ITC, WarMachine, and Narrative Gaming

[InfestedKerrigan]

Twister is a Player vs Liquor game, technically.

[pretre]

Twister is a Player vs Liquor game, technically.

Liquor? Damn near killed her!

[Skkipper]

The problem isn't with 40k. It is with the players. I can play Fluger type people everyday in a no holds barred environment. The problem is there are cocks who pick based solely on power of units and make it no fun. ITC is there to limit the jerks. Just like sportsmanship and comp was back in 3rd.

[fluger]

I have no problem with people picking units solely on power level, my complaint is that 40k makes such choices so game-changing. 

[Guest]

The problem isn't with 40k. It is with the players. I can play Fluger type people everyday in a no holds barred environment. The problem is there are cocks who pick based solely on power of units and make it no fun. ITC is there to limit the jerks. Just like sportsmanship and comp was back in 3rd.

That's because Fluger isn't a PVP player, "cocks who pick based solely on power of units and make it no fun" are PVP players.

[Skkipper]

I don't have a problem with it either. Heck I finished last at TSHFT in January. I had fun games but the lack of terrain allowed people to blow up my 6 tall models which was the majority of my army. People want 5th edition power level type games and this was why ITC was created.

[pretre]

Ugh. Double Ugh.

[fluger]

That's because Fluger isn't a PVP player, "cocks who pick based solely on power of units and make it no fun" are PVP players.

 

Actually, I kinda am though.  I really, honest and truly am playing 40k, every time, to win the game.  I think NOT trying is an insult to my opponent.  

 

The only concession I make to not taking the best power units is that I constrain myself on a theme and I try to find diamond in the rough type units/armies.  

 

But, there really isn't much between how I pick units and the people who are trying to win big events.  My mentality is the same, cut out the crap, bring the best stuff.  

[Guest]

People want 5th edition power level type games and this was why ITC was created.

And that is my main beef with ITC. I want to play 7th, and a FAQ which modifies 7th into 5th is unwanted (by me, clearly wanted by others).

 

I would welcome a FAQ system that modifies 7th into a more functional 7th, but the ITC isn't trying to be that.

[fluger]

It's actually taken me years to overcome my natural competitive tantrums.  I remember, shamefully, at a TSHFT being on the top table and kicking a chair over in anger when playing against Darren because I failed to kill one of his Carnifexes, turning the game from a win to a draw.  

 

People in my dorm from SPU all know what a Rat Ogre is because I threw furniture around and yelled obscenities when my brand new Rat Ogre for my Mordheim Skaven crew died after one outing.  This was juxtaposed with the fact that my Skaven were dominating the league so hard that such a setback was superfluous.  

 

I know several people who don't ever want to play against me ever again because of how I acted years ago.  

[fluger]

And that is my main beef with ITC. I want to play 7th, and a FAQ which modifies 7th into 5th is unwanted (by me, clearly wanted by others).

 

I would welcome a FAQ system that modifies 7th into a more functional 7th, but the ITC isn't trying to be that.

 

What specifically about the ITC version of 7th edition do you feel is not a core function of 7th edition?  Is it solely the more open list creation options?  

[Guest]

Actually, I kinda am though.  I really, honest and truly am playing 40k, every time, to win the game.  I think NOT trying is an insult to my opponent.  

 

The only concession I make to not taking the best power units is that I constrain myself on a theme and I try to find diamond in the rough type units/armies.  

 

But, there really isn't much between how I pick units and the people who are trying to win big events.  My mentality is the same, cut out the crap, bring the best stuff.  

 

The problem is there are cocks who pick based solely on power of units and make it no fun.

[Skkipper]

So you want to play unbound lists full of d a weapons? That is 7th

[Guest]

What specifically about the ITC version of 7th edition do you feel is not a core function of 7th edition?  Is it solely the more open list creation options?  

A good question. I think it's a combination of things and it's hard to put it down to anyone thing. It does have a more open list creation, which does present very flexible army creation and allows for some really awesome themed armies.

 

I do like the D weapons, not because I think they are fun, but because I think the threat of D weapons helps balance some of the more OP deathstar/super-units.

 

But 7th does a bunch of other things and that ITC FAQ is long. It was a lot of work to turn 7th into 5th.

So you want to play unbound lists full of d a weapons? That is 7th

No, that is those "cocks that make it no fun" playing 7th.

[Guest]

Mind you, I do think 7th needs a FAQ and a proper errata.

 

Main issue for 7th, on a tournament level, is a lack of consistency in list creation. So some degree of formatting restriction would be reasonable for 7th edition tournaments.

 

Rather than a limit on detachments, a min/max on unit types would probably be a solid balance mechanic for 7th edition events given the highly flexible list creation options. No more than X flyers/flying MCs, no more than X garguartuan creatures, armies must have X units of type Y, and so forth. A ceiling on warp charges generated in a single turn might be a worthwhile tournament mechanic.

