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.
GW has, is, and will continue to use data from ITC events to make decisions about the direction of the game, consequently making it significantly more 'real' than what a bunch of internet randos think it should be.
So you can call it real, or not real, or homebrew, or toilet wine, doesn't really matter at the end of the day does it?
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."
Ishagu wrote: It's still not the real 40k, by the definition of the word.
Doesn't matter what you say lol
Yet GW thinks it's real enough to make decisions about the direction of the game from that data.
So you can play your masturbatory semantics game all day long rando, GG.
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."
Ishagu wrote: It's still not the real 40k, by the definition of the word.
Doesn't matter what you say lol
Yet GW thinks it's real enough to make decisions about the direction of the game from that data.
So you can play your masturbatory semantics game all day long rando, GG.
I think they make specific nerfs based on ITC results...however they don't do anything else with it.
They view the ITC as "those pesky Americans finding ways to break our perfect ruleset".
For example - the ability to make an entire army unforgettable in the shooting phase using ITC 1st floor blocking and character protection rules is not something that was ever considered at the rules making stage because they never even considered anything like that. GW still uses their own WHGT and local opinions of players to make most of their balancing decisions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/30 16:10:29
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
So you can play your masturbatory semantics game all day long rando, GG.
Somebody is triggered.
I play:
40K: Daemons, Tau
AoS: Blades of Khorne, Disciples of Tzeentch
Warmachine: Convergence of Cyriss
Infinity: Haqqislam, Tohaa
Malifaux: Bayou
Star Wars Legion: Republic & Separatists
MESBG: Far Harad, Misty Mountains
Luke_Prowler wrote: Is ITC's packet house rules? sure, but I don't see why that's a problem
ITC's rules being houserules aren't a problem until people start pressuring GW to make changes based on tournament results from ITC houseruled tournaments and not taking in to account the actual houserules that are being implemented.
Like I said, I'm fine with houserules, and basically play with them a not-insignificant portion of the time that I'm not at a GW store playing with a random.
But I wouldn't ask GW to make changes to the game balance based off of my 13 year old nephew's random houserules, either.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/30 19:50:00
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Luke_Prowler wrote: Is ITC's packet house rules? sure, but I don't see why that's a problem
ITC's rules being houserules aren't a problem until people start pressuring GW to make changes based on tournament results from ITC houseruled tournaments and not taking in to account the actual houserules that are being implemented.
Like I said, I'm fine with houserules, and basically play with them a not-insignificant portion of the time that I'm not at a GW store playing with a random.
But I wouldn't ask GW to make changes to the game balance based off of my 13 year old nephew's random houserules, either.
It isn't like it's hard to point out GWs imbalances though. They honestly should not need ITC data to nerf Ynari or Castellans or Iron Hands, yet here we are.
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.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Is ITC's packet house rules? sure, but I don't see why that's a problem
ITC's rules being houserules aren't a problem until people start pressuring GW to make changes based on tournament results from ITC houseruled tournaments and not taking in to account the actual houserules that are being implemented.
Like I said, I'm fine with houserules, and basically play with them a not-insignificant portion of the time that I'm not at a GW store playing with a random.
But I wouldn't ask GW to make changes to the game balance based off of my 13 year old nephew's random houserules, either.
It isn't like it's hard to point out GWs imbalances though. They honestly should not need ITC data to nerf Ynari or Castellans or Iron Hands, yet here we are.
Honestly - these things were so busted on paper I am not sure how they got through that stage UNLESS the people writing the rules don't actually play the game.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Luke_Prowler wrote: Is ITC's packet house rules? sure, but I don't see why that's a problem
ITC's rules being houserules aren't a problem until people start pressuring GW to make changes based on tournament results from ITC houseruled tournaments and not taking in to account the actual houserules that are being implemented.
Like I said, I'm fine with houserules, and basically play with them a not-insignificant portion of the time that I'm not at a GW store playing with a random.
But I wouldn't ask GW to make changes to the game balance based off of my 13 year old nephew's random houserules, either.
It isn't like it's hard to point out GWs imbalances though. They honestly should not need ITC data to nerf Ynari or Castellans or Iron Hands, yet here we are.
