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.

 Jidmah wrote:
AAE, you got it all wrong. People are not criticizing ITC ans an organisation or for creating their own tournament pack.

People are criticizing the current rule-set for rewarding killing stuff too much and therefore favoring gun-lines over any other tactic, which they try to compensate by changing terrain rules which create even more balance issues like magic box tacics or making TF cannons and whirlwinds ridiculously powerful tools.

Perhaps not in this thread but I've certainly seen ITC criticised pretty strongly elsewhere.

Regardless, the reason GW balance around it is due the massive popularity it holds as a ruleset. Like it or not we've just had the largest competitive 40k event ever and it used ITC rules. GW absolutely should take this into account when balancing the game.

I don't think ITC favours a killing game that much either - the winning list at LVO was effectively a "tanky" marine list. It's job was to hold objectives.

TFCannons are incredible tools, regardless of format as they are right now, in my experience.

The answer is simple though, if people don't like ITC, don't play it? Don't go to events that use the ruleset?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
AAE, you got it all wrong. People are not criticizing ITC ans an organisation or for creating their own tournament pack.

People are criticizing the current rule-set for rewarding killing stuff too much and therefore favoring gun-lines over any other tactic, which they try to compensate by changing terrain rules which create even more balance issues like magic box tacics or making TF cannons and whirlwinds ridiculously powerful tools.

Perhaps not in this thread but I've certainly seen ITC criticised pretty strongly elsewhere.

Regardless, the reason GW balance around it is due the massive popularity it holds as a ruleset. Like it or not we've just had the largest competitive 40k event ever and it used ITC rules. GW absolutely should take this into account when balancing the game.

I don't think ITC favours a killing game that much either - the winning list at LVO was effectively a "tanky" marine list. It's job was to hold objectives.

TFCannons are incredible tools, regardless of format as they are right now, in my experience.

The answer is simple though, if people don't like ITC, don't play it? Don't go to events that use the ruleset?

Problem is, it distorts the game balance.


Genestealer Cults in ITC over the summer had some 55% to 59% win rates. In book and ETC (which are a house-ruled format too) had some 45% win rate.

Come chapter approved, GSC gets points increases.

Now GSC as an army has around 46% win rate in the ITC format, which is reasonably balanced, but barely a 30% win rate in non-ITC, which is atrocious.

Similarly, the years before, ITC players groan under Ynnari Dark Reapers fire-&-fading into LoS-blocking ruins and the Castellan, while Tau absolutely dominate all non-ITC formats, including the GW GTs.

What get's nerfed? Ynnari and Castellan, while Tau just keep on trucking.



ITC is popular, fantastic. But ultimately that means you'll need separate point costs for units (CP costs for Stratagems, etc.) to appropriately balance the game for either format. Because the same costs (whether in points, detachment slots, CP costs, etc..) don't balance the game for the separate formats.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
AAE, you got it all wrong. People are not criticizing ITC ans an organisation or for creating their own tournament pack.

People are criticizing the current rule-set for rewarding killing stuff too much and therefore favoring gun-lines over any other tactic, which they try to compensate by changing terrain rules which create even more balance issues like magic box tacics or making TF cannons and whirlwinds ridiculously powerful tools.

Perhaps not in this thread but I've certainly seen ITC criticised pretty strongly elsewhere.

Regardless, the reason GW balance around it is due the massive popularity it holds as a ruleset. Like it or not we've just had the largest competitive 40k event ever and it used ITC rules. GW absolutely should take this into account when balancing the game.

I don't think ITC favours a killing game that much either - the winning list at LVO was effectively a "tanky" marine list. It's job was to hold objectives.

TFCannons are incredible tools, regardless of format as they are right now, in my experience.

The answer is simple though, if people don't like ITC, don't play it? Don't go to events that use the ruleset?

Problem is, it distorts the game balance.


Genestealer Cults in ITC over the summer had some 55% to 59% win rates. In book and ETC (which are a house-ruled format too) had some 45% win rate.

