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.
2020/01/30 14:21:05
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Ishagu wrote: Or they look at faction performance at their events.
I think that they already do that. Most of the past nerfs have been aimed at models which overpeformed in some big event. Problem is that some of those big events were ITC, hence this discussion, since many consider it inappropriate that ITC is somehow taken in consideration when balancing this game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/30 14:23:27
2020/01/30 14:38:54
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Racerguy180 wrote: 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.
Uh... yes, I do in fact believe the Allies did not get to pick their objectives. They had to break through into Normandy, they didn't get to arbitrarily decide that taking out tanks or holding the beach would be 'good enough'. Not getting to pick your objective doesn't mean 'having no clue what they were looking for', it just means not being able to dictate what you need to do to win the engagement.
ITC would have the Germans win via Butcher's Bill despite the Allies successfully breaking through into Normandy. Or the Allies winning via King of the Hill, Engineers, or Recon despite not actually breaking through.
Being able to choose your objective is complete antithesis to military wargaming. You may spend years and lots of money in planning and prep to ensure that the conflict is as winnable as it can be, but once you have boots in the AO and a political need to secure Kabul, you don't get to say 'well that looks tough, let's choose to knock out their T-72s instead and award ourselves points for doing so'.
When you can choose your secondary objectives, and then score enough points with secondaries to win the game, it undercuts the idea of having to apply your generalship to solve the problem that you have been given. And that's not even touching on how it skews the meta by rendering some units artificially weak or powerful on account of how vulnerable they are to secondary objectives.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/30 14:48:24
catbarf wrote: ITC would have the Germans win via Butcher's Bill despite the Allies successfully breaking through into Normandy. Or the Allies winning via King of the Hill, Engineers, or Recon despite not actually breaking through.
Your opponent's army composition typically dictates your secondary ojectives, so saying you get to just choose them is not accurate. Even in real world military conflicts forces choose the manner in which they will engage a given force based upon where they perceive the greatest advantage.
I'm not going to choose Big Game Hunter against someone with no vehicles or monstrous creatures for example, there's a bit more give and take to the process.
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."
2020/01/30 15:17:01
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
catbarf wrote: ITC would have the Germans win via Butcher's Bill despite the Allies successfully breaking through into Normandy. Or the Allies winning via King of the Hill, Engineers, or Recon despite not actually breaking through.
Your opponent's army composition typically dictates your secondary ojectives, so saying you get to just choose them is not accurate. Even in real world military conflicts forces choose the manner in which they will engage a given force based upon where they perceive the greatest advantage.
I'm not going to choose Big Game Hunter against someone with no vehicles or monstrous creatures for example, there's a bit more give and take to the process.
Whilst your opponents army will offer up options for you when deciding secondaries (or take them away) you can still realistically pick 2 out of your 3 secondaries at list building. There is a reason why recon is usually so popular etc. Likewise, flyer spam was usually an easy Behind Enemy Lines and Recon setup.
Granted it can only really be done with the non “kill based” secondaries, but, you can build around this and reliably run with it at an event. You might not win the event, but, it does offer you reliability and being able to play to your own game, rather than your opponents.
2020/01/30 15:38:46
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
catbarf wrote: ITC would have the Germans win via Butcher's Bill despite the Allies successfully breaking through into Normandy. Or the Allies winning via King of the Hill, Engineers, or Recon despite not actually breaking through.
Your opponent's army composition typically dictates your secondary ojectives, so saying you get to just choose them is not accurate. Even in real world military conflicts forces choose the manner in which they will engage a given force based upon where they perceive the greatest advantage.
I'm not going to choose Big Game Hunter against someone with no vehicles or monstrous creatures for example, there's a bit more give and take to the process.
