Thanks to everyone for voting as usual! And drama ensues, as usual, lol.

@Orock & Grey Dragon

Sorry you guys feel that way. If you want a refund, feel free to do so up until 30 days from the event, no questions asked. Within 30 days, the tickets become non-refundable.

As for quitting because you don't like a ruling, that is a bit of an overreaction, IMO. The event itself is about having fun playing games with friends, not just a single rule interpretation. But, if you truly think you won't have any fun due to that one issue, that is your choice to make. Besides, I honestly think the Mont'Ka Tau detachment is better and lacks the ambiguity of the Hunter Contingent, but that's just me.

Either way, you guys are welcome to come and have fun or do you own thing. Just bear in mind, we had to make a call on it one way or the other and regardless, someone was going to get upset by it.

@Overwatch

Haha, come on, my friend, you are certainly overreacting on this one. You guys in Pasadena are honestly some of the only folks I know that play the more aggressive reading of Tank Shock. That was actually shocking to see by most other players (eh, see what I did there! haha). Just pop into YMDC to see the well reasoned arguments on both sides of the line.

And you may see it as a nerf, but there is a strong case to be made for RAW either way. I don't see that one as a nerf at all but a clarification of the ruling, or a choice as to which interpretation to go with.

And, I can tell you from seeing multiple tournaments where folks are hit with the aggressive reading of Tank Shock that aren't used to it, it isn't pretty. If you built a list around that mechanic you probably wouldn't have had a very enjoyable experience as you had to go through what it did with the majority--if not all of--your opponents.

And again, a call had to be made on that. Whether by a poll or by a judge call, we had to choose how to go with it. And with any contentious issue, some folks would be pleased, some not when you choose one path or another. It's just the way it goes.

@Blackmoor

Your point of view is entirely valid, but in the ITC with as many as 6+ events per weekend, every week we wait to make a call on something hurts the events that fall into that limbo zone. Time is very valuable, we can't wait months to take action on things, it simply isn't an option for us. Plus, with new rules coming out every week, we'd quickly fall so far behind that it would become a mess.

Plus, if you had your way, we still wouldn't be using Forgeworld! haha

@Thread

Thanks again for your participation, we look forward to seeing you all at the next ITC event.

How penalized are we for not having the minimum 3 colors. Due to school I might not be able to get it all done in time. Can I still play?

Primer counts as a color buddy, so really, it should be easy.

And if you army contains models that are not 3 colors, you are ineligible for prize support.

I might not get that done LOL
But I agree with you on the Montk formation. with a better core, funner Aux its gonna be fun.

Can you confirm the DZC events are sold out? I hesitated since, well, last year flying across country for a 6 person event was very disappointing...looks like this year I may have waited too long?

@Piper

Yeah, I can understand your reasons for hesitating. The event this year will be much bigger than last year, but won't be gigantic, just to give you a fair assessment.

It is sold out-ish. We have some wiggle room with the floorplan, if you want to make the trip I can make it happen for you. Let me know: Contact@FrontlineGaming.org

Reecius, in regards to the Stompa issue, was this ever examined further than just what the PDF stated? FW addressed the issue in the past when they were still allowed to have public interaction, and have answered several people's emails on the issue, with it being very clear that the low points cost was never intended (and the option to take it specifies Apocalypse games in the first place), it would appear that all the vote did was erroneously affirm an avowed mistake that FW simply never re-updated (as GW appears to have a policy of simply changing anything once "published").

That particular outcome just felt wrong to me. I get people want to boost Orks, but it would seem that hamfisting in Knight-priced Stompas based on a typo is a very, well, poor method of achieving that goal.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Reecius, in regards to the Stompa issue, was this ever examined further than just what the PDF stated? FW addressed the issue in the past when they were still allowed to have public interaction, and have answered several people's emails on the issue, with it being very clear that the low points cost was never intended (and the option to take it specifies Apocalypse games in the first place), it would appear that all the vote did was erroneously affirm an avowed mistake that FW simply never re-updated (as GW appears to have a policy of simply changing anything once "published").

That particular outcome just felt wrong to me. I get people want to boost Orks, but it would seem that hamfisting in Knight-priced Stompas based on a typo is a very, well, poor method of achieving that goal.

I'm actually quite happy for the orks. See, I use to play, and emailed forgeworld more than once about this very thing. Half of them said mistake, the other half said the price was right. But you'll only hear the nah Sayers come out, of course. Like the tau, who now have to play appropriately instead of using loosely worded rules to their utmost benefit.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Reecius, in regards to the Stompa issue, was this ever examined further than just what the PDF stated? FW addressed the issue in the past when they were still allowed to have public interaction, and have answered several people's emails on the issue, with it being very clear that the low points cost was never intended (and the option to take it specifies Apocalypse games in the first place), it would appear that all the vote did was erroneously affirm an avowed mistake that FW simply never re-updated (as GW appears to have a policy of simply changing anything once "published").

That particular outcome just felt wrong to me. I get people want to boost Orks, but it would seem that hamfisting in Knight-priced Stompas based on a typo is a very, well, poor method of achieving that goal.

I'm actually quite happy for the orks. See, I use to play, and emailed forgeworld more than once about this very thing. Half of them said mistake, the other half said the price was right. But you'll only hear the nah Sayers come out, of course. Like the tau, who now have to play appropriately instead of using loosely worded rules to their utmost benefit.

You are the only person I've heard who has ever claimed that FW said it was the appropriate price. When they had an FW page, they posted on there it was incorrect, I've just never seen anyone claim otherwise.

Not saying it couldn't happen, same way that Rapier Laser Destroyers are AP1 in some books and AP2 in others and FW just says "well...use whatever the book you're using says...we dunno", but I've just never seen an affirmative response on the pricing being appropriate, it's almost certainly a bad copy-paste of naked IA-8 "make you own Stompa" options.

Ultimately, it's hard to see where they really meant a 12HP superheavy walker to be as cheap as they made it, and even if they did, the rule pretty clearly states it's an option for Apocalypse, not just any game.

 Vaktathi wrote:
You are the only person I've heard who has ever claimed that FW said it was the appropriate price.

FWIW, FW has no more interest than GW prime in generating "official" answers or FAQs in a timely manner. And for the record, when I inquired about the Stompa in question they told me that I should play it with whatever price I thought was appropriate with my friends and that it was "a bit cheap... but [the other listing] seems a bit expensive." WTF? This really has turned into cool models, not tight rules. Which basically invalidates any argument that starts with RAW while we're at it.

If you'll recall the frustration expressed over the Brass Scorpion, which was clearly allowed in Chaos Daemon armies prior to IA13. When pressed for a ruling so that those of us who play in an organized manner can all be on the same page they said:

"...quick fire resolution would be go unbound, the next would be find some new gaming friends as you have bought this model and want to use it and your friends will not let you.

A question I would ask is would you allow it? We cant really offer you any official advice as any official word will come through our designers and in due time but I would say that this is a hobby and we have designed it to be as inclusive as possible, essentially we encourage you to do what ever you want in your hobby, play any games, any models in your hobby and enjoy it."

So, to give any deference to what FW may or may not have claimed as appropriate or otherwise is giving them more credit than is deserved.

Just out of curiosity, when was that that you contacted them? Do you know if it was after they shut down their FB page? IIRC that happened right about the time 7th launched, and basically GW as a whole stopped any sort of rules support relatively shortly thereafter and FW seems to have basically just reverted to "just use whatever is printed on whatever thing you happen to be using" (as with the Rapier Laser Destroyers and their constantly changing AP values).

That may be the point of disconnect methinks.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Just out of curiosity, when was that that you contacted them? Do you know if it was after they shut down their FB page? IIRC that happened right about the time 7th launched, and basically GW as a whole stopped any sort of rules support relatively shortly thereafter and FW seems to have basically just reverted to "just use whatever is printed on whatever thing you happen to be using" (as with the Rapier Laser Destroyers and their constantly changing AP values).

That may be the point of disconnect methinks.

My contact on the Brass Scorpion was in the last 9 months. On the Stompa was probably about a year ago. I wasn't picking you out, but rather commenting on the fact that everyone here is taking this so very seriously when the game designers have stopped treating the rules they right as a serious and legitimate ruleset. How can any of us argue with an ferocity the merit of either "Rules as Written" or "Rules as Intended" when the companies that support said rules no longer actually care about the words that they use or the effect of those words on a common gaming experience. We've been joking about Rule #1 for years, but that is exactly how GW sees these issues. Dice it off and move on.

I personally think that this is very bad for the game. A tight rule set in no way negatively impacts the casual player. It only helps the game by making it more universally understandable. However, since GW and FW have abandoned their customer base post-sale (they have our dollars and provide no support once the transaction is concluded) we're left to either dice off every time (not feasible for organized play) or house rule these issues. While I disagree with some of the rulings that have come out of the ITC, and I feel that the FAQ council needs to be revived to deal with FAQs (errata are another matter), this process isn't much worse (or better) than other options.

Reece, on your recent podcast you stated considering changing the Piranha formation - to be as polite as possible, the Tau nerfs occurring are getting out of hand, and are frustrating me on a personal level, both for the fact that it's the army I play, and the fact that you're markedly changing a codex which is going to create a meta that isn't representative. None of the items were even allowed to see the table top and be tested thoroughly prior to voting, and as someone who has a long history in competitive play (10 ish GT wins I think?), none of them (with the exception of allowing target locking and coordinated firepower to work together) would have impacted the scene in a meaningful way.

