mission without knowing in advance what their objective is superior to one who's been given all the data in advance.

And what does THAT have to do with you saying incorporating subjective things like Sportsmanship and Painting into the overall score?

Daedalus81 wrote:I think you guys are vastly over-simplifying. What is your experience with ITC?

Only what rules I've read, and the range of people's responses, I'll admit.
How much am I oversimplifying by?

Is it not true that ITC allows a player to pick and choose how they score?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I think a better general would be one who doesn't get to pick their objectives to suit their own plan, and is more capable of having a flexible, versatile strategy.

As I understand, ITC is about the player picking their objectives. GW missions are more about "here's your objectives, go complete them".

A general who can win a mission without knowing in advance what their objective is superior to one who's been given all the data in advance.

And what does THAT have to do with you saying incorporating subjective things like Sportsmanship and Painting into the overall score?

I never mentioned painting. I mentioned sportsmanship because you're still playing against another human, and you should be rewarded for being a pleasant opponent.

If the game were to be played against an AI, or you were never supposed to interact or even know who you were playing against, a sportsmanship score wouldn't be needed. However, you're playing against another person, and thus entering a social covenant with them, and I don't see why being a good sport should be a cause for concern.

While there are people playing on the other side of the table, good behaviour should be rewarded.

For those who are interested, here's the Adepticon format

https://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/2020/202040KChampMIssionsFinal.pdf

 Sim-Life wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Spoiler:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.

Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).

People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.

Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.

Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.

While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).

But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.

Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.

Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.

And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.

I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.

Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!

And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.

Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.

Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.

Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.

And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.

I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".

Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.

That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.

But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.

Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.

Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.

I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament? You're really not grounded in reality are you?

You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.

Regards sportsmanship, you've shown multiple times in multiple threads that it's not something you value and seem unable to understand the value in players having a pleasant time against just WAAC. There is definitely an argument that it can be affected by social circles, I won't argue that, but I'll leave that point since we're evidently on the opposite sides of the coin.

I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.

It really isn't.

What's not reasonable about me bringing a 2000 point army against a 2000 point army and expecting a fair game?

No, you said you won't accomodate people using a bad army. Thats whats unreasonable. Would you accommodate someone who's only just started playing? How about someone who can't afford a new army? There's any number of reasons people play "bad" armies, why should they not be allowed to enjoy the game as well? What makes you so special that only your fun matters?

You mean you weren't calling him on how the first visible quoted sentence is a blatant lie, based on how he's been posting? Shame.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Spoiler:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.

Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).

People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.

Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.

Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.

While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).

But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.

Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.

Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.

And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.

I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.

Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!

And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.

Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.

Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.

Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.

And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.

I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".

Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.

That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.

But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.

Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.

Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.

I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament? You're really not grounded in reality are you?

You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.

Regards sportsmanship, you've shown multiple times in multiple threads that it's not something you value and seem unable to understand the value in players having a pleasant time against just WAAC. There is definitely an argument that it can be affected by social circles, I won't argue that, but I'll leave that point since we're evidently on the opposite sides of the coin.

I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.

It really isn't.

What's not reasonable about me bringing a 2000 point army against a 2000 point army and expecting a fair game?

No, you said you won't accomodate people using a bad army. Thats whats unreasonable. Would you accommodate someone who's only just started playing? How about someone who can't afford a new army? There's any number of reasons people play "bad" armies, why should they not be allowed to enjoy the game as well? What makes you so special that only your fun matters?

You mean you weren't calling him on how the first visible quoted sentence is a blatant lie, based on how he's been posting? Shame.

You're talking about a different statement. He said it was unreasonable to expect two evenly pointed armies to compete against each other.

Jidmah wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:
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.

The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective. People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
It's also very easy to manipulate in smaller events if you join an event with a group of people. You just mark down everyone not part of your group and you are pretty much guaranteed to get the price.

So while I support having a sportsmanship score (preferably just as a yes/no), it should be separated from both painting and game score.

Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
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.

The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective. People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
It's also very easy to manipulate in smaller events if you join an event with a group of people. You just mark down everyone not part of your group and you are pretty much guaranteed to get the price.