In a way that is true but it's the wrong way of looking at it. Typically you have an overall objective and taking secondary objectives is supposed to help you achieve that goal. In the end if you could achieve that goal without your secondary objectives you would still win the battle and the war. Because those secondary objectives are literally...secondary. In ITC you can lose the battle having won your primary objective every turn while your opponent beats you on secondaries and kill more. Also. You could destroy your entire opponents army and still lose because you lost by points...(completely unrealistic to lose a battle when you destroyed the enemy). In the end in military history your ultimate objective is preservation of your army and destruction of the enemies. There are situations in war where you can have a strategic victory in a defeat...Like at Dunkirk when the English escaped across the channel. Ultimately though that is a German victory - they cleared mainland Europe of any opposition in around a week. Seriously though can you imagine a situation where the British forces could have scored a victory if their army got annihilated there? Heck no.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/01/30 15:47:20
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
I don't think matched play is very conducive to setting up anything resembling the logic of an actual military operation. You need to scratch-build custom scenarios with more specific win conditions and force compositions for that.
2020/01/30 15:54:37
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Yoyoyo wrote: Beyond secondaries, what about the whole "hold one, hold more" and "kill one, kill more" concept?
It must penalize intentionally disposable units like Rhinos, while rewarding units like 20x Possessed with layered defense right?
I honestly don't like any of them.
Hold, Hold more I feel is a bad way of dealing with the objectives on the table. If there are 6 objectives and I have 5 of them and you have 1 I would score 2 points. The same as when I control 2 objectives vs your 1. Why have it like this and not simply 1 point per objective? Because then board control actually matters and the invisible boogyman of Horde armies comes up? Yet in CA/ETC missions you tend to simply score per objective and Hordes do not dominate.
Kill, Kill more again seem to exist to punish Hordes when going up against Elite armies, despite that fear not realising since the index days. Plus I am strongly of the opinion that killing should not be the goal. Killing is something you do to make it easier to complete your goal or stop your opponent, it should not be the goal itself.
I, once again, point to the recent example of the LVO finals where one army sat in a corner for 3 turns, didn't touch a second objective until turn 6 and won because board control was meaningless. The 4 objectives Brad controlled had no real value, because standing on them give his opponent Kill and Kill More while at most it would give him 1 point in Hold More.
Completely remove the primaries and simply giving 1 point per objective means that Siegler can't sit in a corner for 3 turns because he scores 1 point per turn while Brad scores between 1 and 4 every turn. Its probably even worth it then to sacrifice units by standing in the open on objectives because your scoring points your opponent is not.
The loss of value of objectives (worth 1-2 instead of 1-6) plus the added worth from Kill primaries + secondaries means that an army sitting in a castle shooting can win, which doesn't make for a fun game.
ps.
As for tabling, if tabling = win you again move towards leafblowers and stuff like that horrible artillery list at the LVO where the objective simply becomes to table the opponent and ignore the mission because that is enough.
The ability to win while 'losing' exists to make sure the game is actually a game where people play around objectives on the table.
Plus I mean seriously, its 40k. We have people in armor thicker then a tank with a rocket propelled grenade launcher as a sidearm fly across the battlefield on jetpacks to hit someone with a big hammer.
This is the wrong game to try and bring up battlefield realism.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/30 15:59:47
2020/01/30 15:55:53
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Yoyoyo wrote: Beyond secondaries, what about the whole "hold one, hold more" and "kill one, kill more" concept?
It must penalize intentionally disposable units like Rhinos, while rewarding units like 20x Possessed with layered defense right?
I personally don't like them just as much as secondaries, it kill more Hurts MSU style of army and favorites elite ones.
As for hold more? Well if we are doing objective missions then its pointless. If you are doing more kill oriented mission then it could work to force a little build diversity.
Really it comes down to, do you want a more kill objective oriented game, or objective control game. In a perfect world of 40k it would a bit of both.
PS: some missions like Recon could be a objective missions, we can have holding objectives that are not physical objectives.
Xenomancers wrote: Seriously though can you imagine a situation where the British forces could have scored a victory if their army got annihilated there? Heck no.
Of course not, at the same time, I can point to German military strategy with regards to Great Britain as an example of choosing your strategy, right or wrong. Germany more than likely could have assaulted Great Britain and crushed them, but it would have cost them a lot and they felt they could break British morale and ultimately wanted them to join the Axis. It was obviously a flawed strategy that involved bombing London instead of going after more traditional military targets, but it was the strategy they chose, right or wrong.
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."
2020/01/30 16:15:52
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Ishagu wrote: Seeing as the Germans could not achieve air or naval superiority over the British at any point during WW2, they could not have invaded.