 

Goal is just to make tournaments have a more consistent ballpark of what your list needs to be able to cope with. As I can tell, that is the main value of the tournament formatting restrictions.

 

ITC's method can work too, though I really think they should just switch back to actually playing 5th edition and just FAQ that to work with the newer codex books.

[pretre]

And we're back to comp. Sigh

[Guest]

And we're back to comp. Sigh

But I think comp is very unique to the tournaments. Formatting restrictions should be a tournament thing.

 

40k should play just fine with FAQs and errata, but GW hasn't been doing those lately. Not that they were ever amazing at it, but they had a FAQ that would clarify the issues within the codex.

 

I don't think the ITC FAQ is really adequate for non-tournament play. It's not really an FAQ at all, but a list of modifications to the game.

 

Ugh...might have to write my own FAQ....

[pretre]

I don't think the ITC FAQ is really adequate for non-tournament play. It's not really an FAQ at all, but a list of modifications to the game.

It is a FAQ and any FAQ is going to modify the game by answering questions. It is a central document of Frequently Asked Questions (and issues) that they have addressed to simplify and eliminate questions that come up in games. By definition, the answers are going to eliminate other answers and modify play for people who played it the other way. 

 

In addition, they have added some modifications to play to, again, simplify games at tournaments and make the experience more enjoyable. That's a tiny part of the FAQ compared to the rest, however. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it a FAQ.

 

As for your own FAQ, go for it. If you're successful enough, maybe events will begin to use it.

[Guest]

It is a FAQ and any FAQ is going to modify the game by answering questions. It is a central document of Frequently Asked Questions (and issues) that they have addressed to simplify and eliminate questions that come up in games.

 

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it so.

 

As for you own FAQ, go for it. If you're successful enough, maybe events will begin to use it.

No, the FAQ is supposed to answer questions asked by clarifying what the rules mean in the situation asked based on what the rules say (or are intended to say).

 

Errata is supposed to modify the rules. They do not answer questions, they just re-write rules.

 

The ITC FAQ is an errata. It does not answer questions.

[pretre]

No, the FAQ is supposed to answer questions asked by clarifying what the rules mean in the obscure situation asked based on what the rules say or are intended to say.

 

Errata is supposed to modify the rules. They do not answer questions, they just re-write rules.

 

The ITC FAQ is an errata. It does not answer questions.

90+% of the ITC FAQ is answering rules questions for obscure or unclear situations. A very few pieces of it are rules modifications.

 

Just because they aren't phrased in the form of question and answer doesn't make it anything else.

[pretre]

Just from a quick scan, there's about 5 things that they have really modified. The rest are answering common rules queries / problems:

 

 

For ITC format events, The Invisibility psychic power is altered to read: units shooting at the Invisible unit do so at BS1, and hit it in melee on a 5+.

 

For ITC format events, we use the following profile for ranged Destroyer Weapons in place of that found in the book: D Weapons with the Distort Scythe special rule still subtract 1 from the table below.

Roll of a 1: No damage occurs.

Roll of a 2-5: Target model takes D3 wounds, or hull points with a penetrating hit.

Roll of a 6: Target model takes 3 automatic wounds with no saves allowed, or 3 hull points with a penetrating hit with no saves allowed.

 

For ITC format events, Damage from a Stomp attack that results in a 6 on the Stomp Table can be passed off of an affected model to a model not also under the stomp template with a successful “Look Out, Sir” roll, if the the target model can normally take a “Look Out, Sir” test.

 

For ITC format events, any saving throw of a 2+ that can be rerolled, if the first roll is failed, the reroll is failed on a roll of a 1,2 or 3.

[pretre]

So hundreds of rules questions/issues addressed and 5 changes. That sounds like majority FAQ to me.

[Guest]

90+% of the ITC FAQ is answering rules questions for obscure or unclear situations. A very few pieces of it are rules modifications.

 

Just because they aren't phrased in the form of question and answer doesn't make it anything else.

Does the ITC FAQ change rules, or the wording of rules, for clarification purposes? Or does it answer questions?

 

Are you really arguing that "Frequently Asked Questions" don't have to be questions....?

[pretre]

Does the ITC FAQ change rules, or the wording of rules, for clarification purposes? Or does it answer questions?

 

Are you really arguing that "Frequently Asked Questions" don't have to be questions....?

Considering all of the things they are clarifying/addressing were asked as questions... Yes, they are answering questions. I'm willing to bet that for each item of that FAQ, there has been a question asked of a judge at an ITC event or a rules question thread created on a community board.

[Guest]

Considering all of the things they are clarifying/addressing were asked as questions... Yes, they are answering questions. I'm willing to bet that for each item of that FAQ, there has been a question asked of a judge at an ITC event or a rules question thread created on a community board.

I'd much rather they list the questions and answers, than make a list like they do. The whole point of the FAQ is to add some context to a rule.