To try and preempt some of the new Podcast discussion, the wording on the Piranha formation is crystal clear, and I'd urge you to not nerf it/attempt to change it before letting it see play. Piranhas and Drones are generally one of the most laughed at, weakest, non-fielded units in the game, and they finally got a formation worth using - I can't even see the motivation for changing them beyond a knee jerk "oh that sounds too good!".

Piranha Firestorm Wing, Rearm and Refuel special rule:
If all of the surviving models from a unit in this Formation are within 6" of a table edge at the end of their Movement Phase, the unit can enter Ongoing Reserves. When it returns to play, it does so at full strength with any damage repaired and Drones and seeker missiles replaced.

It is completely clear that they can:
1) Enter play, disembark drones, and then leave play in the same turn you discussed as "i think obviously they cant". While there are examples of other units not doing this, there are literally a million examples of other units being able to do things that others cannot. It would be akin to saying "why cant my piranhas skyleap, if they can't skyleap, hawks cant!". The rules are clear on this - you move on at the start of the movement phase, you disembark during the movement phase, and if you are within 6" of a table edge at the end of a movement phase, you can enter ongoing reserves. There is no reason to change this unless you're trying to nerf piranhas. Which sounds similar to trying to nerf ratlings - they're already a forgotten unit.

2) "Full strength". You state in your podcast you "don't think if a piranha was destroyed and the unit returned, the dead piranha would come back" (paraphrased). This is also a clear rule - if a unit of conscripts last edition returned at "full strength", would we say that dead conscripts didn't come back to life, because that's not what "full strength" means? A unit at "Full Strength" is very clear, there's no need to over think this one. In the recycling gargoyles of nids, if they return at "full strength" do we not return the gargoyles that died?

The issue you need to handle regarding the piranha formation is the following situation: If a unit of piranha immobilize a member, the rest of the squad can abandon it, and it becomes a "new unit". In the case this happens you need to decide whether that piranha (which exists still on the table) comes back when the rest of the unit leaves. By rules it's clearly, the original unit comes back at full strength and we now have a duplicate piranha - and in game play, it's not meaningful, as you randomly can create another unit, an immobilized open topped av11/10 1hp left skimmer (?woo?). The part where this can be an issue is people can think the immobilized piranha, if within 6 inches of the board edge, can create an entirely new full strength unit - this one should be clarified to not be allowed as it's a "new unit" and as such is no longer part of the formation, so doesn't share the same abilities. Beyond that the formation has no rules to work through.

As Captain of the ETC team, I want to use all events as qualifiers to make sure that the entire countries playerbase is represented - it can become hard to justify this when you make changes to specific books, which creates a situation where players winning events aren't under the same stressors they would be at for the ETC - the Tau players can't use lists they might use in representing America in Europe, nor are the other players used to facing those Tau lists. I'm fully aware this isn't your problem or concern, but it's something I feel is worth mentioning.

On a personal level, as a Tau player, I think honestly this change would be the last straw for me on attending events using the ITC changes, so if a change or ruling is going to be made, I'd request it be done with enough time left for me to get a refund and drop from LVO. I could still have a great time in Vegas, so having booked the trip itself isn't a concern for me.

Andrew Gonyo
Captain America

I feel as though this was never intended to bring back the entire squad, but using each pirahna separately. So no, it isn't crystal clear. Change away Reece.. Change away

To be fair gonyo using ITC/not ITC to determine who joins team america hasn't mattered yet so that isn't much in the way of a threat. It also isn't in any way a legitimate complaint. ITC or "Reece" as you refer to it also nerfed Eldar when their codex came out but I don't recall you zipping in threatening to block his events from qualifying for team east coast I mean america.

You play Tau and you were upset when the Tau'Nar was rejected for legal play.. it was laughable to see you hate on LoW but then be upset that the most OP of them all (at that price point) couldn't be considered for 1850 ITC play. Now you are upset because the vote didn't go your way on army wide ignores cover/twin linked/monster hunter etc etc.. I mean come on?

You have won 10 GT's and are one of the best players in the world. Never have you played a competitive game that DIDN'T have some changes / restrictions / nerfs to that format. It's how we play. Being upset because your race was nerfed and then threatening with everything you have is embarrassing.

iNcontroL wrote:
To be fair gonyo using ITC/not ITC to determine who joins team america hasn't mattered yet so that isn't much in the way of a threat. It also isn't in any way a legitimate complaint. ITC or "Reece" as you refer to it also nerfed Eldar when their codex came out but I don't recall you zipping in threatening to block his events from qualifying for team east coast I mean america.

You play Tau and you were upset when the Tau'Nar was rejected for legal play.. it was laughable to see you hate on LoW but then be upset that the most OP of them all (at that price point) couldn't be considered for 1850 ITC play. Now you are upset because the vote didn't go your way on army wide ignores cover/twin linked/monster hunter etc etc.. I mean come on?

You have won 10 GT's and are one of the best players in the world. Never have you played a competitive game that DIDN'T have some changes / restrictions / nerfs to that format. It's how we play. Being upset because your race was nerfed and then threatening with everything you have is embarrassing.

I'd have to agree. Let's be sure we keep the emotions in check and address our concerns in a direct and respectful manner.

With regards to the piranha formation, I will say I agree that it is completely clear that as long as one model remains in the unit, the unit will return from reserve "at full strength" meaning with full numbers and compliments.

The formation specifically identifies as well, full damage repair and all missiles and drones replaced, which if arguing a ridiculously RAW argument, damage results on the unit including wrecks and explodes are "damage" that can be "repaired" but I don't think going that deep is necessary.

Also, as far as intention goes, "full strength" via the military almost always refers to unit numbers; boots on the ground.

Oh and let's be clear, as a fellow Tau player, the Tau'nar should NEVER be allowed into the ITC, unless it receives a huge point increase. It is so grossly overpowered, it sets the forgeworld stigma to a whole new level

@Andrew

Dude...what?

Someone asked us our opinion of that rule on the podcast, and we gave it--off the cuff--stating emphatically and multiple times that we had not even read the rule yet, lol, nor that anything we said was official. We were simply engaging in a discussion with everyone, casually.

So, your reaction to that is to publicly make veiled threats about ETC qualification for ITC events? Damn, dude. That is extremely disappointing, I thought much more of you than that. Beyond the fact that your logic is flawed (you would then exclude every event that didn't use the ETC format form qualification, which is almost 100% North American events) it is also grossly unethical. The army YOU play might get a ruling you don't like so you try to use the power you have to threaten a system that represents thousands of gamers...just think about that for a second. That is definitely an abuse of power and when you calm down a bit and reflect on this rationally, you should feel shame for even thinking about pulling that card.

Why would you choose to make this statement publicly? We talk privately, and as you are well aware of, you helped me write the ITC Tau poll questions. Lol, you had a direct hand in this, you KNOW I am willing to listen to you and consider your opinion, as I am willing to listen to everyone that provides feedback, but you more than most. You could have emailed me, texted me, skyped me, hit me up on FB and provided your feedback on this specific rule interpretation and I would have been more than happy to hear what you had to say...but you choose to go on Dakka...

Look man, if you want your money back, I will PayPal it to you right now and wish you a good day. I am just so completely disappointed you would choose to behave in this way, it's actually a bit shocking.

There are more important things than the ETC selection process imo. I doubt it is intended for free drones coming in every turn of the game.

iNcontroL wrote:
To be fair gonyo using ITC/not ITC to determine who joins team america hasn't mattered yet so that isn't much in the way of a threat. It also isn't in any way a legitimate complaint. ITC or "Reece" as you refer to it also nerfed Eldar when their codex came out but I don't recall you zipping in threatening to block his events from qualifying for team east coast I mean america.

You play Tau and you were upset when the Tau'Nar was rejected for legal play.. it was laughable to see you hate on LoW but then be upset that the most OP of them all (at that price point) couldn't be considered for 1850 ITC play. Now you are upset because the vote didn't go your way on army wide ignores cover/twin linked/monster hunter etc etc.. I mean come on?

You have won 10 GT's and are one of the best players in the world. Never have you played a competitive game that DIDN'T have some changes / restrictions / nerfs to that format. It's how we play. Being upset because your race was nerfed and then threatening with everything you have is embarrassing.

Big +1 on that.

The ITC format isn't intended for the top .1% of players to "practice" for the ETC.

 Reecius wrote:
@Andrew

Dude...what?

Someone asked us our opinion of that rule on the podcast, and we gave it--off the cuff--stating emphatically and multiple times that we had not even read the rule yet, lol, nor that anything we said was official. We were simply engaging in a discussion with everyone, casually.

So, your reaction to that is to publicly make veiled threats about ETC qualification for ITC events? Damn, dude. That is extremely disappointing, I thought much more of you than that. Beyond the fact that your logic is flawed (you would then exclude every event that didn't use the ETC format form qualification, which is almost 100% North American events) it is also grossly unethical. The army YOU play might get a ruling you don't like so you try to use the power you have to threaten a system that represents thousands of gamers...just think about that for a second. That is definitely an abuse of power and when you calm down a bit and reflect on this rationally, you should feel shame for even thinking about pulling that card.

