Concerns with ITC...

[Bjarni St.]

For all the talk about how good generals are always "planning around the double turn" actual games sure seem to involve a lot of pushing it forward (or pointing your gunline at it) and hoping you get the double (or your opponent doesn't.)

I can live with initiative rolls in AoS but I really do not agree with how it's often glamourised by AoS advocates. Its main selling point is the increased variance it brings to games, a sort of "every dog gets his day" mechanic whereby increased randomness can help the game keep interesting. AoS, being a relatively simple wargame, might in fact need that but that doesn't mean it's a mechanic that rewards good play.

[daedalus81]

1 minute ago, Bjarni St. said:

For all the talk about how good generals are always "planning around the double turn" actual games sure seem to involve a lot of pushing it forward (or pointing your gunline at it) and hoping you get the double (or your opponent doesn't.)

I can live with initiative rolls in AoS but I really do not agree with how it's often glamourised by AoS advocates. Its main selling point is the increased variance it brings to games, a sort of "every dog gets his day" mechanic whereby increased randomness can help the game keep interesting. AoS, being a relatively simple wargame, might in fact need that but that doesn't mean it's a mechanic that rewards good play.

Maybe and maybe not.  What I do know is that my games are not as you described, which is also described by many other people.  Anecdotal, certainly, but no less so than your claim.  Perhaps we should spend more time working it out instead of tossing it out as useless?

[mmimzie]

I personally prefer a tournament seen to be closer to the base game than big changes, as this makes playing pick up games at a local store weird and difficult. 

[Sarkazim]

As a longtime 40k player, I can't stand the ITC and wish it just go away.  I want to be clear, I'm not against what they're trying to do, and actually support them taking the time to organize and coordinate the events.  It would just be nice if they'd start playing 7th.  To me, the ITC is a representation of what is killing 40k and has created a very toxic environment.  

My experience has never been positive.  I don't enjoy the format, BS rules, and the growing number of players who won't play anything else.  Especially when the FLG guys will play anything.  It says a LOT when I can play a 2900pt game in about two hours and have a blast, then play a 1850 point game with an ITC guy, and pull my models off the table by the end of turn 2 after two hours of arguing...

A bit of a rant, but the upside is that it drove me to look at AoS.  I have literally recaptured the excitement for gaming that was lost a long time ago.  I haven't had this much fun since I started playing Blood Bowl.  While I still don't think it's the better system, its definitely a much more welcoming community.  Everyone that has gotten past the Naysayers realizes is going to Evolve.

While I'm glad that they're including it at the LVO, there is a growing number of players who want the Initiative mechanic removed.  I'm glad they said they don't plan on voting on it, I just hope they stick to it.  

[Turragor]

I don't think you guys over in the states should trust anything to voting at the minute!

 

[David Griffin]

6 hours ago, Turragor said:

I don't think you guys over in the states should trust anything to voting at the minute!

 

Congratulations. You win this forum thread. 

[amysrevenge]

I'm so torn on the very notion of what the ITC stands for.

On the one hand, consistency is good, and a wider community is nice.

On the other hand, it is nearly universal in my experience that the more formalized and homogenized a game meta/community becomes, the less enjoyable the game becomes.  Both the base game itself, and the mood/environment of the games that are played.

[mmimzie]

I dont know i like the ITC for quick temporary rulings on a rules question. I don't care for changes to the fundamental rules of the game. 

 

Many rules can be interupted in lots of different ways so it's good to get concensus, and give time for GW to FAQ or reword a thing. 

 

It get dumb though when they try to make thier own game. When you want to change how inative works your basicly coming from 40k and saying "yeah i want it more 40k." When you want shooting changes your kind of saying "yeah shooting is strong in 40k i want this to be a more melee game. "  ALso, some of the balance changes they do are all really arbitrary. Many units that are strong/weak get nerfs or buffs.... but then other units just get completely ignored, and it more jsut on what people want to be strong or perceive to be weak.  

[CoffeeGrunt]

I think we should have an Age of Brexit from the ITC.

