ITC, WarMachine, and Narrative Gaming

[fluger]

They are the majority, and their enjoyment of the game has to be taken into account. 

 

This is why I'm thinking Age of Sigmar is going to be a bigger hit than most forum-ites think it will be.  I think Ordo's own AgentP's article on Frontline Gaming hit the nail on the head:  

 

 

I first picked up some GW models back in 1988.  My buddy and I had a rough idea of the rules, and a random assortment of models.  We’d throw down some models on a kitchen table, or the floor, use some stacked books as hills, and commence the battle.  There was no comp, heck there wasn’t even an army list.  We had no idea of list creation, tailoring, min/max, optimization….none of it.  We just threw down models and rolled dice.  I do not recall ever having a bad game back in those days.

 

That resonates so strongly with me for my first forays into gaming.

 

 

 

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?

 

I think a lot of what makes Blizzard games so successful is their emphasis on balance and ease of play.  All of their titles get rigorously patched and repatched to become as balanced as possible.  The final Starcraft patch lasted almost a decade and spawned one of the first major eSports leagues.  

 

I think that balance is something that appeals to hardcore raider and casual player equally.  

[Hobbitron]

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. 

 

Blizzard is an amazing company when it comes to their core game design philosophy. While I found them to often fail on execution, it only plays into what you said about minorities. I was a raider, and would get frustrated with various changes. But... that's not really what I want to talk about here.

 

If Blizzard sees a discrepancy (underused power/class/race) they can release a patch for it. People will log into the game and get the patch automatically, and be like, "Oh awesome, X changed!". In order to apply a similar strategy to 40k, you'd have to accept that GW would have to play the role of Blizzard in regards to their rules. They'd have to watch how/what people play and then tweak the rules to make things more even. GW sells models, and happens to package up some rules to assist in the selling of models. It isn't their priority, and they have proven that throughout the years. What appears on the sprues is what drives their rules at times (Scatterbikes!).

 

There are also technical limitations to GW using a philosophy like that. Since they use printed media, if they were to "hotfix" a balance issue, that physical media would have to make it to every player that it affects.

 

If we go with the comparison that people who want a tournament ruleset are a subfaction of the GW player base (which is absolutely true) who want GW to modify their rules for their own vision of balance, then it's not fair to use Blizzard in general. It seems more fair to use a vocal minority (Raiders!) of WOW.

 

Raid groups give their own requirements on top of WOW's functionality to be able to participate in what they do. Gear requirements, skill requirements, time requirements, consumable requirements. I spent two nights a week raiding for years, and spent much of the time in between making sure my gear/potions/food/enchants/etc... were all up to date and that I was always at the top of my game. I followed my raid group's rules. We had to do so because out of the box, Blizzard doesn't support raiding.

 

To raid on WOW more than just casually via pug or raid finder, it required you play a game within a game. You didn't just play WOW, you RAIDED on WOW. You didn't just load up the game and step into Algalon the day that Ulduar was released. You had to get to the max level, find a group CAPABLE of getting to him, and then work with the group to kill him. If your spec was terrible (like the Shadow Priest without Mind Flay I found one day in a PUG... or Frost DK without Frost Strike!) you couldn't take it to that sort of game. Even in a PUG missing key talents, or wearing str gear on your healadin were unacceptable. You always played within WOW's mechanics, but you added your own balancing to the mix. You wanted top tier people, or at least mid tier.

 

If you want to go to a tournament for 40K, it seems silly to expect that you could purchase a 2k painted army on the premises and the rulebooks, and play that same day. There is some sort of research/investigation to determine how it works and what is required. And for doing so, having a unified ruleset is helpful.

 

If you are going to a local tournament, you have to determine the point value, right? They should also have any sort of comp rules. Maybe it's just a link to the ITC FAQ.

 

Keep in mind with what I pointed out earlier... Blizzard makes games. GW makes models. In that regard, they are both very successful. I don't think anyone will argue that GW's models aren't top of the line.

 

Also this comparison is inaccurate due to the PvE and PvP nature of the games >.>  40K is really only PvP, WOW is both, and any changes to one affects the other.

[Lord Hanaur]

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?

You ask ME this?  Lol.  Of COURSe I'm going to say it's a good thing!  I'm just pointing on the incongruity between usage and actual value.  Sniper Drone units are incredibly valuable and incredibly underused.  

 

I think your goal is to get units that are perhaps too expensive for what they do fixed right?  Thats the ultimate goal?  I hope im understanding that right.

 

If I am then I am just pointing out that the usage may not be the indicator you want to use.  That's all.  Because underused things are not necessarily UNDER POWERED nor over costed.

[Lord Hanaur]

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. 

YES!

 

If you want to be a part of the masses, serve the classes.  But if you wanna be part of the Classes, serve the masses.