Come chapter approved, GSC gets points increases.

Now GSC as an army has around 46% win rate in the ITC format, which is reasonably balanced, but barely a 30% win rate in non-ITC, which is atrocious.

Similarly, the years before, ITC players groan under Ynnari Dark Reapers fire-&-fading into LoS-blocking ruins and the Castellan, while Tau absolutely dominate all non-ITC formats, including the GW GTs.

What get's nerfed? Ynnari and Castellan, while Tau just keep on trucking.



ITC is popular, fantastic. But ultimately that means you'll need separate point costs for units (CP costs for Stratagems, etc.) to appropriately balance the game for either format. Because the same costs (whether in points, detachment slots, CP costs, etc..) don't balance the game for the separate formats.

This has always been my argument. You cannot use play testers who effectively do not play 40k. Now they are very skilled players, so maybe missing out on them as a resource is something GW does not want to do, however they need to control the input. The games must be played under standard 40k rules and then data/details of those games must be very objective. They cannot have data that indicates one unit is fine, but be able to influence for a point increase as they realise how powerful it would be in ITC.

Talking of play-testing... I subscribe to tabletop tactics and have long thought actually they are a better group to use as play-testers as they play mainly outside of the ITC, yet can play ITC, Lawrence would have to be the key and head play tester though as he evidently has the vision and foresight skill over the other guys. They have dropped a few hints as of late that they have been doing some very interesting highly secret work.... I just wonder whether they are being used as play-testers currently.... I believe they are far more objective than the ITC main cohort as well with little impetus /desire to 'protect their factions' which some of the main ITC guys I believe quite blatantly do.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Problem is, it distorts the game balance.


Genestealer Cults in ITC over the summer had some 55% to 59% win rates. In book and ETC (which are a house-ruled format too) had some 45% win rate.

Come chapter approved, GSC gets points increases.

Now GSC as an army has around 46% win rate in the ITC format, which is reasonably balanced, but barely a 30% win rate in non-ITC, which is atrocious.

Similarly, the years before, ITC players groan under Ynnari Dark Reapers fire-&-fading into LoS-blocking ruins and the Castellan, while Tau absolutely dominate all non-ITC formats, including the GW GTs.

What get's nerfed? Ynnari and Castellan, while Tau just keep on trucking.



ITC is popular, fantastic. But ultimately that means you'll need separate point costs for units (CP costs for Stratagems, etc.) to appropriately balance the game for either format. Because the same costs (whether in points, detachment slots, CP costs, etc..) don't balance the game for the separate formats.

It depends on how you look at it. While you might say it 'distorts game balance' others might claim it 'provides opportunity for different units to excel where they would otherwise fail'.

Regardless, at the end of the day, GW want to make money and as far as they're concerned the tournament scene is key to this objective. Integrating feedback from the largest community of competitive players should be expected. ITC is currently the largest community of competitive players, hence GW are using their feedback to balance the game. I'm sure they take into account the feedback of other communities too, but ultimately the largest voice will always come out on top.

ITC is just another way to play. Not unlike union is another way to play Rugby. Or Kickboxing is another form of boxing. The two can exist together and really we should be glad we have both because it allows greater variety. If GW enforce only one way to play competitively I guarantee it'll become stale, broken and ultimately boring regardless of which format they selected.

Enjoy the variety and don't play ITC if you don't like it. On the flipside though, there's no point griping at GW for balancing competitive play around the most popular competitive format is there?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
ITC is just another way to play.

And if that one method of playing is determining what points changes armies get/don't get, I'd say it has too much influence.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
ITC is just another way to play.

And if that one method of playing is determining what points changes armies get/don't get, I'd say it has too much influence.

Why?

It's the most popular way to play competitively. What other format should GW use? How should GW balance points changes for units?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

It's the most popular way to play competitively.

Is it though?

What other format should GW use? How should GW balance points changes for units?

