40K Book Play vs ITC Play

[VonVilkee]

It is more the drive for points... ITC brings a more competitive player out to compete. It takes practice and mental effort to be more than just a speed bump. While there are casuals at the events there is a little bit of evening out and a chance at a rough encounter or two.

 

Personally I'm a go and give it a shot find the diamond in the rough so to speak. Do it less now with a kid so I get the sentiment of no ITC and it is those missions combined with the American norm of succeed or why bother that lead to less enjoyable encounters.

 

I've never gone to any tournament and had all the games be enjoyable. Events are different, ITC are tourney and practicing for them creates a dynamic that I also look to avoid.

[Romans832]

11 hours ago, Sugarlessllama said:

I had to cancel OFCC for work. So no, I don't have time to be someone's gaming punching bag. 

BS!!!!
RUDE!!!

[Guest]

On 9/16/2019 at 10:07 PM, Sugarlessllama said:

Here is why I like ITC: is my opponent mentions wanting an ITC game, I pack my army back into the case and walk away. 

I hate competitive 40K. It never made sense to me, especially when there are wargames out that do it better (warmahordes and malifaux come to mind).  So if someone states their intention to play an ITC groin kicker franken-army then I can save myself the time. 

I'll stick with narrative play, thank you very much.

I think it's harsh but fair.

You have a specific kind of game in mind and, if they don't meet your expectations of what the game is to you, definitely seems reasonable to pack up and leave. Better that than play a game while being grumpy about it - I've made that mistake more than a few times.

Groin kicking franken armies, yeah, know exactly what you are talking about. Even if you play a regular mission without ITC rules, their army won't be fun to play against.

[Lord Hanaur]

1 hour ago, paxmiles said:

Groin kicking franken armies, yeah, know exactly what you are talking about. Even if you play a regular mission without ITC rules, their army won't be fun to play against.

Thats my point.  It isnt the ITC that is at issue, seems to me, its the army type or attitude, which is a player thing.  Again I 100% agree as to PREFERENCE of missions.  I just don't see the mission being enough reason to rage.

I usually just play whatever the other guy wants.  It avoids all this and I just care less, so it costs me zero to let him decide.  I figure my armies are sound enough to weather whatever.  Its more fun to play than argue with him.  I just wonder why it matters so much what we play.  I'm as happy playing Chapter Approved as I am playing ITC missions but it just seems unreasonable for a guy to say "what shall we play" and me to say "ITC mission 4?" And him to pack his bags and act like I'm the douche waffle.  Lol.  Ya know?  Yeesh.

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Lord Hanaur said:

Thats my point.  It isnt the ITC that is at issue, seems to me, its the army type or attitude, which is a player thing.  Again I 100% agree as to PREFERENCE of missions.  I just don't see the mission being enough reason to rage.

Yes and no.

ITC is a mission type, not an army type or attitude.

ITC *players* have both an army type and attitude. 

 

And if anyone brings to the table something that you don't want to play against, you are always welcome to just pack up and leave. It's disappointing, but some games just don't work out.

[Lord Hanaur]

2 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

Yes and no.

ITC is a mission type, not an army type or attitude.

ITC *players* have both an army type and attitude. 

 

And if anyone brings to the table something that you don't want to play against, you are always welcome to just pack up and leave.

 

If your opponent coughing and sneezing and not covering themselves or washing their hands, that's another very reasonable reason to just pack up and leave.

Um...  If that's how you see it, that's how you see it.  It's unfortunate how polarizing this faux distinction seems to be.  Its poison in the water.

It's like I said:  it's stuff like this that disapoints me, but I just let the other guy pick the mission.  Hell, after reading this, Ill let him write my army too.  If thats what it takes to get a guy to sidle up to the table, then I guess i'll do that.  Man.

[Guest]

@Lord Hanaur For what it's worth, I don't think of you as an ITC player. I think you want to just have fun too much to be the type of player we're talking about in this thread when we mention an "ITC player." You could probably be "that guy" if you tried, but I don't think you'll try so it's a moot point.

[Sugarlessllama]

18 hours ago, paxmiles said:

Yes and no.

ITC is a mission type, not an army type or attitude.

ITC *players* have both an army type and attitude. 

 

And if anyone brings to the table something that you don't want to play against, you are always welcome to just pack up and leave. It's disappointing, but some games just don't work out.