[thejughead]

As a longtime 40k player, I can't stand the ITC and wish it just go away.  I want to be clear, I'm not against what they're trying to do, and actually support them taking the time to organize and coordinate the events.  It would just be nice if they'd start playing 7th.  To me, the ITC is a representation of what is killing 40k and has created a very toxic environment.  
My experience has never been positive.  I don't enjoy the format, BS rules, and the growing number of players who won't play anything else.  Especially when the FLG guys will play anything.  It says a LOT when I can play a 2900pt game in about two hours and have a blast, then play a 1850 point game with an ITC guy, and pull my models off the table by the end of turn 2 after two hours of arguing...
A bit of a rant, but the upside is that it drove me to look at AoS.  I have literally recaptured the excitement for gaming that was lost a long time ago.  I haven't had this much fun since I started playing Blood Bowl.  While I still don't think it's the better system, its definitely a much more welcoming community.  Everyone that has gotten past the Naysayers realizes is going to Evolve.
While I'm glad that they're including it at the LVO, there is a growing number of players who want the Initiative mechanic removed.  I'm glad they said they don't plan on voting on it, I just hope they stick to it.  

I can understand the sentiment, but 40k is completely unplayable without using the ITC. While not perfect it does allow for factions to be playable unless it's Orks , CSM, and a few others. That is a product of the clunky rules 40k has at the moment.

For AoS , I'm extremely against any change to the core rules. I hope that GW maintains the current interaction with the community to keep the ITC FAQ at a minimum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dez]

Haha except Orks and CSM...two of my armies. I was pining to play Necrons for years, and finally got around to painting them. Luckily that made it so I actually had an army I could compete with...though I did do ok still with Orks. I don't miss playing 40k though, haven't in years and I'm happy for AoS.

[Motley]

What podcast are you talking about?

[thejughead]

What podcast are you talking about?

Frontlinegaming.org , they also have an article regarding the mechanic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wayniac]

Really though, things like the ITC only exist because GW refuses to balance their games.  You don't have this stuff in a game like Warmachine where there's a very strong focus on at least attempting balance and having a solid set of rules for competitive gaming; house rules are basically nonexistent in Warmachine because there's zero need for them.  The ITC is a result of GW's lackadaisical approach to the game, not really caring for anything beyond "Look at the pretty models!".  I get the issues against house rules like that, but without them the base game is bordering on unplayable because things are so vague that there needs to be a house rule sometimes just to agree on what the language is saying.  I do get the issue with things like changing how things work in the name of balance; that's more of a gray area but again, it's basically an independent group doing what GW refuses to do (or is not qualified enough to do).

It's a necessary evil to even have something resembling a competitive Warhammer community, because unlike other games you're getting basically zero support from the company itself (and even in recent times the support they have given isn't much, basically just throwing a bone). 

[Sarkazim]

2 hours ago, thejughead said:

I can understand the sentiment, but 40k is completely unplayable without using the ITC.

 

I hear this often and completely disagree.  I haven't found anything in 40k that's unplayable.  The ITC is the result of 40k players not happy with what the game has become, and is now about avoiding the elements they don't like.  Their voting system reflects that. Even after the FAQs dropped, some of it was hard to swallow for some players.  

I don't want to go into it too much here, this is an AoS forum, so I'll get back on track.  (Feel Free to PM me if you want a civilized conversation on it.). Its always been noted that players should feel free to adjust the game to their needs.  FLG is doing well in catering to that group.  The issue isn't with that, the issue is when they start to dictate those rules to everyone else.  This is where AoS has succeeded.

There was an exodus of players who left when the change from WHFB to AoS was made.  Most of them that I've talked to are still Salty about it, and they can't believe the game is growing.  Unlike the 40k ITC, there wasn't a 'haven' for WHFB Players to go to.  Sure there was King of War, 9th age, etc, but none of them have unified those who disliked the changes. Ultimately, I think that's the fear that maybe the OP was trying to define.

