ITC 2015 40k Guideline Poll

VoteVintageLabor

Hey everyone, Reecius here with the last bit of data gathering we need to do to shape the policy for the ITC 2015 season!

We’ve debated the topics, so now let’s voice our opinions. If you plan to participate in the ITC 2015, or are considering it, let us know how you feel on these issues as they directly impact your play experience. The results of this info will help us to guide our decision making process and finalize the format for the current season. While we typically go with the poll results directly, we sometimes do deviate if something comes up to alter our perspective. This poll will run through Monday, 3-30-2015 at which point the results will be calculated and the guidelines posted. Also, Wargames Con tickets will be up for sale that afternoon, too.

You can take the poll, here.

Thank you for helping to make the ITC the event circuit you want to participate in!

Tags:

About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

49 Responses to “ITC 2015 40k Guideline Poll”

  1. Dave the Mac Guy March 26, 2015 8:42 am #

    LVO 2016? =)

    • Ciaran March 26, 2015 9:15 am #

      Its part of the 2015 season!

    • Reecius
      Reecius March 26, 2015 9:31 am #

      Yeah, the ITC calendar is Feb to Feb, so it sounds weird. The LVO 2015 culminated the ITC 2014 season, haha

      • Dave the Mac Guy March 26, 2015 9:41 am #

        Aaaaaaaaaah you just broke my mind! =P

  2. fluger March 26, 2015 9:23 am #

    Where’s my “I Voted” button!?

    • Reecius
      Reecius March 26, 2015 9:33 am #

      Haha, we should totally do that! lol

      • fluger March 26, 2015 12:03 pm #

        I’ll even accept a sticker!

  3. Jimbo March 26, 2015 9:51 am #

    Only 4 days to publicize and vote?

  4. AbusePuppy March 26, 2015 9:59 am #

    I’m not sure why the Come the Apocalypse allies thing keeps getting brought up. It’s not powerful- CtA allies are relatively rare and don’t tend to win a lot of tournaments due to the disadvantages of using them and the existence of many other potential ally combinations. I know that you personally don’t like them, Reece, but “I don’t like the fluff of your army” seems like an absolutely absurd standard by which to judge the legality of tournament participation. I mean, heck, if that’s how we want to do things, I think every army except my own (even identical armies run by other people) is unfluffy and shouldn’t be allowed, making me the default winner of the ITC2015 season right now.

    Expanding to three detachments seems like a good test case for going up from there; I don’t think it will DRASTICALLY change anything, but it does allow some other army builds that could be interesting and I’m not sure there is enough evidence to support a highly-restrictive environment otherwise. It’s hard to say whether it will work out or not, but it’s not as though a decision now is written in stone- if enormously abusive armies start appearing that rely on three detachments, it isn’t hard to go back down to two again before they become commonplace.

    The ranged Str D question may as well be “Do you want to see the Lynx removed?”, because that’s really what it’s about. There are a handful of other Str D guns allowed (Shadowsword, Thunderhawk, Kustom Stompa, Scorpion, Gauss Pylon technically) but none of them really have the same impact. And, while the Lynx is certainly powerful, it mostly works to counter deathstars and supehreavies, which I think is fine. If you’re looking for things to curb to fix the game, ranged Str D should not be the place you’re starting, because there are MUCH worse offenders around.

    • DarkLink March 26, 2015 10:03 am #

      It’s more a “fun” thing. A lot of people complained about it, so the question got asked.

      • AbusePuppy March 26, 2015 10:14 am #

        I guess I don’t see how playing CtA allies is any less fun than any other combination- I mean, yeah, some pairings make no sense, but that’s true of other ally levels as well. Dark Angels and Space Wolves fighting together can be argued against pretty vehemently, as can SW and Inq or any number of other setups. And even within “legal” allies, a zero-effort army that just involves some guys standing next to each other while they fight seems just as bad or even worse than a CtA army that does the same- the CtA army at least has the distinction of wanting you to make up SOME kind of story to justify its existence, whereas DA+IG (or whatever) is probably just “I guess these guys were in the same system and then decided to shoot some different space marines on the other side of the field.”