PAX hit the nail on the head. ITC attracts a certain type of player. Most lovingly referred to as the WAAC (Win At All Costs) player. ITC is a TOURNAMENT system. The very core of the system is to run a tournament with players arriving to get onto the podium. They aren't there for a lore friendly match with a narrative goal in mind. It is matched points, go for the win. 

I don't like that style of play. I prefer narrative play. 

If the scenario doesn't favor me for narrative reasons. It's cool. If my side has more or less power level, that's cool too. I have made tactical decisions for my armies on the table not based on what was the best thing to win, but based on what I thought that character would do. I treat each game as a mass combat version of D&D. 

So when someone tells me they are playing ITC, they are telling me that they are WAAC. And I don't have time for it. To me it is the same as if someone started telling me about the latest thing on Infowars. Full stop. Hard pass. Have a good day, sir. I SAIDGOODDAY!

  Now, maybe you have enough time in your life where you can afford to go into a match knowing you are going to hate every minute of it. I don't. 

You enjoy playing 40K at a competitive high level. I don't. 

And while you don't like ITC, it is still a system and a community geared towards your interests. Those are not my interests. 

This is a hobby. This is something I spend money on to have fun. And I will not be forced to waste what little time I have to play a competitive match for someone else's benefit. 

 

18 hours ago, Lord Hanaur said:

Um...  If that's how you see it, that's how you see it.  It's unfortunate how polarizing this faux distinction seems to be.  Its poison in the water.

It's like I said:  it's stuff like this that disapoints me, but I just let the other guy pick the mission.  Hell, after reading this, Ill let him write my army too.  If thats what it takes to get a guy to sidle up to the table, then I guess i'll do that.  Man.

You might be the exception to the rule.  But in order for you to be the exception, there has to be a rule. I mean think about it. OFCC is the perfect example. It is a goofy fun event that lots of people enjoy. Lot's of people who never go to ITC events work on their armies all year for this one weekend. People come from all over the US and Canada in order to play in an event where the most coveted prize are favored opponent pins. 

It doesn't enroll itself into the ITC circuit. Why not? If it did there would be a ton more player's showing up. It would like NOVA or the Guardian Cup. 

Because if it did, it wouldn't be the fun goofy event anymore. Those people would be chasing the podium, and not favored opponent pins. It would be another WAAC tournament. 

[Lord Hanaur]

On 9/18/2019 at 6:47 PM, Sugarlessllama said:

 

So when someone tells me they are playing ITC, they are telling me that they are WAAC.

Sorry to hear that you feel that way.  Truly.

While some do indeed live down to this, I just do not agree with this broad stroke at all.

[Guest]

On 9/19/2019 at 10:46 PM, Lord Hanaur said:

Sorry to hear that you feel that way.  Truly.

While some do indeed live down to this, I just do not agree with this broad stroke at all.

ITC is a mix of WAAC players and those that just want to play whatever the local group is playing. Not sure what the ratio is. You and I just want to play.

I play ITC when I'm at GG because the league plays ITC. But I don't really enjoy the ITC missions and certainly dislike playing against the WAAC players - it's certainly not all of them, might not even be most of them.

GG has a fun group, but there's definitely a handful that need to win or otherwise want to bring a list/attitude that just isn't fun to play against.

But I still come to GG and play, from time to time.

[Munkie]

On 9/18/2019 at 6:47 PM, Sugarlessllama said:

So when someone tells me they are playing ITC, they are telling me that they are WAAC.

I'm going to the Bellingham ITC GT that Dark Tower is hosting. I'm bringing the Yncarne because he's a lot of fun, but it's all Drukhari otherwise. I'm hoping to win 3 out of 5 games. 

I think you'd have a hard time making the argument that I'm WAAC, just because I'm in attendance. 

On the flip side, just because you're a narrative player does NOT mean you're fun to play against or that you have a good attitude (unfortunately for my point, you are fun to play against and have a good attitude, damn you).

In my gaming experience, the problems arise only when people aren't on the same page about what's expected. If narrative is expected, bring narrative armies. It competitive is expected, bring competitive armies. 

I don't know that I've ever had a bad experience at a tournament. Some people are intense, but I knew to expect that going in. On the other hand, some of my least favorite games of 40k ever were played at the OFCC. The worst WAAC attitudes I've come across have all been at the OFCC. 

