Should ITC be considered “real” 40k

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.

**G00fySmiley**

Ishagu wrote:
Unit Fixing and point costs should not be adjusted at all in response to anything from the ITC.

Homebrew rules that impact the balance of the game are null and void when it comes to unit balance complaints.

I was referring on points and rules to balance units that are universally bad in all formats... if i had to pick one model to put a point on this i would ask... show me a format where a Stompa works as written for the points. GW should balance it and models like it for the core rules and let ITC worry about balance on top of that sure, I agree with that.

**Sim-Life**

Eldarsif wrote:
Its not that hard to get ITC players to switch to CA2019, just tell them all the major events will use CA2019 missions. Then anyone wanting to compete will be forced to hold CA2019 tournaments and practice using CA2019, otherwise they'll find their lists and playstyle (especially static gunlines) unable to compete.

Who is going to tell them that the events are switching over and why should the events switch over to begin with if they feel more comfortable using ITC rulesets? This isn't really as easy as just saying "tell them to switch over". There are players/events invested in the format and thinking that they will switch just because is a bit presumptuous.

What makes this even harder is that the largest and most popular events in 40k are States-side and they have shown so far that they are invested in the ITC league.

Why is it in these conversations do people assume that the groups involved have no agency and are totally isolated from any form of communication?

**TwinPoleTheory**

Ishagu wrote:
Anything not using the official rules can be interpreted as not being the real 40k.

A homebrew ruleset is not the real ruleset.

End of discussion

I know you desperately want this to be a binary argument but it's not. GW has officially endorsed events using both ITC and ETC rules, consequently, they're as 'official' as anything else.

Continue constructing your biased little world though.

**Eldarsif**

Ishagu wrote:
ITC league is great and should remain. The missions should be dropped for the health and enjoyment of the game.

If people REALLY want to control all variables, the board, etc there is a little game called Chess they can try. 40k is not Starcraft.

The problem still remains that I haven't seen anyone explain "how" this turnaround will happen except for what is no more than a "Build it and they will come" a la Wayne's World or a "because I am saying so".

At this point our last best hope for the switch would be altruism from the major events. I hope they will be benevolent organizers as I would love to see CA missions prosper, but I won't be holding my breath for it.

**Ishagu**

@TwinPoleTheory

They support a gathering of players with prize money. They don't endorse the ITC mission rules and if they did they would be publishing them.
GW support isn't binary either.

The question is about whether the ITC is real 40k. Unofficial rules are not real rules, hence it's not real 40k.

**TwinPoleTheory**

Ishagu wrote:
They support a gathering of players with prize money. They don't endorse the ITC mission rules if they did they would be publishing them.

GW support isn't binary either.

The question is about whether the ITC is real 40k. Unofficial rules are not real rules, hence it's not real 40k.

Ahh, semantics, how logical, if you call an apple and orange enough it sadly doesn't become one.

Considering that GW has integrated a number of ITC rules in their own tournament format, features the major ITC events on their official pages, seems pretty real.

I'll even bet, if you were to ask official GW representatives, they would *gasp*, disagree with you.

But you live in a fascinating little constructed reality, keep telling yourself it's not real.

**Desubot**

TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Ishagu wrote:
Anything not using the official rules can be interpreted as not being the real 40k.

A homebrew ruleset is not the real ruleset.

End of discussion

I know you desperately want this to be a binary argument but it's not. GW has officially endorsed events using both ITC and ETC rules, consequently, they're as 'official' as anything else.

Continue constructing your biased little world though.

I have no real horse in this race but, GW can endorse an official tournament while still considering ITC rules as a home brew.

Personally i see it as warcraft and original dota. it uses the same frame work but one was a popular fan made game mode that eventually became stupid big. but you wouldn't balance warcraft from the results of a dota event.

Is ITC real.. yes is ITS Official? no. should there be cross balancing of official 40k and ITC event rules no.

**Eldarsif**

Sim-Life wrote:
Eldarsif wrote:
Its not that hard to get ITC players to switch to CA2019, just tell them all the major events will use CA2019 missions. Then anyone wanting to compete will be forced to hold CA2019 tournaments and practice using CA2019, otherwise they'll find their lists and playstyle (especially static gunlines) unable to compete.