They should balance it based on the bloody official rules, the ones in the Chapter Approved, the ones they charge money for!

 Crimson wrote:
Is it though?

Or, perhaps a better question: Who cares?

Seriously, whether it's the most popular tournament format or not really doesn't mean anything, and that's assuming it is the most popular "collective" format. I'd still wager that people who play/care about ITC rules are still a very small portion of the overall player base, and thus it should not have such a massive influence over the games of everyone else.

The examples given in this thread - nerfs to GSC, the Castellan, and no changes to Tau, etc. - are perfect reasons why changing things based on a couple of tournaments (LVO, Adepticon, NOVA) are a fething awful idea.

 Crimson wrote:
They should balance it based on the bloody official rules, the ones in the Chapter Approved, the ones they charge money for!

Exactly. GW should be balancing their game based upon how it plays, not because of one format of the game that has custom scenarios and pre-planned terrain layouts...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Is it though?

Or, perhaps a better question: Who cares?
Seriously, whether it's the most popular tournament format or not really doesn't mean anything, and that's assuming it is the most popular "collective" format. I'd still wager that people who play/care about ITC rules are still a very small portion of the overall player base, and thus it should not have such a massive influence over the games of everyone else.

I'm pretty sure it's the most popular way to play 40k competitively, yea.

And as for "who cares?" GW cares. I've explained this above. They [GW] want to make money. They are appealing to the competitive scene [to make money/expand into another market] and they are balancing around the most popular competitive format. This makes complete business sense. I'm pretty sure those who play 40k competitively at all are a relatively small minority of people in the overall hobby. For those that don't play competitively there's open play, narrative play, matched play or any other format they want. If they feel the points are skewed to a certain format they are free to make their own points up or to play that format.

 Crimson wrote:
They should balance it based on the bloody official rules, the ones in the Chapter Approved, the ones they charge money for!

Why? If the majority of people that play competitively use a different system, why wouldn't GW balance to that system? This harks back to the days when GW didn't communicate, when they didn't give a gak and their balance made no sense because they were so out of touch with the competitive scene and formats.

We're never going to have perfect balance in 40k. We're never going to have all of the different formats perfectly balanced either. GW are simply electing to balance around the most frequently used format, because they want to appeal more to that crowd of potential customers.

Has anyone in here demanded perfect rules?

Also do you really think that official tournaments should run houserules out of necessity?

Further do you really think that these results in a houserule environment are actually relevant for a non houserule environment?

I'd also say that GW cares enough that they balanced AoS differently to 40K in some very major ways. Stormcast are not getting 10 different chamber model lines. Heck there's another LVO thread that also compares the competitive events for AoS and 40K and even with armies like Slaanesh and the recent Bonereapers being powerful options; the spread of factions is far greater than for 40K.

GW almost has to ween its 40K balance, playerbase and maybe even some of its model line focus (I'm not saying less marine armies just perhaps less marine releases or somesuch) - off the marine teat and try and push the Xenos and other forces forward more so. Game balance is one key area they can do this and it would be great to think they could start to work on achieving that with an edition a bit more like AoS where "pure" armies and less "soup" becomes a more normal thing.
Especially for marine balance the whole souping issue is a big problem because they've just go so many options. AoS technically has the same with Grand Alliances - where Order and Chaos have a huge range of mode;s but the allegiance abillities for those mixed armies aren't as good as pure single faction armies. The game is basically built around the idea of using "pure" armies with some allied flavour as opposed to being built around souped armies which seems to be the current focus for the current 40K edition.

 Overread wrote:
I'd also say that GW cares enough that they balanced AoS differently to 40K in some very major ways. Stormcast are not getting 10 different chamber model lines. Heck there's another LVO thread that also compares the competitive events for AoS and 40K and even with armies like Slaanesh and the recent Bonereapers being powerful options; the spread of factions is far greater than for 40K.

