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.

 Jancoran wrote:
Stuff

You've misunderstood.

I'm not questioning your right to hold an opinion. I'm questioning the way you're choosing to express that opinion.

Toning down the vitriol is far more conducive to reasoned discourse.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Haters of the ITC, due to clear rules clarifications and honest voting polls. Oh well, can't please everyone.. And honestly, the group that isn't pleased isn't that great of one anyway.. I mean, look what they play

Dont know how honest the voting was the last time the Tau got nerfed, from what I heard several people voted multiple times to sway the vote. Either way doesnt effect me because my FLGS doesnt like ITC, feel they favor Imperial Armies to much over Xenos in general and we prefer to play stroy driven Campaigns.

Honestly, how can they justify the Ghotkeel nerf...their ruling has absolutely no basis in the rules working wording, in fact its the exact opposite...i'm confused?

did they even give an explanation?

 Messy0 wrote:
Honestly, how can they justify the Ghotkeel nerf...their ruling has absolutely no basis in the rules working wording, in fact its the exact opposite...i'm confused?

did they even give an explanation?

I guess they justify it exactly the same way they justify D-weapon nerfs. It's supposedly better for the game. With the D-weapons I'm strongly in favor of diminishing their power but I can't really say about the Ghostfish, I've never played against one. But anyway they are not trying to interpret the book in any strange way, they are just fixing it to their liking. These fixes don't have to be based on the original rules.

 Gamgee wrote:
Tau have won no major tournaments yet and they likely won't at the rate of nerfing. And even in the ITC covered battle reports I've seen Tau lose a ton of the time for such an over powered faction that needs nerfs.

I mean, I feel the same way about Necrons and watching Miniwargaming's Batreps.

And have these loses been with or without the nerfs?

OP- If you don't like the rulings,
Don't play in tournaments using them.

Problem solved.

Going online, bashing them, putting out a call to action to boycott them just because you disagree with what they say your army does just makes you look bad.
Do your talking with your wallet, not your mouth. It is a much better way to protest.

 Messy0 wrote:
Honestly, how can they justify the Ghotkeel nerf...their ruling has absolutely no basis in the rules working wording, in fact its the exact opposite...i'm confused?

did they even give an explanation?

I would expect it's based on the rule stating that the unit uses the countermeasures... So that would use all instances of them at once.

Another case of it not actualy being a rules change but rather having gone with an existing interpretation that some players don't feel is a valid one.

Nocturus wrote:
I do disagree with the Ghostkeel ruling though. The benefit of taking multiples is that you can use the countermeasures multiple times to keep the unit safer longer. This is part of the point cost paid for the Ghostkeel and taking a unit's ability to use the countermeasures more than once, essentially means you paid for upgrades on any model past the 1st that you aren't allowed to use.

Yeah, I don't get the reason for this... That's also been my problem with the ITC rulings, some things just seem to kind of randomly get nerfed, especially early after release, while extremely powerful things from older armies are left to run amuck... makes no sense to nerf the Ghostkeel like this =/

 Gamgee wrote:
Until we can get some results I say avoid em like the plague.

It's easy to poop all over someone else's work. It's much harder to actually create something.

In regards to a power trip, I have spoken with Recce on multiple occasions. He is a down to earth guy and has always been very humble and real. I find your title rather offensive, which only makes your complaint less valid.

 Gamgee wrote:
I think there really needs to be another option, but it is a daunting task to undertake. Hmmm since I do find a good chunk of the ITC ruling good I think this is less a secondary circuit and more of a splitting off of the church to use a metaphor.

It looks like you are thinking correctly here.

When the choice is between coke and pepsi, the consumer wins.

The thing with third party FAQs is that they are based on a simple social contract: its better to have one set of rules for competitive play than a dozen different house rules, or worse, dice offs.

Nobody is going to be happy with every ruling. Obviously, people directly affected by a ruling that nerfs a unit or army will be upset, but people are also upset when they perceive things to be broken and not fixed by the FAQ.

Even fair minded arbiters get things wrong. It happens. It's less likely due to a "power trip" than to how they perceive the issue. Gamers tend to be extremely provincial, and many have very narrow views of what they consider "fair." It's a tough crowd to appease.

Finally, I'd say that splitting away from a national standard over a tiny minority of rulings is probably an overreaction.

So you do know these are all provesional rules for the LVO and will be up for a vote after, right?

Reece is not power tripping or whatever, in their LVO thread I asked about why they weren't allowing ECPA on Riptides, along with my argument for them, to which he openly admitted all these rulings were made more to get everything ready for the LVO and they'd be voted on later. He also admitted that not allowing the ECPA on Riptides could easily have been an oversight that will be corrected.

