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.

I am the same guy that started the ITC Voting Flaws thread and after talking to my friend I realize that by constantly pointing out the flaws of the ITC one would believe that I dislike the ITC. That is far from the truth I love the ITC, I just want to make it better! That is the reason for me pointing out the flaws, I however have been pointing to many fingers! So unintentionally I have hurt the ITC instead of helping it, which was not my goal. Anyone can find a problem but fixing it requires someone who is willing to put in time and effort and that is what Reece, Frank, and the Frontline Gaming guys have been doing. They should be applauded for that! While Frontline gaming has been doing everything thing they can to make 40k tournaments fun, all I have done is point fingers it would seem as if I am on the other team, its time for me to be traded!

I want to help the ITC and I think I may have a way to make the ITC Flawless! The main problem with the ITC is this "Conservative approach" thing! When a new codex comes out and a rule is theoretically or potentially broken currently ITC Judges will automatically use the weaker interpretation of a rule, I believe this is our main mistake. If you let people play with the powerful version of the ruling than the community actually gains knowledge! Playing with the powerful version allows the community the chance to see for themselves if something is overpowered or overrated!

You don't know if it is broken you just know it has potential to be broken. If you automatically make it weaker you never got a chance to see its brokenness but, if the community plays with it and its broken a vote can change it! Also by letting people play with the powerful version the community can decide that its slightly broken but we can make modifications to make it still powerful but not broken!

Kenpachi, what about tournaments? Are we to allow new rules to dominate the tournament scene with their brokenness because it just came out? The answer is a passionate NO, if something is potentially broken when a new codex comes out a player should voice their concerns to a judge prior to the event! The judge will than come up with a "proposed ruling" for the potentially broken thing prior to the tournament and let it be known. The judge will monitor the first game that the potentially broken thing plays in and decide after the game if it is broken or not. If it is he can immediately hit it with his "proposed ruling". After the first game he can continue to watch the potentially broken unit and if after the second game he decides that it is broken he can invoke his "proposed rule".

That way the broken thing will not dominate the tournament scene, just the first game. Yes, the first player is a sacrificial pawn that helped the community decide that something is broken but the knowledge gained is priceless and will make the ITC Flawless!

We all know that I have a problem with the recent ITC Tau rulings and I would like to show how my "proposed rule" idea could have altered things!

First thing up is my problem with the voting process and how the voter is influence by Reece articles well that is completely eradicated! I will use Tau as an example imagine if you will that a player brought the new scary Tau and a Hunter Contingent! In his first game the player used a Buff Commander (gives re-rolls to hit, ignore cover, and tank or monster hunter) along with coordinated fire power rule to spread those benefits to almost his entire army, and he absolutely destroys his opponent! The judge watched and hits him with the "proposed ruling" for the rest of the tournament. The judge will announce to the players that the tournament is using his "proposed rule" on a certain rule!

Kenpachi, why not let the judge play test himself in advance and make the proposed rule before the tournament so that way the first player is not utterly destroyed. Its because the sacrifice needs to happen so that word of mouth can happen, every player at that tournament gets to hear about or even see the broken or potentially broken rule themselves. Every player at that tournament gains knowledge and when its time for a vote they will make the right and just decision based off of facts and not theories or other players playtesting!

Judges can create different kinds of proposed rulings. That way when it comes time to vote there can be several proposals made that were tested that can possibly keep something powerful but not broken such as allowing only the targeted unit of the coordinated firepower rule be affected by special rules that can be shared.

People will get a chance to play against the ghostkeel squads and realize that countermeasure is not like the Necron's Solar Staff where its effect last the entire turn, it only affects the enemy unit shooting at it, meaning that potentially they can use up all countermeasures in one shooting phase! 390 points to make 3 units fire snap shots is strong but not broken.

Allowing the stormsurge the option to choose to move if it is tank shock is fair because that means next turn it cannot fire twice! They will either lose the ability to fire twice or have a 33% chance of taking d3 wounds, either way the tau opponent wins!

Lets make it to where the piranhas can't leave turn one giving players at least a turn to kill them if the opposing player goes first than he gets 2 turns to kill the piranhas. You also set back the drone farm clock by one turn meaning no bonus drones till turn 3. I cannot stress that enough the first drones made would be there regardless of the formation. Two drones is 28 points the vehicle is only 40 points meaning Tau gets a vehicle for 12 points! Its been Tau's best kept secret for years. When you find out about something that is really good but you never knew it was really good your natural reaction is to assume that the new formation is what made it good and that's not the case. I am going to write an article about my proposal because its to long to explain with this thread, just know the formation is not broken with a slight modification.



