Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 RiTides wrote:
I don't think many GW rules are truly "unambiguous" but this one was fairly clear, as thoroughly discussed in the YMDC thread I linked to.

The thread you linked to doesn't show that it was clear at all. It was a half a dozen people discussing the issue, with one side of the discussion arbitrarily declaring their interpretation as the concensus.


I honestly don't think that this was done as a deliberate rules change. It was a rule that can be read two different ways, and they choose to go with the more conservative interpretation, as is so often the case in tournament FAQs in that sort of situation.

 master of ordinance wrote:
OP, I have zero sympathy.

Tau are already horrifically powerful and these nerfs should have been a lot more heavy handed IMO. But thats just me, a salty IG player whom is fed up with being lambasted by every tau army he comes across.

Being bad against an army doesn't offer you the right to nerf it whenever and however you want. That's not even an argument I can stomach. IG are fully capable of defeating the Tau Empire but they cannot try to outgun them which is what every IG player tries to do.

The FAQ in question is the official one for their events. i am 100% behind the efforts of T.O.'s putting their own stamp on events. i do too. But my FAQ for the Elvensword Ambassadorial Tournament isn't being adopted like an INAT nor do i have a ranking system people get addicted to. And I didnt come up with the idea of nerfing invisibility which was a biiiiiig reason people started looking at adopting this FAQ as their own. Back then it was nowhere near as large and obtrusive.

Now it is. Things have changed and T.O.'s need to really take a hard look if this entire concept of trying to adopt a universal FAQ is more devisive than it is smart. We have to live with the local players and if they start getting ticked off and just not showing up? The community cant take more of this devisiveness. Every time you decide you have to step in instead of let players play their games, you create this potential.

That is a problem for us who want to go to tournaments locally, and they end up being ITC. Because now we have to play under this convoluted, bloated format with a ton of "What...they changed that? really? why?" conversations and a bunch of stuff more casual players dont even have the time or care to keep up on. they bounce the FAQ's out without much warning and it's getting old. Fast.

Its a problem for T.O.'s who are not paid and are mostly community builders, like me. I spend a lot of time building up the community and this is making people have this kind of disuccsion. this discussion is happening across the internet now and in my game store. Its poisoning the waters by simply stepping on too many things and playing the role of Batman.

The LVO has the RIGHT and PRIVILEGE to do as they please. So this is more me talking to the T.O. community than it is even to the Frontline Gaming people. they dont care what my opinion is. At all. They will respond to one thing: Actualized results of these discussions in attendance and in events that choose to BE ITC.

Maybe it's just not WORTH being an ITC event if it means this divisiveness. And it's coming from all sides here.

 dbgoldberg323 wrote:
Thank you, this is what people need to understand. There's a difference between FAQ-ing a set of rules that are ambiguous or altering an ability that has been proven over time to be outrageously OP, and preemptively nerfing something into the ground before it's even had the ability to go through a few tournaments, statistical analysis, or extensive playtesting.

The problem, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, is getting people to agree when something is ambiguous.

If you think a rule is clear, and the guy writing the FAQ thinks it's ambiguous and goes with an interpretation that differs from your 'clear' reading of the rule, of course you're going to assume that he's just changing the rules, when that's not actually necessarily the case.

We've seen this time and time again with FAQs, both unofficial ones and those coming from GW - people get set on the idea that the way that they read a given rule is the only possible 'correct' way to read it, and will just assume that anyone who reads it differently is wrong... when quite a lot of the time, it's simply that the language used can be interpreted multiple ways.



Although, to be honest, it's entirely possible that the 'each model can use the ability individually' interpretation for the Ghostkeel is the more correct RAW, and that GW simply didn't consider the effect of having multiples in a unit. Either way, though, I think the ruling is the 'right' one.

 insaniak wrote:
Although, to be honest, it's entirely possible that the 'each model can use the ability individually' interpretation for the Ghostkeel is the more correct RAW, and that GW simply didn't consider the effect of having multiples in a unit. Either way, though, I think the ruling is the 'right' one.

That's definitely the side I come down on (obviously). The rule wording uses individual tense a Lot, but it has to also use the word unit for where the effect applies because the Ghostkeel always comes with drones.