GW almost has to ween its 40K balance, playerbase and maybe even some of its model line focus (I'm not saying less marine armies just perhaps less marine releases or somesuch) - off the marine teat and try and push the Xenos and other forces forward more so. Game balance is one key area they can do this and it would be great to think they could start to work on achieving that with an edition a bit more like AoS where "pure" armies and less "soup" becomes a more normal thing.
Especially for marine balance the whole souping issue is a big problem because they've just go so many options. AoS technically has the same with Grand Alliances - where Order and Chaos have a huge range of mode;s but the allegiance abillities for those mixed armies aren't as good as pure single faction armies. The game is basically built around the idea of using "pure" armies with some allied flavour as opposed to being built around souped armies which seems to be the current focus for the current 40K edition.

It's kind of tricky for Games Workshop to try to diversify after they'd double downed on their Space Marine releases last year. And, if many people are to be believed (and could be true), the sales of the "lesser" 40k factions are not enough to sustain 40k.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

I'm pretty sure it's the most popular way to play 40k competitively, yea.

I'm not. It is mostly an American thing. And most people don't play in any sort of tournaments anyway.

And as for "who cares?" GW cares. I've explained this above. They [GW] want to make money.

If they want to make money, then they better make sure that the points they charge me money for are balanced based on the missions they charge me money for.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Has anyone in here demanded perfect rules?

I assume this is directed at me? No.

Also do you really think that official tournaments should run houserules out of necessity?

No, I’ve literally stated above that a variety of formats is preferred for me.

Further do you really think that these results in a houserule environment are actually relevant for a non houserule environment?

What ‘house rule’ are you talking about? Do you mean ITC, the most popular way to play 40k competitively? Yes the results are somewhat relevant.

I think the question you’re all failing to answer for me is; ‘why shouldn’t GW balance competitive play around the most popular format for competitive play?’ I think the reason you’re struggling to answer this question is because in your heart of hearts you know the answer is ‘we prefer format x’ or ‘we don’t like that format’ - both of which are quite feeble responses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

If they want to make money, then they better make sure that the points they charge me money for are balanced based on the missions they charge me money for.

But GW believes that they will make MORE money from charging people for points changes that relate to this specific tournament format, right? They are happy to lose your sale if they believe it will generate ten more.

Darsath wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I'd also say that GW cares enough that they balanced AoS differently to 40K in some very major ways. Stormcast are not getting 10 different chamber model lines. Heck there's another LVO thread that also compares the competitive events for AoS and 40K and even with armies like Slaanesh and the recent Bonereapers being powerful options; the spread of factions is far greater than for 40K.

GW almost has to ween its 40K balance, playerbase and maybe even some of its model line focus (I'm not saying less marine armies just perhaps less marine releases or somesuch) - off the marine teat and try and push the Xenos and other forces forward more so. Game balance is one key area they can do this and it would be great to think they could start to work on achieving that with an edition a bit more like AoS where "pure" armies and less "soup" becomes a more normal thing.
Especially for marine balance the whole souping issue is a big problem because they've just go so many options. AoS technically has the same with Grand Alliances - where Order and Chaos have a huge range of mode;s but the allegiance abillities for those mixed armies aren't as good as pure single faction armies. The game is basically built around the idea of using "pure" armies with some allied flavour as opposed to being built around souped armies which seems to be the current focus for the current 40K edition.

It's kind of tricky for Games Workshop to try to diversify after they'd double downed on their Space Marine releases last year. And, if many people are to be believed (and could be true), the sales of the "lesser" 40k factions are not enough to sustain 40k.

It would be a big shift for them that would take a lot of steady and slower steps. Just evening the rules is one part; they'd also have to update Xenos lines; push them in marketing more and likely add a totally new force to the game. Basically push the Xenos interest far more so.

AAE, most 40K players and thus most of GW's customers don't play ITC. This much is blatantly clear. You're overestimating the impact of those houserules outside relatively small bubble of mostly American tryhards.

And in any case, GW cannot relinquish the control of their game to a third party, doing so would be pure madness.

