ITC Joins Warhammer Events

[Joe]

An unfortunate bit of news; ITC have joined Warhammer Events.

[Kastor Krieg]

Ew.

[Xirix]

I take it ITC is a bad thing? Not heard of it before.

[TrawlingCleaner]

9 minutes ago, Xirix said:

I take it ITC is a bad thing? Not heard of it before.

 

International Tournament Circuit is basically a joining of a load of different tournament organisers, players can record their wins/losses with them and at the end of the season theygive prizes to the top players for each faction, each game system etc. ITC also used to make their own FAQs, mission packs etc seperate to GW.

In 2022, GW and ITC joined in an official partnership so this was likely in the pipeline for a good few years now.

 

The worry for some folks is that GW will essentially strong arm ITC and reduce it's independence to essentially just become GW tournaments, although realistically they have been for nearly 2 years now. GW Tournaments tend to disallow 3D printed models etc unless you designed them yourself, however that only seems to be the case in the UK at WHW. I could be wrong on that, mind.

[Doghouse]

Not sure what the reputation of the ITC is either way but not sure I am keen on corporations taking over management of fan run events. 

 

I think it does signal a bigger commitment to the tournament scene overall though. 

[Xenith]

8 minutes ago, Doghouse said:

Not sure what the reputation of the ITC is either way but not sure I am keen on corporations taking over management of fan run events. 

 

From what they say, ITC was already managed by people from Front Line Gaming (and others?), so folks who already make their money from Warhams.

I do appreciate that there's a difference between a local game store and GW, however both have vested interested in getting more people playing and buying models...

[Marshal Rohr]

Kind of the final nail in the coffin for GW ever writing rules that aren’t tournament first oriented. 

[TrawlingCleaner]

2 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

Kind of the final nail in the coffin for GW ever writing rules that aren’t tournament first oriented. 

Not a crusade book releasing this weekend

 

Being less flippant, I don't think this changes much for rules writing style? As I mentioned above, this effectively happened two years ago with very little that's changed since then

[Doghouse]

1 hour ago, Xenith said:

 

From what they say, ITC was already managed by people from Front Line Gaming (and others?), so folks who already make their money from Warhams.

I do appreciate that there's a difference between a local game store and GW, however both have vested interested in getting more people playing and buying models...

 

For me it's more of a having competition is a bit more healthy rather than one ring to rule them all kind of thing. I'd probably take the same stance had it been the other way around to be honest. You'll probably still get local tournies ran by fans that are completely unaffected by this so ultimately I think it's down to exactly what kind of influence either of these organisations currently have as separate entities and how the merger will impact things going forward whether it's in a positive or negative light.

[Dark Shepherd]

I didnt like data from ITC events that heavily used house rules being used for game balance

 

BUT

 

I dont like this either

[Marshal Rohr]

1 hour ago, TrawlingCleaner said:

Not a crusade book releasing this weekend

 

Being less flippant, I don't think this changes much for rules writing style? As I mentioned above, this effectively happened two years ago with very little that's changed since then

Oh do these fundamentally rework the “what’s in the box is all you can build” chicanery?

[phandaal]

Quote

You won’t be seeing any major changes in how things are run for now

 

This certainly does not make me want to reengage with using GW's core rules. Models + mission packs still great though.

 

 

Edited January 19 by phandaal

[01RTB01]

Further proof that my destiny lies in 2nd edition or heresy. Further tournamentification really isn't what I want to see and I agree with other frater. Although we see crusade books release, the core rules themselves/ missions of the game are geared to the tournament crowd. I'm too long in the tooth to be chasing tournaments or have their leads be highly responsible for rules development. 

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

Not great news at all. Tournaments shouldn't be having any influence on the rules. 

[Orange Knight]

In my opinion this isn't going to lead to an improvement in the quality of the game.

 

40k was best when it was a less clinical, more elegantly written and more thematic game. 

 

Now, the rules appear to have been written in consideration for legal disputes in a court room.

 

 

[Rain]

13 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

In my opinion this isn't going to lead to an improvement in the quality of the game.

 

40k was best when it was a less clinical, more elegantly written and more thematic game. 

 

Now, the rules appear to have been written in consideration for legal disputes in a court room.

