ITC, WarMachine, and Narrative Gaming

[fluger]

I thought we should split off from that other thread and talk about the ITC.  

 

I can't, for the life of me, understand the deep resentment some people have for ITC events and I'd like to give people a chance to air their grievances.  

 

I've heard people say that it's a "dick-measuring contest" because it has a ladder ranking.  I've heard it encourages WAAC behavior among tourney goers.  I've heard that their FAQ and Errata significantly alter the game to the point that they aren't playing 40k anymore.  

 

I really can't say that any of those opinions hold water for me, but, perhaps I'm biased because I've broken bread with the people involved and know what they're shooting for.  

 

IMNSHO the aim of ITC is to try and create a 40k tournament environment that is:

 

1.  Consistent

2.  Cohesive

3.  Balanced

 

The consistent part is obvious, having a FAQ that lots of places use and rules for army composition allows people to have the right expectations before going to the event.  I don't have to worry about some surprise ruling and I don't have to wonder about whether something will be allowed or not.  When you're playing against strangers, it's nice to have an impartial third party to govern nebulous things.  

 

The cohesive part is critical IMO since it incentivizes people to travel and play in more tournaments.  Not only will you know what you're getting in to if you travel across state or state lines to go to an event (because of the FAQ/Errata), but you have another reason to attend.  Sure ladder rankings can be perceived as "dick measuring" but I like stuff like that.  At the end of the day, this is a silly game and taking it serious is silly, but I think stuff like this is fun, it's also cool to try and win a special award for being the best at a certain faction.  That kind of thing is pretty fun.  

 

Now, with balance, I know there's going to be disagreement on the success of that aim, but that is certainly the aim.  Some people think that ITC is too restrictive considering where 40k is going in 7th edition.  There are also people that think it is too permissive.  Personally, I think it hits pretty close to what people are hoping for in a tournament setting; doing the best they can to cut down on broken rules while allowing enough room for creative expression.  

 

Whether you think they succeeded in any of these endeavors, the results are pretty solid in favor of ITC from just an attendance and growth standpoint.  Whatever the haters of 7th edition want to say, more tournaments are being attended by more people now than in the supposed heydey of 5th edition.  

 

If you don't like ITC, that's fine, do something different!  Lord Hanaur doesn't like aspects of ITC and has run lots of tournaments in the area that don't use it.  He's also run some that are ITC events.  That's just one, local example, but there are lots of ways to leverage ITC to grow your tournament and build up the community.  

 

So, instead of just negging on ITC, appreciate it for how it is building UP the community. We're a TEENSY TINY niche game in the world, and there's really no reason to divide us further.  Don't like ITC?  That's fine, do something on your own to build up the community!  I know from personal experience that Ordo can back your play and help you if you have an eye towards community building.  

Don't just talk about it!  Do it!  

[K_DUB]

In my experience there are shops in town that dont like ITC because they are against the whole Tourney scene. Yet they bring broken lists to casual play...go figure. It really does depend on what kind of player you are. I like both (rulebook and ITC). Just more ways to play the game.

[indytims]

Coming from someone who has never played in an ITC event (outside looking in)... I just had one quick comment.

 

In my experience in -other- tournaments through the years, the 'WAAC' attitude isn't a monopoly of one specific system, nor do I think ITC (from what I've -read-) necessarily encourages it. Usually tournaments often include prizes, and for many folks, that raises the stakes. The game becomes something more than just 'rolling dice and having fun' for some folks. So if folks are claiming that ITC encourages 'WAAC' playstyles, I would argue that tournaments -in general- encourage it, not ITC.

 

That being said, reading reports and such of successful ITC tournaments, there seems to be far more interest in and focus on fun/thematic force lists, rather than cheesy gimmick lists, and to me that's a 'good thing'. I certainly admire the goals that fluger listed, and based on reports I've read from various events, ITC seems to succeed pretty well at what it aims to do.

[fluger]

In my experience there are shops in town that dont like ITC because they are against the whole Tourney scene. Yet they bring broken lists to casual play...go figure. It really does depend on what kind of player you are. I like both (rulebook and ITC). Just more ways to play the game.

 

I find that people who turn their noses up at tournaments generally have rarely ever gone to one.  

[fluger]

That being said, reading reports and such of successful ITC tournaments, there seems to be far more interest in and focus on fun/thematic force lists, rather than cheesy gimmick lists, and to me that's a 'good thing'. 