That's debatable, and doesn't change the fact that they chose their own strategy. They also chose to attack Russia in winter, which historically has only really worked for the Mongols, so right, wrong, doesn't matter, they made a choice.
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."
2020/01/30 16:22:21
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
It's not debatable. After the battle of Britain the Germans could not invade, and the Royal navy was far larger and well equipped. They could have tried and suffered catastrophic casualties. They did at one point make plans on invading, but could not action them.
Back to 40k:
Choosing a strategy is NOT the same as choosing an objective.
You've confused the point. In CA missions you are given an objective, and it's up to you how you achieve it. In ITC missions you choose your objective based on the units in your list and how easy it would be for them to achieve it, or deny it for your opponent.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/30 16:25:13
-~Ishagu~-
2020/01/30 16:30:56
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: and doesn't change the fact that they chose their own strategy.
Yes, they chose their strategy, not the objective, which was eliminating the UK from the war. That's the overall goal that they had to accomplish, but had the freedom to choose how to try to meet that goal.
On a tactical level, your strategy is what force you bring to an engagement and how you pursue that engagement on the field. The objective is what's handed to you to accomplish and is the metric that determines success or failure.
Ishagu wrote: In ITC missions you choose your objective based on the units in your list and how easy it would be for them to achieve it, or deny it for your opponent.
You choose secondaries not primaries, primaries are dictated by the mission.
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."
2020/01/30 16:52:23
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
I don't think matched play is very conducive to setting up anything resembling the logic of an actual military operation. You need to scratch-build custom scenarios with more specific win conditions and force compositions for that.
Which I am entirely down for. Please give us something like that.
How cool would it be if we had missions that were set up drastically different. Like for example a Dunkirk type mission. Where the defender in this mission their only objective is to preserve their force and keep the enemy out of their deployment zone.
An ambush type mission where one army has to set up basically in the open and go second but the attacking army has to come in piece meal and only starts with a few units.
A pitched battle type mission with 2 armies meeting on an open field and fight to the death.
I mean there are lots of ideas you could throw out there...there needs to be some variety. The idea of objectives as poker chips...is just boring to me. Objectives should be less about standing in a arbitrary position. More about doing something that could actaully be seen as being an important military objective.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/01/30 16:52:34
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Which I am entirely down for. Please give us something like that.
How cool would it be if we had missions that were set up drastically different. Like for example a Dunkirk type mission. Where the defender in this mission their only objective is to preserve their force and keep the enemy out of their deployment zone.
An ambush type mission where one army has to set up basically in the open and go second but the attacking army has to come in piece meal and only starts with a few units.
A pitched battle type mission with 2 armies meeting on an open field and fight to the death.
I mean there are lots of ideas you could throw out there...there needs to be some variety. The idea of objectives as poker chips...is just boring to me. Objectives should be less about standing in a arbitrary position. More about doing something that could actaully be seen as being an important military objective.
They're called narrative missions typically.
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."
2020/01/30 16:56:04
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
catbarf wrote: ITC would have the Germans win via Butcher's Bill despite the Allies successfully breaking through into Normandy. Or the Allies winning via King of the Hill, Engineers, or Recon despite not actually breaking through.
Your opponent's army composition typically dictates your secondary ojectives, so saying you get to just choose them is not accurate. Even in real world military conflicts forces choose the manner in which they will engage a given force based upon where they perceive the greatest advantage.
I'm not going to choose Big Game Hunter against someone with no vehicles or monstrous creatures for example, there's a bit more give and take to the process.
In a way that is true but it's the wrong way of looking at it. Typically you have an overall objective and taking secondary objectives is supposed to help you achieve that goal. In the end if you could achieve that goal without your secondary objectives you would still win the battle and the war. Because those secondary objectives are literally...secondary.
I think there's confusion about what secondary objectives are.
Primary objectives are things like "Take that hill", "Destroy that thing", or "Hold for an hour". They're what (you think) truly matter. They're why you're here.
Secondary objectives are *not* parts of the Primary. You're thinking milestones or deliverables. Secondaries are other objectives. If you're taking a hill, a secondary is generally to not lose too much doing it. Or to take it before documents are destroyed. Or to also hold that bridge. They are things that help you with concerns that are *secondary* to the objective of the mission.
