Concerns with ITC...

[RuneBrush]

One thing I will throw in is about 40k is that GW have acknowledged that the current rule system has become bloated.  They've not said how it'll be resolved but have indicated that it will be.  New Codexes are being planned and they're really happy with the smaller army style Codex (Skitarri, Harlequins, Genestealer Cult etc) so I imagine we'll get more of those.  One interesting point is that the GW rules guys have learned a lot from doing AoS - lots of things that work and lots of things that don't, so we can expect more commonality with certain rules between AoS and 40k (we're already seeing more abilities that allow you to re-roll 1's for example).

Personally one thing that would solve a lot of the current army composition issues would be to bring back the maximum percentage limits on certain things on the FoC and costing up formations - but that's just me  

Going back to the AoS/ITC subject (it's so easy to deviate) - living in the UK, I'd never heard of ITC before.  Though the concept is clever I'm always against changing core rules for the sake of it and less so because one person thinks something is overpowered because they have no counters to it and convinces all their mates this is the case.  With a four-page ruleset how much do you need to change before you're not actually playing the same game?

Now I'd love to see more tournaments going on - the South West of the UK is very event poor and means you're talking of at least £100 for a weekend away by the time you tot up public transport and hotels (Nottingham is ~4.5hrs each way and between £150 ~ £220 for a weekend), however I wouldn't be very keen to go to a tournament on my doorstep that was AoS + an extra four pages of supplemental rules and changes.

[Mohojoe]

I sincerely feel that AoS was a well planned litmus test on the less successful game to see if the profile would work with 40k. I do think the same sort of scheme will be implemented into 40k, with 8th edition being the bridging gap. 

 

Have to agree with @RuneBrush I had not heard of ITC before this topic and I feel hesitant about any group that can change core game mechanics on a large scale tournament level.

[Gaz Taylor]

The only concern I have with ITC (or similar systems), is when it becomes the adopted normality and we get into a bitter arms race. Personally, I enjoy being competitive but not when it stagnates things and everybody is basically playing the same kill everything scenario.

 

[mmimzie]

Well they do definitly use different scenarios.

Also to my understand all the scenarios in the matched play book do not have killing the other army as a possible win condition. 

 

Anywho with any voting they do as it can potential effect the whole player base, if they decide to do any votes on rule changes. You bnot could get involved and vote as it open to the community. 

[Sarkazim]

2 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:

The only concern I have with ITC (or similar systems), is when it becomes the adopted normality and we get into a bitter arms race. Personally, I enjoy being competitive but not when it stagnates things and everybody is basically playing the same kill everything scenario.

I can drive to Las Vegas in about 5 hours and this very thing is what is happening.  You can find a local 40k tourney every month, sometimes even 2-3.  Because of that, most of the players want to constantly practice for them.  There is a handful that won't play anything but, because they don't want to play something that isn't going to improve how they play ITC.  I ran a 40k event, had 12 show up.  Some brought their ITC list and didn't do very well.  During the event others showed up just to voice their disapproval that it wasn't ITC.  How bad would it be if you went to an AoS event, and a bunch of 9th Age players took the time just to show up and complain about AoS.

One of these players even decided to run an AoS event.  Several of us were super excited until we saw the flyer stating that the Initiative mechanic would not be used.  None in my group went.  It didn't make sense.  To finally have an event where we could break from our usual circles, and rules were already being modified.  

Because I am so close to the LVO, I'm being encouraged to take my Army down to the AoS event.  I'd be such a Wild Card and I'd love to go and have a good time.  I have a LOT of work to do before the deadline if I go.  I have some rules questions involving my army that I haven't gotten a straight answer to yet either.  Stuff like removing the Initiative, or altering the scenarios like they did with Maelstrom would turn me off.  If it became the norm, I'd be back to where I am with 40k.

 

[CoffeeGrunt]

45 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

Also to my understand all the scenarios in the matched play book do not have killing the other army as a possible win condition. 

It's the only win condition that matters!

[mmimzie]

Yeah apparently and it's really silly to me. It's interesting when folks pick up an army that's really good at winning on objectives and think, "man i just wanna table my opponent."  It's like picking up a soccer ball (football) and thinking.... "lets go play some basket ball."

I don't know when you can put your really awesome kill army on the table, and the enemy list can be, unknowingly, the perfect counter to your list. Going all killy is just really silly.

 

 

[CoffeeGrunt]

I reiterate my point: it's the only way that matters.