        If ITC were some kind of fluff-centric event, this would be a wholly different matter, but ITC is pretty specifically a tournament system. Inserting one’s personal tastes about army styles into the argument feels rather repugnant to me, most especially because it is so wholly subjective and open to interpretation.

        • Nova star March 26, 2015 1:17 pm #

          Then don’t play in the ITC events if it’s repugnant to you

          • DCannon4Life March 27, 2015 5:07 am
            #

            Not playing = organizers not making money. Therefore, ‘repugnant’ is antithetical to profit. If you’re running a business, ‘repugnant’ is bad. Yes?

        • Jason
          Raw Dogger March 26, 2015 3:09 pm #

          To be fair Dark Angels and Space Wolves do not ‘fight each other’ its more of a ritualistic combat between 2 champions whenever they meet. It’s also no deadly. Sorry, had to throw that in there. I think CtA allies compounds the issue of players cherry picking units from any codex to build an army. Work within your limitations, man.

          • AbusePuppy March 26, 2015 3:56 pm
            #

            I’ll be completely honest: I think the game would be better off if allies didn’t exist at all. However, that’s not the way things are now, so I work with what’s there. Selectively banning allies based on your sensibilities- as opposed to their effect on the game- is bad because you’re never going to get everyone, or even most people, to agree on what “acceptable” army combinations are.

            Some people won’t think Necrons should ally with anyone because they like the old 3E view of Necrons are relentless killing machines. Some people think Eldar should be able to ally with EVERYONE because they use mind control magic and manipulation to force them to do their bidding without even realizing it. Some people think IG should be allowed to ally with Chaos to represent Lost and the Damned armies. Some people think the Imperium shouldn’t be allowed to ally with anyone but itself because of their rabid xenophobia. There’s a million different viewpoints on what the “right” interpretation of the fluff is and none of them are any more or less correct than any others from any proveable standpoint. And that’s not even getting into issues with counts-as, conversions, etc, which only make things even more complicated than they otherwise would be. No one has absolute judgement over the fluff, and no one’s view of the fluff should be an absolute judgement on how the game is played.

          • jy2
            jy2 March 26, 2015 7:36 pm
            #

            AbusePuppy,

            I think you may be assuming too much about Reece. Yeah, he has made it public that he doesn’t like CtA allies. However, the reason he has included that into their poll isn’t just because of his dislike. It is due to other players complaining about it as well (even if those complaints are more anti-fluff based than actual OP-based).

            As the “owner” of business, he needs to address the concerns of his “customers”. Some complaints have merit. Some may not. It isn’t really for the Frontline guys to decide. Rather, he lets his customers decide on what they want, which is why it is included in this poll instead of an outright ok-no-CtA-allies-allowed decree.

          • AbusePuppy March 26, 2015 8:16 pm
            #

            That part of the comments (and really any of them) wasn’t directed exclusively at Reece; I know there are other people who have made the same argument- I just don’t think it has any merit.

            However, even as a business, there’s no obligation to address ALL complaints (or even all common complaints) regardless of their nature. There are people who suggest wholesale changing the game, or reverting to a previous edition, or discarding any notion that 40K can be played as a tournament game, but none of those are addressed in the poll because they aren’t really reasonable suggestions. I feel the same way about banning CtA allies- there’s no real rationale behind it other than “I don’t like that army,” and as I already said someone else’s like or dislike of an army shouldn’t be a valid basis for whether or not it’s legal to play. I think horde Eldar and pure-foot SM are stupid concepts, but that doesn’t mean I believe they should be banned from tournament play because of it.

          • jy2
            Jy2 March 27, 2015 6:13 pm
            #

            Abusepuppy,

            Oh, I have no problem with CtA allies. As a matter of fact, I welcome them. However, not everyone is in agreement with you that it is unreasonable. And not everyone will welcome that that that you can just add 3 flyrants to almost any army, or an Eldar summonseer, or even Adlance Knights.