 

The idea that tournaments are just stocked with people with lists designed to exploit rules doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny.  While I have no personal issue with people building lists solely to maximize points (the kinda of list that gets "broken", "cheese", "WAAC" lobbed at it), I find that the number of those lists tends to be a much smaller percentage than one would imagine.  

 

The reasons for this are various.  

 

1.  Not everyone agrees on what is the best value even among those looking for such things.  I've been in several debates on the merits of various units through various editions and dexes.  

 

2.  Most people are limited by what they can afford and already own and is painted.  Unless you have lots of disposable income, buying up the latest meta-breaking unit/army and getting it painted up is a LOT of effort.  Most people build up a force slowly and get it tourney ready over a long time.  In the process the meta can shift, rules can change, and what was once a powerhouse list might not be (and vice versa!) 

 

3.  Most gamers care to varying degrees about the aesthetics of their army.  I'm an abysmal painter and will choose list power and synergy before taking weaker units, but I still care about theme and story for my army.  I think that is true for most gamers, even the most "WAAC" out there.  This game is an investment and most of us are drawn into the overarching story of it, none of us would build a list they didn't think was cool.  There's just varying definitions of what is cool.  

 

Essentially this idea that tournaments are full of jerks is totally unfounded.  Sure, every once in a blue moon you'll run afoul someone who is foul, but I'd say that's the exception to the rule and not the rule.  

 

For a good read on Why We Play the Game, I recommend AbusePuppy's article on Frontline Gaming.  

[fluger]

I've gone to lots. I've even won some trophies. I don't go anymore. (Hell, I barely even play anymore.) To me, 7th edition is a terrible tournament ruleset, but ITC does try and help with that. They're doing the best with what they have.

I think that's an indictment on 7th edition and not on tournaments though.  

 

I agree with your assessment that out of the box, 7th edition is a terribad tournament ruleset.  I also agree that ITC is doing the best they can to make it one.  

[Bosco]

I think my only serious gripe with the ITC is some of their poll results have been a bit 'creatively' interpreted or the questions themselves rather leading/limiting in the past.  

 

That said, I'd rather play with it than without it or an equivalent standardization method.  Like Necrontyr said, 7th (sandbox) edition isn't tournament friendly without help.

[fluger]

I think my only serious gripe with the ITC is some of their poll results have been a bit 'creatively' interpreted or the questions themselves rather leading/limiting in the past.  

 

Yeah, they've been working on the wording and answers and have redone some polls already as well as re-visiting previous questions.  

[Sugarlessllama]

I suppose your thoughts on ITC are going to have to be determined by what you as a player are trying to get out of the game. I am a lore based player. I like to set up terrain in order to tell a story. My army rosters are designed to represent how I think my DIY chapter would go to war. I like to try and play out a storyline on the table. For me, it really is about forging a narrative.

Does ITC add to this? No.

Does ITC take away from this? No.

Does ITC create a balanced tournament? Maybe. 

Does ITC create a fun tournament? Maybe.

Coming from Warmachine, I have had A LOT of tournament experience. PP spends a lot of time playtesting and balancing their rules for new models, and erratas older rules to ensure balance. But the key is that there is A LOT of playtesting. 

Does ITC spend the 100+ hours of table time per change in order to ensure that balance is maintained? Maybe. I don't know. If they do, and these are the decisions that are made then I will give them kudos. If not, and they are more knee-jerk in nature, then not so many kudos. Again, I don't know, so I won't pass judgement. 

 

But again, it is always going to come down to why you, as an individual, are playing the game. So for me, as an individual, ITC does not work. But that is O.K. I am not their target audience. 

[fluger]

Does ITC add to this? No.

Does ITC take away from this? No.

 

There really is nothing preventing people from using the ITC FAQ and ITC ranking system to run a narrative campaign/tournament.  In fact, the BAO has a narrative tournament running simultaneously.  

 

 

 

Coming from Warmachine, I have had A LOT of tournament experience. PP spends a lot of time playtesting and balancing their rules for new models, and erratas older rules to ensure balance. But the key is that there is A LOT of playtesting. 

 

I've enjoyed Warmachine for it's attempts at balance, but I've found it has just as many studs and duds as 40k.  Just my novice opinion.  

 

That being said, I'm putting more of an effort in to learn the game and expand my Khador force.  