While all those armies perform above average(with a skill curve in the case of Ynnari), there are also lists and board setups that deal with them. The problem is ITCs terrain is generally insufficient(a problem all tournaments need to manage) and the fact that a lot of armies that can deal with IH bleed too many secondaries to compete.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Is ITC's packet house rules? sure, but I don't see why that's a problem
ITC's rules being houserules aren't a problem until people start pressuring GW to make changes based on tournament results from ITC houseruled tournaments and not taking in to account the actual houserules that are being implemented.
Like I said, I'm fine with houserules, and basically play with them a not-insignificant portion of the time that I'm not at a GW store playing with a random.
But I wouldn't ask GW to make changes to the game balance based off of my 13 year old nephew's random houserules, either.
It isn't like it's hard to point out GWs imbalances though. They honestly should not need ITC data to nerf Ynari or Castellans or Iron Hands, yet here we are.
While all those armies perform above average(with a skill curve in the case of Ynnari), there are also lists and board setups that deal with them. The problem is ITCs terrain is generally insufficient(a problem all tournaments need to manage) and the fact that a lot of armies that can deal with IH bleed too many secondaries to compete.
I forgot there was a skill curve to having Dark Reapers shoot twice, thanks for the reminder. Also, that doesn't stop my post from being correct. Problem units are always going to prevail regardless unless GW designs half the missions that specifically hurt those units. They don't.
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.
Also, ITC is not a mission "set". It is one, singular mission. Just one; the same one played every round of the tournament like a broken fething record.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Is ITC's packet house rules? sure, but I don't see why that's a problem
ITC's rules being houserules aren't a problem until people start pressuring GW to make changes based on tournament results from ITC houseruled tournaments and not taking in to account the actual houserules that are being implemented.
Like I said, I'm fine with houserules, and basically play with them a not-insignificant portion of the time that I'm not at a GW store playing with a random.
But I wouldn't ask GW to make changes to the game balance based off of my 13 year old nephew's random houserules, either.
It isn't like it's hard to point out GWs imbalances though. They honestly should not need ITC data to nerf Ynari or Castellans or Iron Hands, yet here we are.
While all those armies perform above average(with a skill curve in the case of Ynnari), there are also lists and board setups that deal with them. The problem is ITCs terrain is generally insufficient(a problem all tournaments need to manage) and the fact that a lot of armies that can deal with IH bleed too many secondaries to compete.
I forgot there was a skill curve to having Dark Reapers shoot twice, thanks for the reminder. Also, that doesn't stop my post from being correct. Problem units are always going to prevail regardless unless GW designs half the missions that specifically hurt those units. They don't.
I mean, they do...
There are enough different mission sets out there that you can find something that a single list will struggle with. The two problems are tournaments don't use them and competitive players don't play them.
Although I will concede there are significant challenges to make a few of them work on a very large scale.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Is ITC's packet house rules? sure, but I don't see why that's a problem
ITC's rules being houserules aren't a problem until people start pressuring GW to make changes based on tournament results from ITC houseruled tournaments and not taking in to account the actual houserules that are being implemented.
Like I said, I'm fine with houserules, and basically play with them a not-insignificant portion of the time that I'm not at a GW store playing with a random.
But I wouldn't ask GW to make changes to the game balance based off of my 13 year old nephew's random houserules, either.
It isn't like it's hard to point out GWs imbalances though. They honestly should not need ITC data to nerf Ynari or Castellans or Iron Hands, yet here we are.
Honestly - these things were so busted on paper I am not sure how they got through that stage UNLESS the people writing the rules don't actually play the game.
New game mode: ProposedHammer.
At any given time, take the 5 top posts in Proposed Rules, and implement them as suggested.
Do you honestly believe ProposedHammer would be anything less than a massive dumpsterfire that would make GW-40k look godly?
Identifying problems and throwing out solutions is always easy when you never realize why they're bad solutions.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Is ITC's packet house rules? sure, but I don't see why that's a problem
ITC's rules being houserules aren't a problem until people start pressuring GW to make changes based on tournament results from ITC houseruled tournaments and not taking in to account the actual houserules that are being implemented.
Like I said, I'm fine with houserules, and basically play with them a not-insignificant portion of the time that I'm not at a GW store playing with a random.