            Now frankly, I agree with you that none of these benefit an army as much as Brotherhood allies, but not everyone feels the same way. There are a lot of tournament goers, especially the less competitive ones, that will have problems with these types of builds. So I think that there is a legitimate basis for including it in the polls.

          • AbusePuppy March 27, 2015 10:28 pm
            #

            Alright, I get that- but that’s my point. Just because some people don’t like something is not a good reason to look at banning it. If I gathered up a hundred people and said “we all think Sisters of Battle should be banned from tournaments because they unfairly promote religious dogmatism,” that’s not a good reason to listen to me. Regardless of how many people support that view, it’s absurd and baseless and should have no bearing on a rational discussion.

            I’m not saying they don’t have a right to dislike those sorts of armies- everyone has a right to their opinion, no matter the reasons behind it. But I _am_ saying that not every opinion has a place in every discussion.

            >And not everyone will welcome that that that you can just add 3 flyrants to almost any army, or an Eldar summonseer, or even Adlance Knights

            Only in the sense that you can add any unit to an army by paying its point cost. It’s funny, because a lot of the same people that liked to talk about how “fluffy and evocative” the ally system was at the beginning of 6E are now the very same ones complaining about how it’s ruining their fun.

        • Reecius
          Reecius March 26, 2015 8:11 pm #

          Happy Birthday, Abuse Puppy!

          • AbusePuppy March 27, 2015 9:37 am
            #

            For my birthday, I got everyone else complaints about the game system! 😛

    • Logan March 26, 2015 11:28 am #

      I totally get your Range D remark. I think Range D is ok, but…

      I think Range D on a model that also has the Eldar Titan Holofield is a bit much. It’s bad enough a LoW can sit on a Landing Pad and/or recieve Blessings, then Eldar have to show up and put a Holofield on it. You can try to counter Blessing which is possible, compared to the fact that NOTHING counters ETHF. Nothing even lets you reroll the misses caused by the ETHF.

      Now, I’m perfectly okay with the fortifications that provides Range D to ANY faction.

      • Hotsauceman1 March 26, 2015 9:11 pm #

        Until you have the vindicate manning it.
        Because IC d weapons is pants on head

    • fluger March 26, 2015 11:59 am #

      I know you’re using hyperbole here, but I’m sure you can see the difference between a force that mixes Eldar and Nids and a force that mixes DA and SW in terms of established fluff.

      GW has, and continues to, changed a lot of the fluff, but that doesn’t change the fact that lots of people have been reading and enjoying the world of 40k for a long time and like it how it is. Maybe this makes me sound like George Wallace, but I’ll accept that. A wide swathe of 40k players are ALWAYS going to complain about armies that obviously put power level over fluff. The breaking point for people is just different.

      Now, in terms of balance? I think you have a better point. While, aesthetically, a Nid/Eldar army makes me queesy (bonus points if it’s Iyanden!), I don’t think that that list would be overwhelming, and, as has been mentioned on the other thread, Adepticon kinda proved that. I think there will be a place for “by the book” 40k tournaments, and “retricted” 40k tournaments. That’s fine with me. It’s like clay vs grass vs cement courts in Tennis. 😀

      • AbusePuppy March 26, 2015 2:00 pm #

        >a force that mixes Eldar and Nids and a force that mixes DA and SW in terms of established fluff.

        Eldar have fought with Tyranids in established fluff. Just sayin’.

        • Nova star March 26, 2015 2:27 pm #

          Space wolves and dark angels fight side by side frequently, but before they do they always have an honor duel between two champions to settle the old score between their primarchs

        • fluger March 26, 2015 2:42 pm #

          Where? Not trolling, I’m seriously curious.

