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.
2020/01/31 06:42:55
Subject: Re: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.
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.
To spell it out for you, Dysartes is saying you missed the point completely with an irrelevant statement when people were basically saying you aren't polite or cordial and that's not who you are.
Edit: I understand that reads harshly, just laying out the post in plain text so the confusion is removed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/31 08:48:56
2020/01/31 09:00:33
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Yoyoyo wrote: 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?
You fall again in the same problem generated by the ITC missions, where you can specialize your list do one and just one thing.
The CA format is made to force your list to focus on 6 different scenarios.
You need durable troops or loads of them.
You need stuff that can reach an objective in the middle of the scenario and survive there for a full turn.
You need a way to bring characters in the middle of it and protect them.
You need a resilient backfield force.
You need assault elements that can threaten the opponent backfield.
You need a lot of stuff at the same time, so obviusly you cannot just take more firepower and be happy, it will not work against a good player. Especially because tabling an opponent doesn't guarantee that you win.
I have been to CA tournaments were the winner was tabled in more than half his games, i tabled him too, and yet he won all his games.
2020/01/31 09:29:16
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Spoletta wrote: You need a lot of stuff at the same time, so obviusly you cannot just take more firepower and be happy, it will not work against a good player. Especially because tabling an opponent doesn't guarantee that you win.
I have been to CA tournaments were the winner was tabled in more than half his games, i tabled him too, and yet he won all his games.
Same experience here - I played multiple games against numarines by just pinning them in the corner and taking objectives. By the end of the game, I rarely hat more than 200 points on the board, while the marines hat 1k or more left - yet I won all of them.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
2020/01/31 14:13:06
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Yoyoyo wrote: 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?
You fall again in the same problem generated by the ITC missions, where you can specialize your list do one and just one thing.
The CA format is made to force your list to focus on 6 different scenarios.
You need durable troops or loads of them.
You need stuff that can reach an objective in the middle of the scenario and survive there for a full turn.
You need a way to bring characters in the middle of it and protect them.
You need a resilient backfield force.
You need assault elements that can threaten the opponent backfield.
You need a lot of stuff at the same time, so obviusly you cannot just take more firepower and be happy, it will not work against a good player. Especially because tabling an opponent doesn't guarantee that you win.
I have been to CA tournaments were the winner was tabled in more than half his games, i tabled him too, and yet he won all his games.
But if you do that then your opponent will immediately thumbs down the mission that you favor (unless they're a novice). Leaning into skew will make sure you play a more difficult mission. I'm sure people could craft tricky lists that convince people to thumbs down the wrong thing, but good players will handle that usually.
2020/02/02 18:45:09
Subject: Re:TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
The marines then came in strong with mixed Adeptus Astartes 5th, then Iron Hands 6th and 7th. then an AM list coming in 8th.
Well done Simon Priddis on the win, that man is some kind of winning machine in Nottingham!
That top 8 is so strikingly different from the LVO results that it would be hard to comprehend if we had not just had a very long discussion on why these results do tend to be different.
The marines then came in strong with mixed Adeptus Astartes 5th, then Iron Hands 6th and 7th. then an AM list coming in 8th.
Well done Simon Priddis on the win, that man is some kind of winning machine in Nottingham!
That top 8 is so strikingly different from the LVO results that it would be hard to comprehend if we had not just had a very long discussion on why these results do tend to be different.
The marines then came in strong with mixed Adeptus Astartes 5th, then Iron Hands 6th and 7th. then an AM list coming in 8th.
Well done Simon Priddis on the win, that man is some kind of winning machine in Nottingham!
That top 8 is so strikingly different from the LVO results that it would be hard to comprehend if we had not just had a very long discussion on why these results do tend to be different.
"Hey one tournament just happened with new rules, proof everything is okay!"
Gotta try harder than that to make a point don't you think? Also you don't think outliers are a thing?
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2020/02/02 20:24:26
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
"Hey one tournament just happened with new rules, proof everything is okay!"
Gotta try harder than that to make a point don't you think? Also you don't think outliers are a thing?
How many times can we go through the exact same daft routine here?
People posting non-ITC tournament results and along come the ITC fanboys to say "that is just one tournament, does not mean anything". When the fanboys have to keep saying it then it is very clearly not one tournament - it has been several tournaments this year already.
2020/02/02 20:36:46
Subject: Re:TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
"Hey one tournament just happened with new rules, proof everything is okay!"