Why would you choose to make this statement publicly? We talk privately, and as you are well aware of, you helped me write the ITC Tau poll questions. Lol, you had a direct hand in this, you KNOW I am willing to listen to you and consider your opinion, as I am willing to listen to everyone that provides feedback, but you more than most. You could have emailed me, texted me, skyped me, hit me up on FB and provided your feedback on this specific rule interpretation and I would have been more than happy to hear what you had to say...but you choose to go on Dakka...

Look man, if you want your money back, I will PayPal it to you right now and wish you a good day. I am just so completely disappointed you would choose to behave in this way, it's actually a bit shocking.

Reece - stuck in a meeting now, so this is going to only be a partial reply, but the intent wasnt to inply itc events wouldnt be qual events. The way i do etc qual necessitates that every event must be included, but to point out that changes like this make it very difficult to ensure people who make the team have the requisite experience with/against things as they will be played at the etc. There is no plan to remove etc qual status from any itc event, nor can there be or the qual system doesnt represent the country.

We've spoken privately a couple times and would appreciate doing it more so on faq issues, ...and kicking back into meeting, will finish in an hour or two but wanted to clear up the etc qual status right away, since the way i wrote it before definitely was worded poorly and gave the wrong perception

y'know. My Tau army was gonna be a contingent with an allied darkstrider. for ignore cover tank hunter monsterhunter at -1T for my whole army. this nerfed that, and y'know what, I dont care, because in the end I suck and i would have gotten nowhere with it.
But I do agree that tau nerfs are getting out of hand.
I know that some tau players Reece feel as if for quite some time you have picked on tau alot because you loose to them(I dont believe that) But tau always seemed to be targets of nerfs. After the first LVO, after serpent spam won with seercouncil, you proposed nerfing.......buffmander.
You cited the Firebase support cadre as the reason you where not gonna allow formations.
I play 2 other armies, and I feel they get nothing near the amount of targeted hate tau do.
But that is just like, my opinion man.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
y'know. My Tau army was gonna be a contingent with an allied darkstrider. for ignore cover tank hunter monsterhunter at -1T for my whole army. this nerfed that, and y'know what, I dont care, because in the end I suck and i would have gotten nowhere with it.
But I do agree that tau nerfs are getting out of hand.
I know that some tau players Reece feel as if for quite some time you have picked on tau alot because you loose to them(I dont believe that) But tau always seemed to be targets of nerfs. After the first LVO, after serpent spam won with seercouncil, you proposed nerfing.......buffmander.
You cited the Firebase support cadre as the reason you where not gonna allow formations.
I play 2 other armies, and I feel they get nothing near the amount of targeted hate tau do.
But that is just like, my opinion man.

You gotta remember that at the time when formations were not allowed, there were not very many formations, and none of them were really that good, except the Firebase Support Cadre, which was pretty absurd at the time. While I'm pretty much against banning anything (except the Tau'nar, because seriously...), it was totally understandable at the time.

While I disagree with some of the result of the rules that were voted on, it is simply a voted on interpretation of a rule that can be taken many ways. Personally, I think all rules should be shared, but nothing can split fire, but instead the voted on interpretation actually lets you still split fire (so you're not forced to over-commit), though at the expense of shared buffs from the buffmander. To play devil's advocate, if all special rules were shared, we would see Tau the same way we see Marines, where it feels like 99% of the players play the same build to maximize a silly formation rule, which is frankly boring to play with and against.

I don't think Reece "hates" any army, his lively hood relies on selling these little plastic toys, or to say it in Warhammerese, "Reece cares not from whence the cash flows, only that it flows."

If there was any problem with the poll, it was simply that in my experience (as someone who works with a lot of user studies) asking opinion based questions instead of fact based questions can yield very different results (can, not guaranteed). While Reece is a masterful plasticrack slinger, he is a journeyman at best in the world of conducting user studies, which I don't think he'd deny, and there is absolutely no problem with that.

Wow, I read a reasoned argument and polite discussion. You guys read it as an implied threat. That's impressively defensive to me.

My thoughts on the piranha's;

Allow psychic units to only summon every other turn and I'm good with changing the piranha formation....

The formation, at max, generates 32 drones per turn for 640pts.

2 Librarius Conclaves generate (on average) 2xPrimaris Summoned units (one that can create more units) and generally 2 more Incursions/GD's/Heralds for 570pts.

32 drones is 448pts and 32 wounds
20 Lesser Daemons (Tzeentch) and a Tzeentch Herald, and a unit of incursion models is around 375pts and 31 wounds and more sources to generate more models next turn.

That's not even counting the "free points" of other Decurion style detachments or the recyclable Nids. Or comparing some of the Decurion boosts to the ones that the tau get (doom on one unit a turn vs. everything get +1 to not die or all obsec).

Overall I, as a person who doesn't play tau, feel like the nerfs for tau could be going way overboard. But that's just my opinion

Responding in order now that I'm at an actual PC

iNcontroL wrote:
To be fair gonyo using ITC/not ITC to determine who joins team america hasn't mattered yet so that isn't much in the way of a threat. It also isn't in any way a legitimate complaint. ITC or "Reece" as you refer to it also nerfed Eldar when their codex came out but I don't recall you zipping in threatening to block his events from qualifying for team east coast I mean america.

You play Tau and you were upset when the Tau'Nar was rejected for legal play.. it was laughable to see you hate on LoW but then be upset that the most OP of them all (at that price point) couldn't be considered for 1850 ITC play. Now you are upset because the vote didn't go your way on army wide ignores cover/twin linked/monster hunter etc etc.. I mean come on?

You have won 10 GT's and are one of the best players in the world. Never have you played a competitive game that DIDN'T have some changes / restrictions / nerfs to that format. It's how we play. Being upset because your race was nerfed and then threatening with everything you have is embarrassing.

1) I typed up a poorly worded, misleading response as I mentioned above regarding ETC. My intent was not to state ITC events wouldn't qualify - by nature of the qual system I wrote it all falls apart if I do this. The problem is ITC is not a one off event, its a widely adopted system which means it has far reaching impacts. And this is great for unity, but my goal was to express the difficulties that presents when trying to prepare a team for play without many rules changes when they are becoming commonplace *prior* to any testing being done. That was why I tried to state that I know it isn't his problem, but I felt it was worth mentioning. In saying it's hard to justify, I'm trying to say the purpose of the system (getting a representative team together to prepare for europe) starts to fall apart - I don't have a choice in whether I include everything, whether I personally like an event or not.

Also, I know it was just a bit of a jab, but consider that the team is not East Coast by design, it just is presently. The team was qualified through a circuit that included more west coast events than east coast. It just happens that last year, the first team created by the new qual circuit, the majority of the major events in the country were won by East Coast/Mid West players, including LVO. I created the system specifically to remove any bias of it being as "east coast" centric. FYI, you're in 7th this year (Top 5 qual for the team automatically, below that become the stable of alternates we look at based on what they play). Right now the top 5 include 3 Mid-west players and 2 east coast. Last years team had a much larger east coast representation, but again, I can't control who wins events.

2) I was and am upset the Tau'Nar was rejected for legal play, as I still feel there were no grounds for it to be rejected. I would prefer to have no SH/GC in the game if it were purely me, but it's not, and SH/GC are in - but if they're going to be in, there is no basis to reject the Tau'Nar versus the other SH/GC's. Look at the recent Ork buy - 12 HPS, power shields, crazy guns, D CCW's, and a guy who takes it for a 530 point discount? Look at wraithknights. If anything the Tau'Nar should have been handled on a trial basis, and my issue is the trend of moving towards shoot first, ask questions later with these issues.

There were easy fixes for the Tau'Nar if, after testing, it was a concern. Namely "The Tau'Nar cannot benefit from markerlight or signature system abilities". Done. But it never got the chance to see if we could perform tweaks before just excising it.

3) My point of referencing my record was just to state "yes, I know competitive play, I've been in it a while, and in my (qualified by experience) opinion, none of these things we're working with were actually going to be that impactful to the game. If they aren't, why are we changing them? These aren't faq questions, these are nerfs prior to testing. I could name a ton of better players than myself, so this wasn't meant to come off as it probably did - apologies on that. While every format has had some changes/restrictions/nerfs, I've never seen a format with so many, and so many that occurred prior to any testing in the open circuit. That's my major issue. If it were one event, I could probably suck it up, but ITC is much more than one event at this point.

To Reece's post, beyond what I responded to above already regarding the ETC qual status:

 Reecius wrote:
@Andrew

Dude...what?

Someone asked us our opinion of that rule on the podcast, and we gave it--off the cuff--stating emphatically and multiple times that we had not even read the rule yet, lol, nor that anything we said was official. We were simply engaging in a discussion with everyone, casually.

So, your reaction to that is to publicly make veiled threats about ETC qualification for ITC events? Damn, dude. That is extremely disappointing, I thought much more of you than that. Beyond the fact that your logic is flawed (you would then exclude every event that didn't use the ETC format form qualification, which is almost 100% North American events) it is also grossly unethical. The army YOU play might get a ruling you don't like so you try to use the power you have to threaten a system that represents thousands of gamers...just think about that for a second. That is definitely an abuse of power and when you calm down a bit and reflect on this rationally, you should feel shame for even thinking about pulling that card.