But I wouldn't ask GW to make changes to the game balance based off of my 13 year old nephew's random houserules, either.
It isn't like it's hard to point out GWs imbalances though. They honestly should not need ITC data to nerf Ynari or Castellans or Iron Hands, yet here we are.
Honestly - these things were so busted on paper I am not sure how they got through that stage UNLESS the people writing the rules don't actually play the game.
New game mode: ProposedHammer.
At any given time, take the 5 top posts in Proposed Rules, and implement them as suggested.
Do you honestly believe ProposedHammer would be anything less than a massive dumpsterfire that would make GW-40k look godly?
Identifying problems and throwing out solutions is always easy when you never realize why they're bad solutions.
Honestly most of the ideas have been better than what GW has been trying to do so what's your point?
I don;t understand how this thread is still going on. It's quite a simple response really.
Yes ITC is a real format of 40K. It's a competitive home brew format, but a format nonetheless.
GW do acknowledge this format but do not encourage it's play style. This is evidence by their own verison of the ground floor LoS blocking adjustment to the rule. Also evidence by the CA19 "matched play" missions being massively different to the ITC missions.
So is it real?...yes. Is it a valid format for certain environments?... yes. Is ITC an official format that GW would recommend playing?...No. They would recommend you playing with CA19 missions and if you want to use the ground floor blocking Line of Sight they would recommend the one they suggest not the magic box ITS has.
As a business it's smart to allow ITC and be involved as it massively pushes their brand. For the most part is free advertisement. Endorsement means that GW give money for the people at ITC to host the event. That would suggest that ITC cannot be held without a cheque from GW going into the prize pool. (Which they don't, they only pay for space while there to push their previews and releases they have no involvement in the tourni itself).
A result of all this means that ITC should not be considered for balancing formats as it is a home brew format. A popular one yes but home brew all the same.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Is ITC's packet house rules? sure, but I don't see why that's a problem
ITC's rules being houserules aren't a problem until people start pressuring GW to make changes based on tournament results from ITC houseruled tournaments and not taking in to account the actual houserules that are being implemented.
Like I said, I'm fine with houserules, and basically play with them a not-insignificant portion of the time that I'm not at a GW store playing with a random.
But I wouldn't ask GW to make changes to the game balance based off of my 13 year old nephew's random houserules, either.
It isn't like it's hard to point out GWs imbalances though. They honestly should not need ITC data to nerf Ynari or Castellans or Iron Hands, yet here we are.
Honestly - these things were so busted on paper I am not sure how they got through that stage UNLESS the people writing the rules don't actually play the game.
New game mode: ProposedHammer.
At any given time, take the 5 top posts in Proposed Rules, and implement them as suggested.
Do you honestly believe ProposedHammer would be anything less than a massive dumpsterfire that would make GW-40k look godly?
Identifying problems and throwing out solutions is always easy when you never realize why they're bad solutions.
Honestly most of the ideas have been better than what GW has been trying to do so what's your point?
My point is that no, oh god, no they are not.
Today's ProposedHammer:
Spoiler:
1. Modifiers Never Stack.
Not sure it's terrible, but not perfect. It does some good, but some damage.
-Alaitoc Rangers would be DOA. Fieldcraft/stealth would be ideal for units that aren't stealthy/can't use fieldcraft, but worthless for many units that do.
-A model with +1S wielding any weapon that hits harder than a sword simply doesn't have that +1S. So you use some sort of power/stratagem/etc to be as strong as a Marine. But then you don't hit as strong as one unless you're a swordsman.
-Many rules become either trash or actually worthless
Overall, there should be caps to stacking, and many stacking effects are bad. 6s should always succeed, 1s should always fail, etc.
It compares reasonably to GWs worse rules, but not the average GW rule. It's basically the same quality of rule as GW forgetting to make 6s always succeed in proper cases.
2. One Stratagem Per Phase.
A good direction, but half-baked currently, at best.
Does seem to fix a number of "bombs" that are silly.
But it guts GSC. Both their competitiveness and the intended way to play them.