I believe that ITC is already using something similar to my proposed "proposed ruling" idea but currently Judges are making changes before the community can see it in action that is HUGE! No one can complain after seeing it in a game, the voters will be voting off of facts that they saw or heard. If you want to you can make it to where the first game is not affected by the brokenness! The judge can come over and say this is an experimental shooting phase using the Hunter Contingent rule he watches the phase no one removes model just keep up with the results and if the judge believes that its to powerful he can cancel it right than and there and invoke his proposed ruling! Word of mouth can happen thus player knowledge goes up, thus fairer vote results, and more proposed ideas! So I hope my idea helps and that everyone enjoys the LVO!

GO TAU!

There are a lot of issues with your idea of "proposed ruling"

1.) As you stated it sucks for the first person to have to play it.
2.) What if multiple people bring it to the event which game do you watch?
3.) What if the person you watch is a terrible player? Is it not broken because they lose? What if the player the proposed broken thing plays against is terrible? Is it broken because they get stomped?
4.) Which leads into the idea that a single game, heck even a single event is not enough to determine the power level of a unit.
5.) It sucks for the person that bought, painted, and paid to play the tournament using said potnentially broken thing, because they enter unsure of how they will be impacted, maybe they get to use it as is maybe they don't, so now they may hinder themselves by taking a worse army, or lack practice using the ruling which can lead to mistakes in game play.

Essentially the overall problem is that big events are too expensive for people to have their event potentially ruined by a ruling in either direction, after they have already shown up. If it is made in advance you can just not attend and save your money and time.

The problem is GW writing awful rules, tournaments are not a test ground for rules, they are a competition, which don't happen often enough (or at all) in any official manner where data is gathered.

Put simply if I brought an army to an event, and the judge then changed how it played once I go there, I'd be much less happy than being told ahead of time. Because if I know ahead of time I can either not go, or bring something else.

I understand the issue of things being removed from the Meta without tons of data, but unless we play the game as is, with no secondary FAQs or Errata then that is going to happen because the environment does not allow for enough open testing, especially when books drop just prior to events and people want ruling.

The most fair way would be for ITC (or whomever) to hold basically an Open beta, collect data from anyone who wants to submit battle reports etc, and make tweaks based on that. But again who has time for that really when it is not their job.

The only complaint I would have would be if an FAQ was modified only a short time prior to an event as it would have much the same issue as doing it at an event.

Breng77 wrote:
1.) As you stated it sucks for the first person to have to play it.

I agree that is why I came up with a better idea! Instead of the broken thing lasting the entire game you can have an experimental phase. Where the players roll dice but do not remove models and keep up with the results if at the end of the experimental phase it is deemed broken than the proposed rule will be used and the players will re-start that phase using the proposed ruling! That way the player doesn't have to lose because something is broken or slightly to powerful.

Breng77 wrote:
2.) What if multiple people bring it to the event which game do you watch?

You watch both, and do the experimental phase on both games that way you have a larger sample and you will know for sure that it is broken or slightly to powerful.

Breng77 wrote:
3.) What if the person you watch is a terrible player? Is it not broken because they lose? What if the player the proposed broken thing plays against is terrible? Is it broken because they get stomped?

This is where the Judge knowledge comes in. The judge should be able to tell if it is the rule that is broken!

Breng77 wrote:
4.) Which leads into the idea that a single game, heck even a single event is not enough to determine the power level of a unit.

Yes, it only takes a single game or phase to determine if something is broken. When an entire army shoots at a unit and causes 1 wound because it has a 2+ re-roll able save I think it can be determined in one game. There is a difference between broken and powerful, broken can be determined in one phase!

Breng77 wrote:
5.) It sucks for the person that bought, painted, and paid to play the tournament using said potnentially broken thing, because they enter unsure of how they will be impacted, maybe they get to use it as is maybe they don't, so now they may hinder themselves by taking a worse army, or lack practice using the ruling which can lead to mistakes in game play.

