Sugarlessllama

Also, you don't have to switch to the new size bases if you don't want to.

Correct.

Do we know what codices he can be used with? He might be neat in a KDK army. Fluffy and fun FTW! :D

Well another idea is of course making a specific FB group. Making events and inviting people to them might be just the thing needed to kick off the game night promotion.

We have been hosting a narrative campaign at Red Castle for a month or so and it has been going well. We chose RC for the following reasons: Parking: RC has a good size lot next to the store. Access to beer and food: Several bars, and eateries within a block. Hours: Open until midnight. Number of tables: 4 full size tables built only for wargaming. (GG has more tables, but they are folding tables with loose planks of wood on top.) Lack of other wargamers: We didn't have to compete with other wargamers for our Monday night slow. It would be awesome if they would offer a discount, but that is something we are working on. However, in the end it is all going to come down to the community organizers. We have been active in getting people to show up on a regular basis and fostering a casual gaming atmosphere. If you have someone willing to herd the cats, people are going to show up to their FLGS for game night. :D

My thought experiment KDK roster has a Helcult formation. I thought it a really fun way to run Helbrutes under KDK. :D

Well it is good to know that you define mocking one person as empowering others. I think I am about done here. Good day to you sir.

Again, I have stated that these thoughts off the top of my head, and that I wasn't trying to set up a nuts and bolts fix; that my goal was to discuss the philosophy behind the solutions. Instead the philosophy was thrown away in favor of the crunch. Ok. Fine. But I honestly have not seen people become so vitriolic at the idea of favoring positive changes over negative changes when the opportunity presents itself. I mean have you really stopped and looked at your responses pretre? I'm sorry that my thoughts on game design are such heresy to you, but [big bad swear word]ing seriously? Seriously? How does it help? Tell me. I would love to know.

I'm so glad that I could make your day better, and boost your post count. Have a wonderful day.

AP... thank you for the tone. It is super helpful. #1 I knew that. I knew that it made achieved the same thing, but it did the same thing by making one rule better instead of making another worse. #2 It isn't essentially pointless, because it makes an underutilized rule more powerful. Which is nice. It can make players who those factions happier. #3 Claymores are a defensive system of mines. As are anti-pursuit mines. Maybe in the year 40,000 they can up with another nifty explosive system that is tripwire on the go? It is about as logical as turning invisible. #4 That I didn't know. And I will be the first person to admit that I don't know all the rules printed in the BRB off the top of my head. But thank you for being a dick about it. Lord knows the gaming community was really short on people being dicks about things. I'm not trying to troll, or be difficult. I simply wanted to bring up that there are two ways to solve the problems we come up across in wargaming. And to me, I always like to take the route that makes players feel empowered first. Because you can always get the nerf bat out later. And yes, I did have these play experiences that you described. And that is why I no longer play at the midweek league at Guardian Games. I did not find it enjoyable in the least bit. However, my thoughts weren't "Damn! They should nerf that!" it was "Wow, I wish *I* had more answers to that." Now, it is clear that you do not agree. And so you are making a full throated defense of the solutions that have led you to have more fun at the table. And you know what? Kudos. I'm happy that you are having fun. And no, I'm not being facetious. I'm really happy that you're having fun. I'm just offering up ideas for discussion that might bring that fun to a wider audience players. That is all.

OK, well let's take a moment to think about this. Ranged Destroyer weapons are a problem. But it is still ranged combat, which can be hampered by the assault phase. This gives us a couple of interesting ideas to explore; ideas that would possibly provide empowering solutions without granting other codices access to ranged Destroyer weapons. Vehicles are not made immobile by D weapons. This would allow for transport vehicles to be a touch more survivable against range D armies. Maybe this could be done with the "Extra Armor" upgrade? Perhaps "Assault" could be added to a few more transport vehicles? Maybe this could be a purchasable upgrade. A unit would be able to assault the turn following the destruction of a transport vehicle. This would also have the side benefit of making assault armies a touch more viable. Those were two ideas off the top of my head. Empowering a player doesn't mean an arms race has to be initiated along the lines of everyone having access to the exact same thing. But perhaps from the standpoint of enriching a counter strategy, which would also open up more avenues of viable tournament play. But if we allow ourselves to be drawn into knee-jerk solutions that depend on a "nerf before empower" model to be executed, I think we might be doing ourselves a disservice as a gaming community.

Incorrect. That was in response to the poster above that started listing off rules for multiple different issues. I never stated that ITC didn't discuss, nor think about the changes they wanted to make. I just think they went out it in a fashion that was nerf before empower. I am instead arguing for empower before nerf.