[Lord Hanaur]

So much to say on this one but I will reduce to these things:

 

1.  I want this game accessible to the newest player

2.  Pointing out that something CAN be abused is a waste.  It's a matter of degree anyways.  Limiting the degree is laudable.  Stopping it is impossible.

3.  A positive tournament experience is about the players.  Once you're there and playing, it is the players who ultimately and quite definitively determine the fun you have.  Out of 24 players, only one is walking away the nominal winner, So the goal for 23 of them should be to have fun.  You knew there could be only one going in, so do you really care that much if it wasn't you?  Most people who had fun would not trade that for a miserable win.  Most.

4.  The game is complex.  Adding complexity doesn't seem wise.

[Lord Hanaur]

That being said, I'm putting more of an effort in to learn the game and expand my Khador force.  

Menoth for the win.  Sorry.  Had to be said.

 

It actually didn't have to be said.  Which makes it all the more of a bonus that I said it.

 

=)

[AbusePuppy]

So much to say on this one but I will reduce to these things:

 

1.  I want this game accessible to the newest player

2.  Pointing out that something CAN be abused is a waste.  It's a matter of degree anyways.  Limiting the degree is laudable.  Stopping it is impossible.

3.  A positive tournament experience is about the players.  Once you're there and playing, it is the players who ultimately and quite definitively determine the fun you have.  Out of 24 players, only one is walking away the nominal winner, So the goal for 23 of them should be to have fun.  You knew there could be only one going in, so do you really care that much if it wasn't you?  Most people who had fun would not trade that for a miserable win.  Most.

4.  The game is complex.  Adding complexity doesn't seem wise.

 

1. ITC only marginally decreases accessibility to new players. The missions all consist of familiar elements for anyone who's read the rulebook, just in combination.

2. ITC, generally speaking, only bans things that have shown themselves to be problematic, not things that could be problematic. (This isn't perfectly accurate, but it is reflective of the vast majority of their rulings.)

3. Players' behavior and attendance certainly is reflective of the environment they play in and the rules they are subject to, and hence the enjoyment of the players is as well. Having a set of rules that minimizes conflict and misunderstanding, that gives clear standards for everyone involved as to how the game is to be played, and that provides a structure around which to build a wider community is a good thing in terms of ensuring that people have an enjoyable time.

4. ITC doesn't add complexity to the rules. It is more complex to have to track the rises and falls in popularity across different regions of how different people interpret rules interactions than it is to have a single, unified set of rulings that all players can rely on. ITC's rulings on things are, at the very least, concise and specific- things that GW's are not.

[fluger]

Lord Hanaur has made his issues with ITC known, the difference between him and the standard ITC basher is that he actually goes out and runs tournaments and events and builds up the community. 

 

I respect his ability to be a force for positivity in the area to promote hobbies while I can respectfully disagree with him on plenty of stuff.  :D 

[Lord Hanaur]

Disagreement is healthy.  Until it isn't of course.  And I have done my best to rebuild my part of what was a complete slag heap, where once stood the proud edifice of our player base.

 

But my points are universal, not specific to the ITC.  More than anything its actually the FAQ that I have vociferously objected to.  The format is just a matter of preference for the most part. There was a time when players scoffed QUITE heartily right here on this forum at the merest suggestion of using named characters, which I always thought was a bit odd, and so it is somewhat amusing to me that some of those same faces now shower themselves not with water but with a Pandoras box and all it holds.

 

The FAQ has unfortunately taken the INAT turn, and it is only because they seem quite responsive to input that I feel it will last and get better results than its predecessors.  There may even come a day when I actually like it, should the players writing it (or those opining on it) ever decide that verisimilitude plus new players matter. Today is not that day.  Still, I am absolutely rooting for this ITC thing to work because it is the best version of its kind to come along thus far.  I'd like to think I'm fair minded enough that I can change my mind over time but there are some terrible things in the FAQ now and its moreso the motivation behind some of those rulings that I question seriously.  Just the way of thinking represented in some of them is...  Challenging to me.

 

My comments posted earlier are meant to be applied universally to any solution the ITC, or any other thing like it attempts.  Minimizing the importance of those points can be a response, but they are important points to me.

[AbusePuppy]

With regards to points #1 and 4, doesn't your own tournament (the Ambassadorial- I realize you run others) sin significantly in those regards? The missions are significantly more complex than anything ITC uses and they add significantly to the learning curve for any new players introing to the tournament scene.