Who is going to tell them that the events are switching over and why should the events switch over to begin with if they feel more comfortable using ITC rulesets? This isn't really as easy as just saying "tell them to switch over". There are players/events invested in the format and thinking that they will switch just because is a bit presumptuous.

What makes this even harder is that the largest and most popular events in 40k are States-side and they have shown so far that they are invested in the ITC league.

Why is it in these conversations do people assume that the groups involved have no agency and are totally isolated from any form of communication?

Please actually read my message. People get invested in things and they might be reluctant to switch over or not want to switch over at all. That "is" their agency. If anything I feel like people asking others to switch "just because" are ignoring individual agency if anything.

Here is agency for you: Because of the growing popularity of ITC missions and events ITC missions have taken over the tournaments in my LGS "despite" the new CA missions. Because tourney people want their things to be standardized and the only entity that is attempting to main a standard is the ITC format. ITC is spreading, not going away, and no amount of "you just should switch" is going to change that. At this point we can only hope that the people behind ITC mission events will be our benevolent overlords. Who knows, maybe they will change, maybe they won't. Nothing in these threads has given a quantifiable reason why they should go one way or another.

Hell, ITC missions is the reason I am playing more AoS these days so I would love for that "just because" switch in 40k.

Personally i see it as warcraft and original dota. it uses the same frame work but one was a popular fan made game mode that eventually became stupid big. but you wouldn't balance warcraft from the results of a dota event.

A bit different as Warcraft 3 and DOTA were very different types of games with different gameplays only sharing the same camera mode and graphics engine. The people behind DOTA could change their units completely and therefore were able to balance DOTA irrespective of Warcraft 3 and vice-versa. We really don't have that in the GW v. ITC mission format.

**Ishagu**

TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Ishagu wrote:
They support a gathering of players with prize money. They don't endorse the ITC mission rules if they did they would be publishing them.

GW support isn't binary either.

The question is about whether the ITC is real 40k. Unofficial rules are not real rules, hence it's not real 40k.

Ahh, semantics, how logical, if you call an apple and orange enough it sadly doesn't become one.

Considering that GW has integrated a number of ITC rules in their own tournament format, features the major ITC events on their official pages, seems pretty real.

I'll even bet, if you were to ask official GW representatives, they would *gasp*, disagree with you.

But you live in a fascinating little constructed reality, keep telling yourself it's not real.

In what world is an unofficial product the real product? lol

You can keep telling yourself whatever you want. I'm not the one in denial.

**TwinPoleTheory**

Ishagu wrote:
In what world is an unofficial product the real product? lol

You can keep telling yourself whatever you want. I'm not the one in denial.

Ahh, semantics again. Official endorsement tends to provide legitimacy, kind of how it works everywhere else in the world.

Lawyers tend to get involved otherwise.

**Ishagu**

Show me where GW say that they endorse the ITC missions, specifically.

You used the word binary to attack my point of view. I'm throwing it back at you. GW support is not a binary, all or nothing stance.

In the meantime I will use the actual definition of the word "unofficial."
Unofficial 40k is still 40k, but it's not the real 40k.

**vict0988**

The only real way to play 50k is with the original indexes, no FW and only playing the Only War mission, this is what was originally released and as such it is the most pure and official way to play. Using GW beta and CA house rules is silly, what does GW know now that GW didn't know when they released the best edition of 40k ever? Since then they have released Codex SM, clearly indicating that any talent or brilliance they had when they created the best and most official mission has since left them.

THE MISSION
Before you can wage war in a game of Warhammer 40,000, you must select a mission. The core rules include a single mission – Only War – which is ideal to get the action started quickly. Others can be found elsewhere in this book, in other books, or you could play a mission of your own creation. If you and your opponent can’t agree on which mission to play, both players should roll a dice, re- rolling ties, and whoever rolls the highest decides on the mission

I of course never agree to anything other than Only War, which means I play real 50k half the time, I often share how my games go, when I do this it is of course only about the relevant REAL and PURE games of Only War. Can you say the same?

