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.

 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.

Firstly Eldar do extremely well in tournaments in Europe. They are actually completely dominating the UK meta for eg. Just go look at the allies of convenience GT, like 50%+ of the field where eldar armies. There are other places in the world besides USA.

Also your earlier point that frontline gaming ''tested tau'' is hilarious. Frontline gaming are just average players, so if they lose a few games vs Tau then Tau must be OP? ..... Okay, gives us a break.

 Shade of Asuryan 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.

Firstly Eldar do extremely well in tournaments in Europe. They are actually completely dominating the UK meta for eg. Just go look at the allies of convenience GT, like 50%+ of the field where eldar armies. There are other places in the world besides USA.

Also your earlier point that frontline gaming ''tested tau'' is hilarious. Frontline gaming are just average players, so if they lose a few games vs Tau then Tau must be OP? ..... Okay, gives us a break.

they actually didn't lose; as was said, they won in both games. Not sure about one of them, but I know that the RG V Tau game was a stomp for the RG because the buffmander was left on an unprotected flank at the start and got assaulted by Vanguard Vets on turn 1. Which, again, means that we STILL haven't actually seen this thing be stupidly op in any competitive games. Now,saying that, I voted to not allow the unit to fire at multiple targets, because that actually didn't seem that op, while not straying too far from RAW, and certainly seeming RAI. It's bad for Deathstars, sure, but even as an imperium player I'm tired of deathstars being the only competitive list for like 75% of the metagame (Read: 75% of eldar, most nids {unless the ton of Flyrants counts, not sure,} Some marines, and tau.) I'm really not scared of the bonuses otherwise, seeing as it's not hard to counter with a simple MSU list.

 Frozocrone wrote:
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

I personally wonder how that vote would turn out today. Granted I don't think they're that ridiculous anymore in the wake of the things that showed up after them, so I would vote to keep them now, but that vote only passed by 8 votes, and there were apparently confessions of multi-votes in greater figures than that. Had the voting security been in place then, things might've been different.

notredameguy10 wrote: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.

"Moving the Goalposts" or "Shifting the Goalposts" is a logical fallacy. More accurately, it is a rhetorical technique whereby one side of a debate repeatedly escalates their demands for proving an argument. For example:

I claim that Tau's Coordinated Fire and ability to share special rules is overpowered because only combos and mechanics that are more broken have beaten Tau armies using a Buffmander + Hunter Contingent.

You take my argument, and demand a higher standard of proof: a example of a specific battle report where the ability to share special rules with the Coordinated Firepower rule was the only factor in determining the win. As 40k is a game of dice, and has a large element of randomness in all stages of the game, this claim is impossible to prove.

On a side note, I do in fact play Eldar. I personally don't use Scatbikers, Wraithknghts, or D-weapons, so I am more than willing to agree to those conditions. However, Coordinated Fire in return must be depowered. That's what seems fair to me.

Shade of Asuryan 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.

Firstly Eldar do extremely well in tournaments in Europe. They are actually completely dominating the UK meta for eg. Just go look at the allies of convenience GT, like 50%+ of the field where eldar armies. There are other places in the world besides USA.

Also your earlier point that frontline gaming ''tested tau'' is hilarious. Frontline gaming are just average players, so if they lose a few games vs Tau then Tau must be OP? ..... Okay, gives us a break.

While Eldar certainly define the metagame at the GT level wherever 40k is played, there is a lot of regional variation. The ITC only represents part of North America and a subset of its total players. Therefore, any statements about balance are going to come from a North American perspective, where us crazy ex-colonials have taken to making FAQs and re-writing rules in the absence of GW doing so. Under these systems of codified TO rulings and house rules, the fact remains that (though they place highly) Eldar have yet to win any of the four major GT events in North America: the Bay Area Open, the Las Vegas Open, the Adepticon GT, or the NOVA Open GT.

