ITC, WarMachine, and Narrative Gaming

[pretre]

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. 

 

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

[Sugarlessllama]

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

 

And that is a true statement. But I wasn't arguing that it would be easier. I just making the case for making people feel better about the rule set. Yes, it would make the ITC FAQ longer. However, it wouldn't feel as limiting on players. Which is what I go for when I makes rules arguments. But also my goal to make an inclusive, fun, empowering environment for players. The goal of a tournament is to make a balanced environment to determine who is the best player. 

 

Is the tournament environment non-inclusive, and un-fun? For many players, no. It is not. They thrive in that type of environment. However, there is still a good chunk of the game playing demographic that do not find that type of gaming to be inviting. All I am saying is that it could be made more inclusive by forgoing some of the streamlining in favor of more empowering rules decisions. 

 

Would the hardcore tournament players be turned off by this? I don't think so. They would thrive in just about any environment that allowed them to duke it out for the gold. But I am thinking about "How do I get random gamer B to show up? How do I make this more attractive to the business casual tournament player?"

 

Warmachine achieved this to some extent by switching to "Death Clock" style games. But giving each player a chunk of time to play their entire half of the game, in lieu of timed turns more casual Warmachine players started showing up to events. Did it add an additional losing condition? Yup. But it "felt" like players had more time. Which made the competitive scene more approachable. Did the same 12 people take home the gold at the major events? Yup. But more people started showing up the the events. 

 

And isn't that what we as a gaming community want? More people to play with?

[WestRider]

So what do you do about stuff like D Weapons, other than nerfing them? Or 2++ re-rollable Saves? How do you alter things to empower Players without just turning it into a contest of who wins the roll to go first?

 

In their un-altered forms, those result in Games that just aren't much fun, unless one person enjoys stomping on the helpless.

 

What do you do about the ITC FAQ entries that are there to resolve stuff that's simply left undefined by GW? Like what happens if a Unit Locked in Combat fails a Morale Test or is wiped out in some other phase, due to scattering Blasts, crashing Flyers, or whatever.

[Sugarlessllama]

For each rule in question would require much thought and debate would have to go into each decision in turn. I don't think this is the best thread to do it in (nor am I associated with ITC in any way shape or form.). Did I say that I would throw the nerf bat out the window? No. I just think that ITC and other tournament balancing methods lean a little too much on it. That is all. 

 

[pretre]

For each rule in question would require much thought and debate would have to go into each decision in turn. I don't think this is the best thread to do it in (nor am I associated with ITC in any way shape or form.). Did I say that I would throw the nerf bat out the window? No. I just think that ITC and other tournament balancing methods lean a little too much on it. That is all. 

 

 

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

[Sugarlessllama]

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

Incorrect. That was in response to the poster above that started listing off rules for multiple different issues. I never stated that ITC didn't discuss, nor think about the changes they wanted to make. I just think they went out it in a fashion that was nerf before empower. 

 

I am instead arguing for empower before nerf.

[pretre]

I am instead arguing for empower before nerf.

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

 

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

[AbusePuppy]

I think the assumption that "empowering" is inherently more positive and "nerfing" is inherently more negative to be pretty biased from the start. It is not only easier by far to weaken the single outlier to bring it more in line with the other 95% of abilities in the game, it also avoids "ratcheting" the game (in which you raise the power level of the lower 95% to compensate, which leaves you with a new strongest power and now you have to raise the power level of everything again, which leaves you with a new strongest power ad infinitum.)

 

 

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. 

#1 is functionally not any different than changing it so that units are BS1 (rather than snap shots) when firing at the unit. #2 is essentially pointless, since only two armies in the game have any meaningful access to that (DA and SW.) I don't even understand what #3 is supposed to represent, and once again it's functionally pointless because the only army with widespread access to defensive grenades is... Tau. #4, like #1, is already true even without any rules changes.

 

If you're going to argue for a way to change the rules, I might suggest that you do so in a way that shows you actually understand how the rules work and that actually does anything to solve the problem.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

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

 

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

 

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

 

Give me the nerf bat!!!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Sugarlessllama]

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

 

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

 

OK, well let's take a moment to think about this. Ranged Destroyer weapons are a problem. But it is still ranged combat, which can be hampered by the assault phase. This gives us  a couple of interesting ideas to explore; ideas that would possibly provide empowering solutions without granting other codices access to ranged Destroyer weapons. 

1. Vehicles are not made immobile by D weapons. This would allow for transport vehicles to be a touch more survivable against range D armies. Maybe this could be done with the "Extra Armor" upgrade?
2. Perhaps "Assault" could be added to a few more transport vehicles? Maybe this could be a purchasable upgrade. A unit would be able to assault the turn following the destruction of a transport vehicle. This would also have the side benefit of making assault armies a touch more viable.

Those were two ideas off the top of my head. Empowering a player doesn't mean an arms race has to be initiated along the lines of everyone having access to the exact same thing. But perhaps from the standpoint of enriching a counter strategy, which would also open up more avenues of viable tournament play.

 

But if we allow ourselves to be drawn into knee-jerk solutions that depend on a "nerf before empower" model to be executed, I think we might be doing ourselves a disservice as a gaming community.  

