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.

So what Buffs do we talk about? The cadre fireblade? well this bonus is crap becaus if you want to use this every model has to be unmoved in that turn.
What else? Darkstrider? its expensive to put him in a huntre detachment. you need a extra detachment for this.
A ethernal? well then you have to pay a comander and a bodyguard crisis as tax. and so on. this comes on tom to the massive TL costs. and it gets costly if you realy want to rely on them.
Buying a TL does most of the time Deny you to buy a ELO or you loose a gun. and so on..

It's really not in a CAD
Darkstrider
Ethereal
2x breachers

Done

 Scott-S6 wrote:
It is pretty powerful against MSU as many Tau models can get upgrades to allow them to shoot at a different target to the rest of the squad.

Essentially, you can spread your buffs across the whole army with CF and still shoot lots of units.

I'm not convinced that's what was intended (GW have a habit of not fully thinking these things through) but it is what the rules say. I suspect that the middle ground option (buff sharing but not for models that shoot a different target) will be the outcome of the ITC vote.

Try putting together a 1850 point hunter contingent and count the number of units. Also understand that I could already boost my units with markerlights. In the Hunter Contingent there is no practical way of using the markerlights as effectively.

Previously you killed the markerlights, you'd just shift the focus to the buffers.

And it's hard to fit a CAD to a hunter contingent. You are welcome to try, though.

FWIW, I voted no to TL spreading the fun. Allowing that just makes everything way too complicated, otherwise of course every unit participating to CF would benefit from all buffs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
It is pretty powerful against MSU as many Tau models can get upgrades to allow them to shoot at a different target to the rest of the squad.

Essentially, you can spread your buffs across the whole army with CF and still shoot lots of units.

I'm not convinced that's what was intended (GW have a habit of not fully thinking these things through) but it is what the rules say. I suspect that the middle ground option (buff sharing but not for models that shoot a different target) will be the outcome of the ITC vote.

Try putting together a 1850 point hunter contingent and count the number of units. Also understand that I could already boost my units with markerlights. In the Hunter Contingent there is no practical way of using the markerlights as effectively.

Previously you killed the markerlights, you'd just shift the focus to the buffers.

And it's hard to fit a CAD to a hunter contingent. You are welcome to try, though.

FWIW, I voted no to TL spreading the fun. Allowing that just makes everything way too complicated, otherwise of course every unit participating to CF would benefit from all buffs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hmm, double post? Maybe it fixes itself

The Darkstrider -1T thing only happens to one unit no matter what's going on with combined fire and target locks. If the Tau player has chosen to put target locks on all of their suits, then they have given up on Early Warning Overrides. With no interception, you can almost guarantee that the buff commander will be dead in very short order.

I voted keep it RAW because that strategy is just a gimmick and will be easily countered once people adapt to it.

that vote will end today right? when we will be able to read the results of that poll?

 _ghost_ wrote:
that vote will end today right? when we will be able to read the results of that poll?

They will likely do what they normally do with these polls and sit on the results until Monday when they have a blog post written about it. Doubly so because it's a holiday weekend here in the states

Damn! i hate waiting! but well.... i cant chance it or speed the proces up.

I am realy currious about the results. although i dont play any ITC evnts this result will have a kind f wight as it represents a huge number of players regarding it globaly

So what if a miracle happens and GW does an FAQ regarding CF! GW site took out some of their FAQ down for older codex. Update maybe? And their FAQ contradicts the ITC vote results, who takes precedent? I would assume the GW FAQ?

Tautastic wrote:
So what if a miracle happens and GW does an FAQ regarding CF! GW site took out some of their FAQ down for older codex. Update maybe? And their FAQ contradicts the ITC vote results, who takes precedent? I would assume the GW FAQ?

If they followed GW's rules there would be no FAQ's by ITC.

Naw wrote:

Tautastic wrote:
So what if a miracle happens and GW does an FAQ regarding CF! GW site took out some of their FAQ down for older codex. Update maybe? And their FAQ contradicts the ITC vote results, who takes precedent? I would assume the GW FAQ?