GW probably wrote the rule, then later added that they could be run in groups, without adjusting the wording. So, like usual, they made it hard on their players... but to rule it the way the ITC has, is simply to say "Only ever run this model as a single". It sucks for Tau players, and just because they're a "good" army, I hate to see rulings like this invalidating cool options (the opposite of what a FAQ should do when possible, imo).

 insaniak wrote:

 dbgoldberg323 wrote:
Thank you, this is what people need to understand. There's a difference between FAQ-ing a set of rules that are ambiguous or altering an ability that has been proven over time to be outrageously OP, and preemptively nerfing something into the ground before it's even had the ability to go through a few tournaments, statistical analysis, or extensive playtesting.

The problem, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, is getting people to agree when something is ambiguous.

If you think a rule is clear, and the guy writing the FAQ thinks it's ambiguous and goes with an interpretation that differs from your 'clear' reading of the rule, of course you're going to assume that he's just changing the rules, when that's not actually necessarily the case.

We've seen this time and time again with FAQs, both unofficial ones and those coming from GW - people get set on the idea that the way that they read a given rule is the only possible 'correct' way to read it, and will just assume that anyone who reads it differently is wrong... when quite a lot of the time, it's simply that the language used can be interpreted multiple ways.



Although, to be honest, it's entirely possible that the 'each model can use the ability individually' interpretation for the Ghostkeel is the more correct RAW, and that GW simply didn't consider the effect of having multiples in a unit. Either way, though, I think the ruling is the 'right' one.

The "right one". Ultimately, many of us are making value judgments. If I had a dollar for every time someone tried to justify a rules interpretation that is clearly wrong with a statement that it seems more fair, I wouldn't be as pissed about wasting my money on three Ghostkeels I no longer feel like using.

On a side note, is the ITC offering refunds for the models they render less useful? (Snark. Obviously not serious. Just irritated.)

However, this isn't a rules forum, so I'll let the interpretation thing go.

I actually support blatant nerfs that rebalance an overly unbalanced situation. If the same rules "trick" is showing up over and over in the top tournament lists, it's probably unbalanced and needs to be pulled back a bit. On the other hand, preemptive nerfs where there is no real evidence that a rule will create an unbalanced situation seems bad.

 Kriswall wrote:
On the other hand, preemptive nerfs where there is no real evidence that a rule will create an unbalanced situation seems bad.

I think that would be somewhat situational, but I dont see a problem with a TO removing a potential issue before it actually arises if they think letting it happen might result in people having less fun at their event.

Take the endless drone farm, for example. That's exactly the sort of thing that I would much rather have removed from the game before I wind up facing it on the table, because unless I'm prepared specifically for it, it's just not going ot result in a fun game.


And players getting to triple the use of a single-use ability at no extra cost just by having a few models stand close to each other feels like just the same kind of rules exploit that will spoil peoples' day. Whether or not it's actually overpowered, it feels cheaty.


YMMV, obviously.

 Jancoran wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
OP, I have zero sympathy.

Tau are already horrifically powerful and these nerfs should have been a lot more heavy handed IMO. But thats just me, a salty IG player whom is fed up with being lambasted by every tau army he comes across.

Being bad against an army doesn't offer you the right to nerf it whenever and however you want. That's not even an argument I can stomach. IG are fully capable of defeating the Tau Empire but they cannot try to outgun them which is what every IG player tries to do.

because the army was designed to function by outgunning its opponents, and thats how most people who get into IG want to play them, and how it still works best on most games. IG dont have much in the departments of maneuver or raw resiliency, nor terribly tricksy deployment shemnanigans or the like. A Tau player facing an IG player will generally have every major advantage except model (though not always unit) count, which isnt much for thr IG to capitalize on in 7th edition.

Can they win? Sure. Will they win on anything near an even basis with an equally skilled Tau opponenent? No. Thats not unique to Tau however.

Now it is. Things have changed and T.O.'s need to really take a hard look if this entire concept of trying to adopt a universal FAQ is more devisive than it is smart. We have to live with the local players and if they start getting ticked off and just not showing up? The community cant take more of this devisiveness.



