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.

First off I like the ITC and think they are good for the hobby.I am asking myself the question why the nerf?? Why the fear and reaction?

Has is power been a big issue at a tournament yet?? has it destroyed the meta some where???

I haven't heard of a single tournament where the top3 list have even used it. Has anyone??

Here is the interim ruling:

Fulmination Discipline:
•Electrodisplacement: We recommend altering this psychic power to treat the casting Psyker's unit as Deep Striking when moved and therefore being unable to assault in the turn it uses Electrodisplacement. Further, the casting Psyker may not target a unit locked in combat to swap places with.

This power has be nerfd with a D-Weapon. The power is now unrecognizable to what it was. Nothing of the benefits . It doesn't even have the spirt of the original power. Nothing that made you go wow that's amazing instead you read it and go wow that terrible.

For me its right up their with Biomancy #6 Hemorrhage. The one power which no one wants.

The other powers they suggested some modifications to. Kept the spirt of the powers. Like these.

Geokinesis Discipline:

•Phase Form: we recommend altering this psychic power to be Warp Charge 2, and to allow the targeted unit to either ignore Line of Site or to Ignore Cover, but not both simultaneously.


•Shifting Worldscape: we recommend banning this power for tournament play or altering it to only allow the controlling player to move a terrain piece in a straight line along the table. It may not move over intervening models and at no point may it move within 4" of another piece of terrain or enemy unit. It otherwise obeys all other rules of the power.

ITC said use the powers test them out. How can we test them in a tournament setting when they have told everyone to nerf it??

They tested it. They even offered a 100 dollar challenge saying it was unbeatable broken. To there embarrassment they lost too the very first challenge twice to the same guy.

They even said of that's a anomaly after the first one. After the second one the where like oh that is a anomaly as well. Guess what those happen a lot in this came.

ITC pulls a lot of weight with TO as they help make things easier for them. This suggestion is being implemented already.

Guess what?? No one takes Fulmination Discipline as the other powers are only ok to bad. There is no other power in the discipline that is a must have.

My question "Why the destruction of the power and isn't their a better way to nerf it?? Is this a over reaction??

I can think of a easy half dozen ways to do so.

Heck I can think of one easy fix that would let the power be played as written.

Your guys thoughts?

Hello Shadowfinder

First of all I am happy to hear you like the ITC and for the most part what we do. We put in a lot of time and hard work to make it what it is. And nobody likes everything but at least gives us some structure.

As for why we made the interim rulings. We had to due to 50 different events before our next vote. And a majority of those T.O.s looking to us for some suggested changes. Now these ruling are not set in stone and will have different options on the ballet along with leaving them unchanged.

Now in the $100 challenge it was my first time playing that exact list against someone who has been playing with the Wulfen list since they came out. As shown in the video I didn't go after the defensive powers first, which is a huge mistake for a deathstar. I made a lot of mistakes that first game and charged Wulfen haha. After game 1 I played smarter and was able to win the game using my list for the 2nd time. With some practice and knowing exactly what powers are needed for the list I think I would be able to beat anyone/ any list no matter how much money was on the line.

(On a side note Wulfen hit CRAZY hard haha)

I'm sure you can find some games/ events that allow the full powers and I recommend building the craziest list you can and taking them to those events. Play smart and try not to make mistakes. After the event let me know if the powers weren't that bad. What I think will happen is you will power up, charge and table your opponents in 2-3 turns with them literally not being able to hurt you. I could be completely wrong of course and they might not help win games which is why we have asked for everyone to try them out before the next vote.

Hopefully this answers a lot of questions and I really hope to hear how the powers have done in your practice games.

 white925 wrote:
Hello Shadowfinder

First of all I am happy to hear you like the ITC and for the most part what we do. We put in a lot of time and hard work to make it what it is. And nobody likes everything but at least gives us some structure.

As for why we made the interim rulings. We had to due to 50 different events before our next vote. And a majority of those T.O.s looking to us for some suggested changes. Now these ruling are not set in stone and will have different options on the ballet along with leaving them unchanged.