So while I support having a sportsmanship score (preferably just as a yes/no), it should be separated from both painting and game score.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament?

I think a better general would be one who doesn't get to pick their objectives to suit their own plan, and is more capable of having a flexible, versatile strategy.

I never mentioned painting. I mentioned sportsmanship because you're still playing against another human, and you should be rewarded for being a pleasant opponent.

okey, and there is a problem because people are not nice or pleasant in general. If I play GK in 8th ed, and someone has a dislike for them, because in 5th ed they made him feel as if he wasted his time and money on the army he had, and now he keeps on ditching the points of every GK player, then there is no way to balance this by being what ever counts as nice and pleasant. Specially when one considers that any game is a competition, and soon we would get people score bombing opponents just so they don't get in to top 8 or don't win over all, and their real life friends do.

Rules should be the way they are in sports. In sports you are not obliged to be pleasant to your opponent, specially in contact sports. you just have to follow rules and not hurt your opponent real, but that is mostly because of sponsorships. And there still are sports where hurting the opposing players real bad, including career ending injuries are considered a norm.

no one should be rewarded for being pleasant, where different people considere different thing to be pleasant. I don't like when people talk, specially about stuff not related to the game, it makes me lose focus, plus I don't like to talk to people in general. Does that mean I am okey to score bomb anyone who tries to talk durning the game, about non related stuff? Is me getting a low score, assuming I would somehow go to a tournament, because I don't talk okey too? What if my opponent knows me and knows I don't talk, and does not score bomb me, but the next one doesn't and gives me 0 points for being a pleasant opponent? This gives people that are well known and who come from largest communities a bigger chance to get a better score. Because again, something bad in a person you don't know, can just be considered a strange quirk in someone you know real well.

It's 100% in the interest of a Tourney Organizer to get rid of people who don't bring a good vibe to a private event.

If their attendees have to deal with racists, sexists, jerks, etc. and don't have a good time? They won't come back. They don't owe you anything if you don't have the social skills to comport yourself respectably in public.

Anyway, maybe pin this conversation and go back to discussing the missions?

Karol wrote:

I never mentioned painting. I mentioned sportsmanship because you're still playing against another human, and you should be rewarded for being a pleasant opponent.

okey, and there is a problem because people are not nice or pleasant in general.

That's not an objective statement.

I'm sorry that your personal experiences have put you in a situation where that may be true for you, but in general, the vast, overwhelming majority of people, of complete strangers, has been positively pleasant at best, or indifferent to me at worst.

In any case, I don't think saying "people aren't nice" is a factual statement.

If I play GK in 8th ed, and someone has a dislike for them, because in 5th ed they made him feel as if he wasted his time and money on the army he had, and now he keeps on ditching the points of every GK player, then there is no way to balance this by being what ever counts as nice and pleasant. Specially when one considers that any game is a competition, and soon we would get people score bombing opponents just so they don't get in to top 8 or don't win over all, and their real life friends do.

And you seriously believe that MOST people would do that? That they'd have such a hatred of prior editions that they would deliberately torpedo the scores of other players simply for playing those armies?

Sounds like someone with a serious problem, and someone who realistically shouldn't be playing in public tournaments.

Rules should be the way they are in sports. In sports you are not obliged to be pleasant to your opponent

Categorically untrue. In football, you can be immediately sent off for unsportsmanlike behaviour, and makes explicit reference to having respect for the game. In fact, most British sports have these rules, and I believe most Olympic ones do too (however, more than likely more to set a good role model).

you just have to follow rules and not hurt your opponent real, but that is mostly because of sponsorships. And there still are sports where hurting the opposing players real bad, including career ending injuries are considered a norm.

Hurting someone as part of a match is part of that sport. That's represented by killing your enemies' models in 40k.

I'm talking about rude and disrespectful conduct, which in most sports (all, as far as I'm aware) is taboo.

no one should be rewarded for being pleasant, where different people considere different thing to be pleasant.

