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.

 CKO wrote:
Partnering with ITC does not mean they are abandoning anyone.

lol...
"Partnering with ITC" apparently means "giving a reward of actually taking someone into the playtesting environment based off make-believe numbers"?


Because that's what is happening.

Taking advantage of the competitive system is good for business. People are buying and selling products based on their performance at tournaments.

No, they're not. They're "buying and selling products" based on the lists that get vomited all over the internet after events.

I do not understand how that will impact the consumer who buys models and paint or play a game every once in a while with a friend while drinking a beer.

Then you don't actually understand what the knock-on effect is from competitive play becoming the de facto "standard".

They are simply saying they are going to make an attempt to keep a group of customers happy.

They did that with Chapter Approved.
They did that with General's Handbook.
They did that with Matched Play.

Comp players are catered to nonstop. It's utter tripe to pretend there needs to be some kind of "attempt to keep a group of customers happy". They'll never be happy.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 CKO wrote:
Partnering with ITC does not mean they are abandoning anyone.

lol...
"Partnering with ITC" apparently means "giving a reward of actually taking someone into the playtesting environment based off make-believe numbers"?


Because that's what is happening.

Taking advantage of the competitive system is good for business. People are buying and selling products based on their performance at tournaments.

No, they're not. They're "buying and selling products" based on the lists that get vomited all over the internet after events.

I do not understand how that will impact the consumer who buys models and paint or play a game every once in a while with a friend while drinking a beer.

Then you don't actually understand what the knock-on effect is from competitive play becoming the de facto "standard".

They are simply saying they are going to make an attempt to keep a group of customers happy.

They did that with Chapter Approved.
They did that with General's Handbook.
They did that with Matched Play.

Comp players are catered to nonstop. It's utter tripe to pretend there needs to be some kind of "attempt to keep a group of customers happy". They'll never be happy.

Good news! You don't need to play with any of those! Points are completely optional!

gakky people breed gakky gameplay.

They want to maximize their advantage over their opponent, in order to do that they skew, gotcha etc...

Literally on the LVO twitch stream they were talking to some douche who is apparently the hot gak. He was going on and on and on about how skew armys are fun and blah blah blah. It made me wanna puke. The "partnership" announcement makes the direction 40k
is going absolutely nothin good for anyone(let alone the casual players)

They want to suck on the tourney teat sooo fething bad they want to continue and perpetuate this type of "balance". It basically falls into an echo chamber, where if the "cool kids" says it's great for "balance" it's taken as sacrosanct. Irrespective of the impact/advantage it gives the kabal.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 CKO wrote:
Partnering with ITC does not mean they are abandoning anyone.

lol...
"Partnering with ITC" apparently means "giving a reward of actually taking someone into the playtesting environment based off make-believe numbers"?


Because that's what is happening.

Taking advantage of the competitive system is good for business. People are buying and selling products based on their performance at tournaments.

No, they're not. They're "buying and selling products" based on the lists that get vomited all over the internet after events.

I do not understand how that will impact the consumer who buys models and paint or play a game every once in a while with a friend while drinking a beer.

Then you don't actually understand what the knock-on effect is from competitive play becoming the de facto "standard".

They are simply saying they are going to make an attempt to keep a group of customers happy.

They did that with Chapter Approved.
They did that with General's Handbook.
They did that with Matched Play.

Comp players are catered to nonstop. It's utter tripe to pretend there needs to be some kind of "attempt to keep a group of customers happy". They'll never be happy.

What would the non-competitive player like from GW? I know what the competitive player wants but I don't know what a non-competitive player want.

 Laughing Man wrote:

Good news! You don't need to play with any of those! Points are completely optional!

Not really, unless you're playing in a group of people that went out of their way to form an 'invite only' club...which basically defeats the whole purpose of having a community oriented game.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Dakka Casual Gamer Mafia

"'Cause winning is for losers!"

This is one of the few places I'm on the same page with HBMC for. "Winning is for losers!" might be the best tagline ever.


Speaking bluntly?
There is zero issue with people playing to win. There is an issue with people who want to pretend that winning somehow makes you more knowledgeable about the game than everyone else.