Now in the $100 challenge it was my first time playing that exact list against someone who has been playing with the Wulfen list since they came out. As shown in the video I didn't go after the defensive powers first, which is a huge mistake for a deathstar. I made a lot of mistakes that first game and charged Wulfen haha. After game 1 I played smarter and was able to win the game using my list for the 2nd time. With some practice and knowing exactly what powers are needed for the list I think I would be able to beat anyone/ any list no matter how much money was on the line.

(On a side note Wulfen hit CRAZY hard haha)

I'm sure you can find some games/ events that allow the full powers and I recommend building the craziest list you can and taking them to those events. Play smart and try not to make mistakes. After the event let me know if the powers weren't that bad. What I think will happen is you will power up, charge and table your opponents in 2-3 turns with them literally not being able to hurt you. I could be completely wrong of course and they might not help win games which is why we have asked for everyone to try them out before the next vote.

Hopefully this answers a lot of questions and I really hope to hear how the powers have done in your practice games.

Yes wolfen hit like a ton of bricks. I use 3 to 4 units of them. They are a lot of fun.

Within your group of players, at the level of play you play in, is there one of you that would take the Fulmination powers to a big tournament with the way it been changed.


I am not so worried about playing with the power as they are written. I am worried that you have completely destroyed the power. There is now no reason to take Fulmination. You will never see that discipline ever used. The rest of the powers are mediocre at best. I know you are trying to take care of a growing system for tournaments but gutting the power seamed a little to much.

I think knee capping it first would be a better thing.

You can gut it completely if that didn't work.

shadowfinder wrote:
I am not so worried about playing with the power as they are written. I am worried that you have completely destroyed the power. There is now no reason to take Fulmination. You will never see that discipline ever used. The rest of the powers are mediocre at best. I know you are trying to take care of a growing system for tournaments but gutting the power seamed a little to much.

I think knee capping it first would be a better thing.

You can gut it completely if that didn't work.

What does your local group say?

Ask that for the next RTT, that Fulmination be allowed unaltered, and see if it takes Top Prize.

 Brothererekose wrote:

shadowfinder wrote:
I am not so worried about playing with the power as they are written. I am worried that you have completely destroyed the power. There is now no reason to take Fulmination. You will never see that discipline ever used. The rest of the powers are mediocre at best. I know you are trying to take care of a growing system for tournaments but gutting the power seamed a little to much.

I think knee capping it first would be a better thing.

You can gut it completely if that didn't work.

What does your local group say?

Ask that for the next RTT, that Fulmination be allowed unaltered, and see if it takes Top Prize.

Just played at the Storm of Silance with over 50 + people. It didn't even make the top ten.

It would be better to use the rules straight up leading into the upcoming poll rather than mask them. This could play into the hands of super shooty alpha strike armies.

It would be better to play the rules as is for a while.

You guys realized they are not official and only recommended changes. Talk to your local tournament organizer.

Not only is it worth playing fulmination as it's written but it is also worth playing them with the recommended changes so you can make an informed decision during the next vote. It would be better to play them both ways.

gungo wrote:
You guys realized they are not official and only recommended changes. Talk to your local tournament organizer.

Not only is it worth playing fulmination as it's written but it is also worth playing them with the recommended changes so you can make an informed decision during the next vote. It would be better to play them both ways.

The issue is TO are not doing that. Many of the smaller ones say "This is the suggested way and will not even consider playing it as written.

I pointed out it is a suggestion but was told the don't want to alienate that player that play the way the ITC sugesting.

They should not put a suggestion in to the FAQ. For many people it make it almost gosple. They are afraid if they don't.

A optional intern ruleing page or something like it. Just keep it out of the FAQ intell it is voted on.

By putting it into the FAQ you are not letting people for there own option or have a chance to see it in action.

Honestly I never thought I be saying this. Or having this few point. Lol

I really like the ITC.

I agree ITC is being a little too radical when it comes to nerfing, basically now a whole discipline is almost useless to take.

shadowfinder wrote:

gungo wrote:
You guys realized they are not official and only recommended changes. Talk to your local tournament organizer.

Not only is it worth playing fulmination as it's written but it is also worth playing them with the recommended changes so you can make an informed decision during the next vote. It would be better to play them both ways.

The issue is TO are not doing that. Many of the smaller ones say "This is the suggested way and will not even consider playing it as written.