Maybe it's just not WORTH being an ITC event if it means this divisiveness. And it's coming from all sides here.

I think honestly, with the current edition, youre going to get a similar level of divisiveness no matter what. There are just too many divergent expectations, too many abusesble mechanics, and too wide an array of perceptions at this point to avoid it with 7th edition. There is no perfect answer. I'm not the greatest fan of the ITC, but i dont think it's any worse than anything else out there, none of them thrill me, and i dont think anyone thinks any of them are perfect.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
It's possible that something that was unambiguous to you was in fact, either ambiguous, or unambiguous yet meaning the opposite to somebody else?

Rules, particularly sloppily written ones, can often be read in different ways. True, some of that can be based on the biases or goals of the reader, but anybody that's spent any time with contract language knows that seemingly clear language can still have different meanings.

There's a lot of confidence in how clearly rules can be read, and as a legal professional, I cringe.

Interpretations can obviously vary from person to person, but when you read words saying that a MODEL can do X and interpret is as ambiguous and possibly meaning that a UNIT can do X... your interpretation probably isn't valid.

The Ghostkeel rules text isn't particularly ambiguous. There haven't been any major rules forum debates on how the rules work. Honestly, the fact that three units have more than 3x the utility as one unit makes total sense. The background is full of examples of Tau tech creating a "force multiplier" effect. Heck, the majority of their Signature Systems are force multipliers. Drone Controllers are force multipliers. Why can't countermeasures be force multipliers? The answer we get, unfortunately, is that the ITC said so and a relatively small cross section of the gaming community that isn't necessarily representative of the whole agreed.

I disagree with the ruling, in that I think it goes with a less plausible interpretation of the rules, while also depriving a unit of utility, when clarifications should endeavor to preserve utility where not game breaking.

That said, I can see where people perceive an ambiguity.

 Vaktathi wrote:

...because the army was designed to function by outgunning its opponents, and thats how most people who get into IG want to play them,

and being inflexible in how you play them is probably why you're struggling. I don't know that as fact. its not relevant here. So lets keep it on the FAQ i guess and you can PM me about IG tactica.

 insaniak wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
I also recognize that sometimes it would be good to nerf a new, crazy formation... but the Ghostkeel ruling really bothers me, even though I'm not a Tau player, as it seems to be unfairly targeted as a new unit.

The thing is, I don't think it's 'unfairly targeted' at all, because the rule as written is ambiguous (one reference to the model using the ability, one to the unit triggering it), and if you go with them being used on a model by model basis, the ability becomes exponentially more powerful when you have them in a unit, due to the rule benefiting the unit as a whole...

Basically, you have an ability that is supposed to provide a benefit to a model once per game. Put two of those models in a unit, and allow them to trigger that ability separately, and suddenly the model gets double the benefit of that ability, for no extra individual cost. Three in a unit means three times the power for no extra individual cost. That's three turns of coverage for an ability that is only supposed to provide the model a benefit for a single turn.

Frankly, I think they made the right call on this one.



On the Piranha thing, it strikes me that when a similar 'nerf' was made to Eldar Swooping Hawks back in 4th edition, even Eldar players largely agreed it was for the best. Having units that can affect the game without ever actually standing on the board is not good for the game.

You are missing the point... that does not matter. The ability affects the unit that is shooting. With this ruling, I either make 3 units snapfire at individual ghost keels or 1 unit snapfire at my squad of ghost keels.

with the CORRECT ruling of this ability: 3 separate ghoskeels and 3 ghostkeels in a squad end up doing the same thing: Making 3 different enemies snapfire. You are incorrectly assuming 3x3=9 uses of the ability, when that is not true. You are still making 3 enemy units snapfire.

The itc is clown shoes. We already had this discussion. They can't afford to offend their highest attending/paying majority, the imperium players, and there are too many eldar players to vote a Nerf in. But then they pretend to have goodwill toward the little guy "orks" by using outdated incorrect info to make orks as mono list as war convocation admech have to be. Literally nobody asked for that change.