The game format is never the problem. It's players' willingness (or lack thereof) to embrace that format that creates issues.

 

[Romans832]

9 hours ago, Munkie said:

The worst WAAC attitudes I've come across have all been at the OFCC. 

The game format is never the problem. It's players' willingness (or lack thereof) to embrace the format that creates issues.

That in of itself may be the very reason for that excellent conclusion.

(Thank you for being an excellent opponent)

[Guest]

Just a thought on this one. WAAC isn't an insult. 

A WAAC player is exactly the type of player that should be playing in a tournament. It's an event to determine who is best. An event where rewards are given to whomever wins. Where respect is achieved throught winning. A tournament is an event designed for WAAC players.

WAAC players get along great with other WAAC players because they enter the game expecting the same things and with the same resolve to win. 

In a certain respect, the non-WAAC players are ruining the game for the WAAC players by suggesting that the WAAC attitude is somehow bad. 

[WestRider]

Just now, paxmiles said:

Just a thought on this one. WAAC isn't an insult. 

A WAAC player is exactly the type of player that should be playing in a tournament. It's an event to determine who is best. An event where rewards are given to whomever wins. Where respect is achieved throught winning. 

WAAC players get along great with other WAAC players because they enter the game expecting the same things and with the same resolve to win. 

In a certain respect, the non-WAAC players are ruining the game for the WAAC players by suggesting that the WAAC attitude is somehow bad. 

It depends on the definition. For some people, WAAC includes cheating and such, which shouldn't be part of a tournament. But yes, competitive players are exactly the ones Tournaments are for.

Leaving that aside, tho, yeah, the issue is entirely one of mismatched expectations and goals. Neither camp is better or worse than the other, but neither typically enjoys playing in the mode of the other. And neither will have much fun in a game set up to the expectations of the other.

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, WestRider said:

It depends on the definition. For some people, WAAC includes cheating and such, which shouldn't be part of a tournament. But yes, competitive players are exactly the ones Tournaments are for.

Leaving that aside, tho, yeah, the issue is entirely one of mismatched expectations and goals. Neither camp is better or worse than the other, but neither typically enjoys playing in the mode of the other. And neither will have much fun in a game set up to the expectations of the other.

40k has a very loose ruleset regarding cheating. For example, most events allow the players to decide what the terrain is beforehand, rather than having a tournament regulated terrain set.

I played against, what I would classify as a WAAC player, who set up the table's terrain with very tall enclosed ruins so as to maximized LOS blocking for his knight army, then insisted that the ruins were to be consider no more than 6" tall for movement purposes. As a player known to be unfamiliar with ITC, he implied strongly to me that this was an ITC rule. As it turned out, the point of the 6" ruins was so he could use his knight stratagem to have his knights charge units on top of the ruins - a stratagem he deliberately neglected to mention when insisting on the 6" counts as terrain requirement. 

Since the rules for the ruins had been defined by the players at the start of the game, he was following the ITC rules. Definitely left a sour taste in my mouth, but that's not technically cheating. 

I asked him after the game, if I hadn't agreed to the 6" thing, if he would have played with them as taller. He said he would have insisted on different terrain pieces or refused to play, despite him having set up the table. He didn't say that the whole thing was a ploy to win by as large a margin as possible, but that was the impression I got. 

And it's not like my army had a prayer to begin with.

[WestRider]

Yeah, that's flat out cheating. Telling you the Rules are something other than they actually are (whether GW Rules or those added by a third party, such as the ITC*) is just wrong.

That actually brings up another common distinction, which is that a competitive Player wants to know that they out-played their Opponent, while a WAAC Player just wants the win, whether it was legit or not.

*As far as I can tell, the only actual Rules change the ITC makes is the LoS-blocking bottom floors thing. They also recommend that the Terrain be defined by the TO, rather than by agreement between Players.

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, WestRider said:

Yeah, that's flat out cheating. Telling you the Rules are something other than they actually are (whether GW Rules or those added by a third party, such as the ITC*) is just wrong.

That actually brings up another common distinction, which is that a competitive Player wants to know that they out-played their Opponent, while a WAAC Player just wants the win, whether it was legit or not.

*As far as I can tell, the only actual Rules change the ITC makes is the LoS-blocking bottom floors thing. They also recommend that the Terrain be defined by the TO, rather than by agreement between Players.