[DarkBlack]

I personally don't get why people seem to keep trying to put a square peg in a round hole like this.

GW games are not well balanced and the way the games are designed are not great for being balanced. Which is fine, different games have different strengths.

I play games that are made to be played seriously (i.e. don't break if you take the best list and tactics you can think of all the time) seriously and at tournaments and I play games that are meant to be good fun with mates as that (you can have events that are not about winning). We live at a time where there are alternatives to suit your preferences, why not use them?

[thejughead]

I personally don't get why people seem to keep trying to put a square peg in a round hole like this.
GW games are not well balanced and the way the games are designed are not great for being balanced. Which is fine, different games have different strengths.
I play games that are made to be played seriously (i.e. don't break if you take the best list and tactics you can think of all the time) seriously and at tournaments and I play games that are meant to be good fun with mates as that (you can have events that are not about winning). We live at a time where there are alternatives to suit your preferences, why not use them?

I can only guess at what games you are talking about. Well people like what they like, and marketing works



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mmimzie]

5 hours ago, DarkBlack said:

I personally don't get why people seem to keep trying to put a square peg in a round hole like this.

GW games are not well balanced and the way the games are designed are not great for being balanced. Which is fine, different games have different strengths.

I play games that are made to be played seriously (i.e. don't break if you take the best list and tactics you can think of all the time) seriously and at tournaments and I play games that are meant to be good fun with mates as that (you can have events that are not about winning). We live at a time where there are alternatives to suit your preferences, why not use them?

THis is subjective as it depends on your point of view, as from my experience these games that are meant to be taking more serious at  a tournament etc have a wealth of unbalanced units and armies.

The difference between the games to be are actually the community and thier out look. As the communities is larger for GW games you you simply just don't get the niche communities you get for other games. What end up happening if you have a lot of casuals playing the GW games who will play all the weak crummy units or all the units with weird odd rules that dont mesh well.

In these other games with competitive exclusive communities the ****** units are simply ignored, and everyone just accept that the ****** parts of the rules are indeed ****** and down care to complain because there is no mass force to complain, and being negative won't grow thier small communities. 

[Andreas]

I think the priority roll on one hand makes the game more complex and this favours more skilled players in the long run. But it also hides the difference in skill in the short run which makes it easier to have more enjoyable casual games. I play both chess and poker and even if I am likely much better than a random person in both games it is much easier to have a fun random game of poker due to that skill is somewhat hidden in the random nature of poker than chess just because of this. I have no friends I really can have a fun competitative chess game with.

So I say keep the randomness. If you look at the tournament scene it is the same group of people winning the events anyway so the priority roll's randomness is mirrage that favours good players IMO.

[DarkBlack]

4 hours ago, mmimzie said:

THis is subjective as it depends on your point of view, as from my experience these games that are meant to be taking more serious at  a tournament etc have a wealth of unbalanced units and armies.

In these other games with competitive exclusive communities the ****** units are simply ignored, and everyone just accept that the ****** parts of the rules are indeed ****** and down care to complain because there is no mass force to complain, and being negative won't grow thier small communities. 

Which games are you referring to? I had Kings of War in mind, which is a game where the most OP units are also have their usefulness vs cost debated. I'm not saying it's perfectly balanced, but good luck finding a list that you lets you autowin all your games.

[Sadysaneto]

I dont like it. Two turns in a row makes artillery almost useless, imo.

 

[Andreas]

2 minutes ago, Sadysaneto said:

I dont like it. Two turns in a row makes artillery almost useless

It is your opinion so that's all good.

But I thought it was a bit funny that when I first read it I read it like this:

"I dont like it. Two turns in a row makes artilleri almost overpowered." ?

[Sadysaneto]

18 hours ago, Andreas said:

It is your opinion so that's all good.

But I thought it was a bit funny that when I first read it I read it like this:

"I dont like it. Two turns in a row makes artilleri almost overpowered." ?

Funny thing is i dont think it does. lets face it, artillery is really nerfed in aos. you use it 4-5 times a game.

[mmimzie]

which is the strength of melee in AoS becuase you always get 2 round and it rolls just as well. Though most times you lose the first 1or 2 rounds in a game. so its 8-10 Vs 4-5 rounds of effectiveness

[Andreas]

24 minutes ago, Sadysaneto said:

Funny thing is i dont think it does. lets face it, artillery is really nerfed in aos. you use it 4-5 times a game.

Sure artillery might be nerfed in general but the priority roll goes both ways. Not sure it makes it better or worse on average.