Obviously, there's a good degree of leeway, but it's not hard to know the difference between someone being kind towards you, and someone being an arse.

Are you genuinely of the opinion that people should be allowed to treat everyone else like dirt, and not be penalised?

I don't like when people talk, specially about stuff not related to the game, it makes me lose focus, plus I don't like to talk to people in general. Does that mean I am okey to score bomb anyone who tries to talk durning the game, about non related stuff? Is me getting a low score, assuming I would somehow go to a tournament, because I don't talk okey too? What if my opponent knows me and knows I don't talk, and does not score bomb me, but the next one doesn't and gives me 0 points for being a pleasant opponent?

If I were in that situation, I'd make my preferences clear to any opponent, sportsman scoring or not, because that would affect how you play. You have every right to discuss that initially with the TO, and also with every player you face, something like "hey, not to be a pain, but I really get put off by people talking during the game, it makes me uncomfortable and I'm not much of a talker anyway: can we play with as little talking as possible please? Thank you". Any half-decent opponent should respect that, and if not, you should make a TO aware of their inconsideration. If the TO fails to do that, then you know what tournament to avoid.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yoyoyo wrote:
It's 100% in the interest of a Tourney Organizer to get rid of people who don't bring a good vibe to a private event.

If their attendees have to deal with racists, sexists, jerks, etc. and don't have a good time? They won't come back. They don't owe you anything if you don't have the social skills to comport yourself respectably in public.

Exactly. In my opinion, there needs to be way way harsher policies on people being actively dickish. If those people don't like those rules, they should make their own event.

Anyway, maybe pin this conversation and go back to discussing the missions?

Quite.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Only what rules I've read, and the range of people's responses, I'll admit.
How much am I oversimplifying by?

Is it not true that ITC allows a player to pick and choose how they score?

Yes, but the practice is not as robotic as implied.

When I come to a table I don't know my opponent's list. I need to look at it, assess my strengths against their list, and determine what objectives to choose. Doing this quickly during a tournament is an acquired skill.

Some lists are hard to score against. That's why it is important for armies that are not killy to be flexible about scoring on non-combat related objectives.

Now you know yours and your opponent's objectives. You don't just throw your hands up and let the units they want to kill float into the wind. You do your best to foil their plans. Holding back, circling around, staying in deepstrike, etc.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:
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.

The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective. People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
It's also very easy to manipulate in smaller events if you join an event with a group of people. You just mark down everyone not part of your group and you are pretty much guaranteed to get the price.

So while I support having a sportsmanship score (preferably just as a yes/no), it should be separated from both painting and game score.

Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
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.

The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective. People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
It's also very easy to manipulate in smaller events if you join an event with a group of people. You just mark down everyone not part of your group and you are pretty much guaranteed to get the price.

So while I support having a sportsmanship score (preferably just as a yes/no), it should be separated from both painting and game score.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament?

I think a better general would be one who doesn't get to pick their objectives to suit their own plan, and is more capable of having a flexible, versatile strategy.

My two cents on the matter.

I was one the first ones in this board to raise the alert that ITC was warping the meta 2 years ago, when CA 17 came out and we started noticing a huge improvement in matched mission quality.

Yeah, CA 17 was still not perfect, but the ITC of the time had also many idiotic rules (4 victory points for killing an 80 point non character unit, really??), so the gap wasn't that big.

At the time you were told that ITC format didn't influence list making and unit selection in the slightest, and a top ITC list would surely crash a CA17 tournament. The fact that big GW official events were not won by ITC lists was because only noobs played there. No, I'm not kidding, this was really the attitude of this board ITC players 2 years ago.

I'm glad that after all this time at least the concept that CA players are not B series competitors has passed, so we can have a discussion.

Now onto the actual discussion. The aim of the ITC is to provide rules for a standardized and large scale applicable ranking system of the players. This is only the official aim though, because unfortunately in many player's mind, it became an house rule packet to "correct the incompetence of GW".