**Sim-Life**

Eldarsif wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
Eldarsif wrote:
Its not that hard to get ITC players to switch to CA2019, just tell them all the major events will use CA2019 missions. Then anyone wanting to compete will be forced to hold CA2019 tournaments and practice using CA2019, otherwise they'll find their lists and playstyle (especially static gunlines) unable to compete.

Who is going to tell them that the events are switching over and why should the events switch over to begin with if they feel more comfortable using ITC rulesets? This isn't really as easy as just saying "tell them to switch over". There are players/events invested in the format and thinking that they will switch just because is a bit presumptuous.

What makes this even harder is that the largest and most popular events in 40k are States-side and they have shown so far that they are invested in the ITC league.

Why is it in these conversations do people assume that the groups involved have no agency and are totally isolated from any form of communication?

Please actually read my message. People get invested in things and they might be reluctant to switch over or not want to switch over at all. That "is" their agency. If anything I feel like people asking others to switch "just because" are ignoring individual agency if anything.

Here is agency for you: Because of the growing popularity of ITC missions and events ITC missions have taken over the tournaments in my LGS "despite" the new CA missions. Because tourney people want their things to be standardized and the only entity that is attempting to main a standard is the ITC format. ITC is spreading, not going away, and no amount of "you just should switch" is going to change that. At this point we can only hope that the people behind ITC mission events will be our benevolent overlords. Who knows, maybe they will change, maybe they won't. Nothing in these threads has given a quantifiable reason why they should go one way or another.

Hell, ITC missions is the reason I am playing more AoS these days so I would love for that "just because" switch in 40k.

Personally i see it as warcraft and original dota. it uses the same frame work but one was a popular fan made game mode that eventually became stupid big. but you wouldn't balance warcraft from the results of a dota event.

A bit different as Warcraft 3 and DOTA were very different types of games with different gameplays only sharing the same camera mode and graphics engine. The people behind DOTA could change their units completely and therefore were able to balance DOTA irrespective of Warcraft 3 and vice-versa. We really don't have that in the GW v. ITC mission format.

It it the events that people are coming to or are they playing for the rules? You'll find a lot of casual players attending events regardless of rules just to play with new people, there IS a distinction between playing for the event and playing for the rule set.

**Desubot**

Eldarsif wrote:

Personally i see it as warcraft and original dota. it uses the same frame work but one was a popular fan made game mode that eventually became stupid big. but you wouldn't balance warcraft from the results of a dota event.

A bit different as Warcraft 3 and DOTA were very different types of games with different gameplays only sharing the same camera mode and graphics engine. The people behind DOTA could change their units completely and therefore were able to balance DOTA irrespective of Warcraft 3 and vice-versa. We really don't have that in the GW v. ITC mission format.

I mean fundamentally its the same controls, same angles, same models. its a bit extreme yes but the point is that you can get a very popular game model from the same base engine. but you wouldn't balance it between the two. you would make an entirely separate entity so that people that enjoy one mode doesn't have to subjugate the other.

**chaos0xomega**

Platuan4th wrote:
Karol wrote:
So what are we actualy checking here, how many people on this forum play in the US and UK? because that is more or less what the data will show. For US people ITC rule set is valid and real, because it is used both in tournaments and outside of them. While people from the UK will say it is home brew, because they have not only zero attachment to it, but in fact negative conotations with ITC, as they try to put the way they play as the real way to play w40k.

Yeah, no. This assumes there isn't a large portion of US players that have issues with ITC, which there definitely IS.

Unfortunately I haven't seen any evidence to support that a large anti-ITC presence exists in the US, just a very vocal minoirty (of which I am a member). Personally, I don't really have an issue with the missions, to me missions always seemed like the one area where some amount of homebrew and DIY was not only accepted but also expected (though again, GW and the community as a whole should not be using data collected from these events if they are not using a common mission format), my issue with ITC and other formats is really with modifications to core rules, like terrain rules, etc.

I'll even bet, if you were to ask official GW representatives, they would *gasp*, disagree with you.