Well, the GG league is intended as practice for tournaments, but as a league it doesn't have the oversight as would an actual tournament. And he didn't directly lie about the rules, just strongly implied.

Dunno, his was one of those franken groin kicker lists, so this wasn't really a game where cheating affected his ability to win. It was more a sidenote.

I am annoyed that the ITC rules discourage wipes (or conceding). I would prefer to play as few turns as possible against such a player. Instead of a wipe or surrender, I'm encouraged to endure slow torturous death while a player fielding an army at overwhelming advantage takes their time to defeat mean because it optimizes their points.

[WestRider]

1 hour ago, paxmiles said:

I am annoyed that the ITC rules discourage wipes (or conceding). I would prefer to play as few turns as possible against such a player. Instead of a wipe or surrender, I'm encouraged to endure slow torturous death while a player fielding an army at overwhelming advantage takes their time to defeat mean because it optimizes their points.

Eh, at that point, you might as well concede and just take the hit. Those rules are intended to deal with "tactical concessions", where someone can get a better result by losing the game at a certain point than by playing it out, or to give a teammate an easy win or something. If you're getting roflstomped, you're probably not placing regardless, so cut your stress levels and get yourself an extra break or long lunch or whatever. It'll make for a far better day as a whole.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, WestRider said:

Eh, at that point, you might as well concede and just take the hit. Those rules are intended to deal with "tactical concessions", where someone can get a better result by losing the game at a certain point than by playing it out, or to give a teammate an easy win or something. If you're getting roflstomped, you're probably not placing regardless, so cut your stress levels and get yourself an extra break or long lunch or whatever. It'll make for a far better day as a whole.

Oh, I have no issue with conceding, but I do tend to get flakk from ITC players for doing so, as it can unbalance the overall scoring system. Apparently they have some rule where conceding grants the most possible points to your opponent for the rounds they didn't get to play because you conceded. Basically, it rewards players who make their opponents not want to play the entire game.

But, no, I see no problem conceding a lost game. Sometimes the goal of a game for me will be to test a certain unit or tactic and I'll hold out until that is done, but otherwise I quit when it becomes clear that victory is improbable. If 40k allowed some sort of tactical retreat option, I'd like that, as fighting to the last man in every battle seems to lack realism.

[Romans832]

On 9/28/2019 at 3:28 PM, paxmiles said:

He said he would have insisted on different terrain pieces or refused to play, despite him having set up the table.

Ouch, no fun 😞

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Romans832 said:

Ouch, no fun 😞

Well, his list was a Battalion of guard with only lasguns, A Spearhead of Longfangs with missile launchers, 2 Knights with shieldbreaker missiles, and one regular knight. His knights had 3++ saves. 2x relics to get extra CP during the game and 1x relic to improve the plasma-something on one of his knights.

I think his list was pretty typical for my encounters with ITC players.

[Lord Hanaur]

Concession grants 4 points per round for succeeding rounds and, any secondaries you could have gotten because there simply is no resistance.  It is somewhat unfair to other competitors to give those points away when they were not earned.  That would be true even if you simplified the system to the old one of "minor" and "major" victory.

I think players don't like rage quits is what they don't like.  It's immature.  It's one thing to see no way to score more points.  It's another to get cantankerous and quit because you only play for wins to begin with if you see my meaning.

That distinction is pretty important.  I mean if self betterment or skill growth is a goal (and it's my opinion that this is sort of the point of the game), then trying to see how many points you can get even in a losing effort is definite proof that it's a goal for you (and not just winning).  On the other hand if all you care to do is win or move on...  I see that as a character flaw.  I'm not so sure that WAAC players aren't also the ones losing interest as soon as victory is impossible in their minds.  Some might argue that to see only victory as a goal is kind of not awesome.

Consider it.  Only one person wins the event so for 95% of the players, it is all about skill development, improvement and learning to enjoy the game itself.  That's just a bald fact of life.  While its justifiably disappointing to lose in any contest, I feel somewhat proud for not quitting before there just are no more points to get.  The top 8 are almost always someone with a loss. Remember that the points you get in losses matter.  I think it also says something about you as an opponent when you continue to strive to be better.  I personally shoot for 19 points in a loss.  That's the least try to get in them.  It helps me stay engaged when maybe the blow out is on the way.  It's a game within the game to me.  And man if I get 24-30 in a loss I am REALLY pleased with myself.  If I can hold the opponent to 27 or less I'm also pretty happy with my efforts.  So winning is not the only barometer of how well you can play.  I'd encourage people to set those kinds of mini-goals for themselves.  You can surprise yourself, and the dice rolls can add drama.  You just never know what will happen, which is awesome.