Frontline Gaming may not have may Gt winners on hand, but they were playing GT-level lists. Sure, a lot comes down to the individual player, but there is only so much one can do against a clearly broken mechanic.

 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.

Oh so it is ok to nerf Tau, even though there are "even more broken mechanics and combinations" that beat that same tau lol? How does that seem fair to you?

No it also means nerf them, why is this so hard to grasp?

Can't wait for the results. Hopefully everyone did the correct thing. It did bug me that they did not have the question does a pirahna come back in that one formation.. Everyone knows it wouldn't, it wasn't part f the unit, it's a dedicated transport. Oh well

 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.

So the imba CF lost as it's so broken that it must be banned?
Shall we vote on those deep strike assaults next?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Can't wait for the results. Hopefully everyone did the correct thing. It did bug me that they did not have the question does a pirahna come back in that one formation.. Everyone knows it wouldn't, it wasn't part f the unit, it's a dedicated transport. Oh well

What formation are you talking about? If its Piranha Firestorm Wing then you are simply wrong and should stop right there. The rule is very clear and doesn't leave any room for other interpretation.

Voting no for everything you don't like should not be the way to enjoy this game. Correction, voting at all shouldn't be the way.

Maybe if some thought was put into how rules interact with each other and potential allies (no please not playtesting ..... I'm melting, meeeelting), various parts of the 40k communitie wouldn't take it upon themselves to give their audiences a chance to vote on their opinion, as opposed to that other fair measure of community opinion, not asking them, and guessing at what they would like doing...... oh wait.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Shade of Asuryan 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.

Firstly Eldar do extremely well in tournaments in Europe. They are actually completely dominating the UK meta for eg. Just go look at the allies of convenience GT, like 50%+ of the field where eldar armies. There are other places in the world besides USA.

Also your earlier point that frontline gaming ''tested tau'' is hilarious. Frontline gaming are just average players, so if they lose a few games vs Tau then Tau must be OP? ..... Okay, gives us a break.

While Eldar certainly define the metagame at the GT level wherever 40k is played, there is a lot of regional variation. The ITC only represents part of North America and a subset of its total players. Therefore, any statements about balance are going to come from a North American perspective, where us crazy ex-colonials have taken to making FAQs and re-writing rules in the absence of GW doing so. Under these systems of codified TO rulings and house rules, the fact remains that (though they place highly) Eldar have yet to win any of the four major GT events in North America: the Bay Area Open, the Las Vegas Open, the Adepticon GT, or the NOVA Open GT.

Frontline Gaming may not have may Gt winners on hand, but they were playing GT-level lists. Sure, a lot comes down to the individual player, but there is only so much one can do against a clearly broken mechanic.

Yeah, for some reason Eldar are very underrepresented with their new codex in the ITC for some reason. To me it almost feels like when the new book dropped, everyone just rolled their eyes and thought "this is silly, I'm going to plat a different army".

Plus, some of the ITC rules significantly nerf Eldar.

Naw wrote:

 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.

So the imba CF lost as it's so broken that it must be banned?
Shall we vote on those deep strike assaults next?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Can't wait for the results. Hopefully everyone did the correct thing. It did bug me that they did not have the question does a pirahna come back in that one formation.. Everyone knows it wouldn't, it wasn't part f the unit, it's a dedicated transport. Oh well

What formation are you talking about? If its Piranha Firestorm Wing then you are simply wrong and should stop right there. The rule is very clear and doesn't leave any room for other interpretation.

Voting no for everything you don't like should not be the way to enjoy this game. Correction, voting at all shouldn't be the way.

That rule is clear. That vehicle is gone for good

I saw a game at a local shop - GSF versus the new Tau. Players agreed to being able to target multiple units. Tau went first and popped at least eight rhinos. Pods then came down and the Marines were intercepted off the table... Game over.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I saw a game at a local shop - GSF versus the new Tau. Players agreed to being able to target multiple units. Tau went first and popped at least eight rhinos. Pods then came down and the Marines were intercepted off the table... Game over.