You're also heavily nerfing some armies (Marines, fortunately, but also GSC, Choas, CSM, and more), while not really denting others (CWE Deathstars aren't hit as hard as most lists). A very uneven change.
I think it could be a great rule - but only if the game were rebalanced to take it into account.
As written, with no other changes, much worse than the average GW change.
3. Necron Weapons: MW on 6 *to hit*
Wow. Sure, Necron Warriors aren't *currently* scary. But suddenly in addition to the 20 shots they get base, you're also getting an average of over 3 Mortal Wounds per 10man. That's unsupported. Anywhere within 12". No stratagems/powers/etc. For roughly 100 points. Three *free* MW *on top of* their normal weapon damage. Consider the average sniper- roughly the same points for a single shot (albeit at 48"), that gets 1 MW on a 6 to *wound*. Each Necron Warrior would cost roughly the same, but get twice the shots at close range, get 33% more mortal wounds, and have AP-1 on all their hits. And be much harder to kill.
Silver Tide would walk across the table every game and laugh at any resistance.
An interesting idea to iterate on, but a clearly OP change as-is. Compares terribly to even many of the most-lamented GW rules.
4. Redemptionists - I'm going to exclude due to my lack of Sisters knowledge. Haven't read, so it's not a biased exclusion.
5. Covering Fire
Opt to only hit on a 6, but give the target -1 to-hit.
First, don't we already have enough to-hit modifiers?
Second, a single IG squad can now make a Stompa hit only on 6s (if that). Sounds fair...
1 of 4 rules reviewed: Basically what we expect from GW on a bad day.
3 of 4 rules reviewed: Makes GW look good.
0 of 4 rules reviewed: At least equal to what we should expect from GW.
GW does a lot of boneheaded stuff. We call them out on it. And should. But we really shouldn't pretend any one of us can get drunk and rewrite 40k better on a weekend bender.
There's a world of difference between "GW made some bad rules"
Most of these ideas have been markedly *worse* than what GW has been doing. Here's 5 "Proposed Rules" from GW:
Spoiler:
1. Bolter Discipline: Doubletap for pre-SM 2.0 Marines
At a time when Marines were dead competitively, this helped make them much less-trash. It breathed more life into Marines of all stripes, without making them OP.
I'd call this a bloaty and generally bad rule conceptually, but it clearly was a win balance wise.
Overall, a decent to good rule.
2. Prepared Positions: P2 can stratagem cover for army
Player 2 has to eat a lot of fire. Being able to claim cover helps mitigate the T1 shooting gallery. Not a huge rule change. Soft touch, evenhanded, measured, and small.
A nice little rule
3. Tactical Restraint: No more CP regen spam
A great rule. Not perfect (not even-handed, artifical limit on unintended scaling, etc), but certainly a massive improvement to the game.
4. Tactical Reserves: No more null deploy.
Null Deploy was a skew-heavy tactic that broke some of the central concepts of the game. No deployment zone, no battle line. While there should be exceptions in particular cases for significant costs (think Steel Rain or Warp Storm), it removed a lot of cheese and silliness. And did so in a fair way.
Again, a great improvement.
5. Tactical Reserves: Reserves show up T2
Reserving units was a no-brainer. Can't be shot until they show up. Most could be placed anywhere (outside 9") of the opponent - a clear win over placing in your Deployment Zone. It was too powerful for too little cost. Now those WWP'ing Eldar, materialing Demons, or other such shenanigans have a real cost for their flexibility.
They wiffed a bit, though, on infiltrators. Scouts, Rangers, Kommandos, and such. Now they "infiltrate" by not showing up until T2, which is silly. I miss the tradeoff between deepstriking ASM who could drop anywhere anytime but missed the first turn with infiltrating Scorpions who showed up first turn but were very limited in movement later.
The wiff was much less crappy than the gain, though. So a good rule.
5 of 5 of these GW rules are better than even the best of the reviewed Proposed Rules. By a wide margin.
So comparing the top 5 Proposed Rules to the 5 rules in the September Errata shows us that, clearly, GW rules look to be substantially better than Proposed Rules on average.
Can you really argue the first set are really better than the second set? Not even one of those rules comes close to any of the second set.
They are paid. They are professionals. They have more experience, resources, and time to make better rules. We should (and do) expect better than they do. We can (and should) hold them accountable for their screwups.