 

I am in like Flynn if the subject is "Should we make this thing better for the newest gamer... or the grizzzled vets" followed by a resounding answer of "Who are the NEWEST GAMERS, alex"

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

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.

[fluger]

You ask ME this?  Lol.  Of COURSe I'm going to say it's a good thing!  I'm just pointing on the incongruity between usage and actual value.  Sniper Drone units are incredibly valuable and incredibly underused.  

 

I think your goal is to get units that are perhaps too expensive for what they do fixed right?  Thats the ultimate goal?  I hope im understanding that right.

 

If I am then I am just pointing out that the usage may not be the indicator you want to use.  That's all.  Because underused things are not necessarily UNDER POWERED nor over costed.

 

The difference, as SL pointed out, is that usage is quantifiable and not given to bias.  

[pretre]

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 can even begin to apply that empirical data to a tabletop game.

This.

[AbusePuppy]

You ask ME this?  Lol.  Of COURSe I'm going to say it's a good thing!  I'm just pointing on the incongruity between usage and actual value.  Sniper Drone units are incredibly valuable and incredibly underused.  

 

As someone who loves and uses Sniper Drones, they are definitely not without their downsides. Weak Leadership (as with many Tau), competing with several great units (Broadsides and Skyrays most specifically) and fulfilling a job that can be done by units elsewhere in the codex (Marker Drones, Kroot) as well as being highly static are all significant limiting factors. They're quite good for sniping footbound MCs and for being a cheap and reasonably-survivable source of Markerlights, but all in all they are really only a mid-tier unit.

[Lord Hanaur]

As someone who loves and uses Sniper Drones, they are definitely not without their downsides. Weak Leadership (as with many Tau), competing with several great units (Broadsides and Skyrays most specifically) and fulfilling a job that can be done by units elsewhere in the codex (Marker Drones, Kroot) as well as being highly static are all significant limiting factors. They're quite good for sniping footbound MCs and for being a cheap and reasonably-survivable source of Markerlights, but all in all they are really only a mid-tier unit.

Your analysis misses two important points.  First, you were ALREADY going to have markerlights in the list.  Given that you were, the question is which ones.

 

I'd much rather pay for the Sniper Drones with three Marksmen than 6 Pathfinders to do the same job for all kinds of reasons.  

 

If we went by the metric suggested, how often its used, then we'd see Snier Drones dropped precipitously in cost.  Alternatively they might just give their AP 3 back and leave it as is.  Who really knows?  But neither move would be warranted.  It would just be an automated reaction to the usage data and not the units actual value.

[WestRider]

But it would eventually self-correct. If they were made too cheap, and started becoming more common as more Players went "Huh, just X Points for that now? Gotta give 'em a try.", they would eventually hit a point where they would become common enough that they would get bumped back up. Or they would remain rare, and the fact that they were rare would mean that their underpricing didn't substantially upset the Game for the majority of Players.

 

It would take several iterations for this all to balance out, and then need to be revisited whenever new stuff came out that upset the balance. It's not just a one-and-done kind of thing.

[PourSpelur]

Ah yes, I totally see why Battle Sisters are 34 points each now. I mean, every SOB list has at least two units of them;)

[WestRider]

Ah yes, I totally see why Battle Sisters are 34 points each now. I mean, every SOB list has at least two units of them;)

I think you would compare between factions as well as within them, so if certain factions were rarely fielded because of whatever reason, they would tend to generally get buffed.

[AbusePuppy]

I'd much rather pay for the Sniper Drones with three Marksmen than 6 Pathfinders to do the same job for all kinds of reasons. 

 

But again: there are other ways to get Markerlights that SDT compete with. Skyrays, in the same slot, bring a wholly new functionality and are much tougher and Marker Drones (available alongside any battlesuit) are cheaper per shot and function as ablative wounds for a valuable squad, not to mention being significantly more mobile when brought with a Crisis team (which is a big deal when you only have a 36" range.)

 

It's not a comparison between SDT and Pathfinders because Pathfinders suck.

[WestRider]

More generally, this is another factor that this would need to take into account: desirability based on outside of game factors. If Units are rare not because they're bad, but because they're very expensive dollar-wise, or they don't tend to fit the playstyle or aesthetic favoured by a majority of a given Faction's Players, they could end up showing up relatively rarely, and thus getting buffed by the algorithm even tho they were actually perfectly reasonably priced to begin with.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

Which proves the point that the wow balance method does not apply or make sense to draw from invalidating a page of posts!

 

I just hate mmo, so bit bias.

 

Observed data is hard in a system that is not open transparent like a a video game can be. Balancing becomes an almost impossible venture. What matters most is 2 strangers can sit down and enjoy a game with little conversation spent on nuances. ITC offers that on the largest scale known to the hobby. No other format is better publicized or all incompassing.