I pointed out it is a suggestion but was told the don't want to alienate that player that play the way the ITC sugesting.

They should not put a suggestion in to the FAQ. For many people it make it almost gosple. They are afraid if they don't.

A optional intern ruleing page or something like it. Just keep it out of the FAQ intell it is voted on.

By putting it into the FAQ you are not letting people for there own option or have a chance to see it in action.

Honestly I never thought I be saying this. Or having this few point. Lol

I really like the ITC.

Well apparently your TO felt it needed to be changed. It's clearly marked suggested changed and highlighted to show its not official yet. And already seperate from the rest of the faqs.

And yes I believe they should put suggestions In faqs because it allows players to test changes before its official.

gungo wrote:

shadowfinder wrote:

gungo wrote:
You guys realized they are not official and only recommended changes. Talk to your local tournament organizer.

Not only is it worth playing fulmination as it's written but it is also worth playing them with the recommended changes so you can make an informed decision during the next vote. It would be better to play them both ways.

The issue is TO are not doing that. Many of the smaller ones say "This is the suggested way and will not even consider playing it as written.

I pointed out it is a suggestion but was told the don't want to alienate that player that play the way the ITC sugesting.

They should not put a suggestion in to the FAQ. For many people it make it almost gosple. They are afraid if they don't.

A optional intern ruleing page or something like it. Just keep it out of the FAQ intell it is voted on.

By putting it into the FAQ you are not letting people for there own option or have a chance to see it in action.

Honestly I never thought I be saying this. Or having this few point. Lol

I really like the ITC.

Well apparently your TO felt it needed to be changed. It's clearly marked suggested changed and highlighted to show its not official yet. And already seperate from the rest of the faqs.

And yes I believe they should put suggestions In faqs because it allows players to test changes before its official.

His word not mine. ""They put it in the FAQ for people to play their way. I disagree but will do it their way as this is how they want it played.""

Even in PUG that us the ITC format I get people saying its in the FAQ we should play their way. For most people if it's in their it a rule suggested or not.

By putting it in their official FAQ they are not saying try it out see if this is better. Even if it is says only suggested it is in Their Official Document. The FAQ is for real changes not a maybe we will change.

You can have the changes in a different document. It is not hard to make and very simple to put up on the website



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Case in point.

They recommend it people do it .No other reason. the where going to play it normal. With a change to the terrain movement.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/688352.page

Quote

We just went with the recommendation provided by Frongline Gaming until a full vote is taken by the ITC community on these powers in June.

The ITC rulings before proper data collection is getting out of hand. No way anyone can make an informed decision this early. Besides, it's not like this is a shooting edition anyway


I would also love a link to the games they lost after putting 100 dollars out there. Sounds hilarious

Ask and you receive...



https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2016/05/03/tuesday-night-fight-librarius-conclaves-thunderstar-vs-wulfen-murderpack-landraider-rush/

shadowfinder wrote:
Ask and you receive...



https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2016/05/03/tuesday-night-fight-librarius-conclaves-thunderstar-vs-wulfen-murderpack-landraider-rush/

There is no video there. Also, looking for it based off the description and date, I cannot find it. I may be overlooking it somewhere, or they erased it

shadowfinder wrote:
First off I like the ITC and think they are good for the hobby.I am asking myself the question why the nerf?? Why the fear and reaction?

Has is power been a big issue at a tournament yet?? has it destroyed the meta some where???

I haven't heard of a single tournament where the top3 list have even used it. Has anyone??

Nope. Hasn't been a problem anywhere from what I can tell. ITC appears to have a history of "pre-nerfing" things that haven't been demonstrated as problems on the grounds that they MIGHT be problems.

Given that many, if not most, TOs who use the ITC house rules/FAQs consider interim decisions to carry the same weight as voted on decisions... these interim decisions might as well be set in stone.

 Red Corsair wrote:

shadowfinder wrote:
Ask and you receive...



https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2016/05/03/tuesday-night-fight-librarius-conclaves-thunderstar-vs-wulfen-murderpack-landraider-rush/

There is no video there. Also, looking for it based off the description and date, I cannot find it. I may be overlooking it somewhere, or they erased it

It is in the twitch .tv link they have thier. I think it is one that was like 11 hours. They forgot to turn off the video from shock i think. lol

shadowfinder wrote:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/688352.page

Quote

We just went with the recommendation provided by Frongline Gaming until a full vote is taken by the ITC community on these powers in June.