 Kanluwen wrote:
This is one of the few places I'm on the same page with HBMC for. "Winning is for losers!" might be the best tagline ever.


Speaking bluntly?
There is zero issue with people playing to win. There is an issue with people who want to pretend that winning somehow makes you more knowledgeable about the game than everyone else.

What does winning mean?

 oni wrote:
I hope GW can survive off those 1,000 players because that’s all they’ll have left.

Competitive play pushes out existing players who cannot keep up with the competition.

Whats worse… Competitive play is a higher barrier to entry than money. The game cannot, will not survive without a continuous flow of new players.

Yes, BUT I think GW has a sufficient moat of hobbyists that will be wholly unaffected and uncaring regardless of what the competitive scene does or causes to the rest of the game. If you follow enough instagram and twitter accounts, and are in enough facebook groups, you quickly find that theres a lot of people who don't really actually play the game buying GWs minis.

Speaking bluntly?
There is zero issue with people playing to win. There is an issue with people who want to pretend that winning somehow makes you more knowledgeable about the game than everyone else.

Speaking bluntly, I'm wholly willing to admit that players that win a lot know more about playing the game than those who don't. What I take issue with is the idea that those who win a lot are presumed to understand game design and balance, as opposed to simply knowing how to play. These are two separate skillsets entirely (and game designers will often tell you that they usually aren't the best players of their own games). Likewise I take issue with the idea that players who win a lot should be afforded any sort of respect or importance for doing so - I think they shouldn't, because that is harmful to the community at large. It reinforces the importance of the competitive gaming scene within the community and indirectly suggests to players that in order to be "full participants" and "first-class" citizens of the hobby they need to participate in it (the competitive gaming scene) as well. Really love the game, hobby, setting, IP and obsess over it constantly? Want to be able to provide feedback and help improve the thing you love? Great, just attend 15-20 competitive events a year and hope your scores are high enough to get you an invite into the playtest group! You're not the best player? Become a judge instead! You aren't interested in judging events and you don't have the time or budget to be able to afford to attend all the events needed to get a top placing? Well, sounds like you're not really a true fan, we don't want you - git gud nub.

Speaking bluntly, what the ITC has inculcated at its top end is people who are able to play the advantages of a system, either intended or not, *fair* or not. Which has its uses in destructive testing. It also passively encourages cheats to keep on keeping on (Harrison, Lannigan et al.) With only the lightest enforcement and obfuscating the record. There's a wave of controversy, then they're right back at it. I don't trust them to police themselves, and I certainly don't trust GW to police them either.

One day, their new partner Reece might apologise for the Nazi Knight commission. But I doubt it.

We live in a society where we listen to winners. I think anyone who complains about that is delusional. Winning requires work, or in this case studying, playtesting, and experience. People win because they work for it. I admit there are people who win because of $$$ and they copy and paste someone's list, however, do you think Richard Siegler won all 3 of GW's events because of $$$. He won because of studying, playtesting, and experience do you think his opinion on certain units is more valid than mine? Of course, he and people like him who are dedicating hours to winning will know more than the guy that picked up the box because it looked good. No matter how you slice it casual players are not putting in the same amount of hours into the gaming aspect of the hobby, thus knowledge of the game is vastly different. Do not get jealous of the pro-player who knows more because he dedicates more time than you and a company wants to gain access to this source of knowledge that tournament organizers and players like Richard can provide.

Having GW listen to tournament organizers and pro players will be good for the game.

I think we are making of this a bigger problem than it is because we know for a fact that GW uses playtesters just to say they have used playtesters.

They ignore them and do what they want at the end of the day.

 CKO wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
This is one of the few places I'm on the same page with HBMC for. "Winning is for losers!" might be the best tagline ever.


Speaking bluntly?
There is zero issue with people playing to win. There is an issue with people who want to pretend that winning somehow makes you more knowledgeable about the game than everyone else.

What does winning mean?

It means you won a game and the person on the opposite side of the table didn't. Good for you.