Remember this is for the first tournament directly after a codex comes out after the first tournament players and judges alike will know the changes that had to be made. The change rule Is not based off a theory or play testing by someone else but off of a game that you got to see first hand that it is to powerful. Can you truly complain if a judge says you can not do that for the rest of the tournament after watching your entire army get ignore cover and re-roll to hit with its shooting attacks? Can you be a test subject for the community for one phase so that people can witness the brokenness of a unit instead of just hearing about it. After that tournament the proposed rule will be in effect for that judge and his tournaments. So basically for one week you might be the lab rat? Most of the things can be determined in one phase and can the broken results can be eradicated simply by saying this is an experimental phase others will require the entire game but, the knowledge gain by the entire community is priceless.

Breng77 wrote:
Essentially the overall problem is that big events are too expensive for people to have their event potentially ruined by a ruling in either direction, after they have already shown up. If it is made in advance you can just not attend and save your money and time.

Big events is a different animal completely my proposed rule should not be used with big events players should know well ahead of time about changes.

Breng77 wrote:
The problem is GW writing awful rules, tournaments are not a test ground for rules, they are a competition, which don't happen often enough (or at all) in any official manner where data is gathered.

That is not true tournaments is where the most data is gathered! Players face each other and they learn about other armies, we get to see what won the tournament, we discuss tactics, we learn about things we didn't even know existed! With my "proposed ruling" idea whenever a new codex comes out players will get to learn if something is broken or not at the tournaments that follow the release! That brings a level of excitement to the game imagine prior to a tournament you call your judge and he gives you 2 - 3 proposed rulings that will be in effect! You will get excited or atleast I Kenpachi would get excited about possibly being the lab rat, hell knowing me I would volunteer as I would want to show just how unbroken or broken something is!

If its something that can be determine in one phase such as coordinated fire or 2+ re roll able saves than the game does not have to be affected just don't remove models keep up with the results and restart the phase if its broken, no harm done. However some things like a drone factory takes the entire game to see its power in those cases you are a lab rat and a star at the same time I will explain later!

Breng77 wrote:
Put simply if I brought an army to an event, and the judge then changed how it played once I go there, I'd be much less happy than being told ahead of time. Because if I know ahead of time I can either not go, or bring something else.

What if the judge told you there is a proposed ruling in affect and it will be tested? You can still decide not to go or bring something else you can let someone else bring the new gun to see if it should be nerfed or not. If you decide not to go than others will tell you that the new unit was broken or it is good but not broken. You might be the lab rat but than you become the star of the tournament! Everyone will come to you and ask for your opinion on the new unit everyone will want to know what happen in your game! So you may get demolished for one game but you get to become the one that has the responsibility to make sure everyone knows why the judge had to hit it with the proposed ruling. So, when people vote they know the right choice because of your experience against it.

I agree that is why I came up with a better idea! Instead of the broken thing lasting the entire game you can have an experimental phase. Where the players roll dice but do not remove models and keep up with the results if at the end of the experimental phase it is deemed broken than the proposed rule will be used and the players will re-start that phase using the proposed ruling! That way the player doesn't have to lose because something is broken or slightly to powerful.

Which in a timed event seems to be non-feasible. I need to play out part or all of a turn. What if it is not a one phase thing, like the Piranhas Spawning Drones, how will I know in one phase that this is too powerful? Maybe one turns with of drones is OK but 5 is a problem.

You watch both, and do the experimental phase on both games that way you have a larger sample and you will know for sure that it is broken or slightly to powerful.

So every game is on hold while this happens? SO if 3 people bring it I need to watch 3 seperate phases and hold my decision while this happens? Time matters in events.

This is where the Judge knowledge comes in. The judge should be able to tell if it is the rule that is broken!

Then why does he even need to watch it in action? If by looking at it he can tell, and the results don't matter, why not just use the judges knowledge?

Yes, it only takes a single game or phase to determine if something is broken. When an entire army shoots at a unit and causes 1 wound because it has a 2+ re-roll able save I think it can be determined in one game. There is a difference between broken and powerful, broken can be determined in one phase!

So if in that 1 phase the 2+ re-rollable army has terrible luck and takes 7 wounds, does that mean it's not broken, or because I know that is statistically super unlikely can I just make the call without needing to jump through hoops to see that it is broken. Further does having this unkillable unit actually mean that the person will win the game? What if it never dies but also does nothing? Is it still broken, how will you know in 1 phase. Say I could give pyrovores 2++ re-rollable saves, would they be uber broken and win everything?