The thing you have to remember is their very much a business. And that means kissing ass to your majority customer base. Even if it means appeasing them by making the minority mad. No reason to get mad. Essentially they are a corporation owned by the majority shareholders, in this case imperium players, doing what corporations do. If not and they had their own choices do you really think things like scat bikes, wraith knights, sky hammer marines, Gladius or necron decursion would go unchanged. Of course not. They are not blind to them. They just aren't allowed to do anything because they know if they touched them their sales, tournaments, and twitch channel would essentially be committing suicide.

notredameguy10 wrote:
. You are incorrectly assuming 3x3=9 uses of the ability, .

No, I'm not. I'm assuming that benefiting from an ability 3 times is different to benefiting from an ability once.

 insaniak wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
. You are incorrectly assuming 3x3=9 uses of the ability, .

No, I'm not. I'm assuming that benefiting from an ability 3 times is different to benefiting from an ability once.

But its not and thats what you don't see

3 individual ghost keels = 3 uses of ability = 3 enemy units having to snapfire
3 ghostkeels in 1 squad = 3 uses of ability = 3 enemy units having to snapfire

Whats so difficult to see about that

notredameguy10 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
. You are incorrectly assuming 3x3=9 uses of the ability, .

No, I'm not. I'm assuming that benefiting from an ability 3 times is different to benefiting from an ability once.

But its not and thats what you don't see

3 individual ghost keels = 3 uses of ability = 3 enemy units having to snapfire
3 ghostkeels in 1 squad = 3 uses of ability = 3 enemy units having to snapfire

Whats so difficult to see about that

The 3 ghostkeels in a single unit is also 3x as durable as a single ghostkeel

 insaniak wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
. You are incorrectly assuming 3x3=9 uses of the ability, .

No, I'm not. I'm assuming that benefiting from an ability 3 times is different to benefiting from an ability once.

The Ghostkeel ability affects the UNIT...Not the Ghostkeels. So it's actually pretty darn relevant. Those NOT in the know seem to be missing this issue. It isn't like invisibility, it's worse than invisibility. It's expensive. And its the way it was written. You're literally suggesting that the "blind" effect it effectively projects (in some ways) is somehow HARDER to do on the enemy unit because the Ghostkeels have some more of these Holoprojections ot throw?

Its nonsense. the TARGET unit is the enemy unit. IT is blinded (not literally) and it makes no dang difference whether theres three or one Ghostkeels when you're temporarily blinded. you cant see anything anyways for that time. that's what the gear does. and a ton of people aren't understanding that.

Anywho. They do what they want because they can and whatevs. T.O.'s again need to just boycott it or just not use the full document or whatever. Its their right to write it but its not the correct call.

 Jancoran wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
. You are incorrectly assuming 3x3=9 uses of the ability, .

No, I'm not. I'm assuming that benefiting from an ability 3 times is different to benefiting from an ability once.

The Ghostkeel ability affects the UNIT...Not the Ghostkeels. So it's actually pretty darn relevant. Those NOT in the know seem to be missing this issue. It isn't like invisibility, it's worse than invisibility. It's expensive. And its the way it was written. You're literally suggesting that the "blind" effect it effectively projects (in some ways) is somehow HARDER to do on the enemy unit because the Ghostkeels have some more of these Holoprojections ot throw?

Its nonsense. the TARGET unit is the enemy unit. IT is blinded (not literally) and it makes no dang difference whether theres three or one Ghostkeels when you're temporarily blinded. you cant see anything anyways for that time. that's what the gear does. and a ton of people aren't understanding that.

Anywho. They do what they want because they can and whatevs. T.O.'s again need to just boycott it or just not use the full document or whatever. Its their right to write it but its not the correct call.

Jancoran, your attitude is abrasive. What do you mean "those in the know"? Is there some great secret that you're not telling us? Or can you just not accept that differences of opinion exist?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
. You are incorrectly assuming 3x3=9 uses of the ability, .

No, I'm not. I'm assuming that benefiting from an ability 3 times is different to benefiting from an ability once.

The Ghostkeel ability affects the UNIT...Not the Ghostkeels. So it's actually pretty darn relevant. Those NOT in the know seem to be missing this issue. It isn't like invisibility, it's worse than invisibility. It's expensive. And its the way it was written. You're literally suggesting that the "blind" effect it effectively projects (in some ways) is somehow HARDER to do on the enemy unit because the Ghostkeels have some more of these Holoprojections ot throw?