Let's be honest here, after the last results, if the ITC mission package was the GW official one, we would be at her throath for being so bad at it. If the ITC ever had a role as a balance element, it failed spectacularly (for 2 years straight). Community is no better than GW at making rules, but this is something widely known on this board ( just take a stroll in the proposed rule section).

It is now obvious to everyone that ITC missions are not more balanced than GW missions, there are even opinions that they are LESS balanced, so if in people mind that was the reason of their existence, we can drop them and nothing will be lost.

I am no ITC player though, so there could be perceived benefits of that package beyond the "balancing", which I'm not taking into account.


Clearly, having a single tournament rule pack would surely be a positive thing for the community, and the official mission package seems like the obvious choice.

ERJAK wrote:

Spoiler:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:[spoiler]

Dudeface wrote:
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.

The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective. People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
It's also very easy to manipulate in smaller events if you join an event with a group of people. You just mark down everyone not part of your group and you are pretty much guaranteed to get the price.

So while I support having a sportsmanship score (preferably just as a yes/no), it should be separated from both painting and game score.

Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
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.

The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective. People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
It's also very easy to manipulate in smaller events if you join an event with a group of people. You just mark down everyone not part of your group and you are pretty much guaranteed to get the price.

So while I support having a sportsmanship score (preferably just as a yes/no), it should be separated from both painting and game score.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament?

I think a better general would be one who doesn't get to pick their objectives to suit their own plan, and is more capable of having a flexible, versatile strategy.

As I understand, ITC is about the player picking their objectives. GW missions are more about "here's your objectives, go complete them".

A general who can win a mission without knowing in advance what their objective is superior to one who's been given all the data in advance.

This is exactly the issue with ITC, why should you get to pick your objectives and then build your list for them. How does that translate into a "representation"(altho crudely) of a military engagement? The objectives you planned for often end up changing due to battlefield conditions, losses, gains, etc...
The "game is just a math equation" viewpoint is an incredibly unimaginative one and a symptom of a larger problem. People are being coddled and needto be expressly told what to do by "influencers". but that is a horse of an entirely different colour.

This was not a well designed paragraph, however I will try to parse it.

To your actual point, do you believe that the military doesn't pick their objectives? Do you honestly believe that the Allied forces showed up on D-Day having no clue what they were looking for and just jumped off the boat like 'feth, I'm sure we'll hit somethin' important!' Seems like something the military would spend literally trillions of dollars to avoid doing.

The BEST general knows better than to run screaming wang first into enemy lines without things like proper intelligence gathering, scouting the location, knowing why the hell they're there in the first place. That sort of thing.

Also, for the record you guys are talking about Maelstrom. Ewar is 'given all the data in advance' on steroids. The objective is 'stand here more than they stand here' in every mission. That's why they favor gunlines and alphastrike so heavily.

Your last sentence just turned into 'get these durn kids offa my lawn!'

The CA missions aren't mindless or random. You know the objective before the mission starts.

bananathug wrote:
The problem that people have brought up with the CA2019 missions is there is simply not enough points to differentiate between players.

Even at a local RTT a couple players going 2-1 could be tied with the limited points you can score in a CA 2019 mission.

I don't see how you get around this without adding more ways to score and once you do that we are back into the "homebrew" problem that people have with the ITC.

A couple of pages ago now, but I've seen things like this mentioned a few times as if it's some deal breaker over using non-ITC missions. I've played in many other systems that have a simple W/L/D (or oven just W/L) scoring system and they all work absolutely fine. In many cases the tournaments declare anyone with a certain record progresses to single-elimination with the top performers getting a bye in order to create a regular top 16 or top 8 set of players. It's hardly an insurmountable obstacle.

Also, it pre-supposes the VP difference is in any way indicative of the actual closeness of the game, which isn't necessarily the case as it's very possible for scoring to spiral out of control over a few lucky events, or for supposedly close games to be nothing of the sort in reality. It also greatly benefits players who get a lucky easy draw early in the tournament so they can crush their opponents for those sweet, sweet VPs. In short, it's not clear that VP difference is enough of an absolute indicator of performance to use it as the main determinant of success. As a tie-breaker it's probably fine, but a simple W/L record is sufficient in most other competitive games and 40k doesn't need to be any different in that regard.