AoS has been doing fine without something like the ITC defining how the game has to be played.  The fact that FLG is adding it to their events is great, but with that comes the possibility of having players vote on changes.  One that should be limited to those wishing to attend those events.  Its no surprise to me that turnout is high at those events, because they are catering to those who don't like the rules more than those who actually play the game.  I think there was an independent survey that showed less than 1/2 of the community didn't like playing competitively.  I feel that part of it is because so many of the major events don't use most of the current rules because the minority feels they're unplayable.

There is a fear that 40k will get the Sigmar treatment.  While I love 40k, I am not seeing the downside to it.  One of the problems I had with WHFB were the players who used the staleness of the game to their advantage.  AoS eliminated that, and everywhere I see people grumbling when they see an AoS game being played, the response from those who enjoy it is simply 'Go find something you do enjoy and leave us alone'.  This is something that needs to happen to 40k, but can't as long as the ITC is providing a place for these players to continue.

Im no sure if this is what the OP was getting at or not.  Regardless, I personally don't want the ITC, or any of the events, to start removing, changing, or altering core mechanics like they have with 40k.  FLG is going to do what they need to in order to sell out their events.  Again, I'm not against this.  I just don't want that to be accepted as the norm.

[Requizen]

I've been posting on their threads and trying to calm their fears and desires to change things.

I think the biggest thing for those of them on the podcast is that their personal experience has been limited so far and biased. Once people come forward with numbers and results that say the things they're proposing to change are not a big deal, I think it'll calm down a bit. And if it comes down to it, there's always a vote and not an immediate change.

I am betting that LVO will shape their opinion a bit. If the streamed games and top tables are not dominated by shooting and double turns do not dictate games as much as they think it will, they'll be less worried by it. 

On the other hand, if the top tables for whatever reason get "ruined" by a shooting army getting double turns (hopefully not, but LVO isn't the playerbase of the UK), we may see that vote.

[thejughead]

I hear this often and completely disagree.  I haven't found anything in 40k that's unplayable.  The ITC is the result of 40k players not happy with what the game has become, and is now about avoiding the elements they don't like.  Their voting system reflects that. Even after the FAQs dropped, some of it was hard to swallow for some players.  
I don't want to go into it too much here, this is an AoS forum, so I'll get back on track.  (Feel Free to PM me if you want a civilized conversation on it.). Its always been noted that players should feel free to adjust the game to their needs.  FLG is doing well in catering to that group.  The issue isn't with that, the issue is when they start to dictate those rules to everyone else.  This is where AoS has succeeded.
There was an exodus of players who left when the change from WHFB to AoS was made.  Most of them that I've talked to are still Salty about it, and they can't believe the game is growing.  Unlike the 40k ITC, there wasn't a 'haven' for WHFB Players to go to.  Sure there was King of War, 9th age, etc, but none of them have unified those who disliked the changes. Ultimately, I think that's the fear that maybe the OP was trying to define.
AoS has been doing fine without something like the ITC defining how the game has to be played.  The fact that FLG is adding it to their events is great, but with that comes the possibility of having players vote on changes.  One that should be limited to those wishing to attend those events.  Its no surprise to me that turnout is high at those events, because they are catering to those who don't like the rules more than those who actually play the game.  I think there was an independent survey that showed less than 1/2 of the community didn't like playing competitively.  I feel that part of it is because so many of the major events don't use most of the current rules because the minority feels they're unplayable.
There is a fear that 40k will get the Sigmar treatment.  While I love 40k, I am not seeing the downside to it.  One of the problems I had with WHFB were the players who used the staleness of the game to their advantage.  AoS eliminated that, and everywhere I see people grumbling when they see an AoS game being played, the response from those who enjoy it is simply 'Go find something you do enjoy and leave us alone'.  This is something that needs to happen to 40k, but can't as long as the ITC is providing a place for these players to continue.
Im no sure if this is what the OP was getting at or not.  Regardless, I personally don't want the ITC, or any of the events, to start removing, changing, or altering core mechanics like they have with 40k.  FLG is going to do what they need to in order to sell out their events.  Again, I'm not against this.  I just don't want that to be accepted as the norm.