In real life, people have lost a battle having acheived their primary objective. It's literally a Pyrrhic Victory. It's uncommon, but is a very real thing. The "winning" side lost.
In ITC you can lose the battle having won your primary objective every turn while your opponent beats you on secondaries and kill more.
In real life, you would "lose"/fail an engagement if you lost a pair of cruisers interdicting a speedboat. The interdiction was the primary, and you accomplished it, but at too high a cost.
You could destroy your entire opponents army and still lose because you lost by points...(completely unrealistic to lose a battle when you destroyed the enemy)
So you're saying if a Genestealer Cult disables all the defense systems of a planet just before a Hive Fleet shows up, it's entirely unrealistic that they won because they got wiped out? Why does getting wiped out matter? They were about to be anyways.
If a Guardsman detatchment dies to the man, but holds the ridge for a half hour - long enough for fleet or other resources to get into position, preventing the enemy from spilling into the city/valley/whatever unchecked - how is that not a victory?
If demons of Khorne are all defeated, but the victors now belong to Khorne, did they fail?
If demons of Tzeench are all defeated, but they completed whatever scheme they intended, did they fail?
"Did I survive" is not the only victory condition for many, if not most, of the 40k factions.
In the end in military history your ultimate objective is preservation of your army [...]
In military history, we have military nation states lead by rational actors. And sane situations. Even truly existential fights (for the individuals themselves) are incredibly rare in history.
In 40k, we don't.
Yet even in history, we have examples of victories in death.
[...] and destruction of the enemies
A secondary, not ultimate, objective. Destruction has almost never mattered as much as apparent supremacy.
Like at Dunkirk when the English escaped across the channel. Ultimately though that is a German victory - they cleared mainland Europe of any opposition in around a week. Seriously though can you imagine a situation where the British forces could have scored a victory if their army got annihilated there? Heck no.
A good example of why secondaries are important. The primary was control. Germans focused on holding the encirclement over the defeat/destruction of the encircled forces. Because they focused the primary (control the territory) over the secondary (destroy enemy forces). While the Germans certainly won at Dunkirk, their victory was much less impactful because of how much deference they gave to their primary objective. While it's not a case of the British winning on secondaries, it does show the value of secondaries in the case of a lost primary.
2020/01/30 16:58:15
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Ishagu wrote: And the Primaries have little variety from mission to mission, hence going back to the original post in this topic.
Ultiamtely - CA missions have more variety so I would support a move to CA missions over ITC missions. ITC missions have basically no variety. It is the same missions over and over the poker chips just move around a bit and the terrain gets moved around a little bit. In CA the # of objective changes a lot - The objectives have special conditions - ect. More variety is what I am for.
Which I am entirely down for. Please give us something like that.
How cool would it be if we had missions that were set up drastically different. Like for example a Dunkirk type mission. Where the defender in this mission their only objective is to preserve their force and keep the enemy out of their deployment zone.
An ambush type mission where one army has to set up basically in the open and go second but the attacking army has to come in piece meal and only starts with a few units.
A pitched battle type mission with 2 armies meeting on an open field and fight to the death.
I mean there are lots of ideas you could throw out there...there needs to be some variety. The idea of objectives as poker chips...is just boring to me. Objectives should be less about standing in a arbitrary position. More about doing something that could actaully be seen as being an important military objective.
They're called narrative missions typically.
What keeps them from being played competitively?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/30 17:00:12
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/01/30 17:02:30
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Ishagu wrote: It's not debatable. After the battle of Britain the Germans could not invade, and the Royal navy was far larger and well equipped. They could have tried and suffered catastrophic casualties. They did at one point make plans on invading, but could not action them.
Besides, Germany simply didn't have the numbers to win the war. If the British had lost their forces at Dunkirk, they likely would have had to depend on American forces - but Germany (and the Axis) simply didn't have the forces to win against any two of US/Russia/Britain. It would have changed loads, but WWII wasn't this close could-go-either-way war we like to imagine.
Back to 40k:
Choosing a strategy is NOT the same as choosing an objective.
You've confused the point. In CA missions you are given an objective, and it's up to you how you achieve it. In ITC missions you choose your objective based on the units in your list and how easy it would be for them to achieve it, or deny it for your opponent.