Why would you choose to make this statement publicly? We talk privately, and as you are well aware of, you helped me write the ITC Tau poll questions. Lol, you had a direct hand in this, you KNOW I am willing to listen to you and consider your opinion, as I am willing to listen to everyone that provides feedback, but you more than most. You could have emailed me, texted me, skyped me, hit me up on FB and provided your feedback on this specific rule interpretation and I would have been more than happy to hear what you had to say...but you choose to go on Dakka...

Look man, if you want your money back, I will PayPal it to you right now and wish you a good day. I am just so completely disappointed you would choose to behave in this way, it's actually a bit shocking.

1) I took it as more than just an off the cuff response on your pod cast, and perhaps that was in error. I did this because I heard you read the rule verbatim, in rewatching it appears you're reading what was provided to you in the comment box, which since it was the actual rule itself, made me believe you were making your preliminary ruling on it with eyes wide open as to what it said.

2) Qual status - as stated before and directly above, that's my bad. I worded it extremely poorly and ended up saying something I didn't even intend to. My intent was to make you aware of the difficulty these rules changes bring to selecting a team. As i mentioned above in my reply to Geoff, in saying it's hard to justify, I'm trying to say the purpose of the system (getting a representative team together to prepare for europe) starts to fall apart - I don't have a choice in whether I include everything, whether I personally like a ruling/change at an event or not - I just have to, the team has to be equally open to the whole country.

3) We've only spoken a couple of times privately, and I believe our discussion was primarily me providing you an unprompted "here's what we're doing on the ETC faq council" and you saying thanks for the info. I didn't feel we had the relationship to just chum it up off the books as I'm not a part of your FAQ group. While I provided you the information and the writing, which you used some of/leaned on, you turn it from a FAQ question, which it should have been since it hasn't been tested at all yet, to a "how do you want it played" which isn't a FAQ question, it's a nerf/rules change. I feel strongly that you need to flow through:
A) What is the rule, if it's not clear, discuss, and follow RAW
B) If RAW isn't clear, is there an obvious RAI to be used
C) If the above results in a ruling that is worrisome, keep track of it and see how it shakes out in RTT/GT play. If it becomes an issue, enact a vote for a rules change.

In my opinion you essentially skipped straight to C.

4) I should have likely contacted you off of Dakka, but this is the spot I see you discussing these things, so I chose to engage here - likely a poor choice. I didn't feel we had a personal relationship established for a sit down on your faq talks, and honestly when writing this didn't see this as nearly as inflammatory as it ended up being, likely because i didn't realize it would come off as a threat of etc qual status. Upon re-reading it I can definitely see how it did, which is on me.

5) The refund comment was for me as a player, not for me as public figure, and should have been a completely separate comment/post and not confused the two topics. I had a suit army planned, being built, but the changes to coordinated firepower make it not worthwhile. I have no interest in the Stormsurge lists as I just don't personally like the model, but have been a long time piranha player so started expanding on the 8 I had ready after reading the montka rules a week ago. When I hear that's the bit being potentially targeted now (and with language like, "obviously it cant..."), I throw my hands up in the air going "well whats the friggin point of updating my tau at all!". It worries me that I'll have nothing I'm interested in playing - I (player-me) want to know if it'll all be finished in time to make a decision as to whether playing in the singles itself is worth it for me.

Feel free to let me know if anything else wasn't clear and I'll do my best to respond to it, this time in a more well thought out manner, about my initial statement.

Anybody that wants an LVO refund, just send me a PM instead and I'll buy your ticket!

I can beat Reece even with all his insidious Tau nerfs.

 whitedragon wrote:
Anybody that wants an LVO refund, just send me a PM instead and I'll buy your ticket!

I can beat Reece even with all his insidious Tau nerfs.

Wow.. Kinda a rude comment. People like you are going to lvo? Ick

Pain4Pleasure, I think you missed the joke

I think it would be best for folks to take a step back and not assume people are making attacks when they're criticizing an ITC decision - open discussion is what a forum is for, after all... if we were all in agreement on everything, there wouldn't be much point in discussing!

I also think it's worthwhile to voice a concern early - there has been a lot of momentum on these ITC decisions... i.e, something is mentioned as being important to vote (or just rule) on, ruling happens, and it's open-and-shut. Any criticism after the decision seems to be ineffective... so it's definitely worth bringing something up early.

I think what the ITC is trying to do is great but I do think the decisions can be somewhat arbitrary (especially when made really early), and as we discussed in the other thread I think the statistics being used to show that people are "not voting in their self interest" do not necessarily support that conclusion (and neither does, well, life at least as it pertains to things like games / sports / rules).

So, I think it would be better to view criticism as Hulksmash says - a reasoned argument and polite discussion, not an attack on anyone or any system.

@Target: I don't think its perfectly clear that the unit returns at full strength. The rule specifies "surviving models" at the beginning of the entry. There is a good case to be made that the "surviving models" return at full strength (i.e. all hull points repaired, destroyed weapons restored, etc.) but not that previously destroyed models are regenerated. Clearly the discussion is more appropriate in YMDC but I think a healthy discussion is appropriate to generate an FAQ before the event.

 minionboy wrote:

You gotta remember that at the time when formations were not allowed, there were not very many formations, and none of them were really that good, except the Firebase Support Cadre, which was pretty absurd at the time. While I'm pretty much against banning anything (except the Tau'nar, because seriously...), it was totally understandable at the time.

While I disagree with some of the result of the rules that were voted on, it is simply a voted on interpretation of a rule that can be taken many ways. Personally, I think all rules should be shared, but nothing can split fire, but instead the voted on interpretation actually lets you still split fire (so you're not forced to over-commit), though at the expense of shared buffs from the buffmander. To play devil's advocate, if all special rules were shared, we would see Tau the same way we see Marines, where it feels like 99% of the players play the same build to maximize a silly formation rule, which is frankly boring to play with and against.

I don't think Reece "hates" any army, his lively hood relies on selling these little plastic toys, or to say it in Warhammerese, "Reece cares not from whence the cash flows, only that it flows."

If there was any problem with the poll, it was simply that in my experience (as someone who works with a lot of user studies) asking opinion based questions instead of fact based questions can yield very different results (can, not guaranteed). While Reece is a masterful plasticrack slinger, he is a journeyman at best in the world of conducting user studies, which I don't think he'd deny, and there is absolutely no problem with that.

I dont think that he hates any army, but he is vocal more about how tau ignore the rules more than most and how it sucks playing orks against them.
And lol yeah, I barely know much about writing questions, despite it being a focus of mine in school lol. but some do seem dubious. The only reason it didnt affect me cause I went into it knowing how I was gonna vote.

@Whitedragon

You do have a perfect record against me, buddy, haha.

@P4P

Whitedragons was joking, that was sarcasm.

@Hot Sizzle

I had trouble reading your post, buddy, but yeah, I get accused of a wide variety of silly things as far fetched as mind control, rigging the system to benefit Deathstars, rigging the system to hurt deathstars, hating this that or the other army (all of them at this point, I think), etc. etc.

The fact of the matter is, as MinionBoy pointed out, we don't hate any army. We have opinions like anyone else, and try to be open and honest about them, but we're not out to get anybody, that would be counterproductive. We sell these models, lol, we aren't going to intentionally disenfranchise any of our customers.

We don't play in our won events, lol, so any thing we do to "fix the game in our favor" would be wasted effort.

Also, Tau have gained a lot from the ITC. Yeah, this vote went contrary to the interests of some Tau players, but that happens. They also gained all of their awesome experimental suits, units of Stormsurges, etc. People just tend to focus on what they feel is being taken away and forget about the benefits.

@Andrew

Thanks for the measured reply, I appreciate it. We get a lot of gak for doing what we do which, ironically for the people that yell at us lol, but coming from you it really felt a bit like a knife in the back. I am sure you didn't intend that, but when you make what felt like an indictment publicly using your title as Captain America to add weight to it, based off of assumptions from a casual conversation and not just come and talk to me about it, I got angry when typically I brush off the rude comments we sometimes get.

As for your rationale in regards to methodology with and FAQ, that is where the disconnect occurs. The ITC is not the ETC. We are not even pretending to be a purist format, we have moved past that as this entire thing has evolved. In 5th ed, yeah, we played the game with a purist mentality as Alessio wrote it that way...until Ward came along, lol. But I digress.

The rules for this game are not written to be taken as seriously as some of us do, especially in 7th. They aren't written with tournament gamers in mind, I know this 100% based off of correspondence with people that write the dang rules, plus it is obviously inferred from GWs actions. Therefore, we conclude that to adhere to them as if they were, is not necessarily the wisest decision. Instead of saying: let's try to determine RAW and then stick to it without deviation, we say: let's play this game in a way that is as appealing to as many people as possible. Often times, RAW is not what people actually want to play. We strive to stick to it as much as possible, of course, and not just change things willy nilly, but that is where the fine touch of it comes into play and where differences of opinion pop up.

What we have found, is that 40k "out of the box" is pretty much unplayable in an organized setting. You must alter it in some ways to make it playable without a lengthy discussion about how to play the game with each opponent. The only question that remains is to what degree do you alter things?

