ITC, WarMachine, and Narrative Gaming

[fluger]

Language

 

 

 

[fluger]

[fluger]

[pretre]

[Torg]

The things is, tournaments and tournament play aren't incompatible with casual play. I'm a hardcore tournament 40K player if there ever was one, but I'm also playing in a weekly narrative escalation league. You don't have to limit the ways you have fun- anything you enjoy can be a part of the game at different times, if you so choose. Now, if 40K is losing its appeal to you- hey, fair enough, no one is gonna judge you because of that. But whatever your reasons, it's not because tournaments are "taking over" the game or anything of that sort.

 

- it's nothing to do with the tourney scene - I am not sure I put it that way… it is a shift of the game over 20 years - that is true.  And the need to review a 3rd party set of qualifications do sometimes get in the way of what I want to play.  I changed my OFCC list 2 times because of the hoops and stuff put in place by the ITC stuff.  In the end it was easier to avoid the core problems and settle for a different force entirely.  The force I originally had the spark of passion to build and play wasn't allowable after ITC changes from last years OFCC.  So - I made my changes and still played the event… but with actually my 3rd choice in a force.  No big deal I agree.  But the process - was bumpy and restrictive… and has really pushed me to move seriously away from 40k for the most part.  

Now that I have collected and tried out some smaller games … I am having a second thoughts about playing 40k again at all.  That is not ITC's fault at all.  It is probably more GW's changes and again - the need for events to HAVE TO do something… or feel the need to do something like ITC.  

Compile that with what I see going on with the WHFB scene - as a bystander - I can't help but pause and think about how I spend my hobby time and money - that is squarely on GW.  ITC is only the catalyst that set these things in motion for me personally.

 

Next year - I will not be in the 40k event at all.  I can say that as a near fact.  I will be at OFCC - but for some other game (infinity, bloodbowl, or something else I am not aware of yet).  

 

-d

[pretre]

- it's nothing to do with the tourney scene - I am not sure I put it that way… it is a shift of the game over 20 years - that is true.  And the need to review a 3rd party set of qualifications do sometimes get in the way of what I want to play.  I changed my OFCC list 2 times because of the hoops and stuff put in place by the ITC stuff.  In the end it was easier to avoid the core problems and settle for a different force entirely.  The force I originally had the spark of passion to build and play wasn't allowable after ITC changes from last years OFCC.  So - I made my changes and still played the event… but with actually my 3rd choice in a force.  No big deal I agree.  But the process - was bumpy and restrictive… and has really pushed me to move seriously away from 40k for the most part. 

To be fair, 40k has always been like this. 3rd edition had a TON of different little bits that needed to be listed for an event. (WD allowed? New Assault Rules? VDR? Citadel Journal?). Whatever event you were at had rules as to what you could bring. 5th Edition had 'Ard Boyz restrictions versus rogue trader restrictions versus GT level event restrictions. etc, so on.

Pretty much as long as I played it, there have always been restrictions that changed from season to season (and event to event) about what you could/should bring. Some were GW driven (% model requirements that had to have GW parts for some events) and some were 3rd party driven (allowable codexes, sources, etc. for local and GT level events). ITC just codifies most of these events under one umbrella.

 

In my experience, there are LESS different hoops to jump through because most places just accept ITC. In the past, I had to have different lists, units and even different models for different events. Pretty much now, I have one set of lists, units and models that I can bring to any given event.

[fluger]

I changed my OFCC list 2 times because of the hoops and stuff put in place by the ITC stuff.  

 

Just curious, what did the ITC stuff have to do with list creation?  The only thing OFCC was using ITC for was for the FAQ.  I mean, we had unbound and even an illegal list (the 13 solitaires since they are unique models) which aren't ITC compliant.  

[Torg]

Wall of Martyrs: Aquila Strongpoint…. 

This was allowed the year before… but not last year as I was planning my new themed army.  It may have been adjusted later - I know that the ITC stuff changed mid way through my planning.  After I had been planning the theme immediately after the 2014 OFCC … then after the start of the next year rolls - along with some ITC stuff - it's a not allowable plan (the big D scare).  I shift gears… dropping the theme and searching for the next idea.  Could have been just an event decision - i'm not sure at this point.  Sometime later - much nearer to the event ITC stuff was adjusted… things changed with what was allowable.  Too late for long / big projects for me at least.  I had to settle for something simple with the time left to get things done.

 

Not exactly sure if this was disallowed because of ITC or just event now… possibly I am not sure.  Unbound yes - probably could have did something like that - i guess.