I don't understand how , if all the units are going to have target locks , they not going to have room for interceptor on the suit slots, unless all the crisis suits are running around with 1 gun , then its lol

Eactly Tatget Lock AND the interceptor gear does not work on one model. If you do that you reduce the output of that suit

Man, if those two don't work on the same model, it is a good thing the Tau army has more than one model!

The do work on one Model. But each weapon and each wargear takes a slot on the suits. A normal Crisis does have tree slots. you see. Having both does allow you only one slot for a weapon.

Also both wargears doesn't spread so only a mdel that has them can use them.

notredameguy10 wrote:Oh so it is ok to nerf Tau, even though there are "even more broken mechanics and combinations" that beat that same tau lol? How does that seem fair to you?

Yes, because there should be fewer broken things in the game, not more. If the only way to beat that Tau army is to go to another level of broken, that ends up invalidating the majority of armies out there.

Naw wrote:

So the imba CF lost as it's so broken that it must be banned?
Shall we vote on those deep strike assaults next?

Voting no for everything you don't like should not be the way to enjoy this game. Correction, voting at all shouldn't be the way.

Technically there was already a decision on Blood Angels being able to assault after Deep-Striking, but to my knowledge that was more of a clarification than a balance decision. Blood Angels need all the help they can get, but I personally am not in favor of being able to assault after Deep-Striking. I do hope that comes up on a future vote, and would as such vote against allowing it.

Voting on rules allows for player input, and is a lot more democratic than "Because the TO/FAQ/Dark Lord Reecius Says So". The whole reason the poll has its wording is because Reecius doesn't believe that Coordinated Firepower RAW can share special rules. I'm willing to bet there would be a lot more outcry if Reecius unilaterally decided to change Tau because of his own interpretation of a rule.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Can't wait for the results. Hopefully everyone did the correct thing. It did bug me that they did not have the question does a pirahna come back in that one formation.. Everyone knows it wouldn't, it wasn't part f the unit, it's a dedicated transport. Oh well

I'm unfamiliar with that particular formation, among many others...

But I thought a Tau Piranha was a light, two-seater gunship like a Space Marine Land Speeder. Is there a new type of Piranha that's a light transport for a small squad?

 Pouncey wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Can't wait for the results. Hopefully everyone did the correct thing. It did bug me that they did not have the question does a pirahna come back in that one formation.. Everyone knows it wouldn't, it wasn't part f the unit, it's a dedicated transport. Oh well

I'm unfamiliar with that particular formation, among many others...

But I thought a Tau Piranha was a light, two-seater gunship like a Space Marine Land Speeder. Is there a new type of Piranha that's a light transport for a small squad?

Yes the piranha is like a land speeder

What he's referencing is that the formation rule says that it can leave play if within 6" of the edge and that it restocks drones , seeker missiles and returns at full strength . He's talking about a vote on weather returning at full strength is replacing downed piranha or just replacing drones/seekers

I played with complete permissive rules. There is a lot of tax in that contingent. To be honest, it didnt seem to help much.

Broadsides are already 100% TL'ed. 50% ignores cover. The +1 BS mathematically isnt that big of a buff over already being twinlinked. The FBC already allows monster or tank hunter with similar trade off (must all shoot at same thing).

Regardless of the ruling, it wont affect my playstyle or LVO list ideas that much. Although if it does turn out to be a win button, I for one, won't bring it to the LVO, and would opt for orks.

I have more fun playing a novel list and style anyway. Cheese or no. Win or no. I would be happy with a permissive rule interpretation.

This list is particularly vulnerable to Wraith wing. Wraith knights. Blood Angels, gray knights, daemons, flying bugs, psykers etc.

Meta shift will be negligible regardless of ruling IMO. I wanted to vote for permission but missed the window. Oh well....