If they followed GW's rules there would be no FAQ's by ITC.

If GW could write a decent well-balanced ruleset, there would be no need for groups like the ITC.

I am only asking because in my understanding, the pretense of the vote was because of the ambiguity of the CF rule. So IF (really big if) GW publishes an FAQ clarifying what the RAW CF rule is then would that in turn invalids the ITC vote if the results contradicts each other?

Tautastic wrote:
I am only asking because in my understanding, the pretense of the vote was because of the ambiguity of the CF rule. So IF (really big if) GW publishes an FAQ clarifying what the RAW CF rule is then would that in turn invalids the ITC vote if the results contradicts each other?

I think the priority for the ITC is doing what the ITC voters decide. Pretty sure they would take a "sod off GW" stance in that situation.

Voting on rules? Seriously?

Voting on brb rules , i could sorta get with . Voting on rules in other codex , yeah thats not going to be abused cause by perception/fear

Pouncey wrote:Voting on rules? Seriously?

It's either that, or just having to deal with TO rulings that don't have any say in.

kambien wrote:Voting on brb rules , i could sorta get with . Voting on rules in other codex , yeah thats not going to be abused cause by perception/fear

Except that Coordinated Firepower is well known, and absolutely broken if it shares special rules. For the sake of the game, it's better to have some player input on the balance of the game.

Decursion is absolutely broken.
Wraith knights being 100+ points under costed is broken.
Marine Gladius is broken.

Votes on these when?

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Pouncey wrote:Voting on rules? Seriously?

It's either that, or just having to deal with TO rulings that don't have any say in.

kambien wrote:Voting on brb rules , i could sorta get with . Voting on rules in other codex , yeah thats not going to be abused cause by perception/fear

Except that Coordinated Firepower is well known, and absolutely broken if it shares special rules. For the sake of the game, it's better to have some player input on the balance of the game.

Its not broken. kil lthe buffmander and every model that purchased target locks as extra war gear just became a point sink . I'd love to have less points shooting at me.

Orock wrote:Decursion is absolutely broken.
Wraith knights being 100+ points under costed is broken.
Marine Gladius is broken.

Votes on these when?

Wraiths with Res Protocols in a Decurion are overpowered, sure, but other than that the Decurion is relatively balanced. Dedicated CC units will make hash out of most Necron units.

Ranged D and Stomps are heavily nerfed in ITC rules. You can also only bring up to two to an ITC game.

Gladius is definitely overpowered, but it is weaker in ITC missions due to automatically giving up kill points/destroyed unit objectives, and the fact that Maelstrom objectives are scored at the end of the player turn in ITC missions.

Coordinated Firepower being able to share special rules is game-breakingly powerful, and is at least as bad as unmodified Centstars.

The first major ITC internet vote was on whether to make Eldar jetbikes limited to one-in-three for their weapons. That one almost passed in favor of the nerf. If you want a vote on those rules, you can contact Reecius. Who knows? Maybe doble Canoptek harvest will prve so powerful that the ITC may have to step in.

kambien wrote:Its not broken. kil lthe buffmander and every model that purchased target locks as extra war gear just became a point sink . I'd love to have less points shooting at me.

That is dependent on two things: going first, and bien gable to kill a multi-wound model with a 2+ save, Feel No Pain, and a 2+ LoS! roll.

If either of those conditions are not met, you will be tabled.

The link is broken.... is it over already?

 doktor_g wrote:
The link is broken.... is it over already?

Voting ended on the 26th of November. We now await Reecius's announcement of the results and the official ITC ruling.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Orock wrote:Decursion is absolutely broken.
Wraith knights being 100+ points under costed is broken.
Marine Gladius is broken.

Votes on these when?

Wraiths with Res Protocols in a Decurion are overpowered, sure, but other than that the Decurion is relatively balanced. Dedicated CC units will make hash out of most Necron units.