I'm glad you're ok playing against 4-5 WraithKnights each game. I can tell you it's a bad experience. The majority of those that choose to play at ITC events would have been out of the hobby otherwise.

The 40k rule set is in need of a reboot. AoS is in a really good state and I don't foresee any changes to its rules from ITC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[David Griffin]

22 minutes ago, wayniac said:

Really though, things like the ITC only exist because GW refuses to balance their games.  You don't have this stuff in a game like Warmachine where there's a very strong focus on at least attempting balance and having a solid set of rules for competitive gaming; house rules are basically nonexistent in Warmachine because there's zero need for them.  The ITC is a result of GW's lackadaisical approach to the game, not really caring for anything beyond "Look at the pretty models!".  I get the issues against house rules like that, but without them the base game is bordering on unplayable because things are so vague that there needs to be a house rule sometimes just to agree on what the language is saying.  I do get the issue with things like changing how things work in the name of balance; that's more of a gray area but again, it's basically an independent group doing what GW refuses to do (or is not qualified enough to do).

It's a necessary evil to even have something resembling a competitive Warhammer community, because unlike other games you're getting basically zero support from the company itself (and even in recent times the support they have given isn't much, basically just throwing a bone). 

I think there is a wealth of evidence that speaks to the contrary of most of what you've said here. Warlords, GW's big matched play event, was a tournament played almost directly from the book and is widely considered a profound success. Saying the game is "unplayable" using the base rules is not only hyperbolic, but entirely untrue. The game plays perfectly fine in a competitive environment with minimal adjustments (base to base measuring being the key change).

Also, saying GW doesn't support its games is, again, untrue. While I get they have had problems in the past with support, this is certainly not the case today, or at the very least, it is steadily improving. Within a year of the game's launch we had a new FAQ and we continue to have consistent community interaction from their Facebook page. GW has also come out and said they plan on regularly updating the Handbook.

[Dez]

I'd read that WM/H MK3 was a train wreck and whole factions (Skorne) were rendered unplayable. I'm not sure they are the standard you want to hold GW to ATM  I do get where you are coming from.

 

 

[mmimzie]

1 hour ago, thejughead said:

 

I'm glad you're ok playing against 4-5 WraithKnights each game. I can tell you it's a bad experience. The majority of those that choose to play at ITC events would have been out of the hobby otherwise.

The 40k rule set is in need of a reboot. AoS is in a really good state and I don't foresee any changes to its rules from ITC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

See but 4-5 wraith knights would get run over by a box of orcs do to poor ability to clear the table, or an army of something invisible, or a wolf star. Things can counter other things. Thats how these games work. Also, what about that guy who had already bought 4-5 wraith knights because he wanted that as his army. Now he's not in the hobby either, but the guy who spams jet bikes that move accross the table in no time and can threaten to kill just about any unit in the game is free to keep playing his army.

 

I think there are a few things that might be overly power, and for those i don't mind a simply ban them out right. That way when i go to my local gaming store that doesn't want to play ITC rules all i gotta do is play a list that doesn't have banned units to practise my army.

I also like nice little clarification that GW hasn't FAQ'd yet as when the rule comes up i can say "these guys think the rule works this way??? yall cool using that??" 

 

But when i gotta gett 4 pages of how to build my list and 26 pages of extra rules on top of that full of random balance 'fixes,' I gotta say well lets open up the 5th rule book we'll need for this game of 40k  from a 3rd party source that none of you are familiar with so you can see how they decided to nerf your invisible or your D attacks. While also nerfing units strong against these invisible units llke cognis. This is where i draw the line, and this is where its dumb. When i have to play a different game that i can only practise with specific people. It's where the game starts to become clicky and where you can't play the game to practise for tournaments in a more casual setting. 

[thejughead]

5th rule book we'll need for this game of 40k  from a 3rd party source that none of you are familiar with so you can see how they decided to nerf your invisible or your D attacks.

You draw the line at the 5th book?

Look it's your hobby and you don't have to play ITC events, but please don't tell me Orks ever have a chance against Eldar with their current codex.