Considering I know actual members of the design studio, I'm comfortable saying that you're wrong TwinPoleTheory. They very much do consider ITC to be house rules and they don't see their support of major gaming events that use ITC (or any other competitive format) as an endorsement of that format or any other. This is in keeping with their philosophy that there is no right or wrong way to play the game and that house rules are always encouraged. There is an argument to be made that this is proof as to the "realness" of ITC (depending on what your subjective definition of realness might be), BUT they are also very clear that house rules are not official - and thats true as a function of necessity, as GW do not want to encourage the perception that one form of house rule is superior or inferior to any other.

So, again, you're wrong, at least on this point.

**Daedalus81**

Ishagu wrote:
Show me where GW say that they endorse the ITC missions, specifically.

You used the word binary to attack my point of view. I'm throwing it back at you. GW support is not a binary, all or nothing stance.

In the meantime I will use the actual definition of the word "unofficial."
Unofficial 40k is still 40k, but it's not the real 40k.

I mean its not like they don't post about LVO frequently.

"Hey guys check out this cool tournament that we'll be promoting, but don't go thinking those missions are proper for 40K!"

**Ishagu**

You can't engage with the community without acknowledging large congregations of players.

They probably use the tournament as an advertisement of the 40k brand more than endorsement of the missions.

**Dudeface**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Ishagu wrote:
Show me where GW say that they endorse the ITC missions, specifically.

You used the word binary to attack my point of view. I'm throwing it back at you. GW support is not a binary, all or nothing stance.

In the meantime I will use the actual definition of the word "unofficial."
Unofficial 40k is still 40k, but it's not the real 40k.

I mean its not like they don't post about LVO frequently.

"Hey guys check out this cool tournament that we'll be promoting, but don't go thinking those missions are proper for 40K!"

When or where have GW ever linked to, or provided ITC missions or rules?

**Sgt_Smudge**

Sterling191 wrote:"Official" =/= "Real". Especially in the context of a baseline ruleset that literally tells you to make stuff up if you want.

I mean, now we're getting to the point of what OP is trying to get at.

Obviously, ITC is *real*. It obviously exists. And, just to clarify, there is nothing wrong that it's an unofficial ruleset. The point is how *relevant* is it? Should GW pay attention to it?

If I may, how does the ITC compare in relevancy to:
- Officially printed GW rules (Rulebook, campaign books, and Chapter Approved)
- GW's own tournament rules (Throne of Skulls, Double Tournaments, etc)
- Widely played homebrew rulesets (things like HH Centurion, or Heralds of Ruin Kill Team)
- More obscure/localised homebrew rulesets (aka, ones shared between a pair of players or a small local group)

Are all of the above equally relevant for GW's balancing?

catbarf wrote:ITC is 'real' 40K in that it is a completely legitimate way to play the game.

ITC is not 'real' 40K in that it does not represent the competitive balance of the vanilla Matched Play rules. It's a form of widely-accepted house rules.

House rules are fine and encouraged. I play with house rules all the time for adjusting the systems I don't like.

Experience based on playing with house rules is inherently tainted and should not be taken into account when balancing the core, actual rules. Hence where the debate actually lies.

Because this isn't a question about semantics, it's about whether ITC should be considered representative of the game as a whole and used for balance adjustments.

Yes, exactly.

It's 100% fine to homebrew, to houserule, to play the game however you want to! But do GW need to take that into consideration for their own official rules? What's wrong with just accepting "yes, ITC is a houseruled rule set, so it's not GW's problem to balance around it specifically"?

Ishagu wrote:They probably use the tournament as an advertisement of the 40k brand more than endorsement of the missions.

More than likely, yes.
LVO is most likely supported by GW because it's a large collection of players, rather than explicit support of those particular missions. If different missions were being played at LVO, GW would support it all the same. It's not the ITC they're supporting, it's people getting together and having a good time.

**happy_inquisitor**

Cities of Death games are real 40K
Spearhead games are real 40K
ITC mission games are real 40K

If you are playing 40K the way you like it with perhaps a few rules added on and some mission twists why would that not be real 40K.

Of course there is another way in which people talk about real 40K - when they talk about unit value, game balance etc. None of the above are very good indicators of unit or faction value/balance in terms of that conversation. It is OK to say "Vespid are great in Cities of Death" and "Iron Hands are busted in ITC" and so long as you understand that your comment only applies to that variant of the game all is fine - it gets messy and causes contention when people think that what applies in their preferred variant is universally true.