By calling them out accurately. By saying where they screwed up.
But you're not doing that. You're just screaming about how they always screw up. About how they are worse than the half-baked dreams of randos. About how easy it would be to do better.
All that screaming and chest-pounding doesn't help anyone. All it does is drown out valid criticisms. It's hard to discuss what they did wrong and what might be better when every other post is screaming for blood and taking things way out of proportion.
If we want to have a reasonable, intelligent discussion of what's wrong and what can be better, we shouldn't be shouting down intelligent and reasonable scoping and clarification of the problems, their scope, or their solutions.
It's like Godwinning an argument; extremism leaves no place for measured, nuanced understandings.
They are paid. They are professionals. They have more experience, resources, and time to make better rules. We should (and do) expect better than they do. We can (and should) hold them accountable for their screwups.
By calling them out accurately. By saying where they screwed up.
But you're not doing that. You're just screaming about how they always screw up. About how they are worse than the half-baked dreams of randos. About how easy it would be to do better.
All that screaming and chest-pounding doesn't help anyone. All it does is drown out valid criticisms. It's hard to discuss what they did wrong and what might be better when every other post is screaming for blood and taking things way out of proportion.
If we want to have a reasonable, intelligent discussion of what's wrong and what can be better, we shouldn't be shouting down intelligent and reasonable scoping and clarification of the problems, their scope, or their solutions.
It's like Godwinning an argument; extremism leaves no place for measured, nuanced understandings.
Stated better than I could, again.
(Also, I "proposed" the one stratagem per phase thing. It wasn't intended to be a proposed rule, but rather a discussion of ideas, but it got moved there anyway.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/31 15:31:11
Bharring wrote: They are paid. They are professionals. They have more experience, resources, and time to make better rules. We should (and do) expect better than they do. We can (and should) hold them accountable for their screwups.
By calling them out accurately. By saying where they screwed up.
But you're not doing that. You're just screaming about how they always screw up. About how they are worse than the half-baked dreams of randos. About how easy it would be to do better.
All that screaming and chest-pounding doesn't help anyone. All it does is drown out valid criticisms. It's hard to discuss what they did wrong and what might be better when every other post is screaming for blood and taking things way out of proportion.
If we want to have a reasonable, intelligent discussion of what's wrong and what can be better, we shouldn't be shouting down intelligent and reasonable scoping and clarification of the problems, their scope, or their solutions.
It's like Godwinning an argument; extremism leaves no place for measured, nuanced understandings.
To be fair, this entire thread is idiotic, and I'm as guilty of getting dragged into it as anyone.
I believe Monty Python sums it up best:
'Hegel is arguing that the reality is merely an a priori adjunct of non-naturalistic ethics, Kant via the categorical imperative is holding that ontologically it exists only in the imagination, and Marx is claiming it was offside.'
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."
(Also, I "proposed" the one stratagem per phase thing. It wasn't intended to be a proposed rule, but rather a discussion of ideas, but it got moved there anyway.)
(Please don't be offended by my criticism of the proposition. Constructive criticism should be celebrated. Most ideas are turds when they're first discussed.)
(Also, I "proposed" the one stratagem per phase thing. It wasn't intended to be a proposed rule, but rather a discussion of ideas, but it got moved there anyway.)
(Please don't be offended by my criticism of the proposition. Constructive criticism should be celebrated. Most ideas are turds when they're first discussed.)
Oh I'm not! You're totally correct. It was a half baked idea that I tossed out there. Some good discussion came of it though. (Nothing that would make me entirely comfortable implementing it though)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/31 16:07:27
If the random internet ramblings I've heard are true. With the current team captains pulling out of the ETC to start their own thing. The ETC will be implementing ITC events in their place. Love it or hate it I don't think ITC is going the way of the Dodo anytime soon.
H.B.M.C. wrote:I'd actually argue that what's "real" and "not real" 40k is largely irrelevant.
Except that is the point of this thread and what Ishagu's statement was regarding, and one you supported.
H.B.M.C. wrote:1. ITC is not the "real" 40k and should not be considered in such a manner. What actually constitutes the "real" 40k is immaterial to that statement.