It's "clear"? Based on what? You saying so? You have just as little standing as AAE does.

Gents it doesn’t matter what any of us believe. GW believe that ITC is most popular, or at the very least there’s a market there. They’re acting on that belief. That is all.

E - I’ve just realised this is all off topic anyways. I’m out.

 RiTides wrote:
Are marines less than a third of the playerbase at most large tournaments? Genuinely asking, I felt like they were always a huge percentage just because that's what people played (ignoring the top tier players who will play whatever is strongest).

The number I saw thrown around was 27% of lists at LVO were pure Space Marines.

in the top 8 they were 62% (75% if you count the 1500 points marine, 500pt other list but then the amount of 'marine' lists in general will also go up)
That is a high conversion rate.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
What ‘house rule’ are you talking about? Do you mean ITC, the most popular way to play 40k competitively? Yes the results are somewhat relevant.

No they're not.

Imagine if every year the rules for soccer were revised, but based only on matches played between LA Galaxy and Los Angeles FC. They wouldn't represent a fraction of the league soccer tournaments across the world, yet their results would be reflected in a yearly rules update. That would be absurd.

This is why GW making changes to the game based on ITC is stupid.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Gents it doesn’t matter what any of us believe. GW believe that ITC is most popular, or at the very least there’s a market there. They’re acting on that belief. That is all.

So you've been unable to counter any points made against you, so have resorted to "Well... it just is!".

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
E - I’ve just realised this is all off topic anyways. I’m out.

And then you're going to run away, having got in the last word. Classy.

An Actual Englishman wrote:GW believe that ITC is most popular

Do they? Even more popular than their own published rules?

I think not. But, if you can give a source...

or at the very least there’s a market there.

There's also a market for people who like more casual games, or only play Narrative/Open play games.

I'm not saying ITC doesn't have a market, or that it's not considerable, but until you've got proof that it's the most popular/common way to play 40k (which, I'm sorry to say, it really probably isn't), you shouldn't be making comments suggesting that it is, and that GW should cater to what is still, at the end of the day, a third party set of rules.


Would you FIFA to rewrite their rules and regulations because of schoolyard football games being played across the world?

Yes but the ICT isn't re-writing the games entire rules system is it.


Also ITC doesn't have to be the most popular format, it just has to be the most popular and widely used competitive format. Furthermore alternative formats might share some of the same house rules that the ITC uses without being full ITC.

As a result GW might well weight their balance viewpoint on the ITC if its the competitive market that GW is aiming for. Furthermore it provides games of a known and documented nature. A lot of home games are very hard to pool data from because there's very little to no peer review nor even casual viewing. So its a huge data set that is likely riddled with problems and issues that makes it far less unreliable.
Furthermore the competitive end, esp the last tables, is where the game should, in theory, be running at its best. Again that's basically where you want to be focusing your balance adjustments and viewpoints from. If everyone is using marines at the competitive end then you can easily see that there's an issue with the Xenos armies.



edit - this isn't like Fifa re-writing the rules based on backyard games; its Fifa re-writing the rules based on games being played at the top national and international games. The fact that they are run by a 3rd party is not really an issue because in this situation with GW; GW isn't running those games. So of course they have to default to viewing 3rd party events.

 Overread wrote:
Yes but the ICT isn't re-writing the games entire rules system is it.

No one's saying it does.

What was said is that ITC shouldn't have such high weighting when it comes to balance changes as it does not represent the majority of players, but rather a very structured form of playing 40K that is far from the norm (and far from the three ways of playing from the actual 40k rulebook). It can lead to skewed balancing, such as the GSC/Castellan vs Tau example given perviously.

I love the elitist attitude that somehow Dakka represents the majority of 40k players so the opinions of a few thousand people have weight.

Without polling every single 40k player on the planet nobody knows percentages of players in favor of this or that. ITC does seem to me the most popular form of tournament format. Hell, my LGS has 8 40k players. ALL of our tournaments are ITC format. It would make sense that GW would favor ITC when it comes to "balance" or whatnot.