Its nonsense. the TARGET unit is the enemy unit. IT is blinded (not literally) and it makes no dang difference whether theres three or one Ghostkeels when you're temporarily blinded. you cant see anything anyways for that time. that's what the gear does. and a ton of people aren't understanding that.

Anywho. They do what they want because they can and whatevs. T.O.'s again need to just boycott it or just not use the full document or whatever. Its their right to write it but its not the correct call.

Jancoran, your attitude is abrasive. What do you mean "those in the know"? Is there some great secret that you're not telling us? Or can you just not accept that differences of opinion exist?

those in the know being the large number of people who don't play Tau, OR haven't read the codex OR certainly haven't spent the time to actually see that this isn't a power that affects the Ghostkeels...which is pretty critical to the debate. Abrasive is the word you use to describe people who aren't telling you what you like to hear. Sorry about that. but this is the issue. Right here. If you can tell me how it makes sense that I should cast BLINd on another unit... and it should take "more blindness" to work if I happen to have more? then I'd get your point. but I don't. Because you haven't. Its a limited version, it is a limited number of times, and its per time you do it. That's it. I can shoot you with a Sun Rifle and you get blinded. Are we going to FAQ that this can be done but once per game? No. we're not. so why are we doing it here? You don't know. You don't know because you didn't even think of it in those terms. Only its worse than a sun rifles effect.

So if stating my case is abrasive to you, you need a new definition.

There is no Tau hate coming from ITC. Even orks, a army we can agree is not anywhere near top tier was nerfed by not being able to bring the half-price stompa. Despite this you did not see Ork players calling for blood and boycotts.

I am not trying to insult Tau players, but it seems that there is such a higher percentage of WAAC players among them. I have read forums complaining about riptides and Rail-canons being to weak and that they need to be drastically stronger.

ITC FAQ's are good in lieu of GW not having any. Also, it's not JUST Tau. Invisibility is nerfed. All rerollable saves were nerfed too, so Daemons and Ravenwing got their rerollables nerfed.

Now, if they would just do something about Eldar.

 Jancoran wrote:
Abrasive is the word you use to describe people who aren't telling you what you like to hear.


So if stating my case is abrasive to you, you need a new definition.

There are plenty of ways to tell people what they don't want to hear without being abrasive.

You're not being called abrasive due to the content of your posts, but due to the tone. This isn't a bar fight, make your argument and move on.

 Polonius wrote:
I disagree with the ruling, in that I think it goes with a less plausible interpretation of the rules, while also depriving a unit of utility, when clarifications should endeavor to preserve utility where not game breaking.

That said, I can see where people perceive an ambiguity.

Exactly - "clarifications should endeavor to preserve utility where not game breaking". Lately, the ITC has been doing the opposite for anything "new"... and I really think the trend should be pointed out, and if at all possible, discontinued in the future!

 Orock wrote:
If not and they had their own choices do you really think things like scat bikes, wraith knights, sky hammer marines, Gladius or necron decursion would go unchanged. Of course not. They are not blind to them. They just aren't allowed to do anything because they know if they touched them their sales, tournaments, and twitch channel would essentially be committing suicide.

I don't agree with everything in your post / the way you're saying it, but that is what I've been trying to get across - there are such more egregious problems with existing armies, why is the fact that something new comes out an excuse to preemptively nerf it? It just doesn't make any sense given what existing units are allowed to go untouched.

Again, I don't play Tau, but I don't want this to be the "norm" and what happens going forward... that the meta is determined by the ITC "preemptively" adjusting the power level of units. Every 40K player knows the top heavy hitters that should be adjusted, and Orock quoted some of them. To go after something like the Ghostkeel is just too much imo... let the meta adjust itself, and only make rules clarifications or adjust detachments that really need it.

In other words, I'd really like to see a "lighter touch" from the ITC... this is just too heavy-handed and unnecessarily removes a cool unit for Tau that wasn't game-breaking at all. Absolutely no one would field more than one Ghostkeel to get the same defensive abilities that one has on its own... so with this ruling they're setting the meta without any need to do so.

so basically if we have a burr under our saddle about an army... We "do something about it". Like a lynch mob? Like the guys who lose the championship game and go keying the other fans cars?