For each rule in question would require much thought and debate would have to go into each decision in turn. I don't think this is the best thread to do it in (nor am I associated with ITC in any way shape or form.). Did I say that I would throw the nerf bat out the window? No. I just think that ITC and other tournament balancing methods lean a little too much on it. That is all.

And that is a true statement. But I wasn't arguing that it would be easier. I just making the case for making people feel better about the rule set. Yes, it would make the ITC FAQ longer. However, it wouldn't feel as limiting on players. Which is what I go for when I makes rules arguments. But also my goal to make an inclusive, fun, empowering environment for players. The goal of a tournament is to make a balanced environment to determine who is the best player. Is the tournament environment non-inclusive, and un-fun? For many players, no. It is not. They thrive in that type of environment. However, there is still a good chunk of the game playing demographic that do not find that type of gaming to be inviting. All I am saying is that it could be made more inclusive by forgoing some of the streamlining in favor of more empowering rules decisions. Would the hardcore tournament players be turned off by this? I don't think so. They would thrive in just about any environment that allowed them to duke it out for the gold. But I am thinking about "How do I get random gamer B to show up? How do I make this more attractive to the business casual tournament player?" Warmachine achieved this to some extent by switching to "Death Clock" style games. But giving each player a chunk of time to play their entire half of the game, in lieu of timed turns more casual Warmachine players started showing up to events. Did it add an additional losing condition? Yup. But it "felt" like players had more time. Which made the competitive scene more approachable. Did the same 12 people take home the gold at the major events? Yup. But more people started showing up the the events. And isn't that what we as a gaming community want? More people to play with?

Well, that is not entirely true. Your argument is "we don't have the data, so we can't favor empowering the player over nerfing them." I can understand this thought process, but I don't think it is an obstacle that can't be overcome. Let's take invisibility. While I don't have any issues with it as written, some people do. The ITC solution to this was to nerf the power. I can understand this to some point. But what if we decided to solve this by empowering the player instead of nerfing. Here is how it might look like: The USR for Template weapons on pg. 173 of the BRB could have the following added to it: Template weapons can target units under the effect of Invisibility. Wall of Death special rule works normally against units under the effect of Invisibility. The USR for Acute Senses on pg. 157 of the BRB could have the following added to it: There it is! Units with at least one model with the acute senses special rule can re-roll misses in melee against units under the effect of invisibility. Units equipped with Defensive grenades can re-roll 1's in melee with units under the effect of Invisibility in the first round of combat. Units or models under the effect of Invisibility can be targeted by Stomp. Etc........... ​ Using this method Invisibility is still a powerful ability, but other abilities that people had once previously deemed "worthless", (like Acute Senses) have now increased in power. This overall has the effect of making people feel better about their models/units/codices rather than worse. It's like that scene in The Newsroom where one of the characters asks "Why is talking about the top 10 overrated movies more fun than talking about the Top 10 underrated movies?".

.... sigh..... I didn't bring up Blizzard and World of Warcraft in order to discuss the nuts and bolts of how they balance their games. I know it is easy to get sidetracked into that, but please be aware that the majority of my reference to Blizzard pertained to their game philosophy. Something that can be applied to ANY game. Regardless of media. The philosophy of balance came from the paradigm of empowering the player rather than nerfing them. My beef with ITC is that it nerfs the player rather than empower. I didn't come to the hobby in order to feel disenfranchised. And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone into that.

I think this is actually what I was bringing up. Vocal minorities making determinations for the masses in how they play the game. You play the game more than anyone you know (and that is awesome! BTW ), and you have a very high post count. So you spend a lot of time playing, thinking about, and talking about 40K. Like many of us here. But we are a minority of the player base. Most players may get in 1-2 matches in a month. Perhaps go to a games day, or tournament once a year. They aren't on forums, and they don't click to Bell of Lost Souls every morning. In other words, when they aren't actually in the middle of a match, they are not thinking about 40K. They matter. They matter a lot. Because they are the ones who keep the hobby going. They buy boxes of models because they look neat. They play because they want to hang out with their friends and throw some dice. They show up to the tournament because they can to pencil out an entire day to playing a game they enjoy. They know they aren't going to take home the gold, and they don't care. They are the majority, and their enjoyment of the game has to be taken into account. Think of it this way. Why is World of Warcraft so successful? Is it because they tailor the game to provide a fair and balanced challenge for the Top 100 raiding guilds in the world? Or are they successful because they develop lots of fun content that the other 6.99 million players can enjoy, and feel like they accomplished something after they log off? Well, the Blizzard parking lot looks like Porsche dealership. And I don't think it is because they kept the best 1,000 raiders happy.