Next time you line up your little dudes it might go the other way. And indeed, if you want the game to be balanced, you should want it to. Now, if you can somehow convince me that 'tournament winners' are going to put in the balancing work and make recommendations to GW that ensure they lose half the time, I'll totally support this.

Catulle wrote:
Speaking bluntly, what the ITC has inculcated at its top end is people who are able to play the advantages of a system, either intended or not, *fair* or not. Which has its uses in destructive testing.

I would argue that the system that they are playing to the advantage of is ITCs scoring system more than it is GWs rules. Goonhammer has a good rundown of the flaws in the system: https://www.goonhammer.com/measuring-up-the-competition-a-review-of-the-itc-scoring-system/

Several of the top players (Nayden, Lannigan, etc.) are local to me and I occasionally see them playing in local shops, and while I haven't played them myself, I've watched others play them and also have discussed with friends who have played them, etc. and the impression I have is that in terms of "skill" or however you want to think about it, they are only slightly "above average" (mind you the impression of what average looks like is subjective and you and I may have slightly different ideas as to what that means). Would they probably beat me in a game? Absolutely yes. Is there a big gulf in skill between one of these guys and a player that nobody has ever heard of but still manages to regularly score top 3 finishes at his local stores tournaments? Probably not. The thing that strikes me as being exceptional about Nayden, Lannigan, etc. is not their skill on their tabletop, but their willingness and ability to travel extensively - and not just anywhere, but to the key events with the largest attendance levels in each of the ITCs three scoring brackets/categories.

Personally, I think if we're going to have some big scoring system which ranks players globally, its important that we actually interrogate what that scoring system is actually measuring - and how - before we hand the beneficiaries of that system the keys to the kingdom.

 Kanluwen wrote:
This is one of the few places I'm on the same page with HBMC for. "Winning is for losers!" might be the best tagline ever.

We're not. The Dakka Gaming Casual Mafia is a parody of FAAC players. 'Winning is for Losers' is an contradictory/ironic line that I created as their motto as a joke.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Several of the top players (Nayden, Lannigan, etc.) are local to me and I occasionally see them playing in local shops, and while I haven't played them myself, I've watched others play them and also have discussed with friends who have played them, etc. and the impression I have is that in terms of "skill" or however you want to think about it, they are only slightly "above average" (mind you the impression of what average looks like is subjective and you and I may have slightly different ideas as to what that means)

In Lannigan's case its also the capacity to cheat on dice rolls, eh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which is to say, that guy (and others with a track record of abuse - dice rolls, gaming matches, submarining, iron man mates' tourneys, etc.) has no business anywhere near a system involving as much honesty as playtesting. And the ITC protects that class of player as much as they do seek excellence in clean gameplay.

 CKO wrote:
however, do you think Richard Siegler won all 3 of GW's events because of $$$.

Yes. In order to attend those events required you to be able to afford to travel to those events in the first place. If you can't attend them, you can't win them. In general, if you can't afford to travel you aren't going to be successful as a competitive 40k player - not just because the ITCs scoring system will essentially disqualify you from ranking, let alone being able to get recognized for your success, but because very few people live in areas with large and dynamic metas that will adequately cover a full cross-section of factions and playstyles that they need in order to gain necessary experience. Competitive 40k is a rich mans game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Catulle wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Several of the top players (Nayden, Lannigan, etc.) are local to me and I occasionally see them playing in local shops, and while I haven't played them myself, I've watched others play them and also have discussed with friends who have played them, etc. and the impression I have is that in terms of "skill" or however you want to think about it, they are only slightly "above average" (mind you the impression of what average looks like is subjective and you and I may have slightly different ideas as to what that means)

In Lannigan's case its also the capacity to cheat on dice rolls, eh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which is to say, that guy (and others with a track record of abuse - dice rolls, gaming matches, submarining, iron man mates' tourneys, etc.) has no business anywhere near a system involving as much honesty as playtesting. And the ITC protects that class of player as much as they do seek excellence in clean gameplay.