Gotta try harder than that to make a point don't you think? Also you don't think outliers are a thing?
How many times can we go through the exact same daft routine here?
People posting non-ITC tournament results and along come the ITC fanboys to say "that is just one tournament, does not mean anything". When the fanboys have to keep saying it then it is very clearly not one tournament - it has been several tournaments this year already.
"Several"
Then post these several results.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2020/02/02 20:53:25
Subject: Re:TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Sure, shall you make a complete list of all tournaments so you can be sure that ITC events aren't outliers then?
That burden of proof is on you, not me. Also people have posted results that were not far off from ITC for larger events per 40kstats. So not including those local shop tournaments nobody cares about, where is this proof that ITC throws everything out of whack?
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2020/02/02 21:17:30
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Sure, shall you make a complete list of all tournaments so you can be sure that ITC events aren't outliers then?
That burden of proof is on you, not me. Also people have posted results that were not far off from ITC for larger events per 40kstats. So not including those local shop tournaments nobody cares about, where is this proof that ITC throws everything out of whack?
Nah, you're the one insinuating that the GT events are just outliers. Go on, burden of proof and all that jazz.
Also, since when were local games any less valid? Does 40k need to be played in a massive tournament venue to be "proper" and anything other than that's just pathetic people pushing plastic peons?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/02 22:07:42
They/them
2020/02/02 22:14:04
Subject: Re:TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Sure, shall you make a complete list of all tournaments so you can be sure that ITC events aren't outliers then?
That burden of proof is on you, not me. Also people have posted results that were not far off from ITC for larger events per 40kstats. So not including those local shop tournaments nobody cares about, where is this proof that ITC throws everything out of whack?
So the 40k grand tournament held at warhammer world is a "local shop tournament nobody cares about"? Good to see you keeping up your polite mannerisms and civil nature.
2020/02/02 22:21:16
Subject: Re:TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Sure, shall you make a complete list of all tournaments so you can be sure that ITC events aren't outliers then?
That burden of proof is on you, not me. Also people have posted results that were not far off from ITC for larger events per 40kstats. So not including those local shop tournaments nobody cares about, where is this proof that ITC throws everything out of whack?
So the 40k grand tournament held at warhammer world is a "local shop tournament nobody cares about"? Good to see you keeping up your polite mannerisms and civil nature.
If GW did it, it's got to be bad, apparently.
They/them
2020/02/02 23:01:04
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Spoletta wrote: 40k stats had no CA data last time I checked.
Nor will it - at least for GW events.
I do not know exactly how they get the pairings up on the big screens at WHW but we can be sure - for a whole number of reasons - it's not by using BCP.
2020/02/03 00:25:59
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Sure, shall you make a complete list of all tournaments so you can be sure that ITC events aren't outliers then?
That burden of proof is on you, not me. Also people have posted results that were not far off from ITC for larger events per 40kstats. So not including those local shop tournaments nobody cares about, where is this proof that ITC throws everything out of whack?
So the 40k grand tournament held at warhammer world is a "local shop tournament nobody cares about"? Good to see you keeping up your polite mannerisms and civil nature.
If GW did it, it's got to be bad, apparently.
Don't be mean. Goalposts are heavy.
2020/02/03 05:20:08
Subject: Re:TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Sure, shall you make a complete list of all tournaments so you can be sure that ITC events aren't outliers then?
That burden of proof is on you, not me. Also people have posted results that were not far off from ITC for larger events per 40kstats. So not including those local shop tournaments nobody cares about, where is this proof that ITC throws everything out of whack?
So the 40k grand tournament held at warhammer world is a "local shop tournament nobody cares about"? Good to see you keeping up your polite mannerisms and civil nature.
And as I already said it was a one off data point trying to be used as proof, so I have every right to say you need more than that.
Sure, shall you make a complete list of all tournaments so you can be sure that ITC events aren't outliers then?
That burden of proof is on you, not me. Also people have posted results that were not far off from ITC for larger events per 40kstats. So not including those local shop tournaments nobody cares about, where is this proof that ITC throws everything out of whack?
Nah, you're the one insinuating that the GT events are just outliers. Go on, burden of proof and all that jazz.
Also, since when were local games any less valid? Does 40k need to be played in a massive tournament venue to be "proper" and anything other than that's just pathetic people pushing plastic peons?
In a manner yes. The data doesn't matter because the game isn't being pushed. Recording local people that just threw together a bunch of models for gaks and giggles isn't data worth reviewing whatsoever.