But I think this is a topic worth discussing (sans the portion about who told what, when, and how), as I think it highlights a very core issue: vision vs. limitations. My issue with tournament 40K is that it does put limitations on what you can play. Maybe I want to run an army of 5 Lord of Skulls. Would it be a good army, I don't know. Would it be a fun army to play against? I don't know. Would it be a good army to run in a tournament? Most likely no. But I like the option. Tournaments, but their very nature have to have limitations. Now this can be approached in one of two ways: The game system itself incorporates the limitations, leaving only game length, game size, and scoring ( ex: 1 hour games with chess clocks, 50 points, steamroller scoring) up the the TO. The game system does not incorporate, and this the TO must redefine rules, abilities, army construction, etc. This is ITC. Now the first method tends to be easier on the player because it involves informed consent upon purchase. In other words, when I plopped down my $50 for a rule book, I know that those are indeed the rules that will be used when I go to a tournament. No surprises when I buy models, or start building an army. What I bought, how many I bought, can be brought to the event. And because of this, I am less likely to be unhappy because I knew that I was getting myself into. Now the second option has the problem of lack of consent upon purchase. I walk into my FLGS and drop $80 on the rules. And then I buy, build, and paint models according to the $80 rule book I bought. And then, there is a third party redefining everything in that rulebook I bought. And I, as the casual tournament gamer have no recourse. In other words, because I didn't know what I was getting myself into, the time, money, and effort I put out has gone to waste. And it is officially someone else's fault. Not me. The rulebook I bought fair and square says I can do what I tried to do. But the screen name on the internet told me no. That is not a good feeling. And it can be very frustrating. Especially to new players, players returning to the hobby, or players who spend a lot less time thinking about the hobby than us. A few years ago I had the opportunity to spend an evening drinking with Chris Metzen (World of Warcraft). And besides lots of raunchy jokes and travel stories, I asked him how does the design team for WoW know what it good, and what is not. Forums, email, Twitter, etc.? His answer surprised me: none of that. They go with game play metrics. Because the forums are useless. There are 7 million active players in the game, but less than 200,000 forum accounts. And of those accounts, less than 20% have post counts more than 250. 1% have over 1,000. So the people making decisions on the forums about what is "broken" "OP" or in need of "re-balancing" are such a minority that they can't be used as a meaningful data point. The designers relied on watching how people, as a whole, actually played the game. If a power or ability was not being used, they made it better. If one was being used to the exclusion of all other powers, they nerfed it. If every raiding tank was the same class... they gave a buff to the other tanking classes. And the first solution tested would always be a buff to the player, rather than a nerf. If the buff options didn't work, then they would use the nerf bat. Why? Because people don't want to spend their free time on activities that make them feel diminished. People spend their free time on activities that make them feel empowered. It was such a basic concept. But it blew my mind. Because as an active gamer, I never stopped to ask myself why I was an active gamer. Why did I play the game? And why weren't the designers "listening" to us on the forums? Why did I play the game? To feel awesome after we killed a giant boss. To feel empowered. Why didn't they listen to the forum-think solutions? Because they were solutions based on diminishing one class/ability to be on par with another class/ability. Not the reverse. When I read ITC, it strikes me as a proliferation of the forum-based solutions. Does it make for a good tournament? Maybe. But I can see why people have an issue with it. Because it is not a FAQ that seeks to empower the player.

I think the tac squad is going to give you more bang for your buck. And one of your local stores might have a bits box.

Well if you ever want to chat about roster building concepts for Warmachine, I would be happy to go geek out about it any time.

I look at game systems like tools. I could put in a wood screw with a hammer. And it might even work. However, it wouldn't be as effective as simply using a screwdriver. Developing a large living document to dramatically alter a rule system in order to accommodate tournament play seems like using a hammer on a screw. To me at least. I would rather have one system for tournaments, and one for casual. But I really need to stress, that this is how I approach things, and that I am not saying that other people have to do it. If ITC 40K in preparation for tournament play is your thing, then kudos! Seriously. I'm happy that you are having a good time. I'm just saying that it is not my cup of tea. I love RPGs. However, D&D doesn't handle mass combat well. And so, for me, 40K scratches the itch for narrative mass combat. When I want to have go for the throat competitive play, I have Warmachine ( Burn Heretics! For the Law Bringer!) and board games. For competitive on demand gaming, I have video games. That is how I would divide my "right tool, for the right job" philosophy of gaming. :D

ITC format is not part of ITC?

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.

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.

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? I had less than 1,850 points. My opponent had more than 1,850 points. I had an unbound list. The mission parameters were not one of the 6 listed missions. 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.