[pretre]

OK, well let's take a moment to think about this. Ranged Destroyer weapons are a problem. But it is still ranged combat, which can be hampered by the assault phase. This gives us  a couple of interesting ideas to explore; ideas that would possibly provide empowering solutions without granting other codices access to ranged Destroyer weapons. 

1. Vehicles are not made immobile by D weapons. This would allow for transport vehicles to be a touch more survivable against range D armies. Maybe this could be done with the "Extra Armor" upgrade?
2. Perhaps "Assault" could be added to a few more transport vehicles? Maybe this could be a purchasable upgrade. A unit would be able to assault the turn following the destruction of a transport vehicle. This would also have the side benefit of making assault armies a touch more viable.

Those were two ideas off the top of my head. Empowering a player doesn't mean an arms race has to be initiated along the lines of everyone having access to the exact same thing. But perhaps from the standpoint of enriching a counter strategy, which would also open up more avenues of viable tournament play.

 

But if we allow ourselves to be drawn into knee-jerk solutions that depend on a "nerf before empower" model to be executed, I think we might be doing ourselves a disservice as a gaming community.  

What?

 

1) Is useless. Vehicles aren't made immobile by D weapons; they are erased.

2) Providing assault to vehicles does nothing to change the relative power of D weapons to other codexes that don't have it.

 

I guess we could make 'D-Armor' +1 point per model (+5 per vehicle) and give it to every codex. Model with D Armor treats D weapons as S10, AP2. 

 

It's ridiculous and much more complicated than just changing D, but I guess it is 'buffing' instead of 'nerfing'. Of course, it's also a stealth nerf to everyone who takes it since they have to pay points for something they wouldn't normally want and it is useless except against D.

[pretre]

But if we allow ourselves to be drawn into knee-jerk solutions that depend on a "nerf before empower" model to be executed, I think we might be doing ourselves a disservice as a gaming community.  

I'd like to see one viable solution to either D, Invis or 2++ rerolls that empowers everyone else without nerfing anything. 

[pretre]

Oh wait, I got it. I will empower everyone in the game. All Units gain the following special rule:

 

Destroyer? More like Meh-stroyer: When this unit is hit by a destroyer weapon in the Shooting or Psychic phases, roll on the following chart instead of the one in the main rulebook.  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.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

OK, well let's take a moment to think about this. Ranged Destroyer weapons are a problem. But it is still ranged combat, which can be hampered by the assault phase. This gives us a couple of interesting ideas to explore; ideas that would possibly provide empowering solutions without granting other codices access to ranged Destroyer weapons.

• Vehicles are not made immobile by D weapons. This would allow for transport vehicles to be a touch more survivable against range D armies. Maybe this could be done with the "Extra Armor" upgrade?
• Perhaps "Assault" could be added to a few more transport vehicles? Maybe this could be a purchasable upgrade. A unit would be able to assault the turn following the destruction of a transport vehicle. This would also have the side benefit of making assault armies a touch more viable.

Those were two ideas off the top of my head. Empowering a player doesn't mean an arms race has to be initiated along the lines of everyone having access to the exact same thing. But perhaps from the standpoint of enriching a counter strategy, which would also open up more avenues of viable tournament play.

 

But if we allow ourselves to be drawn into knee-jerk solutions that depend on a "nerf before empower" model to be executed, I think we might be doing ourselves a disservice as a gaming community.

Knee jerk, a lot of thought goes into this it is not, knee jerk.

 

Give vehicles assulat would be cool but than you are suggesting we universalize codex now? Some of the flavor is lost than going against your narrative argument.

 

D weapons don't immobilize vehicles any more than any other penetrating hit... Not sure where you got that. But good luck to a vehicle who survives a d hit.

 

I'm sorry but your grasp of the rules make me challenge your position. I am not great at the rules either. This is a complex game but some the suggestions you are making are flying by the seat of your pants sounding. I get they are examples and just what ifs without a hell of a lot of forethought. So not to belittle, I get where you are coming from but small changes are better than broad ones. Empowering creates a scenario of escalation that eventually runs rampant as bringing up 95% of the models has much harder implications than bringing down the top 5%

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

<p>

 

Oh wait, I got it. I will empower everyone in the game. All Units gain the following special rule:

 

Destroyer? More like Meh-stroyer: When this unit is hit by a destroyer weapon in the Shooting or Psychic phases, roll on the following chart instead of the one in the main rulebook. 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.

Lmao

 

Sugar I truly am curious of he diversity of environments you have played it as it seems light.

[pretre]

Also, they get the following other special rules:

 

Super Keen Senses: When this unit shoots at an Invisible unit, they do so at BS1. They also hit invisible units in melee on a 5+. They may ignore any additional restrictions from the Invisibility psychic power, as well.

 

 

Too Smart to Fall for that One: When this unit directs an attack against an enemy unit, 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]

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

[pretre]

More 'universal' special rules:

 

My Schwartz is Bigger: Enemy psykers are not allowed to cast more powers than their psychic mastery level while a unit with this special rule is on the table.