I honestly didn't want to get into a drawn out argument about the ruling so leaned on the ITC FAQ as my answer. That's one of the great benefits of the ITC as a TO, you don't need to have a drawn out debate about rules, you just point to the FAQ and everyone moves on with their day.

But I will say that I agree with the suggested rulings and hope that the vote keeps them. One of the reasons I became interested in moving to the TO side of things is that I want to still be part of the community, but my desire to actually play the game in a tournament setting has decreased. First turn charges. 40+ inch movement. Librarius conclave. All these things are not how I want to play the game.

There must be others who feel the same way since even with heavy restrictions on allies and these psychic power "nerfs" we still sold out. However, if a bunch of the players come to me during the event and say "Hey, I really think we should play with those psychic powers" I will certainly consider using them next tournament.

It's official - I wont bother with anything ITC ever. Dont try to balance the game by not balancing the game. Let people chose what is best and play it. There is no balance in 40k.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It's official - I wont bother with anything ITC ever. Dont try to balance the game by not balancing the game. Let people chose what is best and play it. There is no balance in 40k.

Thanks for making it official. We'll note your status on the sign in sheet by the door.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It's official - I wont bother with anything ITC ever. Dont try to balance the game by not balancing the game. Let people chose what is best and play it. There is no balance in 40k.

Well ITC is more west-coast any ways, east coast gaming community usually plays NOVA format.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It's official - I wont bother with anything ITC ever. Dont try to balance the game by not balancing the game. Let people chose what is best and play it. There is no balance in 40k.

You do realize the ITC vote is exactly the idea of letting people chose what is best and playing it....
Hopefully GW answers the question about porting units across the board and whether it's intended to behave like deepstrike, infiltrate, outflanking, etc or if it's meant to circumvent all the restrictions they put in place to prevent first turn charges on most units in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SonsofVulkan wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It's official - I wont bother with anything ITC ever. Dont try to balance the game by not balancing the game. Let people chose what is best and play it. There is no balance in 40k.

Well ITC is more west-coast any ways, east coast gaming community usually plays NOVA format.

Which after the GW faq is more like ITC rules anyway! In fact nova ended up having more house rules then ITC did.
Toe in cover- yup ITC ruling
Rearm and refuel not allowing entering and leaving reserves same turn- yup ITC ruling
ICs sharing formation buffs- yup ITC rulings
Blasts and flying creatures- yup ITC ruling

The only real rule changes that ITC made not in line with the faq was 2+ reroll nerf and invis nerf, most of the other rulings (except the void shield changes) fell in line with thier interpretations anyway.

After the faq is official I'd fully expect ITC and nova to be a lot similar.

gungo wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It's official - I wont bother with anything ITC ever. Dont try to balance the game by not balancing the game. Let people chose what is best and play it. There is no balance in 40k.

You do realize the ITC vote is exactly the idea of letting people chose what is best and playing it....
Hopefully GW answers the question about porting units across the board and whether it's intended to behave like deepstrike or if it's meant to circumvent all the restrictions they put in place to prevent first turn charges on most units in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SonsofVulkan wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It's official - I wont bother with anything ITC ever. Dont try to balance the game by not balancing the game. Let people chose what is best and play it. There is no balance in 40k.

Well ITC is more west-coast any ways, east coast gaming community usually plays NOVA format.

Which after the GW faq is more like ITC rules anyway! In fact nova ended up having more house rules then ITC did.
Toe in cover- yup ITC ruling
Rearm and refuel not allowing entering and leaving reserves same turn- yup ITC ruling
ICs sharing formation buffs- yup ITC rulings
Blasts and flying creatures- yup ITC ruling

The only real rule changes that ITC made not in line with the faq was 2+ reroll nerf and invis nerf, most of the other rulings (except the void shield changes) fell in line with thier interpretations anyway.

After the faq is official I'd fully expect ITC and nova to be a lot similar.