 

I'm not trying to cast stones here, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. There are lots of parts of the ITC FAQ I don't like, either- but as fluger and lots of other people have already said, having a single, unified, consistent set of rules that all players are familiar with is better than a dozen different interpretations depending on which store you happen to be playing in on a given Sunday and which judge is standing next to you and whether or not Aquarius is rising over a July equinox.

[Lord Hanaur]

Complex missions aren't on trial and i sort of doubt that the three months before hand the Ambassadors have to practice them will be wasted time.  Wise generals are already getting their practice in of course.  Ive agreed to be a pell people can beat up on in preparation for it.

 

So I dont think they sin at all.  The newest players can read a mission and understand it because it doesnt by and large change much about whatr they were already doing.

[Sugarlessllama]

There really is nothing preventing people from using the ITC FAQ and ITC ranking system to run a narrative campaign/tournament.  In fact, the BAO has a narrative tournament running simultaneously.  

 

Actually, there lies the problem. Ranking. Narrative isn't about rankings. There is no first, second, or third place. There is the story. Now that story may have any number of possible endings. But, as soon as a tournament ranking system is bolted on... then it becomes something else entirely. It limits the stories that can be told. 

 

For example: I recently played a game where my army was defending a polar outpost on an ice world from a daemon horde. I had one Librarian, one unit of Dev Cents, and one Imperial Knight Paladin. The unit were in the fortress defending it from the horde. The horde consisted of a number of Soulgrinders, Greater daemons, and lots of smaller units. About three times number of points I had. And they were summoning more. It was a desperate battle, but a fun one. And it could not be told using ITC rules. Why?

1. I had less than 1,850 points.
2. My opponent had more than 1,850 points.
3. I had an unbound list.
4. The mission parameters were not one of the 6 listed missions. 
5. We used unique planetary terrain rules.

And that is before going into the FAQ. Sure, we could have used ITC rules to help tell a story... but not the story we wanted to tell. And that is why I maintain that ITC does not add to the narrative. It is meant for a very different type of gaming experience. 

 

I suppose what I am trying to say, is that your original post contends that ITC is "one size fits all". And I would disagree. I think it is an interesting tool, that allows for a tournament organizer to run a certain type of competitive event. And it does that very, very well. But it is not the solution to everything that is 40K. 

[pretre]

Actually, there lies the problem. Ranking. Narrative isn't about rankings. There is no first, second, or third place. There is the story. Now that story may have any number of possible endings. But, as soon as a tournament ranking system is bolted on... then it becomes something else entirely. It limits the stories that can be told. 

 

For example: I recently played a game where my army was defending a polar outpost on an ice world from a daemon horde. I had one Librarian, one unit of Dev Cents, and one Imperial Knight Paladin. The unit were in the fortress defending it from the horde. The horde consisted of a number of Soulgrinders, Greater daemons, and lots of smaller units. About three times number of points I had. And they were summoning more. It was a desperate battle, but a fun one. And it could not be told using ITC rules. Why?

1. I had less than 1,850 points.
2. My opponent had more than 1,850 points.
3. I had an unbound list.
4. The mission parameters were not one of the 6 listed missions. 
5. We used unique planetary terrain rules.

And that is before going into the FAQ. Sure, we could have used ITC rules to help tell a story... but not the story we wanted to tell. And that is why I maintain that ITC does not add to the narrative. It is meant for a very different type of gaming experience. 

 

I suppose what I am trying to say, is that your original post contends that ITC is "one size fits all". And I would disagree. I think it is an interesting tool, that allows for a tournament organizer to run a certain type of competitive event. And it does that very, very well. But it is not the solution to everything that is 40K. 

You are confusing the ITC Faq with the ITC Format. Even the ITC ignores the ITC format for some of their events. 

[fluger]

I suppose what I am trying to say, is that your original post contends that ITC is "one size fits all". And I would disagree. I think it is an interesting tool, that allows for a tournament organizer to run a certain type of competitive event. And it does that very, very well. But it is not the solution to everything that is 40K. 

 

Not to pick nits, but this is what I said:

 

IMNSHO the aim of ITC is to try and create a 40k tournament environment that is:

 

1.  Consistent

2.  Cohesive

3.  Balanced

 

For the purposes of tournaments, or some kind of organized play between strangers, the ITC does a great job in creating the environment that I was describing.  