 

I Deny your Ob-Sec: Enemy conjured units do not count as part of your opponent's detachment while a unit with this special rule is on the table.

[pretre]

Power of the Ancients: If your codex was released in a previous year, you may bring 25% more points per year since your codex was released to any Bizarro ITC event. (2015 - 100%, 2014 - 125%, 2013 - 150%, etc). If you have multiple detachments with different codexes, the newest one is used to determine this modifier.

 

 

 

100% Codexes:

Dark Angels 

Space Marines

Cult Mechanicus

Imperial Knights

Craftworlds

Skitarii

Khorne Daemonkin

Harlequins

Necrons

 

 

125% Codexes:

Blood Angels

Dark Eldar

Grey Knights

Space Wolves

Orks

Astra Militarum

Legion of the Damned

Tyranids

 

150% Codexes: 

Inquisition

Adepta Sororitas

Tau Empire

Chaos Daemons

 

175% Codexes:

Chaos Space Marines

 

Example:

Skitarii and Blood Angels? - 100% (i.e. 1850)

Chaos Space Marines and Chaos Daemons - 150% (i.e. 2775)

Adepta Sororitas and Space Marines - 100% (i.e. 2775)

Chaos Space Marines - 175% (i.e. 3237)

[Sugarlessllama]

OK, well let's take a moment to think about this. Ranged Destroyer weapons are a problem. But it is still ranged combat, which can be hampered by the assault phase. This gives us  a couple of interesting ideas to explore; ideas that would possibly provide empowering solutions without granting other codices access to ranged Destroyer weapons. 

1. Vehicles are not made immobile by D weapons. This would allow for transport vehicles to be a touch more survivable against range D armies. Maybe this could be done with the "Extra Armor" upgrade?
2. Perhaps "Assault" could be added to a few more transport vehicles? Maybe this could be a purchasable upgrade. A unit would be able to assault the turn following the destruction of a transport vehicle. This would also have the side benefit of making assault armies a touch more viable.

Those were two ideas off the top of my head. Empowering a player doesn't mean an arms race has to be initiated along the lines of everyone having access to the exact same thing. But perhaps from the standpoint of enriching a counter strategy, which would also open up more avenues of viable tournament play.

 

But if we allow ourselves to be drawn into knee-jerk solutions that depend on a "nerf before empower" model to be executed, I think we might be doing ourselves a disservice as a gaming community.  

 

AP... thank you for the tone. It is super helpful. 

 

#1 I knew that. I knew that it made achieved the same thing, but it did the same thing by making one rule better instead of making another worse. 

#2 It isn't essentially pointless, because it makes an underutilized rule more powerful. Which is nice. It can make players who those factions happier. 

#3 Claymores are a defensive system of mines. As are anti-pursuit mines. Maybe in the year 40,000 they can up with another nifty explosive system that is tripwire on the go? It is about as logical as turning invisible. 

#4 That I didn't know. And I will be the first person to admit that I don't know all the rules printed in the BRB off the top of my head. But thank you for being a dick about it. Lord knows the gaming community was really short on people being dicks about things.  

 

I'm not trying to troll, or be difficult. I simply wanted to bring up that there are two ways to solve the problems we come up across in wargaming. And to me, I always like to take the route that makes players feel empowered first. Because you can always get the nerf bat out later. 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Give me the nerf bat!!!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And yes, I did have these play experiences that you described. And that is why I no longer play at the midweek league at Guardian Games. I did not find it enjoyable in the least bit. However, my thoughts weren't "Damn! They should nerf that!" it was "Wow, I wish *I* had more answers to that." 

 

Now, it is clear that you do not agree. And so you are making a full throated defense of the solutions that have led you to have more fun at the table. And you know what? Kudos. I'm happy that you are having fun. And no, I'm not being facetious. I'm really happy that you're having fun. 

 

I'm just offering up ideas for discussion that might bring that fun to a wider audience players. That is all. 

[Sugarlessllama]

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

 

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

[pretre]

. But thank you for being a dick about it. Lord knows the gaming community was really short on people being dicks about things.  

He's not just being a dick. He's levelling a legitimate criticism. If you don't understand the rules, it's really hard to take criticisms about the FAQ seriously.

[pretre]

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

Everything boosts my post count. :)

[Sugarlessllama]

Again, I have stated that these thoughts off the top of my head, and that I wasn't trying to set up a nuts and bolts fix; that my goal was to discuss the philosophy behind the solutions. Instead the philosophy was thrown away in favor of the crunch. Ok. Fine. But I honestly have not seen people become so vitriolic at the idea of favoring positive changes over negative changes when the opportunity presents itself.

I mean have you really stopped and looked at your responses pretre? I'm sorry that my thoughts on game design are such heresy to you, but [big bad swear word]ing seriously? Seriously? How does it help? Tell me. I would love to know.    

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

Sugar I get your point give me more answers but when you broadened the answers you boost more than you expect. The answers you have earlier only boosted 4 codex which have the best answers against invisibility. And none of the ones have the worst so your example didn't help.

 

Nerf bat makes me have to change my list less than figure ways to get acute senses in. That makes nerf more about bringing more folks.