Honestly, Reece is a super reasonable guy, treat him like a person and put away those pitch forks, it's for the greater good.

 Wopbopadobop wrote:
2. Spend your own time and money promoting it and making it the defecto tournament standard.

The term that I believe you wanted here is De Facto.
As it is, the tau targeting does feel as though ITC is defecating all over Tau,
I could certainly agree that it is a defective tournament standard.

 Polonius wrote:
Did you stay up all night writing that?

no actually. I turned in and got 7 hrs worth of sleep.
hence why it is a response to something that happened 2 pages ago.

 carldooley wrote:

 Wopbopadobop wrote:
2. Spend your own time and money promoting it and making it the defecto tournament standard.

The term that I believe you wanted here is De Facto.
As it is, the tau targeting does feel as though ITC is defecating all over Tau,
I could certainly agree that it is a defective tournament standard.

Did you stay up all night writing that?

So did Eldar ever get their second/third round of nerfs like Tau did, or are they still God Tier and no one cares anymore?

My issue with ITC is that most places use it now, so unless you like it you are stuck with it regardless. Or don't play...fun.

Also, I know many people who want to start a 30k faction, but won't because "ITC doesn't allow it."

The drone thing I can get behind nerfing, but I do think the process could be more transparent and explained to everyone since it affects people that don't even know they could vote.

As someone who doesn't play Tau and certainly don't attend ITC Tournaments, I gotta say I don't know why these are causing such a ruckus.

I have no idea what the Ghostkeel one is about so maybe that's why I don't get the rage, but the Piranha and Stormsurge ones seem to be based more on logic rather than any intention of nerfing. If I hit a giant Robot-Monstrous-thingy that is *Anchored* into the ground, obviously that thing isn't going to be dodging out of the way anytime soon. It also won't magically implode because it's a freaking giant robot (if it was gonna suffer the square-cube law, it'd have suffered it long ago). Piranhas too. If they left in the same turn they entered play, they basically just dipped their toes into the battlefield and went "NOPE". And coming back minus members that have split off seems reasonable in that they would later expect their comrades to return after the engagement.

As for them restating the obvious, it's a necessity in any sort of rule-writing. I have seen many, many times on this forum where people refuse to accept a ruling because it wasn't spelled out alphabets style. If you made a drinking game game out of "but they didn't say exactly that" on the YMDC forum, you'd probably need a new liver before the third thread is finished. Redundancy never hurts if you spell out your exact intent. When you don't is when people start using word limboing. Back in 5th edition there was literally someone arguing that "line of sight" and "vision" were not the same because nothing in the rules explicitly said so.

Anyways, just my two cents. Again, I don't play ITC tournaments nor do I play Tau, so I'm from an outsider perspective here.

The issue at hand is that it's no longer a FAQ, it's a set of house rules. They've basically snuck into the tournament circuit - being a solid, agreeable FAQ for a number of years, and now using inertia to force people to play how Reece feels is 'fair'.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
if it was gonna suffer the square-cube law, it'd have suffered it long ago

good point. I love mechas and powered armor, but I don't see any realistic uses for it outside of media or games until we have reliable gravitics (anti- or counter- gravity manipulation) Then, the only people that would actually bother with the suits in the first place would be the sort of people who rebuild steam cars now.

There are some things that I disagree with, and some that I actually agree with. But I am reminded of Anne Frank, When they came for my neighbors I said nothing, then when they came for me there was no one to speak in my defense.' I see how the piranha thing is broken as hell. I honestly believe that things like the stormsurge's anchors should have opportunity cost - go ahead and anchor and shoot twice, but if I get into tank shock range it is probably going to die.

So... yeah.

The Stormsurge ruling is in fact a sensible middle-of-the-road solution for two sharply conflicting rules.

The piranha ruling is a blatant house rule but one I agree with in principle- I just wish they'd acknowledge it as such, it's hard to argue there was any ambiguity here, certainly not by 40k standards.

It's the Ghostkeel ruling that grinds my skull. The countermeasures rules are extremely explicit in saying its one per model, impacting one unit shooting at that model's unit. There's no room to argue ambiguity here, or that it makes sense in fluff, since the drones still benefit anyway.

Or is there precident for this? If I have a unit of three dreadnoughts and one pops smoke, do they all pop smoke? If I use a spotlight do they all use their spotlights?

I've edited the title slightly (honestly, might need a bit more of an edit...). The opinions are totally fine to express here, but please remember to do so politely.