NOVA tends to follow the un-altered book rules/Faq, I'm pretty sure NOVA will adopt everything from the GW Faqs once its official (ie. battle brother sharing rides and a unit throwing one grenade).

I'm happy GW Faq end up siding with ITC Faq on those rulings, but doesn't mean Nova has more house rules... its just that Nova has to adjust to those new GW faq. And once Nova adjusted, ITC will be back to the king of house rule tourney format.

Did they really not house rule? Or did NOVA's interpretation of those rules not fall in line with GW intended rulings.

You can claim it wasn't house rulings but in actuality the rules were changed against GWs intended ruling.

At this point it's fairly narcissistic to claim your preferred tournament rules are the "unaltered" book when in fact, NOVA just screwed up thier interpretations on a lot of rules and now are forced to go back and change a lot of thier interpretations just so they can play "unaltered".

And why do I bring this up? Because let's be honest GW spent a lot of time and effort preventing most units from having turn 1 charges, specifically disallowing deep strike, infiltrators, outflanking, fast non assault transports and similar units from being able to charge the turn they arrive. And all of a sudden there is a new power that allows units to magically appear across the board and you expect the intended purpose is so any unit can now assault the turn it arrives? I have a feeling when GW faqs this power it won't be how you interpreted it!!

gungo wrote:
Did they really not house rule? Or did NOVA's interpretation of those rules not fall in line with GW intended rulings.

You can claim it wasn't house rulings but in actuality the rules were changed against GWs intended ruling.

People have argued for 20+ pgs on YMDC threads on RAI/RAW of the BRB.... Prior to the new GW Faqs, in order to clarify things for tourney purposes, yes NOVA as any other tourney formats has to make a judgement for their FAQ. Saying they purposely house rule on many of those issues is not a good argument.

Now with the new GW Faq, if NOVA refused to adjust to those GW rulings... then yes you can accuse them of "over house ruling".

 SonsofVulkan wrote:

gungo wrote:
Did they really not house rule? Or did NOVA's interpretation of those rules not fall in line with GW intended rulings.

You can claim it wasn't house rulings but in actuality the rules were changed against GWs intended ruling.

People have argued for 20+ pgs on YMDC threads on RAI/RAW of the BRB.... Prior to the new GW Faqs, in order to clarify things for tourney purposes, yes NOVA as any other tourney formats has to make a judgement for their FAQ. Saying they purposely house rule on many of those issues is not a good argument.

Now with the new GW Faq, if NOVA refused to adjust to those GW rulings... then yes you can accuse them of "over house ruling".

So what your saying is people arguing on this message board and whomever argues the loudest is the definitive definition of unaltered rules and that a vote by the community on the ITC boards is less worthy. Disregarding the fact that those same peopl arguing on this board were not correct on a lot of those rules. Ffs I argued for preferred enemy and blasts rerolling and I knew that rule didn't make a lot of sense allowing it, but I wanted it to work that way because a lot of units suck without it. Just because people argue for something doesn't make it correct!!!

My point is after the faq rulings are official ITC events really won't shake up to much yea grenades got nerfed and battle brothers sharing rides will alter some lists (however I think GW will clarify that units from the same codex but seperate detachments are not allies but the same army) but NOVA will completely change because they didn't interpret the rules correctly and will end up playing more like ITC has and GW mostly intended playing the last 5 years.

gungo wrote:

Which after the GW faq is more like ITC rules anyway! In fact nova ended up having more house rules then ITC did.
Toe in cover- yup ITC ruling
Rearm and refuel not allowing entering and leaving reserves same turn- yup ITC ruling
ICs sharing formation buffs- yup ITC rulings
Blasts and flying creatures- yup ITC ruling

The only real rule changes that ITC made not in line with the faq was 2+ reroll nerf and invis nerf, most of the other rulings (except the void shield changes) fell in line with thier interpretations anyway.

After the faq is official I'd fully expect ITC and nova to be a lot similar.

NOVA tends to lean more towards RAW than anything else.