All of these house-rulings and comp systems are just detrimental to the hobby as a whole.
The game already has all that's needed built in. That is points limit and Army Organisation (Battle Forged/Unbound).

kambien wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Can't wait for the results. Hopefully everyone did the correct thing. It did bug me that they did not have the question does a pirahna come back in that one formation.. Everyone knows it wouldn't, it wasn't part f the unit, it's a dedicated transport. Oh well

I'm unfamiliar with that particular formation, among many others...

But I thought a Tau Piranha was a light, two-seater gunship like a Space Marine Land Speeder. Is there a new type of Piranha that's a light transport for a small squad?

Yes the piranha is like a land speeder

What he's referencing is that the formation rule says that it can leave play if within 6" of the edge and that it restocks drones , seeker missiles and returns at full strength . He's talking about a vote on weather returning at full strength is replacing downed piranha or just replacing drones/seekers

Where does the Dedicated Transport part come in then?

 Pouncey wrote:

kambien wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Can't wait for the results. Hopefully everyone did the correct thing. It did bug me that they did not have the question does a pirahna come back in that one formation.. Everyone knows it wouldn't, it wasn't part f the unit, it's a dedicated transport. Oh well

I'm unfamiliar with that particular formation, among many others...

But I thought a Tau Piranha was a light, two-seater gunship like a Space Marine Land Speeder. Is there a new type of Piranha that's a light transport for a small squad?

Yes the piranha is like a land speeder

What he's referencing is that the formation rule says that it can leave play if within 6" of the edge and that it restocks drones , seeker missiles and returns at full strength . He's talking about a vote on weather returning at full strength is replacing downed piranha or just replacing drones/seekers

Where does the Dedicated Transport part come in then?

i'd wager just not knowing the codex or because drones get treated as passengers

kambien wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

kambien wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Can't wait for the results. Hopefully everyone did the correct thing. It did bug me that they did not have the question does a pirahna come back in that one formation.. Everyone knows it wouldn't, it wasn't part f the unit, it's a dedicated transport. Oh well

I'm unfamiliar with that particular formation, among many others...

But I thought a Tau Piranha was a light, two-seater gunship like a Space Marine Land Speeder. Is there a new type of Piranha that's a light transport for a small squad?

Yes the piranha is like a land speeder

What he's referencing is that the formation rule says that it can leave play if within 6" of the edge and that it restocks drones , seeker missiles and returns at full strength . He's talking about a vote on weather returning at full strength is replacing downed piranha or just replacing drones/seekers

Where does the Dedicated Transport part come in then?

i'd wager just not knowing the codex or because drones get treated as passengers

But, like, every Tau skimmer has drones...

Yeah, piranha's are not a DT, they are FA.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Maybe if some thought was put into how rules interact with each other and potential allies (no please not playtesting ..... I'm melting, meeeelting), various parts of the 40k communitie wouldn't take it upon themselves to give their audiences a chance to vote on their opinion, as opposed to that other fair measure of community opinion, not asking them, and guessing at what they would like doing...... oh wait.

Wow! Just wow! You make it sound as if the audience is voting based on playtesting.

"I voted for nerfs because I don't like Tau players."

Yeah, I can see how that is so much better than what GW is doing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:

kambien wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

kambien wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Can't wait for the results. Hopefully everyone did the correct thing. It did bug me that they did not have the question does a pirahna come back in that one formation.. Everyone knows it wouldn't, it wasn't part f the unit, it's a dedicated transport. Oh well

I'm unfamiliar with that particular formation, among many others...

But I thought a Tau Piranha was a light, two-seater gunship like a Space Marine Land Speeder. Is there a new type of Piranha that's a light transport for a small squad?

Yes the piranha is like a land speeder

What he's referencing is that the formation rule says that it can leave play if within 6" of the edge and that it restocks drones , seeker missiles and returns at full strength . He's talking about a vote on weather returning at full strength is replacing downed piranha or just replacing drones/seekers

Where does the Dedicated Transport part come in then?

i'd wager just not knowing the codex or because drones get treated as passengers

But, like, every Tau skimmer has drones...