I won't comment on that because I don't really know him well and don't follow him very closely (ok, fine I will comment on it - a few of the local guys who know him well have straight up told me that all the rumors and stories about him cheating and dishonest play, etc are 100% true), I do know the guy wheres a GoPro when he plays (at least sometimes, not sure if its every time). Dunno if thats so he can prove that hes not cheating if someone accuses him or if he goes home and watches replays so he can review his play and try to improve or if he uploads it on youtube or something (or some combination of all three).

chaos0xomega wrote:
I won't comment on that because I don't really know him well and don't follow him very closely (ok, fine I will comment on it - a few of the local guys who know him well have straight up told me that all the rumors and stories about him cheating and dishonest play, etc are 100% true), I do know the guy wheres a GoPro when he plays (at least sometimes, not sure if its every time). Dunno if thats so he can prove that hes not cheating if someone accuses him or if he goes home and watches replays so he can review his play and try to improve or if he uploads it on youtube or something (or some combination of all three).

That's sort of the problem, isn't it :(

 CKO wrote:
Partnering with ITC does not mean they are abandoning anyone. Taking advantage of the competitive system is good for business. People are buying and selling products based on their performance at tournaments. I do not understand how that will impact the consumer who buys models and paint or play a game every once in a while with a friend while drinking a beer. They are simply saying they are going to make an attempt to keep a group of customers happy.

This strategy worked brilliantly for Privateer Press didn’t it?!?!

Outside of letting the tourney good boys have more free goodies, what does this materially do? Just saying, let's not be Chicken Little just yet.

Forum Warrior, "GW doesn't do enough for the Tourney Scene. The game rules are too lose and need some tightening!"

GW does more in the tourney scene

Same Forum Warrior, "GW does a crap job in the tourney scene. Stop with this WAAC attitude! They need to focus on making the game fun!"

GW leaves the tourney scene

Forum Warrior, "GW doesn't do enough for the Tourney Scene. The game rules are too lose and need some tightening!"

GW does more in the tourney scene

Same Forum Warrior, "GW does a crap job in the tourney scene. Stop with this WAAC attitude! They need to focus on making the game fun!"

GW leaves the tourney scene

Had a conversation with my GW manager about this today. They got updated on this stuff so that it wasn't a surprise to shop managers.

There will apparently be ways to earn ITC points by going into a GW shop and building, painting, and playing non-competitive events.

The major concern for GW store staff is obviously "I don't want WAAC players coming in and stinking up the place with all the seals they're clubbing that I'm trying to recruit into the game" and apparently there is going to be a lot of touch-and-go with this.

I only see it as a negative. Listening to so much to the competitive scene is why 9th edition got so bloated and complicated so quickly. Not all competitive players are bad people, of course, but there are some stinkers, and the last thing that I want to see is them coming into GW stores trying to somehow game the system of points they can earn in the stores.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 CKO wrote:
however, do you think Richard Siegler won all 3 of GW's events because of $$$.

Yes. In order to attend those events required you to be able to afford to travel to those events in the first place. If you can't attend them, you can't win them. In general, if you can't afford to travel you aren't going to be successful as a competitive 40k player - not just because the ITCs scoring system will essentially disqualify you from ranking, let alone being able to get recognized for your success, but because very few people live in areas with large and dynamic metas that will adequately cover a full cross-section of factions and playstyles that they need in order to gain necessary experience. Competitive 40k is a rich mans game.

Way to dodge the questions. Just because Richard Siegler has the money to attend all three of the GW events doesn't magically mean he gets the top spot at all three of them. I'm sure there are plenty of mediocre 40K players who could afford to attend all three events if they wanted to. Doesn't mean they will win.

 Arbitrator wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arbitrator wrote:
Who wants to guess a requirement of all ITC events will be 100% GW models only?

And there is nothing wrong with that.

Okay I'll bite. Why?

I just don't think it's wrong to expect people to use your product in your events. It would be like taking food from one restaurant into another, or going to your LGS and never buying anything, always using their tables and terrain, and getting all your models online or from your 3D printer.

Siegler is one of the guys I actually wouldn't mind being involved in balance discussions...but he's also said in the past that he isn't interested in GW's playtesting program because it uses unpaid labor and he (absolutely rightly) rejects that business model on moral grounds. So unless he's changed his mind, I don't see that throwing his name around here is useful one way or the other.