Do Eldar "deserve" some bad rulings? is that how we will go about it is deciding who "deserves" it?

My problem is two fold. in one hand I see that ITC has done some pretty good things. things the game needed. Things GW could still do on its own and would have widespread support. those things are good things and I subjectively like them. and that makes me guilty of seeking to knock out some peoples plans for world domination such as in the case of Invisibility. Should I do that to them?

On the other hand I see these rulings that, as one who plays a ton of armies, I just don't even understand how these thigns are worthy of actual FAQ consideration plus the ones where they flat out alter the rules in ways like the Ghostkeel situation. and I say to myself: These are terrible and unfair. these are NOTHING like the Invisibility issue or the VERY few issues that I find are worthy of the attention. and that also is subjective.

and So here is the solution I have offered before and will posit again: Seek a super majority for these rulings. No super majority, no ruling. 65% of the people agree? boom. that margin is enough. 50.01%? No! And in this case 0% agreement was sought. 0%. this was just them DECIDING to do it.

if they want the thing to last, unlik the INAT, a super majority vote would make me feel SO much better about all of it. and that is a change they could make tomorrow in the absence of a GW FAQ.

GW needs to do an FAQ. but we can't make them. We do however have some ability to influence the ITC and so I have held out hope for them more than any other INAT type thing that has come along before. Wit hthe snap of a finger they could right this ship and make these discussions a thing of the past. get 65% and say 1000 votes minimum to agree and I would feel it was legitimately in need of a change. otherwise Playters and TO's can totally work these things out. This isn't new territory.

A super majority would set my mind at ease and most peoples at ease.

 Mojo1jojo wrote:
There is no Tau hate coming from ITC. Even orks, a army we can agree is not anywhere near top tier was nerfed by not being able to bring the half-price stompa. Despite this you did not see Ork players calling for blood and boycotts.

I am not trying to insult Tau players, but it seems that there is such a higher percentage of WAAC players among them. I have read forums complaining about riptides and Rail-canons being to weak and that they need to be drastically stronger.

Probably because a lot of players jumped on Tau recently and are now irked that the money they just spent won't instantly crush their opponents.

I am not even joking I do actually believe this to be true of 75% of the playerbase (However for me, Kriswall would be in the other 25%, who just happened to be in the wrong faction at the wrong time. He's been fairly reasonable so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt).

 RiTides wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I disagree with the ruling, in that I think it goes with a less plausible interpretation of the rules, while also depriving a unit of utility, when clarifications should endeavor to preserve utility where not game breaking.

That said, I can see where people perceive an ambiguity.

Exactly - "clarifications should endeavor to preserve utility where not game breaking". Lately, the ITC has been doing the opposite for anything "new"... and I really think the trend should be pointed out, and if at all possible, discontinued in the future!

I would bet, albeit not heavily, that if the concern were presented as such, these proposed rulings might flip. I don't know.

Consistency is a virtue when making decisions, and if they're trying to preserve the utility of other models, they should continue to do so. I'd be curious to see if they took into account the bookkeeping required to keep track of how many holoprojections the unit has remaining.

The best way to analogize this, if you were to prepare a rebuttal, would be that upgrades such as combi-meltas are one use only, but are linked by model, not by unit. And while the RAW does lean towards a unit using Holoprojectors (lets be honest, that word "unit" creeps into the rule"), the RAI is pretty clear that each model has one charge.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Mojo1jojo wrote:
There is no Tau hate coming from ITC. Even orks, a army we can agree is not anywhere near top tier was nerfed by not being able to bring the half-price stompa. Despite this you did not see Ork players calling for blood and boycotts.

I am not trying to insult Tau players, but it seems that there is such a higher percentage of WAAC players among them. I have read forums complaining about riptides and Rail-canons being to weak and that they need to be drastically stronger.

Probably because a lot of players jumped on Tau recently and are now irked that the money they just spent won't instantly crush their opponents.

I am not even joking I do actually believe this to be true of 75% of the playerbase (However for me, Kriswall would be in the other 25%, who just happened to be in the wrong faction at the wrong time. He's been fairly reasonable so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt).