Considering when you put parameters on something that other people disagree with, that doesn't make it any less "real". As I said in my first statement, ITC is real 40K those those who solely pursue those tournaments as their end goal. It is real 40K for those who wish to play with them. It is real because that is their focus. It is their focus because that is what is real.
H.B.M.C. wrote:2. You're right that no one is under any obligation to play it, or what version of 40K should be played. The actual issues lies in the fact that ITC can, does and has influenced 40k for everyone.
It is a group that has influence because it guides a large player base of purchasers. Some businesses ignore these types of groups, and slowly go down. Others embrace them and find success. The ITC format has found considerable success. It seems to be rather "real" when considering in how a company would seek to profit from their product.
H.B.M.C. wrote:To draw the simplest non-chess/sport comparison that I can think of, it'd be like it one group of players had their own "Free Parking" house rules for Monopoly suddenly added to every edition of Monopoly world wide. Why do they get to decide that when they represent such a small group in comparison to the whole? Again, it's not a judgement of ITC itself or the people who enjoy it, just that those people should not be able to influence/dictate how 40k is played through balance/points revisions any more than you or I.
No, it is more like having the goal posts at a certain width in NCAA and a narrower width in NFL.
Not Online!!! wrote:Last i checked, if someone disagrees massively with my parameters for f.e scientific work, and i still demand changes upon my parameters even though they are foreign parameters at this point, i'd get hsot down and laughed at.
There is a difference between scientific work which will (usually) change how we view the world, and a hobby game that people play for fun. Especially a hobby game that is being adjusted for local preferences.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/01 18:02:08
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Well this post blew up more than I thought. Thanks all for your responses and votes!
Originally I made this in order to get a better gauge of dakka’s mindset when it came to the ITC missions. Answers in the poll where intentional kept vague, because I was very concerned with coloring people’s opinions with what choices where given. Obviously, what defines “real 40k”
is extremely subjective, but that was kinda of the point. If I had said “Is ITC a good representation of competitive 40k as a whole?” the responses would differ a great deal from what we got. In other words, I wanted people to tell me what they personally define “real 40k” as, and why. To that end I got exactly what I wanted.
In the end I think it just comes down to what people are frequently playing with in their local meta. By in large U.S. players tended to vote more towards options 2-3, whereas non-US players where a lot more skeptical about ITC. Being a US player myself it was hard for me to ever believe option one as being correct, as i don’t see much of difference between how games of ITC play out vs “regular” 40k. I can see why European don’t often times don’t like ITC, “oh look another discussion over a format I don’t play. Great!” But I think this mindset has caused too many people to be overly hostile towards ITC than is reasonable. Just my 2 cents anyway.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/01 08:58:32
Uh, no. That is one of the issues with 40k for awhile now. There is no such things as real 40k. If there was to be such a thing GW would need to really put some effort into making one tuned good rule set. Then they could let tournaments do what they want but say " This is 40k and all the other off shoots are great too, but this is what we balance things on " That would also mean they need to actually balance things and well..that's a story for another time.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Uh, no. That is one of the issues with 40k for awhile now. There is no such things as real 40k. If there was to be such a thing GW would need to really put some effort into making one tuned good rule set. Then they could let tournaments do what they want but say " This is 40k and all the other off shoots are great too, but this is what we balance things on " That would also mean they need to actually balance things and well..that's a story for another time.
Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, Man!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I wanted to also ask one last question as well, To those saying that ITC isn’t “real 40k” what exactly stops it from being so? Is it because It was created by an entity that isn’t GW? Is it because it of the mission structure being radically different from enteral war/ malestorm missions? Is because of bottom floors of ruins blocking LOS? Is there another rules change I’m missing? Is it a combination of all this?
Just curious to your thoughts.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/01 09:13:08
You already technically have to houserule for Assault Weapons with their advance + shoot ability in the first place as written (BCB might be over the top but they make great points). GW relies a lot on us to do RAI instead of cleaning up their own act. Not really an opinion.
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.
18.000 
3.500 
8.200 
3.300 
2.400 
3.100 
5.500 
2.500 
3.200 
3.000
(Nothing that would make me entirely comfortable implementing it though)