 

-- bottom line - the entire process left me with a bad taste - for GW and ITC or anything else involved in the mix.  I had a project with passion behind it (for me that is a must to get started) … and it just kept getting nixed.  In the end my passion turned to just getting something done so I could go to the event with something allowable - not cheese …etc.  Since OFCC I have not touched anything 40k project related.  The army is still in the box from OFCC - packed as I did on the last day of the event.  My project table has been buzzing with stuff - probably spent to much on new stuff - 3 different game systems with multiple faction forces to play.  When I do look at the 40k stuff I picked up for my next army prior to the changes - I wonder if I should pack it up for "someday" or just sell it for $ for the new games I have been getting into lol.

 

-d

[pretre]

Wall of Martyrs: Aquila Strongpoint…. 

This was allowed the year before… but not last year as I was planning my new themed army.  It may have been adjusted later - I know that the ITC stuff changed mid way through my planning.  After I had been planning the theme immediately after the 2014 OFCC … then after the start of the next year rolls - along with some ITC stuff - it's a not allowable plan (the big D scare).  I shift gears… dropping the theme and searching for the next idea.  Could have been just an event decision - i'm not sure at this point.  Sometime later - much nearer to the event ITC stuff was adjusted… things changed with what was allowable.  Too late for long / big projects for me at least.  I had to settle for something simple with the time left to get things done.

 

Not exactly sure if this was disallowed because of ITC or just event now… possibly I am not sure.  Unbound yes - probably could have did something like that - i guess.

 

-- bottom line - the entire process left me with a bad taste - for GW and ITC or anything else involved in the mix.  I had a project with passion behind it (for me that is a must to get started) … and it just kept getting nixed.  In the end my passion turned to just getting something done so I could go to the event with something allowable - not cheese …etc.  Since OFCC I have not touched anything 40k project related.  The army is still in the box from OFCC - packed as I did on the last day of the event.  My project table has been buzzing with stuff - probably spent to much on new stuff - 3 different game systems with multiple faction forces to play.  When I do look at the 40k stuff I picked up for my next army prior to the changes - I wonder if I should pack it up for "someday" or just sell it for $ for the new games I have been getting into lol.

 

-d

The Aquila Strongpoint was not rejected because of ITC. Nothing was rejected because of ITC that I am aware of. It may have been rejected for being over the top, but I doubt that since it isn't terribly good. If something was rejected for OFCC, that was an OFCC decision and not an ITC decision. The only event that had ITC construction rules was the 40k open, which was cancelled.

 

It sounds more like there was a change made to ITC construction rules and you assumed that that would change the OFCC construction rules without asking LRC/HOG. That isn't correct.

[Torg]

not really wanting to get into it too deep… but early on I was told it would not be allowed - by the HOG - I understood that it was related to ITC stuff.  At that time - it was a good 5-6 months prior to the event.  I do know that ITC stuff changed.  Maybe in the end it was allowed.  Like I said - but by that point it was too late for my plans.  I have the piece - and will use it for APOC and garage hammer play whenever we get back to 40k.  I'm not selling off completed 40k armies.  - not going to expand anything though.  And unopened boxes will be probably let go.  Only project plan is collection related (harlequins) since I am mostly and eldar collector than player over recent years lol.

 

-d

[fluger]

Not exactly sure if this was disallowed because of ITC or just event now… possibly I am not sure.  Unbound yes - probably could have did something like that - i guess.

 

As pretre said, ITC regulations had no bearing on LRC ratings.  

 

Also, I don't remember seeing a list like that coming to the LRC at all...

[pretre]

not really wanting to get into it too deep… but early on I was told it would not be allowed - by the HOG - I understood that it was related to ITC stuff.  At that time - it was a good 5-6 months prior to the event.  I do know that ITC stuff changed.  Maybe in the end it was allowed.  

Fair enough, but I still don't think this had anything to do with ITC. This is an OFCC decision.

[InfestedKerrigan]

 

[fluger]

not really wanting to get into it too deep… but early on I was told it would not be allowed - by the HOG - I understood that it was related to ITC stuff. 

 

I strongly suspect that there was a miscommunication.  That is unfortunate.  I'm sorry this whole thing left a bad taste in your mouth.  

 

Here, have a cool gif

 

[InfestedKerrigan]

This is an OFCC decision.

 

[Torg]

As pretre said, ITC regulations had no bearing on LRC ratings.  