So, instead of dictating all of those changes, we decided to empower the players of the game to make these choices. And in many cases, what is "RAW" is less important that what a majority considers to be fun. I know you may not agree with that position, and that is fine, but that is what it is. And the point is: it works. A great number of people have adopted the ITC format because they find it to be fun to play. Almost everyone that likes the ITC will tell you the following: "I don't agree with every choice made in the ITC, but I prefer the format overall." And, as always, the first rule of the ITC is that you can alter any aspect of it.

Our events use it 100% of course, but that isn't a requirement. Lots of events modify certain aspects of it to suit their local community and that is totally cool. We aren't trying to dictate how the game is played, simply provide a common baseline for organized or casual pick-up game play.

As for timing on decisions, would we prefer to wait, gather data and make a measured decision after a lot of feedback? Yes, of course. That is obviously a wise move. However, in a practical sense, that is not a viable option. New rules come out almost every week and as you saw on the podcast, people expect us to have answers immediately--sometimes when we haven't even had a chance to read the rule in question. There are ITC events every weekend. Those TOs look to us to provide answers. And, the logistics of buying, building, painting a model and THEN getting told not to use it magnifies the gamerage by 100. So, often, expediency is required of us.

As you stated yourself, you want to know how we interpret this specific ruling with time to choose how it impacts your decision to go. So, do we not make a call on it to gather the data and then announce it 2 weeks before the event? No, obviously not. You, and other players need to know as early as possible how we will interpret a rule. Again, often we have to move quickly, there is no choice.

We will strive to answer these new questions as soon as we can, and for any new material that comes up between now and the LVO. We work hard at this, we do our best to provide a fun, fair format. It isn't easy, and we're always finding ways to improve. Feel free to reach out and talk to me in the future instead of taking action like this. It honestly doesn't help anything and felt more like you were venting than trying to communicate, but that could just be my reading of it.

As for the specific rule in question regarding the Pirhanas, I honestly have no opinion on it it as GW screwed up our order and I don't have the book yet, lol! As Frankie and I kept saying on the Podcast, we can't make a call on it as we don't have the material, but people were pressing us for some commentary on it so we gave an opinion. From now on, when people ask us for feedback on a rule we aren't ultra familiar with, we will state that the Gonyo Rule is in effect, so that they know we are simply casually discussing things and not offering up any kind of official ruling/interpretation/etc., lol.

Joking aside, we do hope to see you at the LVO of course, and that you have a fun time.

PanzerLeader wrote:
@Target: I don't think its perfectly clear that the unit returns at full strength. The rule specifies "surviving models" at the beginning of the entry. There is a good case to be made that the "surviving models" return at full strength (i.e. all hull points repaired, destroyed weapons restored, etc.) but not that previously destroyed models are regenerated. Clearly the discussion is more appropriate in YMDC but I think a healthy discussion is appropriate to generate an FAQ before the event.

If all of the surviving models from a unit in this Formation are within 6" of a table edge at the end of their Movement Phase, the [b]unit can enter Ongoing Reserves. When it returns to play, it does so at full strength with any damage repaired and Drones and seeker missiles replaced.[/b]

There are 2 distinct clauses here - if all of the surviving models are within 6" of a table edge (yes no), the unit is what returns to play at full strength, since the subject of "it" is the noun "unit". If "return at full strength" referring to "the unit" didn't mean to replace dead models, it wouldnt need to specify you also repair damage and replace drones/seeker missiles. They've also used language like this before, for instance with the conscript units that you used to be able to pick up and bring back on from your board edge.

I'm in agreement that if this is a frequently asked question it should be included, but with the propensity lately for tau items to come up and even if clear turn into "well lets decide how we want to play it not how it is", I'm concerned in how these are being handled. The YMDC thread is refreshingly clear/one-sided. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/671108.page



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Reece - "Gonyo Rule" - Seems fair, at least I'll be infamous?

Haha, exactly!

And as for the full strength thing on the Pirhanas, someone sent me an earlier version of that rule from Apoc where it actually specifically states they do all come back, even if destroyed.



We will have to confirm this, of course, but that is a strong case for that reading of the rule.

Also, I think part of this sentiment at present form Tau players is that they had a bunch of stuff come out at once, the Supremacy Suit, Codex and Supplement so a lot of FAQ calls had to be made which if you disagree with them, can feel like an attack when it isn't intended as such.

Reece I'm just glad you aren't backing down to the tau cult.

Ah, it's not like that, really. The thing is I 100% understand why people get mad. And, honestly, it sucks being the bearer of bad news. We want people to be happy about everything we do, of course, but that's not possible. We do our best to be diplomatic and fair, but anytime you disagree with someone that feels strongly about something, they can react emotionally and look for ways to undermine what you are doing, or what have you.

The thing I tell myself when folks get nasty is that they are actually motivated by a love for the game. They are just upset in the short term. It isn't personal and we have to strive not to take it that way.

Ultimately, we want to make something fun for people to do and get excited about, that's all. And the fact that people react so strongly to it actually encourages us to a degree. If people didn't give a rat's ass, then we'd be doing something wrong, lol. Just have to roll with the punches a bit.

 Reecius wrote:
Ah, it's not like that, really. The thing is I 100% understand why people get mad. And, honestly, it sucks being the bearer of bad news. We want people to be happy about everything we do, of course, but that's not possible. We do our best to be diplomatic and fair, but anytime you disagree with someone that feels strongly about something, they can react emotionally and look for ways to undermine what you are doing, or what have you.

The thing I tell myself when folks get nasty is that they are actually motivated by a love for the game. They are just upset in the short term. It isn't personal and we have to strive not to take it that way.

Ultimately, we want to make something fun for people to do and get excited about, that's all. And the fact that people react so strongly to it actually encourages us to a degree. If people didn't give a rat's ass, then we'd be doing something wrong, lol. Just have to roll with the punches a bit.

This is a great response, which is exactly why I can't wait for lvo. Keep on rocking, dude

I'm still pretty sure all the votes are purposely rigged to slowly move towards what Reece has wanted all along... for the dreaded Ork MSU Deathstar list to conquer all.

 Reecius wrote:


I had trouble reading your post, buddy, but yeah, I get accused of a wide variety of silly things as far fetched as mind control, rigging the system to benefit Deathstars, rigging the system to hurt deathstars, hating this that or the other army (all of them at this point, I think), etc. etc.

The fact of the matter is, as MinionBoy pointed out, we don't hate any army. We have opinions like anyone else, and try to be open and honest about them, but we're not out to get anybody, that would be counterproductive. We sell these models, lol, we aren't going to intentionally disenfranchise any of our customers.

We don't play in our won events, lol, so any thing we do to "fix the game in our favor" would be wasted effort.

Also, Tau have gained a lot from the ITC. Yeah, this vote went contrary to the interests of some Tau players, but that happens. They also gained all of their awesome experimental suits, units of Stormsurges, etc. People just tend to focus on what they feel is being taken away and forget about the benefits.

.

LoL, I must be getting tired of writing. Stupid paper on Las Vegas
But I think one thing we all have to remember is that people are gonna hate. I know you gain nothing because, between you and frankie, you probably play every army Bar sisters. But some people feel as if that alot of the OP stuff like WK, Free points, and other absurd formation benefits are never voted on, but this is?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Reecius wrote:


I had trouble reading your post, buddy, but yeah, I get accused of a wide variety of silly things as far fetched as mind control, rigging the system to benefit Deathstars, rigging the system to hurt deathstars, hating this that or the other army (all of them at this point, I think), etc. etc.

The fact of the matter is, as MinionBoy pointed out, we don't hate any army. We have opinions like anyone else, and try to be open and honest about them, but we're not out to get anybody, that would be counterproductive. We sell these models, lol, we aren't going to intentionally disenfranchise any of our customers.

We don't play in our won events, lol, so any thing we do to "fix the game in our favor" would be wasted effort.

Also, Tau have gained a lot from the ITC. Yeah, this vote went contrary to the interests of some Tau players, but that happens. They also gained all of their awesome experimental suits, units of Stormsurges, etc. People just tend to focus on what they feel is being taken away and forget about the benefits.

.

LoL, I must be getting tired of writing. Stupid paper on Las Vegas
But I think one thing we all have to remember is that people are gonna hate. I know you gain nothing because, between you and frankie, you probably play every army Bar sisters. But some people feel as if that alot of the OP stuff like WK, Free points, and other absurd formation benefits are never voted on, but this is?

Things like the war convocation aren't itc legal anyway so why vote for it

Reece, to try and explain better, here is what I think the current FAQ approach is suffering from, and to be honest unlike silly rumors/posts I sometimes see in these threads, I honestly don't think it's some sort of weird reece-conspiracy to get his way or rigged votes or other nonsense. I do think you do these with the best intentions to try and provide the best product to ITC-users.

However, while I know you have to provide events using your system a response, and in a timely fashion, the way the Tau ones have been handled has a key flaw. If you go with the non-raw, or conservative approach off the bat, no one will ever test the other approach, nor will you be able to (without uproar) reverse a ruling from a vote that was done prior to testing. IE, if you begin at most restrictive, its hard if not impossible to ever loosen it up - as no one has more than the sky is falling reaction we all get when a new codex drops to go on as "why that is the way it is".