Remember this is for the first tournament directly after a codex comes out after the first tournament players and judges alike will know the changes that had to be made. The change rule Is not based off a theory or play testing by someone else but off of a game that you got to see first hand that it is to powerful. Can you truly complain if a judge says you can not do that for the rest of the tournament after watching your entire army get ignore cover and re-roll to hit with its shooting attacks? Can you be a test subject for the community for one phase so that people can witness the brokenness of a unit instead of just hearing about it. After that tournament the proposed rule will be in effect for that judge and his tournaments. So basically for one week you might be the lab rat? Most of the things can be determined in one phase and can the broken results can be eradicated simply by saying this is an experimental phase others will require the entire game but, the knowledge gain by the entire community is priceless.

Most tournaments are not related to one another so how will you know, if you are the first? Also why is having a playtest round in some random tournament going to make me as a player feel any better than if the TO did the same thing in Playtesting? Because some other random people were at this event? If I'm not there it is no different then playtesting. It will have the same issues.

Big events is a different animal completely my proposed rule should not be used with big events players should know well ahead of time about changes.

So if a Big event is the first tournament after a book drops, they should not change rules ever then?

That is not true tournaments is where the most data is gathered! Players face each other and they learn about other armies, we get to see what won the tournament, we discuss tactics, we learn about things we didn't even know existed! With my "proposed ruling" idea whenever a new codex comes out players will get to learn if something is broken or not at the tournaments that follow the release! That brings a level of excitement to the game imagine prior to a tournament you call your judge and he gives you 2 - 3 proposed rulings that will be in effect! You will get excited or atleast I Kenpachi would get excited about possibly being the lab rat, hell knowing me I would volunteer as I would want to show just how unbroken or broken something is!

The data gathered at tournaments is woefully short of being good for knowing if something is goodor not. We see what won, but not why it won, we don't know the results of other possible matchups that it did not face, we don't always know the relative skill of the opponents faced. I would not be excited about being a lab rat, if I want to test, I'll do it not at an event that I paid money to compete in.

What if the judge told you there is a proposed ruling in affect and it will be tested? You can still decide not to go or bring something else you can let someone else bring the new gun to see if it should be nerfed or not. If you decide not to go than others will tell you that the new unit was broken or it is good but not broken. You might be the lab rat but than you become the star of the tournament! Everyone will come to you and ask for your opinion on the new unit everyone will want to know what happen in your game! So you may get demolished for one game but you get to become the one that has the responsibility to make sure everyone knows why the judge had to hit it with the proposed ruling. So, when people vote they know the right choice because of your experience against it.

This does not increase my enjoyment of said game, so not sure I care that I get to claim that I played against some broken army, and can tell people that they should nerf it now.

I agree time is the issue but does one time against one player in one game out of 3 or 4 hurts the community as bad as getting it wrong? How amazing would it be tor all the voters to have knowledge gain from an actual tournaments that they have attended. They will than use this knowledge when they vote this will eliminate so many issues. Players cannot say it was never tested, people are just being bias towards Tau, or its how the frontline gaming people wanted it all of that would be utterly eradicated thanks to one single game or one single phase that didn't count!

One game is worth that knowledge and word of mouth, hands down!

Disagree, because that one player has a bad experience and his experience at an event I'm running is more important to me than whether the community agrees with an FAQ I wrote. Also how are all attendees at one tournament guaranteed to have knowledge from an event they attended. This might work ok for an insular single shop, but larger events? Or if someone travels to other events it won't be that way. Also if I had played say 25 games with a list myself, and a judge played 1 phase and deemed something broken despite my personal experience I could clearly claim that it was never tested.

People won't all agree with rules changes no matter what evidence you provide, but I digress bad game rules are bad. Any fix is controversial, and to me it doesn't matter if I had a 1 phase test, or a pre-ruling, I'd feel much the same. But with the pre-ruling at least I would know about it up front instead of finding out at the event.

Also you put a lot of faith in random TOs not to abuse their power in this case just as you claim from the ITC.

This is thread is similar to the thread you've already made discussing the ITC - please keep the discussion to just a single thread over here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/675443.page

I know you're offering some new suggestions in this thread, but it's over the same issues and it can just be discussed in the existing thread. Thanks