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Lord Hanaur said:

Concession grants 4 points per round for succeeding rounds and, any secondaries you could have gotten because there simply is no resistance.  It is somewhat unfair to other competitors to give those points away when they were not earned.  That would be true even if you simplified the system to the old one of "minor" and "major" victory.

I think players don't like rage quits is what they don't like.  It's immature.  It's one thing to see no way to score more points.  It's another to get cantankerous and quit because you only play for wins to begin with if you see my meaning.

That distinction is pretty important.  I mean if self betterment or skill growth is a goal (and it's my opinion that this is sort of the point of the game), then trying to see how many points you can get even in a losing effort is definite proof that it's a goal for you (and not just winning).  On the other hand if all you care to do is win or move on...  I see that as a character flaw.  I'm not so sure that WAAC players aren't also the ones losing interest as soon as victory is impossible in their minds.  Some might argue that to see only victory as a goal is kind of not awesome.

Consider it.  Only one person wins the event so for 95% of the players, it is all about skill development, improvement and learning to enjoy the game itself.  That's just a bald fact of life.  While its justifiably disappointing to lose in any contest, I feel somewhat proud for not quitting before there just are no more points to get.  The top 8 are almost always someone with a loss. Remember that the points you get in losses matter.  I think it also says something about you as an opponent when you continue to strive to be better.  I personally shoot for 19 points in a loss.  That's the least try to get in them.  It helps me stay engaged when maybe the blow out is on the way.  It's a game within the game to me.  And man if I get 24-30 in a loss I am REALLY pleased with myself.  If I can hold the opponent to 27 or less I'm also pretty happy with my efforts.  So winning is not the only barometer of how well you can play.  I'd encourage people to set those kinds of mini-goals for themselves.  You can surprise yourself, and the dice rolls can add drama.  You just never know what will happen, which is awesome.

That would be WAAC way to look at it, certainly. Very ITC.

But playing a longer game against a groin kicking franken army isn't fun. Even if I were winning, I wouldn't be having fun. I don't have fun against that sort of list. And the player wasn't particularly fun either. Trying to peer pressure me into playing a longer game when I'm not having fun is just stupid.

[Guest]

 

22 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

That would be WAAC way to look at it, certainly. Very ITC.

But playing a longer game against a groin kicking franken army isn't fun. Even if I were winning, I wouldn't be having fun. I don't have fun against that sort of list. And the player wasn't particularly fun either. Trying to peer pressure me into playing a longer game when I'm not having fun is just stupid.

For clarity, I don't expect the opponent to make a special list for my enjoyment, but as two person game if they don't want to have fun with me, they should really find someone else to have fun with. And likewise, If I'm not having fun, I should find a fun person to play with. Just like any other social encounter

Just like Sugarlesslama said:

On 9/16/2019 at 10:07 PM, Sugarlessllama said:

Here is why I like ITC: is my opponent mentions wanting an ITC game, I pack my army back into the case and walk away. 

I hate competitive 40K. It never made sense to me, especially when there are wargames out that do it better (warmahordes and malifaux come to mind).  So if someone states their intention to play an ITC groin kicker franken-army then I can save myself the time. 

I'll stick with narrative play, thank you very much.

[Lord Hanaur]

5 hours ago, paxmiles said:

That would be WAAC way to look at it, certainly. Very ITC.

But playing a longer game against a groin kicking franken army isn't fun. Even if I were winning, I wouldn't be having fun. I don't have fun against that sort of list. And the player wasn't particularly fun either. Trying to peer pressure me into playing a longer game when I'm not having fun is just stupid.

I've agreed with you, I don't love soup.  But if you're at a tournament, there's no reasonable cause to be shocked or dismayed when you have to play one right?  It's like Forge World:  I don't like it but I play against it. I'm not quitting just because the other guy "isnt doing 40K right".  You know?  I won't lie and say it's AS FUN but you gotta' adult about it.  Situation is King and people would play those crazy armies even if it weren't ITC.