Going to tackle a few points from the last couple of pages –

The easiest fix for people worried about separating the players at a GW event is tiebreakers.
Result points (10 for win, 5 for draw etc etc) > Total secondaries points > Points destroyed > Total points scored > Least list points lost over the evert > Most max wins etc etc etc. Alternatively you add in a “win scale” as well, so a major win scores more points than a close, minor win which gives points to both players in addition to the tiebreakers.

For me, Sportsmanship should be a separate award, with maybe an overall “Event Shining Star” heading, or something. I would refrain from calling it the “Tournament Champion” though to ensure it is recognised as the “above and beyond” category, and not mixed up with Champion being the best General. All events that I’ve been to that have had painting and sportsmanship awards have handled them as individual awards with the exception of GW events, and it has worked fantastically.
What I will add however, is that sportsmanship votes SHOULD have an impact on the event whilst it is “in play”. Each round should have a sportsmanship vote submitted with the score, with follow up for reported bad sportsmanship. If it happens more than once, a Judge should keep an eye on their next game just in case, but, also to ensure those reporting the “bad” games aren’t doing so out of joint spite. (Yes, there is a chance it will happen, and it also requires the TOs to be 100% impartial – which is another challenge).

As for oversimplifying ITC, I think people do, and have been, but, I feel like some people have also been also been overly compensating for the ITC in their attempts to defend it and provide a balanced argument.
There is no denying that your list building skills have more of an impact on ITC games, than EW or MoW missions, especially in a non “shark tank” event, where you understand ITC and a good chunk of the other attendees do not. The main issue people have is that you can build a list that is really difficult to score secondaries against, whilst also going into the event with a clear idea of which secondaries you are going to pick 9 times out of 10. For example, I can build a list with a playstyle in mind, knowing that, I could easily score recon, behind enemy lines and butchers bill every turn, whilst also having a list that forces my opponent to pick secondaries they either won’t max out, or to switch and throw them off their game. Being able to react here is a skill, but, it has far too big of an impact on the game. More so than the actual mission you are meant to be playing. Playing the actual mission should be the focus, not playing to deny your opponent secondary points whilst killing at least 1 unit and sitting on at least 1 objective.
This also applies to the GW missions; however, I have found that the way you subsequently play makes more of a difference in the GW missions than it does in the ITC missions. You can certainly tailor your list in the GW missions to cover a lot of the bases, but, at the end of the day, both you and your opponent are fighting for the same mission objectives, so, you are a lot more susceptible to mistakes, good counter plays and bad matchups.
Bad matchups should be allowed to happen – it shouldn’t mean that you cannot win though, and I feel like GW missions allow enough of a swing to allow the underdog to win, more so than ITC does.

List building is a skill any player than wants to “rise to the top” requires to learn, and it should stay that way, however, imo and in others opinions, ITC is weighted far too much towards list building, rather than “in game” decisions. I personally think the best example of how this should work is Sean Nayden. His lists are always completely different to the rest of the ITC meta, yet he always does extremely well. This is mainly down to his ability to make decisions in game and strategize. Even in bad matchups there is a way to potentially win. I think a lot of people will see that happening more and more if GW missions became the norm.

Using the example of the military pre-planning is a bit touch-and-go imo. Yes, they plan everything to the best of their abilities, but, you can’t plan for what your opponent is always going to do when on a particular mission. Before the actual start, they know their mission objectives and setup plans to achieve them in the best possible ways. To me, that is exactly the same as preparing for a GW Eternal War mission. You know the mission objective which you -NEED- to achieve, you then build your list to achieve it. (as often as possible over the course of an event). ITC however does not prioritise the actual mission, instead, it gives the players the ability to just do whatever mission they want to, usually, without consequence.
Maybe the solution to this is to cap each secondary at 2 or 3 points, remove the “hold and kill more” bits and add a massive weight to the actual mission “bonus” score. (the fact that the mission is just a “bonus point” adds weight to the argument that it is basically worthless)