Not to mention Dakka isn't a large enough sample to use as "proof" that GW does or doesn't know it's player base. That's like claiming 100 people polled in Chicago stating they are pro-Trump means ALL citizens of Chicago are pro-Trump.

Off topic I know.

On topic I was hoping to see Jim Vesal do better. I know Daemons aren't top tier but he did do well in 2019 with his Daemon soup army.

jivardi wrote:

Without polling every single 40k player on the planet nobody knows percentages of players in favor of this or that. ITC does seem to me the most popular form of tournament format. Hell, my LGS has 8 40k players. ALL of our tournaments are ITC format. It would make sense that GW would favor ITC when it comes to "balance" or whatnot.

In the USA. Majority of 40K players are in Europe.

jivardi wrote:
I love the elitist attitude that somehow Dakka represents the majority of 40k players so the opinions of a few thousand people have weight.

And the attitude that ITC is big enough that it should have such a significant impact on 40K worldwide isn't elitist?

Pull the other one...

Could someone start a thread for discussion of faction balancing and ITC in 40k General Discussion?

Then I'll lock this thread with a link there, so we can discuss this in the proper place (since it's no longer news or rumors).

ITC is a phenomenon in USA. Europe is ETC territory and UK is Fullhammer.

This has been a very loaded thread! Before I put in my two cents let me say that I personally know Reece and consider him a friend. I own a game store and our league uses ITC rules. The problem I see in some peoples' dissatisfaction with the ITC is that it seems that ITC has been made to provide the most balanced game between two equally talented opponents as you can create. This obviously influences the meta. Reece and crew did not approach the tournament scene with the idea of making cool interesting gaming tables with special rules that affect units differently. Nor did they try to create some underlying narrative for each game where objectives are different and may favor some armies over others (although you could say some of that is included in the secondary objectives each player chooses).The problem is in the game design and lore that GW has created. So step one, to make us all special snow flakes, so that my army is different from yours, all armies have strengths and weaknesses. You need this to make armies interesting, otherwise we may as well all play Space Marines. In theory, any given army should be able to play any other and achieve a win. The problem GW inevitably tends to fall into is Soup. As soon as you allow allies, it lets players use another army to compensate for their weaknesses and give them strengths. They have taken care of the problem in AOS but not 40K. Compare the number of lists an Imperial player has to draw upon to, say, a Tyranid. The player with access to the most lists has a powerful advantage because part of creating a tournament list is anticipating/compensating for what you will fight. How do you anticipate the synergy's created by mixing 20 lists? So soup is a major problem that needs to be fixed, Not to mention it is easier for game designers to balance one distinct army from another when allies are not included.

The next issue is scenarios. I personally feel that ITC missions try to include too many objectives all at once. For people who would like some kind of narrative experience in their competitive play (and believe it or not, there are a lot of them) this makes all ITC games feel like Vanilla. It takes some of the fun out of the game. There is a maxim for retailers, but it holds true for any activity where your trying to grow the base of participants. "Don't make them jump through too many hoops." Let's say an ITC mission is 7 hoops. Do you really need 7? Could you get it done with just 4? How many players drop off at hoop 3?; at hoop 6? I remember when GW ran their own tournaments and you couldn't wait to see the scenario pack they would post so you could imagine how you would craft an army that could handle each one. That was fun! Keeping score on ITC missions just feels like homeworking I'm being punished to finish.

Tables are another issue. Terrain rules are not played out of the book because vehicles most of the time can't take cover behind a building. With true line of sight you can see through windows and pop them. So ITC makes the rule that you can't see through the first level of a building. So now the meta favors tanks over infantry. So meta changes and vehicles are popular. What do vehicles have over guys on foot? Mobility and fire power. How do guys on foot fight that? Gunlines and turtling up around objectives. So meta changes and favors gunlines. Meanwhile all of your buildings might as well be square boxes because all they do is block line of sight, so terrain on board becomes less interesting because why model a cool ruin when a square box is what is needed. I remember going to GW tournaments and seeing amazing tables with really cool modeled terrain. Were some of those tables not good for my army? Sure. Did I still want to play on them? Heck yeah!