Thanks all

A lot of the ITC folks do read Dakka and might see things posted here, but will only have an effect if they're reasonable and supported by solid arguments rather than name-calling. I think there's a strong case to be made that the process should be revised, and I'm surprised how close to the LVO these rules have come out (although they'll be incorporated into the next ITC vote, it seems). But again, folks will have a much stronger case for revising the process / decisions / etc by making a strong argument supported by facts, rather than name-calling.

 carldooley wrote:
But I am reminded of Anne Frank, When they came for my neighbors I said nothing, then when they came for me there was no one to speak in my defense.'

The quote is not like that, and it's not from Anne Frank.

 Korinov wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
But I am reminded of Anne Frank, When they came for my neighbors I said nothing, then when they came for me there was no one to speak in my defense.'

The quote is not like that, and it's not from Anne Frank.

I think the point is that a third party house ruling on a wargame is roughly as serious as the holocaust.

Pfft dont care

Riptide wing with XV107s plus a Drone Net with marker drones will kill mostly everything

 Peregrine wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
I don't see the problem. I'd rather something is preemptively nerfed instead of it ruining an entire tournament

Ok then. Your entire army is banned. And you'd better not complain, because you made it perfectly clear that you'd rather see something preemptively nerfed than risk letting it ruin an entire tournament. And who knows what horrible abusive fun-ruining things your army might be capable of.

PS: don't bother trying to buy a different army, that will also be banned.

notredameguy10 wrote:
You are 100% incorrect. It is not a "simple clarification" lmao. It is a complete opposite ruling of the rule simply because they didn't like it.

This. There was nothing at all ambiguous about the rules, certain players just didn't like that GW made the rule. And because of the popular idea that Tau are overpowered they manage to get people to support their nerfs. Is it a good change to make? Arguably, but that doesn't make it a clarification.

And, honestly, I'd be much less annoyed about ITC if they admitted that this is what they are doing instead of hiding behind their laughable "we're just clarifying ambiguous rules" excuse. If you want to nerf Tau at least have the courage to openly say "we don't like this unit, so we're going to nerf it".

Some people have more trouble reading than others - the rule clearly states that when a model uses countermeasures the unit as a whole fires them off. TFG Tau players have just chosen to conveniently ignore that bit about the unit though.

The ITC ruling is correct, no amount of tears will wash that simple truth away.

So you're upset about them trying to bring a bit of balance to an OP army?

FFS

It really does say the UNIT will use the countermeasure. I got some words that need to be had with a guy now.

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
Wahhhhh! My overpowered army gimmicks are being nerfed to be more balanced in a tournament setting!

It's all fun and games until your army gets nerfed
EDIT: edit your post all you want, also if they were trying to "balance OP armies" why is eldar still basically let loose? Same goes for Marines and Necrons as well, doesn't it?

I'm not a Tau player, but it's fairly obvious looking at ITC that it's designed in such a way that certain play-styles and armies (a mix of flawed 40k balance, and the missions/changes set by ITC) do leagues better then others (cough MSU cough). That's not to say that it's terrible, but to treat it like some infallible book on how you're supposed to go to pretend-war is just silly (which, judging by some comments, some of you do) The codex astartes ITC faq isn't the only way to play warhammer, though it's the most common Tournament set up, and it actively cripples different play styles and certain armies in favor of others.

In regards to the Tau rulings, some of them seem off, but I haven't read the Tau rules, so I can't really comment on that half of things.

Oh wow it does say unit. For those not in the know:

"Once per battle, in the enemy Shooting phase, a model equipped with holophoton countermeasures can disrupt the targetings systems used by one enemy unit that is targeting it or the unit it belongs to. Declare that the unit will use the holophoton countermeasures after the enemy unit has chosen it as a target but before any hit rolls are made. The enemy unit can only make Snap Shots in that Shooting phase."

So one model can do the deed, but the "unit" is using the holophoton countermeasures.

This one actually needs clarification, because to me it sounds like you nominate a specific model, declare it is using its countermeasures, and then the entire unit blows all of its countermeasures anyways.

So wait, the FAQ clarified a grammar error in the rules and people complained that it's a nerf?

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
So wait, the FAQ clarified a grammar error in the rules and people complained that it's a nerf?

Seems that way to me. That rule, as written, has the classical GW problem of conflating 'model' with 'unit', in the first half implying a model is using the wargear and in the second half implying it is the entire unit.

The second one is the ruling ITC went with, which isn't any more or less reasonable than the first.