**JNAProductions**

happy_inquisitor wrote:
Cities of Death games are real 40K
Spearhead games are real 40K
ITC mission games are real 40K

If you are playing 40K the way you like it with perhaps a few rules added on and some mission twists why would that not be real 40K.

Of course there is another way in which people talk about real 40K - when they talk about unit value, game balance etc. None of the above are very good indicators of unit or faction value/balance in terms of that conversation. It is OK to say "Vespid are great in Cities of Death" and "Iron Hands are busted in ITC" and so long as you understand that your comment only applies to that variant of the game all is fine - it gets messy and causes contention when people think that what applies in their preferred variant is universally true.

Iron Hands are pretty busted in just about EVERY format.

Overall, though, point agreed.

**Sgt_Smudge**

happy_inquisitor wrote:
Cities of Death games are real 40K
Spearhead games are real 40K
ITC mission games are real 40K

If you are playing 40K the way you like it with perhaps a few rules added on and some mission twists why would that not be real 40K.

Of course there is another way in which people talk about real 40K - when they talk about unit value, game balance etc. None of the above are very good indicators of unit or faction value/balance in terms of that conversation. It is OK to say "Vespid are great in Cities of Death" and "Iron Hands are busted in ITC" and so long as you understand that your comment only applies to that variant of the game all is fine - it gets messy and causes contention when people think that what applies in their preferred variant is universally true.

Not quite in agreement that they're "real" 40k (I'd have just said they're variants of 40k), but as for your sentiment at the end (aka, make sure if you're talking about a specific version of 40k, make sure you mention what that variant is, and only that it applies to that variant!), I completely agree.

**Selfcontrol**

The OP intention is crystal-clear :

He asks if GW should consider ITC to be the "real and proper" way to play 40K and therefore, if GW should balance the game around it.

The answer is also crystal-clear :

ITC doesn't use the official missions or rules made by GW. Does ITC use a large amount of rules made by GW ? Yes. All the rules ? No.

1) That doesn't mean ITC is crap and should not be played.
2) That doesn't mean ITC "doesn't exist" (of course it does exist ...).
3) That doesn't mean GW is perfect and nothing should change (ITC missions exist because when 8th was released, the missions made by GW were bad, for example).

It just means GW should not balance the game around ITC because ITC is not using the full, 100% official ruleset.

It's not because LVO is the "biggest" tournament and because the US population/playerbase is "bigger" compared to each tiny european country that it means it is the "real" (= only) way to play 40K. This is americentrism at its finest.

End of discussion.

**Bookwrack**

Sim-Life wrote:
Eldarsif wrote:
Its not that hard to get ITC players to switch to CA2019, just tell them all the major events will use CA2019 missions. Then anyone wanting to compete will be forced to hold CA2019 tournaments and practice using CA2019, otherwise they'll find their lists and playstyle (especially static gunlines) unable to compete.

Who is going to tell them that the events are switching over and why should the events switch over to begin with if they feel more comfortable using ITC rulesets? This isn't really as easy as just saying "tell them to switch over". There are players/events invested in the format and thinking that they will switch just because is a bit presumptuous.

What makes this even harder is that the largest and most popular events in 40k are States-side and they have shown so far that they are invested in the ITC league.

Why is it in these conversations do people assume that the groups involved have no agency and are totally isolated from any form of communication?

I don't know about you guys, but I do all my tourney planning using the tried and true 'message in a bottle' method. That might have something to do with my problems with participating player punctuality.

**craggy**

It's homebrew.
There's nothing wrong with that. If I had to define "Real 40k" I'd have to go with GW Rules As Written... All the rules, including whichever version of whichever FAQ they're up to this week, favouring whichever new kits they want to sell most of soonest.
But can you have fun playing 2nd edition with all its gangly minutiae, or a stripped down version of the game where everyone just rolls a die to hit, and if the enemy doesn't save they're dead and everyone has the same stats? Maybe? Maybe the Real 40k is the million psykers you sacrificed along the way?