What? I've played Tau empire since 2004. it was my first army. Maybe there is some bandwagoneering going on. 75%? Seems a little harsh.

Yeah, I think RAI is pretty clear, too... and the word "unit" had to creep in due to even only a single Ghostkeel having their effect apply to the drones, too.

I also agree that this ruling might flip, but that's partly my issue - a lot hangs on these rulings, and the way the questions for the polls are come up with, the phrasing, and in this case a number of quite significant rulings the same week as the event... I think they need to work a bit on transparency or just the process in general.

To compare it to actual voting, there is a long and rigorous process in most states for getting measures on the ballot, there are processes in place for overturning these measures even if passed, etc etc. There are still unfair things that happen, but the process is visible.

Here, it's a hybrid where people get to vote, but only for a short time, on a very narrow set of questions, and with the phrasing sometimes strongly in favor of a certain outcome. So, I think if this process is to continue, that needs to be worked on... in the end, I don't mind if a committee decides the rules either, but right now it's listed as being democratic, but the process (with the exception of the actual few days of voting) really feels like the opposite.

Even for getting things on the ballot, I think you're supposed to email frankie AT frontline DOT com or the like? Maybe a few emails asking for the Ghostkeel question to be on the next ballot would be good! But that process itself should be made more clear, too...

In the end, I'm sure it's a ton of work and a rather thankless task (just look at this thread!). It's awesome that Frontline is willing to do this but "with great power comes great responsibility", so there's going to be the need to adjust as they learn, too!

Tau was my first army in 2009. I had a pretty sizable army but got bored with playing a gun line army, though now I would probley be able to have a couple of really good builds had I added any one of the new models.

I can get how people can be frustrated but all this ITC hate is overboard, all I am trying to say is that almost every army has been nerfed by ITC rules in one way or another, I bet you can still do a good Tau list with the nerfs that would be competative

I think I found the correct address - it is:

frankie AT frontlinegaming DOT org

If anyone else wants the Ghostkeel question on the next ballot, it would be a very good idea to email the above address! I just sent this:

Hi Frankie,

It seems like a lot of people would really like the Ghostkeel ruling to be on the next ITC vote - I know it had to be ruled for the LVO, but for moving forward with ITC, it should be on the next ballot!

Relevant threads on Dakka:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/678686.page

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/678734.page

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/675443.page#8424541

So, please consider putting the Ghostkeel question on the next ballot - I.e., when several Ghostkeels are taken as a unit, can a single Ghostkeel activate their defensive ability at a time (to protect the whole unit) or are all activated at once (in which case, no one will be taking them as a unit and you'll have unnecessarily taken away a cool way to play Tau).

Most folks seem to be happy with your other rulings, but this one is too heavy handed and unnecessary. Hope it makes it on the next ballot!

Cheers,
Steve G / RiTides

 Jancoran wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

...because the army was designed to function by outgunning its opponents, and thats how most people who get into IG want to play them,

and being inflexible in how you play them is probably why you're struggling. I don't know that as fact. its not relevant here. So lets keep it on the FAQ i guess and you can PM me about IG tactica.

ok, we'll leave the rather unsubtle L2P insinuation as a substitute for being unable to actually muster a coherent response, but my main point was that many of these armies aren't on anything near equal footings, with massive capability gaps, and that these apply to the game as a whole and feed into the divisiveness that you were bemoaning the ITC causing. There is no format that isnt going to generate drama and divisiveness, the game is simply so messy with so many balance issues and so little focus that expectations simply are not controllable the way they were in previous editions.

The game as it stands in 7th edition doesnt know what it wants to be, and quite frankly makes for an awful organized play ruleset. There isnt a way to structure an event thats not going to make *somebody* butthurt, and the ITC isnt doing any worse job than anyone else. Would i feel undergunned with my Tau in an ITC event? Probably not, or if so, not because of the event rules.


The big problem i have with things like the ITC or old INAT is when they impress themselves on more casual play, though sadly, at least in my area, casual play appears to be increasingly rare, making the issue moot.

Are tau players that signed up for itc events prior to this eligible for a refund. Because changing the rules this close feels like bait and switch.