If you start at the version that you believe is purely the "correct" way to rule it based on the wording for your preliminary answer to events, you can then see if it's a problem. If it is, then you can do a vote on how people would prefer to play it. Everyone is at this point, as much as they ever will be, knowldgeable of the impact of how the rule works. They can then vote with a more reasoned approach, and players of the codex won't feel as put out as if they never had a chance.

To give an example using the recent Tau faqs.

1) The Tau'Nar - before the model is released, was decided to not be legal. Instead, you could have released a statement saying "we feel this is a bit over the top, and will be using it on a probationary basis - in one month we will revisit whether it will be used based on feedback you provide, here's a link/email/to provide feedback. This would have still been done in plenty of time for LVO, and would be finished prior to today at the very least (I don't recall when its rules came up but it was over a month ago I think).

2) The Coordinated Firepower Rule. Prior to this getting more then a week or two of shelf life, it was put to a "how do you want it played" vote. Instead, you could have said "by the rules, here's how we read it". The likely interpretation here is that it works, but that target locks don't function with it since it states it must be at the primary target. Same as above, you then ask folks to test for a month, submit their feedback, and based on that you'll decide if a vote is required.

3) Scat lasers - geoff mentioned this and I completely had forgotten it - same story, go with raw, tell people you're soliciting feedback for one month to determine if a vote is needed. If so, issue vote.

You still resolves issues quickly, but you make sure that things actually get run to ground before coming out. If issues come up too close to an event, you play the un-voted, less restrictive (presumably raw but we all know that isn't always the case) version at the event. This has happened a ton in past years and events haven't suffered. We all survived through 5th ed when nothing was changed really, through NOVA with Ovesastar, we're all currently surviving eldar (or not really but we're at least okay with it i guess?), through the events that have un-nerfed invis and un-nerfed 2++, etc. But by changing these before they're given a fair shake, player bases feel targeted or disenfranchised unfairly.

Also yes I'm realizing this should have been my first post

Target, I see where you are coming from, and even though your statement was not to me I have a question for you. Are you making this suggestion for any future polls and decisions that itc will be making, or are you saying you'd like the current newest tau results, maybe even the taunar to be looked at again? To be honest, I hope it's the former. As if it's the latter, it comes at looking as if because it affected an army you collect/love and you are a big influence, that you're using that influence to try and support the army you use/love and that wouldn't set well with other users such as myself. I completely agree with your entire statement, but only if this is a "from here on out" and not a "let's redo this really quick"

The basic truth is there are far more eldar players, and they had more of an impact on the vote, closest in history for itc voting I believe. Not as many people play tau as hate them, so due to simple mob rule the Nerf we have now. What IS hypocritical is to pretend that it couldn't have been worded how do you feel the rule should function. Instead they asked what in the end could be simplified down to "do you want tau to have access to the whole benefit of coordinated firepower, or just some of the intended benefits"? If this had been a space marine ruling it would have gone into their favor, and to pretend it was anything over than a popularity vote is disengenus. But the worse crime is not even having a discussion, let alone vote, on the other things that are more broken like necron decursion or marine gladius. Because as much as it might hurt attendance to have to play tau with full rules, outlawing 500+ points of free marine razorbacks would devastate attendance. Me and everyone I know not sitting squarely in the marine campaign groan when our opponent plops down ultra marines gladius with its 3 tactical doctrines a game and 2300 point list compared to our 1850. But I guess the minorities can go get stuffed, just like in real life.

Pain4Pleasure, Target owes you nothing. The FAQ it's in entirety should be up for debate every 3-6 months. Can you look back at your comments and honestly not come off as enjoying Tau players anguish?

@Reece,

What does the ruling mean for Fireteam rules and Dronecontroller interaction with CF? Neither are USRs.

To be clear I'm asking can I combine a Coldstar and two separate Riptides for a +1 BS or a Commander with two separate drone units for a BS 5 for the drones?

Thanks.

 thejughead wrote:
Pain4Pleasure, Target owes you nothing. The FAQ it's in entirety should be up for debate every 3-6 months. Can you look back at your comments and honestly not come off as enjoying Tau players anguish?

@Reece,

What does the ruling mean for Fireteam rules and Dronecontroller interaction with CF? Neither are USRs.

To be clear I'm asking can I combine a Coldstar and two separate Riptides for a +1 BS or a Commander with two separate drone units for a BS 5 for the drones?

Thanks.

Did I ever state he owes me anything at all? I even said I was asking him a question. Don't come at me like you're better than me at all. News flash, you aren't. We are all human. End of story. Now, unless you are contributing to this convo, deuces.

So why does it need to be he former? Don't come out like you have no bias here. Like you said we are Human. humans have bias, seems you have one.

First off, target made the wording for the tau polls in the first place. Second, the poll is done. Let it be, reevaluate it at q later date. Not a day later. Like you said, roughly 6 months

I certainly do not want a re vote this early. Target's approach should be something that should be embraced. And CF should be evaluated in 6 months.

The only issue we have now is we will never know its true impact. I get why only two options were put in the poll, I would have voted for the middle option if it existed, but we are here alas.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Don't come at me like you're better than me at all. News flash, you aren't. We are all human. End of story. Now, unless you are contributing to this convo, deuces.

This kind of language / tone is not acceptable on Dakka Dakka - if you cannot make your argument in a reasonable fashion then please refrain from posting.

This is a useful thread / discussion so no further impolite comments, please - thanks all.

Edit: Brotherkreose ran a light-hearted post by me - if he posts it, please don't take it seriously . In the end it's a lot of fun to discuss these things, and a lot can be learned, too. Just need to keep it polite is all!

First:
I have personally heard Reece laugh evilly about nerfing this and that (while rubbing hands together). He really hates Space Marines, Tau and good quality beer. But I'm not scared. Who can be scared of that? Or even take it seriously? His evil-nerf schemes come out of a can of Pabst.

Second:
More rage quitting! Let's encourage that!
OverWatchCNC? C-ya!
Target? Spread the word and take those Nanavatti and PJ guys with you!
Jy2?
Foster, Sisk?
Brett somebody?
Room for plenty in the Quitters club!

The more Top Dogs drop, the better the chance of Me and HotSauceMan squaring off for all the beans, Table 1, Sunday!

@Reece
Luv u


@hotsauceman
You and me, Table 1, on Sunday. It's destiny, man. So dry brush some white over the primer black, paint the guns and be ready for prize support.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
First off, target made the wording for the tau polls in the first place. Second, the poll is done. Let it be, reevaluate it at q later date. Not a day later. Like you said, roughly 6 months

Just to clarify it was said that Reece didn't use the exact questions that Target provided. He made it more opinion based than rule based which has a large impact.

I really couldn't agree more with Gonyo on this one. Just really the whole thing in its entirety.

ITC is supposed to assist in shepherding players of a variety of skill levels through competitive/circuit games in a fun and well managed fashion by helping to set ground rules. Clearly the ITC exists as a part of Frontline for a profit, but I don't begrudge them that at all. And normally this works fine, and has worked fine for some time now. The basic FAQs are something every league has. And over time, when ITC has seen certain mechanics, be they 2+/2++ rerollables or invis really muscle out everything else in the scene they have decided to level the playing field in some fashion. I personally enjoy playing the purist version, but I can see where they are coming from - in both cases there was plenty of existing tournament results to show us those two were impacting the national meta in a significant way and the community had been clamoring for change. So be it.

With the recent Tau releases though, ITC did not wait to see any results in any meaningful GTs based on the changes these rules had bought about. They seem happy to edit or remove Tau mechanics and models before they see the light of day in the competitive environment. It leaves a god awful taste in the mouths of those who enjoy playing Tau, and even if we were not talking about Tau - do you really think we'd be happy seeing Necrons or Space Marines take a similar kick to the face if their core Decurion style detachment rules had similarly been altered?

On a personal level, I think Reecius, Frankie, and the rest of his gaming group do have the best interests of everyone at heart. And I do not think he or they would be childish enough to lash out at a single race simply because they disliked them getting fun new toys. However this entire vote was handled in a way that felt crappy to anyone with a pony in the race here. Reecius multiple times put his own viewpoint on these rules forward before a vote occurred. You decided to write a little op-ed piece on your website and Bell of Lost Souls specifically about these rules - noting at the end of it that a vote would have to be done. I won't get into the specifics of what you stated there, I thought it a very poorly thought out argument, but it's over and done with. However, in doing so you basically went out of your way to setup a vote based on not a shred of actual information on prior competitions with those rules in place. You also tossed in a vote on tank shock and on a little used/known ork stompa item, both of which have been kicking around forever, and neither of which had been causing any actual issues in the competitive scene, nor would have or will likely impact the meta. You simply put them forward I presume to make it so this wasn't a single vote on a single race for a single core rule to their new book.