          • Nova star March 26, 2015 3:39 pm
            #

            Off the top of my had the index astartes volume one or two mention the duel and their are a few short stories published about it, my favorite one is where a space wolf fleet joins up with the Rock and before they feats they hold the duel, besides one off meetings they hold the duel every 100 or so years alternating between the fang and the rock

          • AbusePuppy March 26, 2015 3:57 pm
            #

            In Dawn of War 2, the Eldar are explicitly working with the Tyranids to help get the planet devoured, not because they want the Tyranids to be stronger but because their Farseer has foreseen that if those planets aren’t consumed, the Hive Fleet will end up eating their Craftworld.

          • fluger March 27, 2015 8:08 am
            #

            Novastar, that was directed at AP, not you. I’m aware of the ritual duel between DA and SW.

            AP: Thanks. I guess that works, and falls in line with things like directing Orks to attack Imperial stuff and the like to divert a WAAGH away from a craftworld.

            Again, ANY army can find some kind of justification (heck, one could do COUNTS AS and make cool models, Maybe the flyrants are Exodites on Pterosaur-like things?). But, you have to admit that an obscure reference to a video game version of 40k is pretty thin compared to say the reams of established fluff GW has had for a while. You *can’t* be completely unmoved by why people would want to see armies that they feel are representative of the majority of the fluff?

          • AbusePuppy March 27, 2015 9:40 am
            #

            >obscure reference to a video game

            Dawn of War and Dawn of War 2 were MASSIVELY more popular than 40K itself has ever been. Innumerable people were brought into the hobby because of the two of them. You can’t really just dismiss them as “obscure.”

            >You *can’t* be completely unmoved by why people would want to see armies that they feel are representative of the majority of the fluff?

            I get that different people are going to like different kinds of armies, and some kinds of armies will “fit” better than others. But even so, I don’t think that gives you (or me, or anyone) the right to dictate what kind of army and what kind of fluff anyone else chooses to enjoy- and that’s what banning CtA allies in this case amounts to.

          • fluger March 27, 2015 12:49 pm
            #

            AP, stop being so touchy! 😛

            Seriously, I agree with you in general here, but I think you’re being awfully dismissive of people’s opinions. Again, where people draw the line at what is fluffy or not is purely arbitrary and varies from person to person (“That guy put a dreadnought in a White Scars army! What a power gamer!”), but would you agree that *most* 40k players would look askance at *most* CtA allies armies that are designed more towards taking the best units as opposed to telling some kind of story?

            Whether that is a *logical* position is irrelevant for the most part, and pointing it out to people in the high-handed and aggrieved manner that you portray I think doesn’t help your cause. You’re not Bill James trying to get people to discount RBIs, this game is WAY too emotional and always has been. Trying to change the mentality of *most* 40kers because their opinions are not based on logic as you see it is pretty Sisyphean.

            What I think you miss is that even in the confines of a competitive event like ITC format games, *most* 40k players aren’t interested in “razoring” their armies because the immersion factor is so critical. As you are acutely aware of, 40k isn’t very balanced rules-wise or even written coherently enough to be argument free. *Most* 40k players don’t care because they aren’t actively looking to maximize their points, they just want to fit in all the cool toys. So, arguing with them about what is or isn’t effective isn’t compelling to them in the same way their argument for fluff isn’t compelling to you.

            Also, having not played DoW 1 or 2, I have no idea how much of the game revolves around that particular alliance. Also, while perhaps a larger audience played DoW video games, that doesn’t necessarily correlate to the 40k tabletop player base. When those games were out and I was playing, I didn’t see a lot of my fellow gamers playing it. I could’ve missed it though, of course, so that’s purely anecdotal.

            *edit* Re-reading your initial comment, I guess you weren’t really that dismissive, it’s more the subsequent comments. Honestly, your initial argument is fine, and I guess *I’m* the one getting touchy. I’ll just see myself out.

