ITC Joins Warhammer Events

[Pacific81]

12 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.

I would agree with this in principle, but it does have a knock-on effect. There are parts of the Legions Imperialis rulebook which are borderline unreadable, with special rules filling an entire page, in an attempt to stop someone reading the rule upside down and coming to some daft interpretation.

 

The problem is that in many cases it still isn't particularly clear, and you've ended up turning away 'casuals' who don't want to feel like they reading T&C's of an insurance document when they are playing something that is meant to be fun.

[Orange Knight]

The game is overflowing with rules that have minor impacts, but entire paragraphs of text you have to endure to even understand them.

 

The AdMech codex, most recently, is faulted with this. Sometimes it's literally a chore to even read what effect detachments and abilities have.

 

Another thing I have noticed is the disappearance of fun and thematic abilities that may or may not have a big impact, and were unpredictable but also fun.

Remember how back in 5th edition, the Necron Stormlord was a renowned commander - this would manifest in a special rule that allowed him to re-roll an attempt to seize the initiative. There was a fun thematic addendum to that; Orks were so random and confounding, that he could NEVER seize the initiative from them as they are so hard to predict.

 

Everything was written and presented in a more fun way. It was generally agreed that games would be played in a friendly manner, and that players weren't going to attempt niche interpretations of the English language in order to bend rules to their advantage. It was the WAAC competitive scene that ultimately forced changes in the writing style because they were trying to squeeze every advantage possible at the expense of enjoyment, and sporting behaviour. 

[Karhedron]

12 hours ago, Marshal Mittens said:

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. 

 

That is a player problem though, not a tournament problem. Tournaments just highlight the problem by bringing lots of competitive players together in one place. 

 

I would actually say that tournaments are good for the game as they rapidly highlight problems and push GW to do something about them. 

[Karhedron]

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

Everything was written and presented in a more fun way. It was generally agreed that games would be played in a friendly manner, and that players weren't going to attempt niche interpretations of the English language in order to bend rules to their advantage. It was the WAAC competitive scene that ultimately forced changes in the writing style because they were trying to squeeze every advantage possible at the expense of enjoyment, and sporting behaviour. 

 

I think that there may be an element of nostalgia creeping in here. I always remember people arguing about rules as long as as I have been in the game. It wasn't always people trying to twist the rules, some rules were so badly written that people genuinely couldn't tell what the intended meaning was.

 

I am sure plenty of people were very sporting with their games and simply tried to have fun, I still do and nothing in 10th edition rules prevents that. What used to be a problem was when a fun player ran into a competitive player and the mismatch led to an unfun game, often for both parties.

 

Tighter wording, more points updates and more restrictions make 10th a much better edition for pickup games as it closes the gap between fluffy armies and competitive ones. Some players will still try to spam the most optimal units but they always did. Tournament play does create WAAC players, it just creates a venue where they can play that style of game and helps highlight issues that need fixing. 

Edited January 21 by Karhedron

[Matcap86]

Also just: The internet.

 

Every little exploit/meta build etc. gets circulated VERY rapidly and has the potential to become a problem. Whereas before it was just "that guy" in a few places who figured it out and was disincentivized to keep doing stuff like that because no one would play with them anymore, nowadays these are plenty of player who just go online to find the most broken build they can find and run those because "that's optimal and the way it should be played". 

[Orange Knight]

I admit nostalgia does colour my opinion somewhat. There is one thing that I defend however - the current mission design is not as fun.

 

I recently played a few games with older missions from before the external influence took hold on GW.

 

"Narrow the Search" - you can play that mission 40 times with the same or wildly different lists, and have a different and exciting experience every time. Bring the old mission formats back! 

 

I honestly suggest people give this a try today to see how interesting, unpredictable and narratively rich the missions could be. Rules as follows:

 

 

Edited January 21 by Orange Knight
Mistake uploading image

[TrawlingCleaner]

15 minutes ago, Matcap86 said:

Also just: The internet.

 

Every little exploit/meta build etc. gets circulated VERY rapidly and has the potential to become a problem. Whereas before it was just "that guy" in a few places who figured it out and was disincentivized to keep doing stuff like that because no one would play with them anymore, nowadays these are plenty of player who just go online to find the most broken build they can find and run those because "that's optimal and the way it should be played". 

 

Which is why its good to use data from tournaments to find the cheese and patch it out of the game or to write rules that are lawyer-esque so that they're robust. Pickup games at a club or games at your local stores (arguably the largest percentage of games) suffer the most from the Internet's proliferation of problems with the games.

 

Yes tournament players are only a small percentage of overall players, however it's;

A) The fastest way to figure out what's broken in an army. What's undercosted, what's broken etc

B) The only accurate way of getting 100% accurate data based on factions, lists etc. 

Using the data there is a way of counter-acting that proliferation somewhat. It's not flawless and it has it's problems, undoubtedly.  

 

It's worth noting this happens for all tabletop games and video games these days,  have a proliferation of bugs or breaks being found and posted online

[Mogger351]

22 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

I admit nostalgia does colour my opinion somewhat. There is one thing that I defend however - the current mission design is not as fun.

 

I recently played a few games with older missions from before the external influence took hold on GW.

 

"Narrow the Search" - you can play that mission 40 times with the same or wildly different lists, and have a different and exciting experience every time. Bring the old mission formats back! 

 

I honestly suggest people give this a try today to see how interesting, unpredictable and narratively rich the missions could be.

I think, sadly, the people who worry about GW being entangled with the ITC are the same people who would hate that mission.

 

The current mission format is nearer old ITC missions than not. So whilst the official GW event games were 1500 points of reasonably balances lists who had to be mobile and reactive to win, ITC was 2k selected secondaries encouraging pre-game mathematical trades and functions. Which again, is nearer what we have now.