Furthermore, you cannot honestly expect us to believe you think of this as a "rule FAQ" or a "Conservative reading of the rule" when you asked everyone to vote based on what they "want" to play it as. The moment you ask people to vote based on anything other than what they believe the RAW are, you pull it well out of the realm of a rule FAQ, and turn it into an attempt to shift the meta. Which is fine if that's what you intend and there feels like a need for it, but don't try and sell it as something that it's not to us. I was more than willing to cede the middle ground to folks and not share the USRs that were unit-wide across this temporary unit for shots against other enemy units shot at via TL/GMC rules unless they would have had them without CF - even though we can all fully agree that's not even remotely RAW. Simply because it would tamp down the fevered pitch on this and allow for some real testing of the rules in a GT. I expected us to at least find out how the rules played out first! Instead we now have gutted the CF rules, and in the ITC environment we'll never see if they might have allowed the Tau to compete against the now common top-table meta with it.

The problem with all of this is that we 100% expect better than this if the ITC is going to attempt to continue positioning itself as an impartial and worthy steward of our hobby in a rules and competitive fashion. Alienating one of the larger race play groups out there before they've even had a chance to enjoy their new models/rules is complete nonsense. And don't tell me you did it to save us money before we buy our models, are you kidding yourself? The community as a whole doesn't buy models simply because ITC sanctions it, nor should you ever get yourselves in a place where that's the case. If that is happening, something is massively wrong. Major rule changes that exist for the purpose of correcting the meta should happen after a season is completed before the new one starts unless an absolute emergency occurs where we can see GTs getting absolutely dominated by a single rule.

We can also all agree that GW should resurrect its rules committee ASAP and get back to it so ITC, ETC, NOVA, etc. can all go from a more robust common core. In its absence though, if you want the role, you guys have to do a better job treating the rules and any rule disputes better than this. Yes you had people asking you about these rules from the day they were leaked on the internet before the book ever was in a person's hand. You know what I expect you to say? That the ITC is going to put its big boy pants on, see how the rules play out for a period in smaller GTs, and then put to a vote changes if they are deemed to be necessary. I have respected you guys for a while now and have been happy to play in small ITC ruled groups and big ones. But if the way ITC is going to resolve online angst about new rules is in this fashion going forward, I'm not going to spend my time and money with them or with Frontline - a place I happily bought my recent mats, some Terrain, and my two Stormsurges.

As to Andrew's issue about people being prepared for ETC (where a purist gameplay/rules system is much more entrenched) I get where he's coming from and in simple terms I'm sure he's quite right about it. A little poorly worded on the implied "threat" but as a statement of fact he's right. If you spend all year playing by ITC rules alone, you are going to be caught horribly off guard by the more RAW approach that middle america, the east coast, and (more significantly) the ETC takes with this hobby.

Goofery aside:

A reminder, events can score ITC points, and be Not-At-All ITC ruled.

I'll be persuading the Pasadena Game Empire crew to not bother with the Tank Shock vote. None of our RTTs have been won by Tank Shocking One-Trick-Ponies, and having no real impact in the last several months, needs not nerfed. Dunno about the Tau yet.

If nothing else, games stores can host ITC *ruled* events and then host an uber cut-throat, RAW as rules get, event. Like the No Know Mercy GT.

We're forgetting one of the main rules:
Play as you want, leading to, have events ruled as you want.

On the udder hand:
I'm not forgetting what Mr. Gonyo referenced about LVO. It's the 800 Pound Gorilla on the West Coast and will bring top talent, a great opportunity for the players I mocked above to *really* test their mettle ... after wading through mediocre talent like me.

Perhaps, the LVO organizers might consider an additional event (at the next BAO?) :
along with Team matches and Highlander, why not a Cut-Throat (perhaps Invitational?) event for ETC caliber dudes, the kind of thing Mr. Gonyo referenced? Open up FW, loosen up on the banned list, maybe even 2++/2++? I dunno what could be worked out, as that's the Adult Table while I'm still relegated to the kiddie table by the TV.

 Brothererekose wrote:



@hotsauceman
You and me, Table 1, on Sunday. It's destiny, man. So dry brush some white over the primer black, paint the guns and be ready for prize support.

So our planto get all the good players to rage quit so its only me an you is gonna work than?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:
@hotsauceman
You and me, Table 1, on Sunday. It's destiny, man. So dry brush some white over the primer black, paint the guns and be ready for prize support.

So our planto get all the good players to rage quit so its only me an you is gonna work than?

 Orock wrote:
The basic truth is there are far more eldar players, and they had more of an impact on the vote, closest in history for itc voting I believe. Not as many people play tau as hate them, so due to simple mob rule the Nerf we have now. What IS hypocritical is to pretend that it couldn't have been worded how do you feel the rule should function. Instead they asked what in the end could be simplified down to "do you want tau to have access to the whole benefit of coordinated firepower, or just some of the intended benefits"? If this had been a space marine ruling it would have gone into their favor, and to pretend it was anything over than a popularity vote is disengenus. But the worse crime is not even having a discussion, let alone vote, on the other things that are more broken like necron decursion or marine gladius. Because as much as it might hurt attendance to have to play tau with full rules, outlawing 500+ points of free marine razorbacks would devastate attendance. Me and everyone I know not sitting squarely in the marine campaign groan when our opponent plops down ultra marines gladius with its 3 tactical doctrines a game and 2300 point list compared to our 1850. But I guess the minorities can go get stuffed, just like in real life.

Please do come to the LVO. You can follow Reece around all day yelling "Tau Lives Matter".

I think the problem with people arguing that it's a Tau nerf, is that they're missing the whole point of the vote. This isn't a Nerf, they aren't changing the rules, they took a community poll on how people interpret the rule. I'm sorry if you disagree with it, I actually do too (I believe it reads allowing sharing all rules but not allowed to split fire by any means), but a majority of the players interpreted it the way the vote went. This is absolutely nothing like the Invisibility or 2++ reroll nerf, where its a deliberate change to the rules.

Is that true though - you think it was a vote on their genuine interpretation of the rules for most people, not opinion on whether it should be buffed / debuffed?

Just talking for myself here, I usually base my opinion on the latter to be quite honest! Thus it's easier to vote up an ork rule and vote down a tau one - it's just human nature, really. Every system is going to have drawbacks and that's one with this one - at least being able to revisit decisions later would be helpful. This would keep it from being an immediate, permanent death sentence for certain units / builds in this format.

And even if you're not able to give the unit time to be played on the circuit to start with (although I think that should be an open question), you at least get to see data without it and can revisit if the debuffing was really needed.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Target, I see where you are coming from, and even though your statement was not to me I have a question for you. Are you making this suggestion for any future polls and decisions that itc will be making, or are you saying you'd like the current newest tau results, maybe even the taunar to be looked at again? To be honest, I hope it's the former. As if it's the latter, it comes at looking as if because it affected an army you collect/love and you are a big influence, that you're using that influence to try and support the army you use/love and that wouldn't set well with other users such as myself. I completely agree with your entire statement, but only if this is a "from here on out" and not a "let's redo this really quick"

P4P - I think your question in and of itself suffers from the flaw you're attempting to see whether I have. You're worried I just want this in order to have a book I play (I play multiple by the way), Tau, benefitted. But in your post you're clearly concerned heavily that even if we change how we do things, we make sure it doesnt benefit tau, a book for some reason you heavily dislike.

I would like this to be looked at for all votes, including Tau. From an organizational level I don't feel revotes on what has been done are productive, even if I disagree with the outcome/how they were handled. As much bad blood as the Tau votes may have garnered, we're beginning to move past it in all likelihood, by going back and "fixing" them, I think we just create more problems, as the seed is already there from people who feel cheated by the first vote being overturned. IE, for the already voted Tau items, we are where we are, as unfortunate (imo) as it is. My real concern is going forward we try to learn from what's been happening with the Tau items and dial back the readiness to change things until we're sure it's needed/wanted.

As someone who's been in the game a long time, I think it's pretty rare to find a codex that dropped and wasn't met with OMG THE GAME IS GOING TO BREAK GET TO YOUR BUNKERS at least to some extent on the internet. And in pretty much all cases cooler heads have prevailed and people haven't felt nerfs were necessary, after testing. Where would we be if this same sentiment/outcome was done for all new books of the current 7th ilk, and not just really starting now with Tau? We likely wouldn't have necron decurions, SM gladius, SM librarius conclaves, we probably wouldn't have eldar seer councils/scat bikes, flyrants def. would have seen some hate/restriction, etc. The game would just be vastly different, which oddly enough, doesn't need to be - in general 40k is in a pretty darn good place right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 minionboy wrote:
I think the problem with people arguing that it's a Tau nerf, is that they're missing the whole point of the vote. This isn't a Nerf, they aren't changing the rules, they took a community poll on how people interpret the rule. I'm sorry if you disagree with it, I actually do too (I believe it reads allowing sharing all rules but not allowed to split fire by any means), but a majority of the players interpreted it the way the vote went. This is absolutely nothing like the Invisibility or 2++ reroll nerf, where its a deliberate change to the rules.

This is actually not true - this is a direct quote from FLG on the poll, on their website:

People have very strong feelings on this and so we intentionally worded the question as a preferential choice, not a definitive answer as to what the rule does or does not say as there are so many different interpretations of what this rule actually communicates.

 minionboy wrote:
I think the problem with people arguing that it's a Tau nerf, is that they're missing the whole point of the vote. This isn't a Nerf, they aren't changing the rules, they took a community poll on how people interpret the rule. I'm sorry if you disagree with it, I actually do too (I believe it reads allowing sharing all rules but not allowed to split fire by any means), but a majority of the players interpreted it the way the vote went. This is absolutely nothing like the Invisibility or 2++ reroll nerf, where its a deliberate change to the rules.