          • AbusePuppy March 27, 2015 10:41 pm
            #

            >Seriously, I agree with you in general here, but I think you’re being awfully dismissive of people’s opinions

            Let’s be clear here: I’m not saying that their opinions are wrong, or meaningless, or stupid, or that they shouldn’t have them. I’m saying that _those opinions should have no bearing on the discussion at hand_. Not every opinion has a place in every discussion; I’m of the opinion that cranberries taste like s***, but that shouldn’t be part of a discussion about balance in 40K tournaments. Similarly, regardless of what types of armies you like or dislike, that you find fluffy or unfluffy, it has no particular relevance to a discussion about competitive play.

            In the context of a narrative tournament (like the HH one at LVO) or casual event? Sure, absolutely. But that’s not the same thing at all.

            >this game is WAY too emotional and always has been

            Then maybe people need to step back from that. It’s great that people are involved with the fluff and find it inspirational, but it’s also important to recognize that lots of different people have different visions about what makes this game fun and it’s possible to accommodate them all- IF, and only if, we don’t go out of our way to exclude them. When you get to the point of dictating who is allowed to bring what types of army lists based purely on your own preferences, I feel like you’re crossing over a rather important line there.

            >*Most* 40k players don’t care because they aren’t actively looking to maximize their points, they just want to fit in all the cool toys.

            Right, but that plays directly into my argument- telling people what toys they can or cannot bring is working in _opposition_ to that. Wanna play your Lost and the Damned Army with CSM fighting alongside fallen Guardsmen? Sorry, you can’t, because they’re CtA allies and thus illegal! Ditto for a Genestealer Cult or Ork Freebootas or fallen Knights or any of a ton of other 100% grounded-in-fluff options, not to even mention counts-as and whatnot. _Let people play with their cool toys_. Don’t tell them that they can’t do things because you don’t like their particular vision of the army unless there is a compelling system balance reason why that is problematical.

            >I have no idea how much of the game revolves around that particular alliance.

            In DoW2, almost a third of the game revolves around you fighting the Eldar in the midst of the Tyranid invasion, so it’s a pretty big deal. (To be clear- they’re never on the same battlefield together, but that’s a limitation of the engine it runs on more than anything.)

            >When those games were out and I was playing, I didn’t see a lot of my fellow gamers playing it

            I don’t know how many 40K players played the games (I’ve never bothered to take a poll), but of the people in our area here, I know more than a dozen of them who said they were first introduced to the game by DoW or DoW2 and decided to try out the tabletop version after enjoying them. As you say, it’s purely anecdotal, but especially given the sales numbers for those games I think it’s a pretty strong anecdote.

            >Honestly, your initial argument is fine, and I guess *I’m* the one getting touchy. I’ll just see myself out.

            *shrug* I don’t feel like you’re out of line, but it’s your call. I mean, obviously you know I like arguing on the internets. >.>

          • fluger March 29, 2015 7:51 am
            #

            >Then maybe people need to step back from that.

            The problem is, seriously, that this game is NOT balanced. You know that as much as anyone. If you take the emotional component of the game away, you are left with a very flawed set of rules and little reason to play it. To me, list-design in 40k without constraints of (let’s just call it) conscience is fairly straightforward and simplistic as most of the best units are readily apparent, or are quickly sifted out after a few months.

            The only thing that hasn’t stagnated the tournament scene (that I can see as an outside observer) is the frenetic pace at which GW has released dexes.

            Basically, I’m of the opinion that 40k is too broken as a game to try and put to the test for competitive design in the way say MtG does. Either you go down one of a few rabbit trails and have a few top-rate lists, or you just ignore that impulse and try and add some barriers to those top-flight lists. (again, the CtA allies matrix issue is not about actual competitive-ness but the perception of it).

  5. azgrim March 26, 2015 10:26 am #

    In regards to the “fun” aspect is it more fun to be hit with a D pie plate and just disappear ,Or get hit with with 30 ap1 wounds or 100 ap- wounds .In all three cases the unit is most likely dead but with the latter there is a slight chance of not just picking up models.Most people would rather take a bucket of saves and pick up models, rather then just watch half of there army go back into the case.

