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.

What Ishagu said, horrible comparison to try to tie 40k to the way sports work.

I found this post by MVBrandt (who I believe is involved in NOVA, correct?) interesting - definitively stating that the CA19 missions are bad but, at time of posting, not elaborating on why or how much he'd played them.

I know NOVA has its own set-up, as do some of th eother big US cons, but if the high-ups on that circuit are displaying that sot of mindset, it explains a lot...

 LunarSol wrote:

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.

And FWIW, why would anyone try the new GW missions? Knowing their history, I wouldn't have bothered to look at them. Someone lending me their CA19 led me to read them though and realize they're...okay.

 Ishagu wrote:
No one owns a sport.

GW owns 40k

And missing the point. It was about what qualifies as "official", not who owns it.

As for who owns what. GW owns the Intellectual Property. Organizers own their events. YOU own your games.

If you get rid of Ascension and Pillars the CA 2019 missions seem acceptable for competitive play (IMHO).

I'd like to include some of the adepticon terrain deployment rules (although 4" doesn't seem like far enough from a board edge) and maybe a couple of the scenarios to make a solid 6 pack.

Not sure how they would work in tourney play as the point differentials may not be high enough but someone somewhere pointed some way to do it that they think might work (something about subtracting scores from 40 but I haven't thought about it enough to get it).

"Real 40K"? Oh feth that noise.

The only "real" 40K is the one that comes out the rule books. Anything added beyond that is house-rules, pure and simple, no matter how widespread they may be.

Obviously Real 40K Players play narrative games using power level.

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

Couldn't agree more.

A small group of players shouldn't determine the balance outcome changes for all players given that that small group of players are explicitly playing within a house-rule environment that adds rules to the base game, rules that most people will never use.

 solkan wrote:
Obviously Real 40K Players play narrative games using power level.

Is anyone saying that?

Dudeface wrote:

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

I'll answer with a question. Why would they need to? Do you feel like players would feel mislead into playing a game that is "not 40K"?

It's a set of homebrew. I mean, homebrew is fine. My 13 year old nephew loves homebrewing things for 40k games, though I do try to keep his head grounded in the default rules for when he goes to the store and probably won't find someone who likes to do crazy homebrews at random.

 Melissia wrote:
It's a set of homebrew. I mean, homebrew is fine. My 13 year old nephew loves homebrewing things for 40k games, though I do try to keep his head grounded in the default rules for when he goes to the store and probably won't find someone who likes to do crazy homebrews at random.

Could you have a chat with these ITC folks as well?

What is "real 40K"? Anything that follows the rules for 40K.

The rules for 40K provide a number of scenarios, but also encourage you to make your own. Therefore ITC custom scenarios are "real 40K".

The rules for 40K tell you to discuss with your opponents what type of terrain each piece of terrain on the board is. ITC dictates what type of terrain the terrain on the board is according to the rules of Warhammer 40K. "Magic Boxes" are literally terrain that uses the rules for ruins. "First Floor blocks LOS" is just a way for the tournament organizer to not spend time and money boarding the doors and windows of terrain to get them to block LOS.

So does ITC follow the rules for 40K? Yes. Therefore ITC is "real 40K"

 Ishagu wrote:
If they aren't playing the game GW designed, they can't demand adjustments to it.

I think this pretty much sums it up. They're playing a variant of 40K, and the idea that this variant can have actual tangible effects on all other games of 40k is just nonsense. It shouldn't be that way.

if you slap down your hard earned money and put in the effort to build your models, no one gets to tell you how to play toy soldiers....

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
If they aren't playing the game GW designed, they can't demand adjustments to it.

I think this pretty much sums it up. They're playing a variant of 40K, and the idea that this variant can have actual tangible effects on all other games of 40k is just nonsense. It shouldn't be that way.

Where else are you going to get information on how to change balance for the better?