Also most GT events will have an outlier or two. Remember that time in 6th when someone got 8th with a Ahriman + Rubric Marine list and people somehow used that as proof that the unit entry was okay?
Oh wait they didn't, they saw it as an oddity and it never popped up again, shocker I know.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/03 05:23:43
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2020/02/03 06:24:05
Subject: Re:TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Sure, shall you make a complete list of all tournaments so you can be sure that ITC events aren't outliers then?
That burden of proof is on you, not me. Also people have posted results that were not far off from ITC for larger events per 40kstats. So not including those local shop tournaments nobody cares about, where is this proof that ITC throws everything out of whack?
So the 40k grand tournament held at warhammer world is a "local shop tournament nobody cares about"? Good to see you keeping up your polite mannerisms and civil nature.
And as I already said it was a one off data point trying to be used as proof, so I have every right to say you need more than that.
Sure, shall you make a complete list of all tournaments so you can be sure that ITC events aren't outliers then?
That burden of proof is on you, not me. Also people have posted results that were not far off from ITC for larger events per 40kstats. So not including those local shop tournaments nobody cares about, where is this proof that ITC throws everything out of whack?
Nah, you're the one insinuating that the GT events are just outliers. Go on, burden of proof and all that jazz.
Also, since when were local games any less valid? Does 40k need to be played in a massive tournament venue to be "proper" and anything other than that's just pathetic people pushing plastic peons?
In a manner yes. The data doesn't matter because the game isn't being pushed. Recording local people that just threw together a bunch of models for gaks and giggles isn't data worth reviewing whatsoever.
Also most GT events will have an outlier or two. Remember that time in 6th when someone got 8th with a Ahriman + Rubric Marine list and people somehow used that as proof that the unit entry was okay?
Oh wait they didn't, they saw it as an oddity and it never popped up again, shocker I know.
Ok. LVO is a one off data point, it is perfectly fine for me to ask you to prove chaplain dreads are a problem.
2020/02/03 06:33:53
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
Ok, since people have already forgotten that we had already the results from a previous big CA event, i will also repost them:
- 3 list 5-0. Tzeentch, Iron Hands, Chaos
- 15 lists 4-1. 2 Chaos, 1 Tau, 2 Blood Angels, 3 Iron hand, 1 Tyranid, 1 Hive mind, 2 Imperial Fist, 1 Mixed marine (IF and RG), 1 Genestealer, Imperium (BA and Admech),
Are the marines still winning a lot? Yes with 7 lists in this top 18 and 19/81 lists total.
Can we say from this 2 data points that ITC is more balanced than CA? No, on the contrary as supposed by many, it looks like that there indeed is a problem with marines, but ITC is actively making it worse.
Also, none of those lists was a fearless blob pushed on objectives, so we can let that meme to rest.
All of the lists were quite different from what you would see at an ITC event (no leviathan dreads in any of the IH lists, just to name a difference).
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/02/03 07:01:47
2020/02/03 08:51:17
Subject: TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
So, this is the 3rd event (2nd GW one this year) to run the new CA missions and give us drastically different results to the LVO and standard ITC.
One of the biggest things for me to see on the GW results, is that it looks like they removed "best painted" scores from the total GT score. They still include favourite game votes, but i feel like i can understand and accept that, though i'd prefer it to be more of a tiebreaker, but, whatever.
As for 40k stats, they won't include the GW events because they aren't on BCP and because they are 1750 points, opposed to the 2k ITC standard.
2020/02/03 09:27:24
Subject: Re:TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.
"Hey one tournament just happened with new rules, proof everything is okay!"
Gotta try harder than that to make a point don't you think? Also you don't think outliers are a thing?
How many times can we go through the exact same daft routine here?
People posting non-ITC tournament results and along come the ITC fanboys to say "that is just one tournament, does not mean anything". When the fanboys have to keep saying it then it is very clearly not one tournament - it has been several tournaments this year already.
"Several"
Then post these several results.
At this point why bother? We can safely assume however many results are posted that will always not be enough for you and certain other people. What we can see, from 3 separate events using the CA19 missions, is that there seems to be a trend of more varied factions winning and placing highly. Even the latest results from the WHW GT had just over half of the top 30 as SM of some sort but there was much more variety even within those SM armies than we're seeing right now in ITC.
Good gods ! What is that? The entire thread? My commendations sir. Exalted.