 

ITC should have little bearing on home games or the like as you describe, but, it could be helpful if you were planning on running a large-scale narrative event as the FAQ is still helpful in lots of situations as an impartial arbiter of rules questions.   

 

As far as the rankings go, I wouldn't anticipate a one off game between friends to even qualify for it, but perhaps if you knew that your opponent was ranked really highly you might want to temper the story to give them more of a challenge?  

 

Essentially, the ITC format and such are a tool for organized, large-scale play, that's what we're talking about.  The fact that it trickles into small clubs and home games is more a by-product of people planning on attending events with ITC rules.  

[Sugarlessllama]

You are confusing the ITC Faq with the ITC Format. Even the ITC ignores the ITC format for some of their events. 

 

No I am not. Which is why I said ".... that is before going into the FAQ." Perhaps having Invisibility RAW is part of the story that we are trying to tell. There is a difference between not wanting to drill down to much into a topic, and being confused. 

[pretre]

No I am not. Which is why I said ".... that is before going into the FAQ." Perhaps having Invisibility RAW is part of the story that we are trying to tell. There is a difference between not wanting to drill down to much into a topic, and being confused. 

Except you're claiming the list requirements, etc would prohibit a narrative game. They wouldn't as they are part of the format, not the FAQ or the ITC ranking system.

[Sugarlessllama]

Not to pick nits, but this is what I said:

 

For the purposes of tournaments, or some kind of organized play between strangers, the ITC does a great job in creating the environment that I was describing.  

 

ITC should have little bearing on home games or the like as you describe, but, it could be helpful if you were planning on running a large-scale narrative event as the FAQ is still helpful in lots of situations as an impartial arbiter of rules questions.   

 

As far as the rankings go, I wouldn't anticipate a one off game between friends to even qualify for it, but perhaps if you knew that your opponent was ranked really highly you might want to temper the story to give them more of a challenge?  

 

Essentially, the ITC format and such are a tool for organized, large-scale play, that's what we're talking about.  The fact that it trickles into small clubs and home games is more a by-product of people planning on attending events with ITC rules.  

I never argued that ITC wasn't great for tournaments. 

 

Again we get to rankings. One off games are one thing, but I have been doing quite a bit with narrative campaigns. The story is not tempered to offer people more of a "challenge" based off of rankings. That of course if the basis of competition. And a narrative campaign is not a competition. 

 

Ok how about this: It would be like bolting on a ranking system to civil war re-enactments, or a LARP. That somehow that there is a top ranked Confederate unit, and so we have to tweak some things to give the Confederate players a challenge (if this were an early war campaign) would be anathema to the very concept of the endeavor. Yes, the outcome of the campaign is unknown. But war is not balanced. And sometimes the two players are not going to be on equal footing. But goal of a narrative game is to play out scenarios that are fun, unique, and memorable; without the burden of having to know who is going to take home the gold. 

 

Because there is no first place. 

[Sugarlessllama]

Except you're claiming the list requirements, etc would prohibit a narrative game. They wouldn't as they are part of the format, not the FAQ or the ITC ranking system.

 

ITC format is not part of ITC?

[AbusePuppy]

Complex missions aren't on trial and i sort of doubt that the three months before hand the Ambassadors have to practice them will be wasted time.  Wise generals are already getting their practice in of course.  Ive agreed to be a pell people can beat up on in preparation for it.

 

So I dont think they sin at all.  The newest players can read a mission and understand it because it doesnt by and large change much about whatr they were already doing.

 

But you yourself said adding complexity is a bad thing- if you admit that your missions add complexity (and I think it's hard to argue they don't), where does that leave you?

 

 

ITC format is not part of ITC?

 

Using the ITC missions is not a requirement for being an ITC event. Ask Bob Kelly- he didn't use any of the ITC missions for Harvester of Souls. Moreover, ITC does not mandate a point total or list format, either- if you want to run an ITC event where one player brings a 716pt unbound army and the other player brings a 9000pt apocalypse army using the 4th edition rules, you're allowed to do that. That's completely legal.

 

The ONLY mandate of an ITC event is that it has brackets based on a pure win/loss/draw format. That's it. The ITC FAQ, missions, and format just happen to be Frontline Gaming's particular preferred format; whether an ITC event uses any or all of them is entirely up to the TO.