 

If you got better idea great but I would suggest work within a large system then compete against it. I would suggest seeing what it takes to get on the committee.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

Nothing wrong with running a non-ITC event. Keep in mind ITC does help the hobby more than hurt as it has helped attendances at events which events help spread the word and get more people interested.

 

Sugar is correct the silent majority are not event goers and are the real bread and butter of the flgs and the hobby.

[Sugarlessllama]

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. 

[pretre]

.... 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. 

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.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

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.

This!

 

Other points that seemed missed. Wow/ blizzard strives to be competitive in a saturated market. So balance is extremely important. GW makes a beer and pretzel game. So company philosophies are completely opposed to each other. GW also remains to be the dominating force in the industry.

 

ITC is an independent 3rd party.

 

Applying a computer development philosophy to a tabletop gaming development is completely incompatible. Data sourcings are completely different. So why Wow/blizzard had so much fanboi posts about why ITC fails makes no sense.

 

ITC is a alternative and completely optional no one is enforcing its complete compliance. Most people like it for its philosophy not for its rulings. It is trying to create a cohesive meta.

 

Why ITC or anything like ITC is important is it allows a cohesive ability for 2 strangers to meet and play and not be bogged by rules lawyering.

 

Your play examples you have shared are not what ITC is about. You would use ITC but I would argue they were not made targeting garage hammer enthusiasts.

 

Now with that said, new folks coming to play strangers what is your suggestion on getting past frequently asked rules questions? GW gives little help.

[fluger]

Recall that SugarlessLlama is into GW games for the beer and pretzels and nothing else.  He's aware of the drawbacks of the system.  

[fluger]

I think SL's take on playing 40k like large scale role playing is...

 

1.  How GW envisions it.  

2.  Makes sense for how sloppy the rules are in a lot of places.

 

I know my gaming group constantly ignored bad rules in all the RPGs we played if it made the story better.  For better or worse, GW makes their games like RPGs and not like tournament games.  

 

I think the ITC version of 40k makes sense for any situation in which strangers are getting together to play.  

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

I agree and I like narrative play. ITC isn't opposed to narrative play but is a system to bring clarity to mud.

 

When I play narrative games I don't care if ITC is used.

 

When I play a stranger, how do I ease the pain of confusion in this game? GW is not the source. I go with the rule of what favors my opponent. For example I played somebody in a tourney who wasn't tracking wounds, pet peeve. He said he had 2 wounds on a model, I swear he had one game was decided by favoring opponent. Also I don't know which packers were casting what as he wasn't declaring and there was 5 perils. Everyone was down to 1 wound. No one died from a perils. I am a casual player and let that all slide, he go third and a gift card for it. I illustrate this as a point that I'm not a Waac player and I am not support a system for tourneys I'm supporting a system that helps give clarity on the largest scale. Obviously my example was not impacted by any ITC portion issue is completely separate from this. Plus I just wanted to vent as it was not positive. I let him do things he forgot and reminded him of phases he was missing and he showed none of that back soul blaze being forgotten a lot. And remembered mid turn. Derailed!

[Sugarlessllama]

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?". 

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

I agree on the stranger part and this where I ask all the negative commentary to offer an alternative.

 

I'm not sure if part of their point is it hurts garage hammer but I don't see that. My understanding of garage hammer is, not two strangers or at least a group of strangers playing. I know my garage has only seen folks I have met in person and played a game with prior.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

Well, that is not entirely true. Your argument is "we don't have the data, so we can't favor empowering the player over nerfing them." I can understand this thought process, but I don't think it is an obstacle that can't be overcome.

 

Let's take invisibility. While I don't have any issues with it as written, some people do. The ITC solution to this was to nerf the power. I can understand this to some point. But what if we decided to solve this by empowering the player instead of nerfing. Here is how it might look like:

 

• The USR for Template weapons on pg. 173 of the BRB could have the following added to it: Template weapons can target units under the effect of Invisibility. Wall of Death special rule works normally against units under the effect of Invisibility.
• The USR for Acute Senses on pg. 157 of the BRB could have the following added to it: There it is! Units with at least one model with the acute senses special rule can re-roll misses in melee against units under the effect of invisibility.
• Units equipped with Defensive grenades can re-roll 1's in melee with units under the effect of Invisibility in the first round of combat.
• Units or models under the effect of Invisibility can be targeted by Stomp.

Etc...........

​

Using this method Invisibility is still a powerful ability, but other abilities that people had once previously deemed "worthless", (like Acute Senses) have now increased in power. This overall has the effect of making people feel better about their models/units/codices rather than worse.

 

It's like that scene in The Newsroom where one of the characters asks "Why is talking about the top 10 overrated movies more fun than talking about the Top 10 underrated movies?".

I agree I would like that but you are now asking for me to remember 4 changes not 1. Minimalist changes as in changing one power versus adding 4 abilities is far less clunky and easier to enforce.