Choosing strategy and choosing objectives are different. But forces do both in war.
You don't decide to take that hill over there simply because it's there. You take it because you have the resources to do so, and the cost to do so is less than the advantage doing so conveys. Forces *really do* pick different *primary* objectives for an operation based on conditions on the ground. In more desperate situations, though, there are fewer options.
Which I am entirely down for. Please give us something like that.
How cool would it be if we had missions that were set up drastically different. Like for example a Dunkirk type mission. Where the defender in this mission their only objective is to preserve their force and keep the enemy out of their deployment zone.
An ambush type mission where one army has to set up basically in the open and go second but the attacking army has to come in piece meal and only starts with a few units.
A pitched battle type mission with 2 armies meeting on an open field and fight to the death.
I mean there are lots of ideas you could throw out there...there needs to be some variety. The idea of objectives as poker chips...is just boring to me. Objectives should be less about standing in a arbitrary position. More about doing something that could actaully be seen as being an important military objective.
They're called narrative missions typically.
What keeps them from being played competitively?
Liberties taken for narrative reasons have a lot more flexibility for awesomeness when they're not constrained by competitive balance and strictness standards.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/30 17:05:13
2020/01/30 17:40:30
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
"esides, Germany simply didn't have the numbers to win the war. If the British had lost their forces at Dunkirk, they likely would have had to depend on American forces - but Germany (and the Axis) simply didn't have the forces to win against any two of US/Russia/Britain. It would have changed loads, but WWII wasn't this close could-go-either-way war we like to imagine."
Which is why many games create ahistorical mechanics for the Axis. In a historically accurate model, everyone wants to play early war Axis, but no one wants to be late war Axis.
2020/01/30 17:47:41
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Exactly. There is an ideal of standardization in tournaments. You don't play one scenario of open-field tank warfare, another of building-to-building urban clearance, and another of a small patrol doing secret squirrel stuff beyond their own lines.
To do so you would need different terrain, different points levels, different lists and of course models for that. Which is great, honestly. But it's more immersive, psuedo-historical, narrative or role-play than competitive. Your priority is the fidelity of the scenario, so it determines force-building rather than concerns like competitiveness.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/30 18:06:35
2020/01/30 19:19:18
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Yoyoyo wrote: Exactly. There is an ideal of standardization in tournaments. You don't play one scenario of open-field tank warfare, another of building-to-building urban clearance, and another of a small patrol doing secret squirrel stuff beyond their own lines.
To do so you would need different terrain, different points levels, different lists and of course models for that. Which is great, honestly. But it's more immersive, psuedo-historical, narrative or role-play than competitive. Your priority is the fidelity of the scenario, so it determines force-building rather than concerns like competitiveness.
In fairness, many games allow players to bring more than one list to account for variance in scenario. It also lets them play smaller point games that get through tournament rounds faster.
2020/01/31 05:52:27
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Narrowing focus and going back to implementing Chapter Approved missions.
There are six available EW missions in CA. Maybe at the start of each tournament round, each player gives a thumbs-up to two missions, thumbs-down to two missions. Missions while receive a thumbs-down aren’t played. Missions which receive two thumbs-up are played preferentially (roll a D6 to decide if there’s two). If there’s no mutual agreement, roll a D6 and choose from what remains.
In practice it would look like this. Maybe Player A has a ton of characters but is fairly light on durable troops. So they thumbs-up Ascension and Lockdown, and thumbs down Pillars and Scorched Earth. Player B can see they have a huge advantage in the troops slot, and can guess that Pillars will get a thumbs down. So they might thumbs up Scorched Earth and Crusade hoping for an accord, and thumbs-down Ascension and Lockdown. With no clear preference, that leaves Crusade and Frontline Warfare as possible missions. So they would roll a D6 to decide between those two. Neither player gets the mission that favours them the most, but they won’t deal with their most unfavourable mission either.
From the point of a tourney organization, it would also generate data on which missions were the most or least selected competitively. And that could be useful to help rotate missions in and out of your core selections as you get info on popularity, as well as provide feedback to GW for mission development.
Thoughts?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/31 05:54:38
2020/01/31 06:18:03
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
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.
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...
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