Honest question-is there a better source of info?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
if you slap down your hard earned money and put in the effort to build your models, no one gets to tell you how to play toy soldiers....

Sure. I'll build a custom hero model with a special ability that automatically wins me the game on turn 2 unless you defeat him by the end of turn 1. And you can't shoot him or charge him on turn 1.

You can't tell me not to use him against you, by your own rule. This is “real 40k" right?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
If they aren't playing the game GW designed, they can't demand adjustments to it.

I think this pretty much sums it up. They're playing a variant of 40K, and the idea that this variant can have actual tangible effects on all other games of 40k is just nonsense. It shouldn't be that way.

Where else are you going to get information on how to change balance for the better?

Honest question-is there a better source of info?

When people start using the CA rules in ITC events, the data will become available for all to see.
The ITC didn't always have the data either.

solkan wrote:Obviously Real 40K Players play narrative games using power level.

Is this a sarcastic point? Considering that's a published way of playing in official GW rules, it's more "real" than ITC*. And besides, GW themselves offer several equally valid ways to play the game, as well as the infinite varieties of homebrew games - there's no single "True" way to play 40k. Only what's official, and what isn't - not that that should matter for your own enjoyment.

*Now, that's not to say ITC isn't "real".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
if you slap down your hard earned money and put in the effort to build your models, no one gets to tell you how to play toy soldiers....

Agreed. But if people choose to play them in their own certain way, why does GW need to be involved in that?

If people like the ITC, they're welcome to it, but GW has no responsibility to get involved.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
If they aren't playing the game GW designed, they can't demand adjustments to it.

I think this pretty much sums it up. They're playing a variant of 40K, and the idea that this variant can have actual tangible effects on all other games of 40k is just nonsense. It shouldn't be that way.

Where else are you going to get information on how to change balance for the better?

From people who don't play with tons of house rules that change the balance of the game completely outside of the hands of Games Workshop.

That's actually part of why I wish GW would hold more official GW tournaments.

If GW makes balance decisions based off of houseruled tournaments, they'll throw the game off kilter for people who don't use those exact house rules. GW should make changes to the game based on the default rules, then the house rules should afterwards modify the default rules.

 Melissia wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
If they aren't playing the game GW designed, they can't demand adjustments to it.

I think this pretty much sums it up. They're playing a variant of 40K, and the idea that this variant can have actual tangible effects on all other games of 40k is just nonsense. It shouldn't be that way.

Where else are you going to get information on how to change balance for the better?

From people who don't play with tons of house rules that change the balance of the game completely outside of the hands of Games Workshop.

That's actually part of why I wish GW would hold more official GW tournaments.

If GW makes balance decisions based off of houseruled tournaments, they'll throw the game off kilter for people who don't use those exact house rules. GW should make changes to the game based on the default rules, then the house rules should afterwards modify the default rules.

It certainly seems like GW are perfectly capable of destroying the balance of their game by themselves. Unless someone wants to argue that Iron Hands was somehow ITC's fault.

 Melissia wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
If they aren't playing the game GW designed, they can't demand adjustments to it.

I think this pretty much sums it up. They're playing a variant of 40K, and the idea that this variant can have actual tangible effects on all other games of 40k is just nonsense. It shouldn't be that way.

Where else are you going to get information on how to change balance for the better?

From people who don't play with tons of house rules that change the balance of the game completely outside of the hands of Games Workshop.

That's actually part of why I wish GW would hold more official GW tournaments.

If GW makes balance decisions based off of houseruled tournaments, they'll throw the game off kilter for people who don't use those exact house rules. GW should make changes to the game based on the default rules, then the house rules should afterwards modify the default rules.

Agreed. If ITC wants to be more balanced, why can't they modify their rules even further?

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
ITC missions are a homebrew set up, there are no ifs ands or buts on this. That does not mean its an invalid way to play the game though.