Karol wrote:

I never mentioned painting. I mentioned sportsmanship because you're still playing against another human, and you should be rewarded for being a pleasant opponent.

okey, and there is a problem because people are not nice or pleasant in general. If I play GK in 8th ed, and someone has a dislike for them, because in 5th ed they made him feel as if he wasted his time and money on the army he had, and now he keeps on ditching the points of every GK player, then there is no way to balance this by being what ever counts as nice and pleasant. Specially when one considers that any game is a competition, and soon we would get people score bombing opponents just so they don't get in to top 8 or don't win over all, and their real life friends do.

Rules should be the way they are in sports. In sports you are not obliged to be pleasant to your opponent, specially in contact sports. you just have to follow rules and not hurt your opponent real, but that is mostly because of sponsorships. And there still are sports where hurting the opposing players real bad, including career ending injuries are considered a norm.

no one should be rewarded for being pleasant, where different people considere different thing to be pleasant. I don't like when people talk, specially about stuff not related to the game, it makes me lose focus, plus I don't like to talk to people in general. Does that mean I am okey to score bomb anyone who tries to talk durning the game, about non related stuff? Is me getting a low score, assuming I would somehow go to a tournament, because I don't talk okey too? What if my opponent knows me and knows I don't talk, and does not score bomb me, but the next one doesn't and gives me 0 points for being a pleasant opponent? This gives people that are well known and who come from largest communities a bigger chance to get a better score. Because again, something bad in a person you don't know, can just be considered a strange quirk in someone you know real well.

C'mon Karol you can very much get DQ'd or penalised in many sports for not observing pre/post game niceties or unsportsmanlike behaviour. It's a strange thing to say on a wargame forum but you seem to be developing a toxic view toward humanity, which whilst sometimes is justified in existing due to circumstance, will only hurt you long term man.

Our group started playing ITC style games in the middle of the last year and we found it pretty refreshing.
I like the secondary mechanics and I think it's a nice variation compared to the ca mission pack.

For homegrown or pick-up games (both of these options implicate for me: "I want to have a good time. Laugh, troll and play with - not against - my opponent") I always build a list that I personally like, not one, that's the most effective list regarding the mission.
So far so good, but in a competitive environment, other stakes are set (afaik, don't hunt me down, if my oppinion doesn't match yours...). Everybody tries to get the most out of his ruleset (aka codex). I don't think one can build a mission set that's completely balanced and doesn't favour some kind of army builds... Neither ITC, nor CA missions are (or in any case can be) completely neutral. Sometimes the mission favours boardcontrol and second turn (just an example, stop sweating) and sometimes the killiest army has a littel heads up. I honestly don't see, how this could or should be adressed.

Whilst I’m tentatively inclined to agree that people shouldn’t be overly awarded for being pleasant, when it should be an expectation rather than a hope, I feel that having an award recognise the reasonable request is good and positively reinforces the expectation of a friendly and engaging atmosphere.

However, bad sportsmanship should 100% be penalised as often as possible, but, in a reasonable and proportional way. It is a difficult balance to find, one which I don’t think we are there yet with, but, hopefully will be eventually.

As for sporting events, they always penalise bad instances of unsportsmanship. Make a really bad tackle in football and you’ll get a red card and likely miss up to 5 games for it. Make a slightly racist post on twitter (joke or not) and you’ll get a hefty fine from the governing body and probably face disciplinary action from your own club for being a dumbass and bring the clubs name into disrepute. Hell, football games can now be paused and cancelled by the Ref, in the instance of racism from fans in the crowds.

As for sports where aiming to genuinely hurt your opponent to end their career is the “norm”, I’d love to know what “sport” that is and what they consider that image has on their reputation and chances of becoming “main stream”.

What does 40k want to be seen as? A friendly and engaging, yet competitive environment open to everyone who wants to give it a shot, or, a toxic, vile and aggressive environment?
I know which one GW and FLG and all independent operators would like to choose. Not to mention 99.99999% of the players.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nibbler wrote:
Our group started playing ITC style games in the middle of the last year and we found it pretty refreshing.
I like the secondary mechanics and I think it's a nice variation compared to the ca mission pack.