Finally, ITC minimizes any scoring that is subjective. The problem with that is that if sportsmanship won't make or break you except in extreme cases, sportsmanship is minimized. If painting is not an integral part of your score, the hobby aspect is minimized (and I realize that ITC is trying to make hobby matter by being more strict on what you bring to the table, but really you can do the minimum and win).This all creates a meta where people are looking for the next broken list and making that army, and then discarding it when the next broken list comes out. This leads to borrowhammer, another issue the ITC is wrestling with. So is the future of the ITC netlists and borrowhammer? Is the game going to become so competitive that it drives away potential players (as has Warmachine imho).
My sense is that GW will start to exert control over the ITC and gradually shape it in a way that is more like their old tournaments where soft scores were more important. They will use the heroine that is playtesting, free product and foreknowledge of upcoming products, along with that GW seal of approval to bend the ITC to their will. It's already happening in the new level of painting required. Next you will only be able to use GW models in "official" tournaments." My hope is that Reece and crew can navigate these waters and continue to run these large events, however they may end up.

Smellingsalts wrote:

I personally feel that ITC missions try to include too many objectives all at once. For people who would like some kind of narrative experience in their competitive play (and believe it or not, there are a lot of them) this makes all ITC games feel like Vanilla. It takes some of the fun out of the game. There is a maxim for retailers, but it holds true for any activity where your trying to grow the base of participants. "Don't make them jump through too many hoops." Let's say an ITC mission is 7 hoops. Do you really need 7? Could you get it done with just 4? How many players drop off at hoop 3?; at hoop 6? I remember when GW ran their own tournaments and you couldn't wait to see the scenario pack they would post so you could imagine how you would craft an army that could handle each one. That was fun! Keeping score on ITC missions just feels like homeworking I'm being punished to finish.

Tables are another issue. Terrain rules are not played out of the book because vehicles most of the time can't take cover behind a building. With true line of sight you can see through windows and pop them. So ITC makes the rule that you can't see through the first level of a building. So now the meta favors tanks over infantry. So meta changes and vehicles are popular. What do vehicles have over guys on foot? Mobility and fire power. How do guys on foot fight that? Gunlines and turtling up around objectives. So meta changes and favors gunlines. Meanwhile all of your buildings might as well be square boxes because all they do is block line of sight, so terrain on board becomes less interesting because why model a cool ruin when a square box is what is needed. I remember going to GW tournaments and seeing amazing tables with really cool modeled terrain. Were some of those tables not good for my army? Sure. Did I still want to play on them? Heck yeah!

Finally, ITC minimizes any scoring that is subjective. The problem with that is that if sportsmanship won't make or break you except in extreme cases, sportsmanship is minimized. If painting is not an integral part of your score, the hobby aspect is minimized (and I realize that ITC is trying to make hobby matter by being more strict on what you bring to the table, but really you can do the minimum and win).This all creates a meta where people are looking for the next broken list and making that army, and then discarding it when the next broken list comes out. This leads to borrowhammer, another issue the ITC is wrestling with. So is the future of the ITC netlists and borrowhammer? Is the game going to become so competitive that it drives away potential players (as has Warmachine imho).

This. All of this. Exalted.

It seems to want to drive to the point of: if everything was equal - two equal armies, two equal deployments, equal cover, equal LOS blocking terrain, equal objectives - who is the better general? But is that really the test of a great general? And is that really 40k anymore?

I would think the test of an even greater general is navigating the field with shifting terrain, shifting objectives and a diverse opponent pool. Is the ITC really finding the best general? Or is it finding the best person who can build a list that takes advantage of a relatively fixed system?