  6. Deuce11 March 26, 2015 10:30 am #

    I just voted but wanted to add that I think allies in general are more of a problem than detachment limits or double CAD. Battles Bros is what stems the most broken combos and CtA is what destroys the fluff and, for many, their ability to fully engross themselves in the game. If there were any changes at all, it would be to the ally chart.

    My suggestion: Create a new ally chart whereby no one can ally with anyone *Except* mini releases such as Knights (to be able to ally with both Imperium or CSM), AM Tempestus, Assassins, Harlies, Belakor, Cypher, heamonculus covens etc etc.

    of course this becomes more difficult as certain releases toe that line of “full blown codex” and “mini release.” but i still think it is worth examining allies more so than detachments.

  7. wintertalon/tyranidplayer77 March 26, 2015 12:08 pm #

    I am NOT a big fan of ranged d weapons with blast. Single shot random weapon like that on the ctanis fine. They will not happen often or affect the game as badly as a large blast plates can.

    I think the 3 source// detachment is is a good number to limit at.

    As for the come the apocalypse I don’t like some of the combos as tbey take away from the story of 40k. I think deamon nids should be a no go. But tbats me.

    I do think they should be a single cab max. Combo of leviathan + cad is brokengame

  8. Noah March 26, 2015 1:23 pm #

    Everyone is forgetting about Fuegan on a Macro Cannon launching two Strength D large blasts. I voted to dump the Strength D blast units as the single shots really won’t be game changing but a whole unit disappearing to a lucky 6 is a bit rough.

    • AbusePuppy March 26, 2015 2:02 pm #

      I think one of the biggest problems is a lot of people clearly don’t understand how Str D weapons work. The Destroyer table essentially replaces the to-wound roll, so you do NOT all models under the marker to a single roll- you roll individually on the table for each model, exactly as you would for any other weapon in the game.

      • z3n1st March 27, 2015 12:59 pm #

        Totally GIJOE there AP

  9. winterman March 26, 2015 1:29 pm #

    “Would you like to see any modifications to the maelstrom portion of the ITC missions?”

    Not mentioned is the option to see a mission or two of the 6 that has no maelstrom, like in 6ed BAO.

    • Loren March 27, 2015 12:48 am #

      This! The less maelstrom the better!

  10. Hotsauceman1 March 26, 2015 9:14 pm #

    ….I think their should be a question.
    Should we allow fw lists that are not updated to 7th in events.

  11. tag March 27, 2015 9:51 am #

    Excellent poll. I look forward to seeing the results.

  12. morella March 27, 2015 12:29 pm #

    Just curious about how you intend to analyze the results from this poll? I had read your article discussing the results from the LVO exit poll, which leads me to believe you are likely to just look at simple plurality in each category, but given the breadth of the topics covered in these questions, that type of analysis isn’t a very good design.

    (That isn’t meant as an attack, btw; I am looking at this from a math/stats background so the critique is more academic in nature than with regard to the tournament decisions that result.)

    There are some analytical options you might explore to use this data in a manner that could serve you better, basically. Also, it would probably have been beneficial to determine how many events respondents would actually plan to attend, and also for some answer options to allow a free response or at least a none of the above choice, as some commenters have noted.

  13. shinkaze March 27, 2015 12:53 pm #

    I couldn’t finish the poll because Maelstrom is terrible

    • shinkaze March 27, 2015 1:01 pm #

      If you have relic, kp, emperors will and objectives for the primaries and secondaries that is a ton of variety.

      The missions are so similar to each other that I think variety is highly overrated. The best mission I ever played was the original ATC mission. It made you balance your list building and it never got old for me. Just my 2 cents

  14. doktor_g March 31, 2015 9:12 pm #

    Dude…..

    WTF?

    The poll was up for 4 days? Thats it? Not cool. Never have i gotten to vote in a FLG poll. Is there some email list that im not on or something?

  15. N.I.B. April 1, 2015 12:34 am #

    Local tournament is looking to ban CtA allies. I say good riddance.

Leave a Reply