And even putting aside the fact that Siegler seems like a good guy himself, he and a large percentage of the rest of the "top players" make money from coaching people. There is such an obvious conflict of interest there that GW would be beyond stupid to allow their participation in something like this.

 BuFFo wrote:
Forum Warrior, "GW doesn't do enough for the Tourney Scene. The game rules are too lose and need some tightening!"

GW does more in the tourney scene

Same Forum Warrior, "GW does a crap job in the tourney scene. Stop with this WAAC attitude! They need to focus on making the game fun!"

GW leaves the tourney scene

Forum Warrior, "GW doesn't do enough for the Tourney Scene. The game rules are too lose and need some tightening!"

GW does more in the tourney scene

Same Forum Warrior, "GW does a crap job in the tourney scene. Stop with this WAAC attitude! They need to focus on making the game fun!"

GW leaves the tourney scene

Common mistake, balanced game =/= tournament scene.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Siegler is one of the guys I actually wouldn't mind being involved in balance discussions...but he's also said in the past that he isn't interested in GW's playtesting program because it uses unpaid labor and he (absolutely rightly) rejects that business model on moral grounds. So unless he's changed his mind, I don't see that throwing his name around here is useful one way or the other.

And even putting aside the fact that Siegler seems like a good guy himself, he and a large percentage of the rest of the "top players" make money from coaching people. There is such an obvious conflict of interest there that GW would be beyond stupid to allow their participation in something like this.

And yet, here they are encouraging it.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Top-performing ITC finishers will have the opportunity to participate in the all-new Balance Dataslate feedback group to help shape the future of Warhammer gaming events.

Balance your own damn game GW.

That sounds like work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Top-performing ITC finishers will have the opportunity to participate in the all-new Balance Dataslate feedback group to help shape the future of Warhammer gaming events.

Balance your own damn game GW.

Maybe they got fed up for being told how much of a bad job they're doing so finally said "do it yourselves if you're so good"?

Which is an incredibly bad take.

so GW finally realized that the best way to grow the US market is to invest into the tournament scene

with the Edition all people are telling me, is not the tournament edition but the narrative one, at that tournament play has never had any affect on the casual player in the US

wait and see how this will work out

 Togusa wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arbitrator wrote:
Who wants to guess a requirement of all ITC events will be 100% GW models only?

And there is nothing wrong with that.

Okay I'll bite. Why?

I just don't think it's wrong to expect people to use your product in your events. It would be like taking food from one restaurant into another, or going to your LGS and never buying anything, always using their tables and terrain, and getting all your models online or from your 3D printer.

I think that's fair enough when attending an event at a GW store, or Warhammer World, or an official event hosted by GW.

The problem is that the ITC are not GW. They're getting a thumbs up from GW to run something for them, which isn't -that- different from existing tournaments beyond the veneer of "oh these ones are ITC which means they're officially endorsed by GW!" but it potentially still has the impact of ITC dancing to GW's tune, which I do not like the implications of. Now I'll admit the guy running it has said multiple times they won't be introducing a requirement that everything be 100% GW but I would put money on that changing at some point in the future.

drbored wrote:
Had a conversation with my GW manager about this today. They got updated on this stuff so that it wasn't a surprise to shop managers.

There will apparently be ways to earn ITC points by going into a GW shop and building, painting, and playing non-competitive events.

The major concern for GW store staff is obviously "I don't want WAAC players coming in and stinking up the place with all the seals they're clubbing that I'm trying to recruit into the game" and apparently there is going to be a lot of touch-and-go with this.

I only see it as a negative. Listening to so much to the competitive scene is why 9th edition got so bloated and complicated so quickly. Not all competitive players are bad people, of course, but there are some stinkers, and the last thing that I want to see is them coming into GW stores trying to somehow game the system of points they can earn in the stores.

LMFAO!!!

Is this real?!?! Is this true?!?! So, GW knows this is a bad idea, but they’re doing it anyway?!?!

Holy fething hell. I don’t know how to even begin to unpack this.