[crimsondave]

8 hours ago, Marshal Rohr said:

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

Or the Strikemaster.  You know, the one that came out in 9th edition?

[Kastor Krieg]

17 hours ago, Karhedron said:

properly balanced rules with no ambiguity

HAH!

[phandaal]

3 hours ago, Karhedron said:

Tighter wording, more points updates and more restrictions make 10th a much better edition for pickup games as it closes the gap between fluffy armies and competitive ones.

 

Disagree on the points changes making this a better edition for pickup games. With a different points system, that might be the case. With the Duplo-block Power Level system of 10th Edition, it is very possible for people to lose the ability to build a game-legal army if their model collection is limited.

[Orange Knight]

We must acknowledge one simple truth.

 

GW will never balance the game properly as long as their existing release pattern is maintained. Armies are updated piecemeal over the course of two years, and the cycle resets.

 

Thusly, we end up in a lose-lose scenario where we are subjected to wordy rules and boring ITC inspired missions, whilst not actually having this great competitive and balanced game.

Edited January 21 by Orange Knight

[Emperor Ming]

Interesting, big hammer to 3d printing and 3rd party retailers if its going to be citadel only

[Evil Eye]

Yeah, this is going to be a disaster. At its best, 40K has always required some separation of tournament scene and the core rules development; I was always under the impression the whole point of tournaments was that you took what the game gave you and tried to prove your mastery of it in an environment very different from day-to-day gaming. What we have here is the core game being treated as if casual play is just "training mode" for competitive play. I know I keep saying this but it seems like the whole game is being turned into a "tabletop esport" complete with seasonal patches, DLC, and casual play being contaminated with meta-chasers/"stop having fun" guys.

 

The comparison I'd make is actually Smash Bros. The original game was always intended as a party game, a way for friends to have fun and goof around. Then Melee came out and certain people seized upon it as a hyper-competitive tournament game, the result being you couldn't get a game of Smash without at least one player being convinced they're future tournament material and either playing like a complete tool or insisting the game be set up for """balance"""- hence "NO ITEMS, FOX ONLY, FINAL DESTINATION" becoming a meme. The big difference is Nintendo actively tried to dissuade that mindset, making future entries in the series with more fun/silly mechanics to try and remind people that it's just a game and also not officially supporting Melee tournaments (quite aside from anything else it's an ancient game now and hardware that can run it isn't easy to come by now, let alone the actual game!). GW, meanwhile, seems to be actively encouraging the degeneration of the game into "Deathmatch on a blank board with a few ruins" cheesefests.

 

Sadly short of assertive gatekeeping of unpleasant tryhards at a local level (not tarring all tournament players with the same brush of course, strictly talking about the "I have no interest in the hobby besides winning tournaments" crowd) the only solution I can see is just not playing modern rules. Which, honestly, is no skin off my nose because dear god the modern game is ugh.

[Remain_Indoors]

Urgh. I’m not a tournament player really but ITC started to be used locally and killed what had been a regular, monthly tournament. 

[Kastor Krieg]

22 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

We must acknowledge one simple truth.

 

GW will never balance the game properly

This is true. No qualifiers. Never going to happen.

There's not a single game this or similar scale in the world that is "balanced". Balance, of itself, is a fiction, a mirage. A goal with ever-shifting posts.

[Kastor Krieg]

22 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

The comparison I'd make is actually Smash Bros. The original game was always intended as a party game, a way for friends to have fun and goof around.

I'd even say modern 40k is like Counter-Strike. It started as an awesome and fun, quick and easy game to have a LAN party with and shoot a buddy in the face.

Now 40k is getting "balanced" because you might randomly get the likes of "s1mple" or "ZywOo" across the table. It's absurd.

[Blurf]

On 1/21/2024 at 12:46 PM, Evil Eye said:

Yeah, this is going to be a disaster. At its best, 40K has always required some separation of tournament scene and the core rules development; I was always under the impression the whole point of tournaments was that you took what the game gave you and tried to prove your mastery of it in an environment very different from day-to-day gaming. What we have here is the core game being treated as if casual play is just "training mode" for competitive play. I know I keep saying this but it seems like the whole game is being turned into a "tabletop esport" complete with seasonal patches, DLC, and casual play being contaminated with meta-chasers/"stop having fun" guys.

 

The comparison I'd make is actually Smash Bros. The original game was always intended as a party game, a way for friends to have fun and goof around. Then Melee came out and certain people seized upon it as a hyper-competitive tournament game, the result being you couldn't get a game of Smash without at least one player being convinced they're future tournament material and either playing like a complete tool or insisting the game be set up for """balance"""- hence "NO ITEMS, FOX ONLY, FINAL DESTINATION" becoming a meme. The big difference is Nintendo actively tried to dissuade that mindset, making future entries in the series with more fun/silly mechanics to try and remind people that it's just a game and also not officially supporting Melee tournaments (quite aside from anything else it's an ancient game now and hardware that can run it isn't easy to come by now, let alone the actual game!). GW, meanwhile, seems to be actively encouraging the degeneration of the game into "Deathmatch on a blank board with a few ruins" cheesefests.

 

Sadly short of assertive gatekeeping of unpleasant tryhards at a local level (not tarring all tournament players with the same brush of course, strictly talking about the "I have no interest in the hobby besides winning tournaments" crowd) the only solution I can see is just not playing modern rules. Which, honestly, is no skin off my nose because dear god the modern game is ugh.

It's funny to see this interpretation when MY first response was that this was GW taking a serious (if declining) tournament format and turning into cupcake 'beer and pretzels' league style play, more in line with their 'world tournament series'.

 

GW are not serious people when it comes to Tournament Organizing. Or writing tournament rules.