Ranged D and Stomps are heavily nerfed in ITC rules. You can also only bring up to two to an ITC game.

Gladius is definitely overpowered, but it is weaker in ITC missions due to automatically giving up kill points/destroyed unit objectives, and the fact that Maelstrom objectives are scored at the end of the player turn in ITC missions.

Coordinated Firepower being able to share special rules is game-breakingly powerful, and is at least as bad as unmodified Centstars.

The first major ITC internet vote was on whether to make Eldar jetbikes limited to one-in-three for their weapons. That one almost passed in favor of the nerf. If you want a vote on those rules, you can contact Reecius. Who knows? Maybe doble Canoptek harvest will prve so powerful that the ITC may have to step in.

kambien wrote:Its not broken. kil lthe buffmander and every model that purchased target locks as extra war gear just became a point sink . I'd love to have less points shooting at me.

That is dependent on two things: going first, and bien gable to kill a multi-wound model with a 2+ save, Feel No Pain, and a 2+ LoS! roll.

If either of those conditions are not met, you will be tabled.

Let me guess how many actual games you played against someone using this "game-breakingly powerful" rule... zero right?

Setting a precedent of immediately nerfing the rules of one specific army before even allowing people to try it out is a dangerous precedent.

notredameguy10 wrote:
Let me guess how many actual games you played against someone using this "game-breakingly powerful" rule... zero right?

Setting a precedent of immediately nerfing the rules of one specific army before even allowing people to try it out is a dangerous precedent.

I don't have to have played against a Buffmander in a Hunter contingent using Coordinated Firepower to know that the ability to share special rules like that is broken, especially given Tau's ability to engage multiple targets through Multitrackers and Target Locks.

Frontline Gaming have in fact playtested the new Tau with the ability to share special rules; they have posted the battle reports to prove it. The only way Tau lost was via armies assaulting rom Deep-Strike, which is a whole new level of broken unto itself.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Orock wrote:Decursion is absolutely broken.
Wraith knights being 100+ points under costed is broken.
Marine Gladius is broken.

Votes on these when?

Wraiths with Res Protocols in a Decurion are overpowered, sure, but other than that the Decurion is relatively balanced. Dedicated CC units will make hash out of most Necron units.

Ranged D and Stomps are heavily nerfed in ITC rules. You can also only bring up to two to an ITC game.

Gladius is definitely overpowered, but it is weaker in ITC missions due to automatically giving up kill points/destroyed unit objectives, and the fact that Maelstrom objectives are scored at the end of the player turn in ITC missions.

Coordinated Firepower being able to share special rules is game-breakingly powerful, and is at least as bad as unmodified Centstars.

The first major ITC internet vote was on whether to make Eldar jetbikes limited to one-in-three for their weapons. That one almost passed in favor of the nerf. If you want a vote on those rules, you can contact Reecius. Who knows? Maybe doble Canoptek harvest will prve so powerful that the ITC may have to step in.

kambien wrote:Its not broken. kil lthe buffmander and every model that purchased target locks as extra war gear just became a point sink . I'd love to have less points shooting at me.

That is dependent on two things: going first, and bien gable to kill a multi-wound model with a 2+ save, Feel No Pain, and a 2+ LoS! roll.

If either of those conditions are not met, you will be tabled.

Let me guess how many actual games you played against someone using this "game-breakingly powerful" rule... zero right?

Setting a precedent of immediately nerfing the rules of one specific army before even allowing people to try it out is a dangerous precedent.

I playtested it several times with my tourney travel buddy. It pretty much came down to: Any army that could not mass-close-combat-engage on top of turn 2 died horribly, even my ITC battleco list. After about 5 playtest games we were like "this is just dumb." Voted the way I did because I would like to NOT see a brand new level of power creep above and beyond the current top tier, and especially not one that removes players from games as fast as Magic the gathering vintage combo decks.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Any army that could not mass-close-combat-engage on top of turn 2

how? Anything other than Infiltrate would be destroyed by EWOs, so is there another way?