 

Also, I don't remember seeing a list like that coming to the LRC at all...

yeah - it didn't.  As it was a pretty big project I tried to clear it way in advance - before the LRC was put together I am sure lol.  By the time things were working through the LRC I had already changed my force

- no worries - I had fun at OFCC.. .under ITC… which is what I have tried to convey.  The process for me was limiting - mostly with time constraints when looking back.  I need a good 6-9 months for a big idea to come to something on the table top.  - but thats just me 

[pretre]

 

[fluger]

- no worries - I had fun at OFCC.. .under ITC… which is what I have tried to convey.  

 

Oh, I get it, (and I had fun too!), just doing an after-action report to try and fix things for the future.

[Torg]

well if your keeping track … I think it would be really cool to have an event that someone could spend nearly a year working on an army or theme for.  Knowing that nothing will change in what they are doing - so time or effort isn't wasted.  I envision table and army themes that would be jaw dropping (or at least thats the goal)… lol.  from a purely design standpoint :)  I realize some folks already pull off some awesome stuff … maybe they have no social life?  or day jobs? lol… kidding.

 

-d

[Sugarlessllama]

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. 

[fluger]

 

 

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. 

 

This is, almost word for word my idea for next level 40k rebalancing.  I talked about this on chat with MrMoreTanks.  

 

My idea was you get ITC organizers to send in a list of every unit that is getting used in every army.  (so, list 1 has 6 drop pods, 6 tactical squads, etc) and submit it with the rankings information.  Every 6 months, look at the usage rates for all the units being used and then put in point drops or raises based on use.  

 

So, if, say, drop pods represented a large percentage of used units, then they get a point bump of a certain percentage (perhaps correlating to how much more often they get used compared to the median?) and any units that didn't get used or got used infrequently, would get a point decrease.  

 

You let the player pool determine what is good and what is not and after a while you should get more balance than what is to be had now.  Like, if Ogryns drop to like 20 pts a pop, do they finally see the table en masse?  Or if drop pods go to 55 pts do they stop getting used over, say Rhinos?  Things like that.  

 

This would be facilitated with some kind of synergy with something like battlescribe where all lists could be entered in their entirety (make that part of the signup process?) so they could then review even wargear options.  

 

I think that with computer assistance and more buy in, we could get even better balance in 40k.  

[Lord Hanaur]

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.

[fluger]

I don't really see a problem with this. 

 

Let's say that over a 6 month period in ITC events only 3 units of sniper drones were used compared to say 1000 units of tactical marines, let's say sniper drones then dropped in points cost by 20%.  What does that really give you?  Not a crazy amount of points more than you would've had before, but enough that maybe now you have even more of an edge and you win more and people see the unit more and now more people use it.  With usage up, price goes up perhaps?   

 

Getting people to use different units can't be a bad thing, can it?

[AbusePuppy]

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.

 

*deletia*

 

 

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. 

 

ALL games have limitations. Games are, in fact, defined by the way they limit your actions- that's what makes them games and not just playing pretend. Tournaments put more limitations on games than casual play because of a vastly different goal and environment- a tournament is likely to bring together gamers with widely-varying experiences and expectations and then try and get them to play together with essentially zero prep time. Without a commonly-recognized set of rules and limitations beyond those present in the base game, this is not really possible- can you imagine arguing with every opponent at a tournament what points value you were going to play that game at, or what scenario to use, or how much terrain to put on the board? It would be utterly intenable.

 

That's not to say the tournament experience is inherently "better" than the casual one- as I said, they aim for different things. But in both cases, trying to overlay the expectations of the one onto the other is bound to meet with failure because of their different natures.

 

With regards to the second point, I think you're conflating popularity with correctness. Now, certainly forums (this one included) are prone to group-think and exaggeration in support of their own views and no player, or group of players, can make a claim to total objectivity. In the end, it's results that matter, not opinions- that's why we have tournaments rather than voting on what the most powerful list is. But FLG's voting, flawed as it may sometimes be, is solidly based in the results of tournaments rather than simple speculation- 2+ rerollable weren't just changed at the drop of the hat, they were changed because of massive over-prevalence in the tournament scene and a negative impact on the game as a whole. Ditto for Invisibility and Str D ranged weapons.

 

40K tournaments don't- and, realistically, can't- have access to the same level of data as WoW does about its players and what they do and use. Wow has millions of subscribers competing in a brutally-cutthroat system for hundreds or hours a month; there's simply no way to get that level of testing on 40K. Failing that, I think Magic: the Gathering has a much more successful model for the game to follow- and that is one that relies on a combination of tournament data and player base knowledge to enact any rules changes as needed. The game devs certainly shouldn't be basing all of their decisions on what people say on the internet- but at the same time, ignoring some of the most creative and experienced players of the game can be a fatal mistake.

[Sugarlessllama]

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.