 

 

I’m a lawyer by trade. I have seen more inane and obviously unintended  rules interpretations of 40k rules on online forums than I have ever read in a legal brief. Contrary to popular belief “RAI” arguments in real court can and do work all the time as long as there isn’t some obvious issue such as lack of jurisdiction or res judicata. Bad faith lawyers should be called legal powergamers, instead of 40k powergamers being called rules lawyers.

[Karhedron]

On 1/19/2024 at 12:49 PM, Marshal Rohr said:

Kind of the final nail in the coffin for GW ever writing rules that aren’t tournament first oriented. 

 

I don't see that as a bad thing. Surely properly balanced rules with no ambiguity benefit everyone. If you want to do narrative play then the state of the tournament scene is not relevant anyway.

[Interrogator Stobz]

I think the growing tournament scene has already impacted us Casuals, the way the rules have changed since 8th are an indication. 

There are far fewer randomizer rules now, things like removing templates, etc.

 

It's becoming far more predictable and maths orientated, which understandably suits comp play.

This will certainly tighten up the balance, but may remove fun risky stuff. I appreciate that bit is subjective.

Early days.

[Tastyfish]

On 1/19/2024 at 2:23 PM, Marshal Rohr said:

Oh do these fundamentally rework the “what’s in the box is all you can build” chicanery?

That's a new player thing, not a tournament thing.

[Marshal Mittens]

I don't hate that tournament play exists, but I do hate its influence on the hobby. 

 

For example I loathe that points in books are typically wrong by printing, and seeing old units going. Leave it all in the book, and put out tournament packs, per season, which say which units are legal or not, and balancing points, for tournaments. 

 

I also dislike that most players take the very least amount of troops and such, and forces make no sense in the concept of the universe, folks taking what ever is strongest, and usually a lot of it. 

 

I like my forces to look like a reasonable force. 

 

Not sure how the ITC being part of GW will change it, but I am sad overall at the trend towards a focus on range play over the vast majority of the gamers. 

[WrathOfTheLion]

I don't particularly mind the tournament side of things, but I don't think more of them being directly tethered to GW is a good thing. Being able to ignore GW when needed is a good level of indirection.

 

Some of the overall changes, such as separating fluff and rules wordings has been very good, and I don't mind it at all. The no model -> no rules thing that mainline studio, especially the 40k studio insists on is the most annoying rules direction they have gone in.

Edited January 21 by WrathOfTheLion

[01RTB01]

2 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

I don't see that as a bad thing. Surely properly balanced rules with no ambiguity benefit everyone. If you want to do narrative play then the state of the tournament scene is not relevant anyway.

Balanced rules do benefit everyone but 9th was a horror show and worse than 7th. I'd be interested what Jervis would have to say about the way the games have developed. Especially as Chambers would have abandoned the I go, you go approach years ago.

[Bryan Blaire]

3 hours ago, Tastyfish said:

That's a new player thing, not a tournament thing.

It’s more a “we don’t want to end up driving people to buy 3rd party bits or 3D print, rather than buy whole extra kits from us, because our prices are too expensive for just one or two weapons we don’t include in a box” than it is a “new player” thing.  GW made that bed themselves with their 70% margins internal necessity.

 

The “tight rules” for tournaments situation doesn’t bother me, it’s the fact that GW doesn’t seem to be supporting much beyond the tournament scene as the base game any more that is my issue.  The base rules are set up to make balancing for tournaments easier and make army building quicker - which only really affects pick-up game and tournament players.

Edited January 21 by Bryan Blaire

[Marshal Rohr]

6 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

I don't see that as a bad thing. Surely properly balanced rules with no ambiguity benefit everyone. If you want to do narrative play then the state of the tournament scene is not relevant anyway.

Oh, where is the narrative section are Grenadier Veterans with shot guns or Camo Cloak Veterans?

[OttoVonAwesome]

Also casual players get hosed on every balance update since each update is designed with the current tournement meta in mind. Meaning if you don't play with tournement standard terrain set ups there is no balance. Your points values are adjusted with that in mind so units that fare better on more open varied terrain are likely undercosted while units that fare better in thick dense terrain are overcosted. Just look at what they did to Custodes. Play against them on a board with craters and common cover instead ruins ruins and more ruins and you'll see what I mean. Another example is indirect wich only has the value it does beacuase no one can get a sight line more than 12 inches.

Edited January 21 by OttoVonAwesome