Just ignore what he said initially, he doesn't have a clue.

kambien wrote:

What he's referencing is that the formation rule says that it can leave play if within 6" of the edge and that it restocks drones , seeker missiles and returns at full strength . He's talking about a vote on weather returning at full strength is replacing downed piranha or just replacing drones/seekers

Since the rule says that the "unit" returns at full strength, not the "models" I think it's very clear.

X078 wrote:All of these house-rulings and comp systems are just detrimental to the hobby as a whole.
The game already has all that's needed built in. That is points limit and Army Organisation (Battle Forged/Unbound).

Are we reading from the same rulebook and playing the same game here? Warhammer 40,000 is a poorly-written and atrociously balanced mess of a game going strictly by the rulebook.

In an age where Space Marines can get free dedicated transports, points no longer balance the game. In an age where Formations and Decurion-style detachments exist, list-building restrictions no longer balance the game. Some semblance of balance is needed, which is where house rules like that ITC rulings come into play.

Fun fact: I can break the game RAW by attaching two different psykers to the same unit. The game has no way to deal with this RAW, so the game breaks at the start of my Psychic Phase. Also, can you tell me what Mastery Levels actually do RAW? Cite page and paragraph.

Naw wrote:Wow! Just wow! You make it sound as if the audience is voting based on playtesting.

"I voted for nerfs because I don't like Tau players."

Yeah, I can see how that is so much better than what GW is doing.

If GW actually playtested their game, there probably wouldn't be so many balance issues.

It isn't like the new Tau codex just released yesterday. People have already played against the new Tau, and the response from non-Tau players about Coordinated Firepower bieng able to share special rules has been overwhelmingly negative.

Naw wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Maybe if some thought was put into how rules interact with each other and potential allies (no please not playtesting ..... I'm melting, meeeelting), various parts of the 40k community wouldn't take it upon themselves to give their audiences a chance to vote on their opinion, as opposed to that other fair measure of community opinion, not asking them, and guessing at what they would like doing...... oh wait.

Wow! Just wow! You make it sound as if the audience is voting based on playtesting.

"I voted for nerfs because I don't like Tau players."

Yeah, I can see how that is so much better than what GW is doing.

The joke is that GW don't playtest or do market research. So yes anything is better than nothing in this case, I mean finding out how your community feels about something is kind of basic tool in "how do I sell more, improve the business, etc".

 TheNewBlood wrote:
If GW actually playtested their game, there probably wouldn't be so many balance issues.

They do playtest their games, it's just that the people doing the playtesting are the same people writing the rules, so they have gaping blind spots about how vaguely they're written, and they tend to come at the game from a fluff perspective rather than a "how powerful an army can we make?" perspective. Also, in the Investor Relations section of their site, their business strategy basically states that they're in the business of selling models, and they use the games as tools to sell those models.

We have a simple strategy at Games Workshop. We make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell them globally at a profit and we intend to do this forever.

Simple, but every part of this statement is important.

We make things. We are a manufacturer. Not a retailer. We do have outlets in retail locations. We call these Games Workshop Hobby centres because they show customers how to engage with our hobby of collecting, painting and playing with our miniatures and games. They are the front end of our manufacturing business. If our Hobby centres do a great job, we will recruit lots of customers into our Hobby and they will enjoy spending their money on the products we make.

The games are a key part of both our Hobby and our business model. Our games are played between people present in a room (a Hobby centre, a club, a school), not with a screen. They are truly social and build a real sense of community and comradeship. This again makes good business sense. The more fun and enjoyable we make our games, the more customers we attract and retain, and the more miniatures our customers want to buy. This in turn allows us to reinvest in making more and more exciting miniatures and games, which creates a virtuous circle for all.

Both taken from:

http://investor.games-workshop.com/our-business-model/