**Racerguy180**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Selfcontrol wrote:

It should NOT be considered "real 40k".

This poll is so stupid I'm wondering if it's a troll.

The only thing more stupid is that people are actually giving answers other than "No" IMO, but then again the response options are extremely poor and don't actually align with the question being posed.

Pure and simple, ITC rules are house rules. They are one way that you can choose to play, but they aren't the rules published in the book, nor are they official, and they absolutely should not be the standard that GW looks to in order to determine whether or not their rules are balancing or functioning.

If I were GW, personally, I would be actively discouraging the use of ITC or similar rulesets in high level competitive play and absolutely trying to identify and shore up the perceived weaknesses in the core ruleset that these formats are trying to address (because ultimately that is why they became popular in the first place). The sad reality is that ITC and ETC and the other formats that are being used elsewhere are poisoning GW's ability to accurately collect and assess the data being generated and adjust and rebalance the game in response. Even minor tweaks to the rules made by these formats can have an outsize impact on the data and results generated, which in turn gives false impressions as to the games overall health. If 1/3rd of the data generated is ITC format, 1/3rd is ETC format, and the remaining 3rd is split between Warzone, NOVA, Renegade Open, Adepticon, etc. if you're GW you can't look at those results and say that all the data collected is consistent with itself and you're comparing apples to apples, etc. and then derive any sort of meaningful conclusion as to what adjustments need to be made to the game from it. If game balance was a scientific process, then GWs attempts at it would never survive peer review due on its data collection failures alone, other potential issues notwithstanding. I'm not necessarily saying that game balance needs to be held to the same rigorous standards of scientific experimentation, etc. but I think most of us hope - if not outright want - GW to make balancing decisions based on rigorous analysis and assessment of factual information, something that simply isn't possible currently as a result of these various formats.

In very basic terms, we all need to be playing the same game for discussions of balance to mean anything at all, and that simply is not the case right now, which is why I regular see posts of people claiming xyz is overpowered or underpowered or needs a buff or needs to be nerfed, etc. and say to myself "what the hell is this dude talking about?". 9 times out of 10 it seems those situations occur when someone is discussing balance in the context of ITC tournament results (sometimes other formats, but it seems its generally ITC that makes me scratch my head most, likely because its the most popular format in the area I live and with the people I interact with) - which are an entirely different set of experiences from what I've had as an American who basically only plays by the book rules.

GW Official Tourney Rules would solve this problem quickly.

As an American, I hate the virus that is "feth you" gaming (i.e. ITC). There is sooooo much more to 40k than how badly you can pulverize your opponent.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Then maybe Gw should do a better job. Don't blame ITC for a problem GW creates.

**LunarSol**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Then maybe Gw should do a better job. Don't blame ITC for a problem GW creates.

A lot of the current discussion is about the other bit of that. Is GW doing a better job already? Maybe. No one really plays it to find out.

**Charistoph**

Is FIFA official because they use Adidas soccer balls? Does Adidas make and control the rules for FIFA?

How about for the Olympics, does using Adidas soccer balls make the Olympic soccer games official? What if the Olympics Committee makes rules Adidas doesn't like, does that make Olympics games unofficial?

Which are the real soccer rules, FIFA or Olympic?

What about for hockey? What makes a hockey game official? The NHL? What about all those Olympic games then, are they not real games or official?

What makes a game real or official is the group you play with and the goals you seek to work for. If your goal is Adepticon, then whatever format the Adepticon tournament is using is official and real.

However, that means little if you see Gamescon as your ultimate goal, so whatever setup they use will be your real and official ruleset.

Moving on from there, if you and your group have zero interest in any convention and set up your own tournament protocols, then what Adepticon or Gamescon have are as useful to you as what the Olympic Committee decides for their soccer games mean for your local kids' leagues.

What makes a ruleset official and real is the group backing them up and the support they receive in running them. Nothing more, nothing less. Adepticon's tournament rules are not official for Gamescon, and vice versa, and neither is truly devalued because of them. To consider ITC "not real" to their players is to ignore reality and how the concept of "official" works.

**Ishagu**

No one owns a sport.

GW owns 40k