For homegrown or pick-up games (both of these options implicate for me: "I want to have a good time. Laugh, troll and play with - not against - my opponent") I always build a list that I personally like, not one, that's the most effective list regarding the mission.
So far so good, but in a competitive environment, other stakes are set (afaik, don't hunt me down, if my oppinion doesn't match yours...). Everybody tries to get the most out of his ruleset (aka codex). I don't think one can build a mission set that's completely balanced and doesn't favour some kind of army builds... Neither ITC, nor CA missions are (or in any case can be) completely neutral. Sometimes the mission favours boardcontrol and second turn (just an example, stop sweating) and sometimes the killiest army has a littel heads up. I honestly don't see, how this could or should be adressed.

I think the way to address this is to have a balance between killy, holding and manoeuvring missions in the event pack.

I agree that certain missions in CA help certain types of army build more than others, but, at the same time, other missions do the opposite to that same list. So, in theory over the course of the event, if you skew your army list towards 1 or 2 missions, you’ll also have 1 or 2 missions you’ll struggle (at least a little) with, and 1 where you’ll get by ok without any gain or loss.

The issue with ITC, is that because the missions themselves mean so little, you can build a list that does 1 or 2 things well and expect to do reasonably well in all of the missions, because there is never a mission that will force you to engage in a way that negatively impacts your army.

True, but that's why multiple missions with a high degree of differentiation are a good thing.

You could even "thumbs up, thumbs down" those missions which you enjoy or find unfavorable (like 4 Pillars as an example) and perhaps that affords factions a way to influence the matchups they want to avoid

I will say I am starting to warm up to the ITC missions, but I still think overall they are bad for the game. Mainly because they divide the player base into even smaller groups than you normally find (e.g. casual, competitive, narrative). Instead you also further subdivide that into ITC/Non-ITC.

There really should be a standardized thing, as much as we can get in 40k, especially for events. Now whether that is ITC or not is debatable, but there needs to be something agreed upon and used. So the way I see it either ITC starts using CA missions and changes them yearly with CA, or GW adopts more of the ITC format for CA missions and eventually the become almost indistuinguishable.

I imagine there's been a lot of cross-pollination from the ITC into the 8th ruleset and CA missions already since 7th edition.

The crux of the thing is, regardless if you like it or not as a system, that GW forced the playerbases hands more or less.


In an optimal world, they would sit down, and be open about planned releases, allow betatesting by the public, etc.

AS to avoid the gakshow that was 7th and any similar veins.

they are not and i feel like it has partially to do with their way to make money. F.e. GW is preety intransparant about release cycle and content.

The opposite of transparent is opaque.

Not Online!!! wrote:
The crux of the thing is, regardless if you like it or not as a system, that GW forced the playerbases hands more or less.


In an optimal world, they would sit down, and be open about planned releases, allow betatesting by the public, etc.

AS to avoid the gakshow that was 7th and any similar veins.

they are not and i feel like it has partially to do with their way to make money. F.e. GW is preety intransparant about release cycle and content.

Public beta testing is something that always comes up and I'm curious. How do you think GW should implement it without it being a giant clusterfeth and a logistical nightmare?

 Sim-Life wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
The crux of the thing is, regardless if you like it or not as a system, that GW forced the playerbases hands more or less.


In an optimal world, they would sit down, and be open about planned releases, allow betatesting by the public, etc.

AS to avoid the gakshow that was 7th and any similar veins.

they are not and i feel like it has partially to do with their way to make money. F.e. GW is preety intransparant about release cycle and content.

Public beta testing is something that always comes up and I'm curious. How do you think GW should implement it without it being a giant clusterfeth and a logistical nightmare?

Remember the beta bolter rule? Do that. But more.

So everyone just emails them their opinions then they do what they want anyway? Sounds about right for public testing actually.

Or they look at faction performance at their events.