ITC events have grown and become popular for a reason. 40k is rife with min maxing and zero player interaction. The AoS rule set allows for interaction while not solving the min max problem entirely. It's a big difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mmimzie]

3 minutes ago, thejughead said:

Look it's your hobby and you don't have to play ITC events, but please don't tell me Orks ever have a chance against Eldar with their current codex.
 

 

No they don't ahve a chance against jet bike spam eldar, but against a 4-5 wraith knight eldar orks ahve a strong chance because the ability to remove enough orks simply isn't there. Which is the point Jet bike spam simply has no hard counters, and wraith knights do, but because they can blow up big stuff really good wraith knights get nerfed because people wanna play with big stuff. This isn't balance it's favoritism. 

[thejughead]

4 wraithknights srill leave you enough jet bike support. Sorry man, having played against multiple Super Heavy lists it's no fun. It really is a game I have no desire to play. Many who have adopted ITC FAQs have expressed the same concerns over unregulated 40k/Apocalypse mess. This is why at the moment AoS is a superior rule set IMO.

Cheers

[Sarkazim]

8 hours ago, thejughead said:

I'm glad you're ok playing against 4-5 WraithKnights each game. 

 

I'm not happy about it, but it's not something I'm going to change.  The opposite is far worse.  Telling someone who spent the money ON 4-5 Wraithknights that they CAN'T play with what they bought.  Personally, I haven't run into anyone that has actually done it without having alternatives.  Anyone who does it for the sole purpose of winning won't find games very easily and I've found that those players are few and far in between.  Yes it can be that bad, but again, he won't find games for very long.  Even when I do, they usually refuse to play Maelstrom.  So they need to thrive in an environment that supports their playstyle, which is all the ITC is, and it's tragic.   

I met a guy who has 10 Imperial Knights, each of the Variants because he loves to paint them.  I would play that guy a game because he has spent the money.  I'll play the 5 Wraithknight guy because he has spent the money.  I won't play him every game if that's ALL they intend to do.  I do the same with my Necrons.  If someone doesn't want to play a Decurion, then I'm flexible.  I don't require everyone to do that, but it makes it easier to justify turning down a game when he brings the same list every week, and only wants to play the same scenarios every week, especially when they're NOT GW scenarios.

That aside, that's not what I'm talking about.  The ITC won't run Maelstrom and have replaced it with something that doesn't even come close.  The amount of Area Terrain, non-mysterious objectives, limiting formations, preventing unbound lists, etc.  are other examples of them changing the rules.  Again, this is fine for what they want to achieve.  Doing under the guise of making it 'fair' or 'playable' is utter ******, and the problem has spilt over into ITC players refusing to play 40k.  It's not that it's unplayable, it's that players don't want to change to how the game is played unless the changes are something they agree with, like Forgeworld.

This is what the fear with AoS is and especially the initiative.  There is a large group of players out there that don't like the initiative mechanic, and it's quite possible the ITC could vote to have it removed, and the majority of players who attend their events will vote for what they want to see.  The ITC isn't gaining in popularity in my eyes.  It's just attracting players who are running out of places to keep playing their way.  I'm sure that the ITC players are great players.  I don't think their standing in the ITC proves it in any way.

[Sarkazim]

9 hours ago, thejughead said:

The majority of those that choose to play at ITC events would have been out of the hobby otherwise.

They are the same ones driving away players.  It's the same thing I saw when AoS dropped. The WHFB players were driving away those that wanted to play AoS.  They eventually gave up their crusade about the failure of AoS.  They also haven't left the hobby, they're off playing Warmahordes, Malifaux, or a variety of other systems.  

I see more and more players getting turned off by the ITC. More specifically players who want to see the ITC expand. Going to a local ITC event and seeing the same players, with the same armies, performing the same in scenarios is becoming more exclusive than inclusive.  The format alone tells players to not build armies that won't perform because you can't win, when they would in 40k. 

I get excited when the stars align giving me a day off the same day where I can go get 3 games of 40k in.  Those days are limited when I find out they're using the ITC scenarios.  Rougher still when I find one that isn't using the ITC, and the ITC guys refuse to show up and support the event.