 TheNewBlood wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Let me guess how many actual games you played against someone using this "game-breakingly powerful" rule... zero right?

Setting a precedent of immediately nerfing the rules of one specific army before even allowing people to try it out is a dangerous precedent.

I don't have to have played against a Buffmander in a Hunter contingent using Coordinated Firepower to know that the ability to share special rules like that is broken, especially given Tau's ability to engage multiple targets through Multitrackers and Target Locks.

Frontline Gaming have in fact playtested the new Tau with the ability to share special rules; they have posted the battle reports to prove it. The only way Tau lost was via armies assaulting rom Deep-Strike, which is a whole new level of broken unto itself.

LMAO. Both times they tried Tau with rules sharing Tau got demolished. So idk what you are talking about.

notredameguy10 wrote:
LMAO. Both times they tried Tau with rules sharing Tau got demolished. So idk what you are talking about.

Eldar have yet to win a major tournament since their new codex was released. That doesn't meant that Eldar aren't overpowered compared to the majority of armies out there.

The only way Tau lost was because the opponent used even more broken mechanics and combinations, such as assaulting from Deep-Strike. That doesn't exactly bode well in terms of balance.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
LMAO. Both times they tried Tau with rules sharing Tau got demolished. So idk what you are talking about.

Eldar have yet to win a major tournament since their new codex was released. That doesn't meant that Eldar aren't overpowered compared to the majority of armies out there.

The only way Tau lost was because the opponent used even more broken mechanics and combinations, such as assaulting from Deep-Strike. That doesn't exactly bode well in terms of balance.

Point is all you are doing is fear mongering. You make statements about how broken Tau are solely based on ITC play testing, and when I call you out and say that Tau got demolished in both play testing, you then say its only because there are even cheesier things. Do you see how ridiculous you are sounding lol?

notredameguy10 wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
LMAO. Both times they tried Tau with rules sharing Tau got demolished. So idk what you are talking about.

Eldar have yet to win a major tournament since their new codex was released. That doesn't meant that Eldar aren't overpowered compared to the majority of armies out there.

The only way Tau lost was because the opponent used even more broken mechanics and combinations, such as assaulting from Deep-Strike. That doesn't exactly bode well in terms of balance.

Point is all you are doing is fear mongering. You make statements about how broken Tau are solely based on ITC play testing, and when I call you out and say that Tau got demolished in both play testing, you then say its only because there are even cheesier things. Do you see how ridiculous you are sounding lol?

What is ridiculous is your blatant "moving of the goalposts". What standard of proof do you need to see that allowing Coordinated Firepower to share special rules is broken? It isn't like these battle reports aren't publicly available.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
LMAO. Both times they tried Tau with rules sharing Tau got demolished. So idk what you are talking about.

Eldar have yet to win a major tournament since their new codex was released. That doesn't meant that Eldar aren't overpowered compared to the majority of armies out there.

The only way Tau lost was because the opponent used even more broken mechanics and combinations, such as assaulting from Deep-Strike. That doesn't exactly bode well in terms of balance.

Point is all you are doing is fear mongering. You make statements about how broken Tau are solely based on ITC play testing, and when I call you out and say that Tau got demolished in both play testing, you then say its only because there are even cheesier things. Do you see how ridiculous you are sounding lol?

What is ridiculous is your blatant "moving of the goalposts". What standard of proof do you need to see that allowing Coordinated Firepower to share special rules is broken? It isn't like these battle reports aren't publicly available.

Now you are just spouting gibberish. Nothing you just said makes any sense. Show me one single battle report where Rule sharing single handedly won the game. In all the ITC battles it did nothing.

It looks like you play elder based on your Title. How about we increase wraithknight by 100 points? How about we nerf scatter bikes so you can only take 1 per 3? How about we revert all D weapons back to distort instead? I feel like those are all broken and are too powerful, so how about we nerf it all.

If enough people propose and vote on it, then the ITC will make changes.

There has been a scatterbike vote, didn't pass in favour of 1/3 for heavy weapons