Sugarlessllama

I am totally starting the Bizarro-ITC faq. I will spin every change positive so as to empower units rather than nerf units.

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

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. 

1. 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?
2. 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.  

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. 

i see the impression you get and I disagree it hurts the narrative. Have you played against 2++ re rollable deathstar? Have you played against centurion invisibility deathstar? Have you played against 2++ invisibility deathstars?

 

Give me the damn nerf batt I want to swing away!!!

 

I played in a tourney and brought a softer list could have competed for 3rd but two games I saw deathstars and removed 3 models combined. Fun??? Would empowering me help no as they still had 5 other answers. Now I'm not going to events to place first. Nor are about half the folks from my experience. But I also don't go to see myself get tabled and only remove 150 points. In one game, 2k, I played I removed one screamer and was tabled.

 

Give me the nerf bat!!!

 

I really challenge you if you have had these game experiences with total strangers?

 

Of the 3 opponents 2 were great guys and I would play again, they didn't break the hobby but their lists could.

 

Again I don't agree with all the rulings of ITC but im in favor of nerfing first. As competitive play requires min max, empowering the weaker guy is not helping as odds of beating 2++ is nearly impossible.

 

Now I support further adaptations. For example mission types that agent p and lord h have put out helps empower more of a level playing field for weaker lists. ITC is compatible with this as you can use the FAQ to nerf 2++ and empower fluff with non ITC missions. Therefore still having an ITC format.

 

ITC doesn't nerf everything but it definitely nerfs more than empowers.

 

And the game is already complex change as little as possible don't suggest 5 changes to fix one when one can be done otherwise in a timed event it is truly impractical.

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. 

I disagree. Consider Ranged D. How many units have it? (Few) How many units don't have it? Many. 

 

Are you suggesting we should just hand out Ranged D to all the codexes and that's a better way to balance it?

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. 

1. 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?
2. 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.  

I think you're assuming that ITC is not doing this.

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. 

 

Simplicity. Adding one or two sentences is a lot easier than adding 4 for different abilities.

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?

And the whole problem we had with this is that in order to use their 'philosophy of balance' you need a lot more data that simply isn't available. As well, you'll find that GW's 'philosophy of balance' doesn't exist. They just publish crap and hope for the best. Blaming ITC for nerfing some of the wildly outlandish stuff GW puts out is just silly. They have no control over the content published but must try to deal with it. It is MUCH easier to put out a ban/limited list than it is to put out a full rebalancing codex for each book. It is also a lot less complicated and much more empowering for the end user.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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. 
4. 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?". 

Why is wow even a comparison point? The data is accessible and easily read by the trained eye when it comes from usage on a pc.

 

You cannot even begin to apply that empirical data to a tabletop game.

This.

.... 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. 

It's a fine idea.  I think its done in the form of codex drops already.  But it's a fine idea.  

 

Experience is a pretty good indicator.  As one who plays more often than, well, anyone I have ever met I Get to face a lot of armies and I get to play a lot of armies and there is some truth to the idea that certain units get used more as "obvious includes" while others see rare use and would benefit, sales wise, from a buff.

 

Here's my trouble with that idea.  The usage doesn't IN FACT tell you anything real about the unit.  If you drop its points ENOUGH, certainly more people will use it.  But those of us who know how to use that unit effectively already would gain something and lose nothing.

 

I'll give you a prime example:  Sniper Drones.  They are almost literally never seen on the table, there is no proliferation of them being sold online because no one has enough to want to sell and they are still overly expensive at GW's side of things because they don't sell enough of them.

 

Now The Sniper Drone unit is one of the most efficient Markerlight units you can possible own!  It's even in a slot that is not over used.  There are probably 40% of the Tau Empie armies out there running around with a Heavy slot free and available!

 

Now people like me who have embraced this incredibly efficient unit into our force would have them somehow buffed or points reduced based on the metric you're talking about here.  But the REALITY is they aren't points heavy in any sense, and a points reduction, while i of all people would rejoice over it, isn't truly called for.  They're simply underused.  Half the people who dont use them do so out of habit.  The other half that don't like their hammerheads or Broadsides too much even though that firepower can easily come from the Elites slot.  Okay fine.

 

It's just an example but it's why I am not nearly as sure that this way of looking at unit costs and buffs is entirely awesome.  It's not like there's no value to looking at whats being used or not.  ITC is doing that when they look at armies being played and their placings.  But I think getting more granular in a tabletop wargame would be difficult to do for GW.

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: 

1. 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.
2. 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 have no issue with this type of gaming.  I play paper and dice RPGs for the similar feel.  I don't personally enjoy doing it with 40k, even though I readily admit that GW views their games more like you do than I do.  

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 

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?

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Actually, we have a pretty group participating in the Gamermancy campaign. We have been playing every Monday at Red Castle, and have about 2-3 games going at a time. In fact this week we had more players than tables, and one of the campaign administrators was in town to play us. It was super awesome! We even went out for beers after. 

So if you are interested in playing with us, the more the merrier! Hit me up, and I can get you invited to the Facebook group that we have been using to organize the Portland side of things. :D 

Hey hey! I was wondering (and please don't think I am trolling, because I am not) if someone could explain the title of the thread? Is it that you would like to purchase new Forgeworld models because you have extra money?

What will I do as a 40K player. 

Most likely, nothing. 

The lack of points and such only effects tournament players to any significant degree. My narrative style of gaming would only be effected in that it would simplify my list building.    

For competitive gaming I will still stay with my true love: Warmachine.   

I think this is actually a great time to be a miniwargamer. You have plenty of narrative games to choose from, and tournament balanced games to scratch that competitive itch.   

So the modified allies chart is under "factions". When you pick a faction, you can only ally with codices that are in your faction. Example: Since my Space Marines are Ordo Xenos, they cannot ally with Sister of Battle because they are only represented in Ordo Hereticus. Additionally, I can't ally with a Space Marine player who is representing Ordo Hereticus or Ordo Malleus. 

According to the custom heroes rules, it looks like they can take relic wargear. They just can't be named heroes.

I think the local game master is for the players in South Florida where this game club is located.

I joined

Awesome! What faction?

Now that the start date is getting a bit closer, I thought I would ping everyone again to see if there is interest in joining. I'm asking because I would like to try an organize some kind of kick off event; the campaign organizers themselves suggest 5,000 point 2 v 2 or 3 v 3 games (5,000 point per side split among 2 or 3 players.). I thought it might be fun, and shouldn't be too difficult to throw together. :)

Man, I need to get back over to the UK. Thanks for the photo dump! It's awesome to get some more images from those sweet looking dioramas.