It does, however, massively change the way the game is played and that can be a real problem when determining balance. I blame GW for this though, it has taken them far too long to come up with a decent set of missions so somebody had to fill the void. The problem now is that ITC mission use is so wide spread, particularly in the states, that it'll be difficult to get people to change back.

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.

Static gunlines are BETTER in CA missions because there's no reason not to just nearly wipe out your opponent turn one and two and then just meander over to the objectives.

The only good CA missions are maelstrom because the progressive scoring in Ewar is a joke.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
It certainly seems like GW are perfectly capable of destroying the balance of their game by themselves.

*eyes the entirety of 7th edition*

I mean, you're not wrong...

ERJAK wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
ITC missions are a homebrew set up, there are no ifs ands or buts on this. That does not mean its an invalid way to play the game though.

It does, however, massively change the way the game is played and that can be a real problem when determining balance. I blame GW for this though, it has taken them far too long to come up with a decent set of missions so somebody had to fill the void. The problem now is that ITC mission use is so wide spread, particularly in the states, that it'll be difficult to get people to change back.

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.

Static gunlines are BETTER in CA missions because there's no reason not to just nearly wipe out your opponent turn one and two and then just meander over to the objectives.

The only good CA missions are maelstrom because the progressive scoring in Ewar is a joke.

Oh shush.

Do you have an actual rebuttal?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Do you have an actual rebuttal?

Yeah but there's no point arguing with him.

I’m outside the argument. I enjoy the CA missions but lack experience with ITC.

Don’t rebutt because of him-rebutt because of other people reading this thread. Otherwise, it seems like he’s correct and you’ve got nothing to make it otherwise.

 Ishagu wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
if you slap down your hard earned money and put in the effort to build your models, no one gets to tell you how to play toy soldiers....

Sure. I'll build a custom hero model with a special ability that automatically wins me the game on turn 2 unless you defeat him by the end of turn 1. And you can't shoot him or charge him on turn 1.

You can't tell me not to use him against you, by your own rule. This is “real 40k" right?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
If they aren't playing the game GW designed, they can't demand adjustments to it.

I think this pretty much sums it up. They're playing a variant of 40K, and the idea that this variant can have actual tangible effects on all other games of 40k is just nonsense. It shouldn't be that way.

Where else are you going to get information on how to change balance for the better?

Honest question-is there a better source of info?

When people start using the CA rules in ITC events, the data will become available for all to see.
The ITC didn't always have the data either.

There's no such thing as 'REAL' 40k. The entire concept is idiotic.

I think eventually you're going to have to accept that Marines are stupidly OP entirely independent of the ITC and that playing chapter approved missions (who heavily favor 'kill more' alphastrike lists and freaking LOVE invincible Leviathan and SUDDENLY ASSCENTS lists) are not going to suddenly make them in line with other books.

I don't know if your problem is that your army is definitely getting nerfed or that you're not winning with an army you should easily be winning with or if you're sad that winning with marines isn't 'impressive' or w/e anymore but whatever it is, stop blaming ITC for it.

Sidebar, adepticon and Nova are the #2 and #3 warhammer event world wide and neither of them use ITC. ...though technically ITC missions are just slightly modified Nova missions but w/e. Almost the entire midwest doesn't use ITC at all. Marines are gonna win that too.

I don't think that's really a suitable discussion for this thread though?

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Ahh, semantics again.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Ishagu's point is pretty clear. Starkly so, really. It's a simple premise/conclusion:

Premise 1: "Real" 40K would be 40K that does not modify the rules.
Premise 2: ITC modifies the rules of 40K.
Conclusion: ITC is not "real" 40K as it is a subset modified by the people to created it (NB: That's not a judgement call on ITC or the people who play/enjoy it, just on the notion that it could be considered the "real" 40K).
Supplemental: As it is its own subset of 40K and used by a (significantly small) minority of players, it should not be used to make tangible changes to the overall 40K rules that everyone uses across the entire damned world.

Simple stuff.

If it wasn't real what would change?