As to your list:

Toe in Cover - This was never specifically spelled out in the BRB that GCs/FMCs dont' get toe in cover. Hence why NOVA allows it.
Leaving and Entering Ongoing Reserves on the same turn - Once again, nothing in the BRB says units with the ability to leave and enter on going reserves cannot do it on the same turn.
ICs Sharing Formation Buffs - NOVA hasn't allowed that either. We actually have a MORE strict interpretation of buff sharing. You can check out the discussion of it in the NOVA Open thread. Scroll down until you start seeing my responses, its a few posts long.
Blasts and Flying Creatures - Once again the BRB doesn't have anything in there saying they can't be hit by blasts with Skyfire or scattering blasts. That's a missing rule in the BRB.

As to the GW FAQ. We fully intend to use it when they become officially available on the GW website. The only issue that might come out of it is the Walls are impassible terrain. Which becomes a problem at NOVA what with our giant L shaped LoS blockers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
My point is after the faq rulings are official ITC events really won't shake up to much yea grenades got nerfed and battle brothers sharing rides will alter some lists (however I think GW will clarify that units from the same codex but seperate detachments are not allies but the same army) but NOVA will completely change because they didn't interpret the rules correctly and will end up playing more like ITC has and GW mostly intended playing the last 5 years.

Completely change is harsh. There's a lot that will change, the most noticeable is psykers. But overall I felt like the NOVA FAQ is very similar to the GW FAQ.

I'm not going to get in a rules debate about this because at this point it's pointless however the fact there was a debate on all these rulings and people have already argued seperate interpretations on thier readings of the rules before the GW faqs came out shows that it was an interpretation of the rules.
Blasts and flying creatures and reserves entering and leaving same turn specifically had massive rules arguments on thier interpretations on this very board about it.

I respect your interpretation on the rules and your intention to play by the "book", however it was still just your interpretation.

There will always be interpretations on the rules even after this faq. bb transport sharing is still not clear as well as a few other faqs such as fmc that are not swooping.
And to bring this back on topic And why do I briought this up? Because let's be honest GW spent a lot of time and effort preventing most units from having turn 1 charges, specifically disallowing deep strike, infiltrators, outflanking, fast non assault transports and similar units from being able to charge the turn they arrive with the few units that are able to do it having clear exceptions. And all of a sudden there is a new power that allows units to magically appear across the board and you expect the intended purpose is so any unit can now assault the turn it arrives? I have a feeling when GW faqs this power it won't be how you interpreted it!!

GW explicitly stated that the unit retains it's ability to assault - there is no question about the intent or meaning of the wording. Also in angels of death - 2 other methods of assault from deep strike or turn 1 assault also were create (shifting worldscape and shadow-strike kill team). So your argument is weak - GW is clearly trying to buff assault units. At the same time they are trying to weaken deathstars with their psychic nerfs and battle brothers in transports type rulings. I expect these to go even further when the actual FAQ comes out.

gungo wrote:
I'm not going to get in a rules debate about this because at this point it's pointless however the fact there was a debate on all these rulings and people have already argued seperate interpretations on thier readings of the rules before the GW faqs came out shows that it was an interpretation of the rules.
Blasts and flying creatures and reserves entering and leaving same turn specifically had massive rules arguments on thier interpretations on this very board about it.

I respect your interpretation on the rules and your intention to play by the "book", however it was still just your interpretation.

There will always be interpretations on the rules even after this faq. bb transport sharing is still not clear as well as a few other faqs such as fmc that are not swooping.
And to bring this back on topic And why do I briought this up? Because let's be honest GW spent a lot of time and effort preventing most units from having turn 1 charges, specifically disallowing deep strike, infiltrators, outflanking, fast non assault transports and similar units from being able to charge the turn they arrive with the few units that are able to do it having clear exceptions. And all of a sudden there is a new power that allows units to magically appear across the board and you expect the intended purpose is so any unit can now assault the turn it arrives? I have a feeling when GW faqs this power it won't be how you interpreted it!!

Ephilo got to it before I did. Anyways I could careless how much people argue on YMDC, RAI or RAW, the point is Nova interpret their rulings more towards RAW.

No need to put words in my mouth, I never mention ANYTHING about Nova's way of interpretation, whether they are better at interpreting or their interpretation is "wrong" or "un-fair" or "overly too loose", can careless about all that.

The main point I was trying to make is NOVA TEND TO TRY NOT purposely change OFFICIAL GW Rules. Big difference between interpretation and out-right changing rules.