I get what you're saying Minion, and I can see where if the point of view is that this is a rule interpretation - then it is what it is. But the wording of the question does not support that at all. If it was a rule interpretation I would have expected something similar to the following to be the question:

"In your opinion, the interpretation of the new Tau Empire Codex "Coordinated Firepower" rule is best supported by the following proposed implementation:" (followed by 2-4 choices)

"As written in the latest Tau Empire Codex, which of the following interpretations of Coordinated Firepower do you believe best reflects the rules?"

Or something to that effect. With the rule passage in question of course shown for users who don't have the book to reference.

Instead, this didn't happen. They didn't reference the rule passage, so anyone voting who didn't have the rulebook in hand was flying blind on it from a RAW standpoint. More importantly, the question never asked the user how they thought the rule worked. It only asked us how we wanted to play coordinated firepower. These are vastly different things.

You don't have to tell me about the wording of the poll, if you've read the Frontline Blog, I was probably the loudest person about how the questions were written.

In the end though, it's still asking people to come up with a consensus about how the rule should be played in ITC events. The answer that was resolved upon may be *nearly* the strictest interpretation possible by RAW, but at the end thats how it was voted. You might disagree with it, by another totally valid by RAW interpretation, but nothing about the vote was a vote to nerf. As Reece said, it's a matter of people picking which of the equally valid interpretations they prefer.

Really, the vote means that if you went to an event, a majority of the players would disagree with you and how you want to play the rule (if that wasn't the case, you wouldn't be complaining). When that happens, your games will go longer as you and your opponent will keep arguing until someone is right, or until a judge is asked to make a snap decision that is usually about as good as rolling off or tossing a dice.

Again, I still disagree with how they worded the questions, it's quite possible that asking it a different way could yield different results. It also could have broken down into an argument about the definition and purpose of a comma in UK english.

 minionboy wrote:
You might disagree with it, by another totally valid by RAW interpretation, but nothing about the vote was a vote to nerf. As Reece said, it's a matter of people picking which of the equally valid interpretations they prefer.

Really, the vote means that if you went to an event, a majority of the players would disagree with you and how you want to play the rule (if that wasn't the case, you wouldn't be complaining).

I think what you're drawing from this isn't what was voted on - it's kind of tap-dancing around the word "nerf", but you don't dispute that other ITC votes/decisions were actually to "nerf" things, right? (I don't remember if they were just decided or voted on, but obvious ones are invisibility and the 2++ reroll).

It seems odd to me to make a distinction that this one was really choosing between RAW readings, when the rule wording wasn't shown, and the question didn't ask about what ruling the voters thought was accurate. You yourself seem to agree with this:

 minionboy wrote:
Again, I still disagree with how they worded the questions, it's quite possible that asking it a different way could yield different results.

I don't think the wording of the question here supports the idea that people were choosing between what RAW interpretation they thought was accurate - rather, they were choosing whether to buff/debuff something (you could put this wording next to similar ITC votes that were actually to implement debuffs, and it doesn't look different). You seem to agree with this!

So, there is just some room for improvement here - I think it would be great to have a discussion about it (or even for folks like Target / Reecius to do so behind the scenes) so the system could be improved a bit without hitting these "cluster" type moments that get everyone upset

The only things that strikes me as funky about the polls is the person posting them opining on them beforehand to the target audience that will vote on them, and the opening of the polls up to anyone who wants to participate (which will inherently include players who have 0 interest in tournaments).

If I posted in a NOVA newsletter that I Thought something was broken or that it read a certain way, then sent a poll in the following newsletter on that question, the results would be different than if I simply put the information and question out first without opinion. I'm not sure how different, however. I'm not sure this is a bad thing, though. The FLG guys should feel comfortable ruling how they perceive the game should be played, sometimes in opposition to popular opinion, as they run good events that are well-liked. The masses in this hobby don't *always* know the vote that will yield the best balance or fun, only the one that seems the most popular (I think more often than not the majority is right, however).

I think people will critique just about any wording, though. Hard to get away from that, and no reason to spend too much energy trying to satisfy all the masses. At least Reece is actually putting up polls and asking people. That has a fair bit of value.

Though presuming I continue to be able to make LVO (I have travel and hotel tickets already paid up), I'll probably be playing the best balanced and tightest rules game on the market right now (heh), rather than 40k this year. So no dog in the particular fight.

Yeah that of course is the case Mike but these guys run a podcast and are personalities in our scene.. I wouldn't have it any other way. There are also other people arguing the other side / same side to these issues but we all just agree Reece has the most reach so somehow a bunch of people make the argument that he brainwashes people then runs polls.. it's a bit silly. I personally disagree with Reece on a number of rulings and when the polls come out I don't even for a second go "Well Reece wants this..." but I guess the fear is people do?

The entirety of people posting in this thread, as an example, do not represent really even a fraction of those who participate in the polls / read the blogs, I imagine. I've learned through NOVA over the years that while there are plenty of contrarians and independent thinkers and the like, there are also plenty (quite a few) of people who have a lot of faith in those who lead and run good events, and in the absence of a very strong opinion of their own, will put their votes where their faith lies.

I think this is a good thing, mind you - per my post above, I think oftentimes an event organizer or group of organizers knows best about their own events and how they should be best run and ruled. So, I'm not sure it's actually bad that a fair # of voters will simply go "you know, I thought Reece made some good points and I agree." It's not as if someone with the same overall name recognition (really, none of the FLG guys outside of Reece have his level of name rec, for better or worse) is being given a simultaneous counter-opinion piece within the same posts as Reece's, and it's not as if Reece is arguing both sides when he opines. But again, not really sure this is bad. That said ...

It does give credence to some of his detractors, and this is where I find it funky ... why fuel a fire when you don't need to, I figure. So, my comment is less "I object to this way of doing it," and more "I'm not sure that way of doing it is doing the ITC any favors."

What I mean is: If it has an impact, that's probably not good for the PR front, because it's crediting the idea that Reece directly influences the polls without an equally weighted counterpoint, and thus tinges the democratic experience as not really all that democratic. Whether it is or isn't, my point is it gives *credence* to his opponents, which seems pointless to do. If it doesn't have an impact, then it doesn't need to be done prior to posting the polls. Hence, it's a potential lose-lose to weigh in as the lead poster / best known name / etc., and probably only a win-win to hold off on well-read opinion posts and podcasting until after the voting is done.

Just my $.02, and meant as constructive / helpful, not destructive. Reece and I have partnered increasingly well on things over the past years, and I'm a big fan of you guys.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Made some edits for clarity

As always, the input and feedback is appreciated, everyone.

So, again, just to clarify:

Yes, we 100% did word the question intentionally. Yes, we worded as preference, not as interpretation (although the two are typically tied together).

Why?

Because if we simply worded the question:

"Do you want to play Coordinated Firepower as RAW?"

Yes?

No?

The question would be meaningless as their is no consensus on what RAW is. Some of you reading this may feel you know what RAW is, but the issue is that others feel the same way with a different reading of it.

Almost everyone I talked to about this--and I do consult a lot of bright 40k players about these things--gave me a different interpretation of the rule. RAW is simply unclear.

So, instead of going down the rabbit hole of trying to interpret RAW, we simply provided the questions in a way that would produce a possible spectrum of responses and asked quite simply how folks wanted to play it, as at the end of the day, that is actually more important than what it says. I know some of you disagree with that, particularly if you didn't get the result you want, but that is the stance we take here at FLG at this point in time. We find that more people get enthused and have fun in that type of environment.

The trick, as stated many times, is to only approach the game that way in very specific circumstances so as not to go overboard. Where that line in the sand is varies from person to person, though.

And we go through this every time. With Eldar it was the same, with Marines it was the same, etc. etc. It's just a new group that speaks out when it is their turn to face community judgement/TO rules calls. I totally get it.

And yes, I openly and unapologetically state my opinions on these issues. I always have and I always will. I am not a robot, and pretending like I don't have an opinion on these matters would be lying. I prefer to talk openly about these things as for one, I enjoy talking nerd with everyone, and for two, it puts my biases right out in the open. I care about the game just like you guys do.

EDIT: Although! It would be great fun to have someone representing the counterpoint come on the show to share their points of view and have a fun, spirited debate. I always love a debate!

However, I gain NOTHING but "getting my way" so to speak, as I (unfortunately) don't really get to participate in the ITC in anything more than a supporting role and occasionally as a player. But, I can't win anything, I can't take home any glory as a player like I once used to try to do. For me, the fun is seeing other people have fun at this point, so I strive to advocate for what I see as fair, fun, and conducive to the total group's enjoyment of the game. I have taken that approach to every faction, even my own armies (my poor Revenant will probably never see the light of day outside of Apoc).

You guys may disagree with my opinions on things from time to time, but that is totally cool! Debate and such are fun when done maturely. I disagree with other people's points of view all the time, lol, but I can still go to their events and have a blast playing 40k with my friends, anyway. One or two rulings that I don't agree with aren't going to spoil my fun.

I also go out of my way, especially lately, to tell people hey, this is my opinion think about this for yourself. Like on this last poll, Frankie and I clearly stated how we would vote (he and I often disagree, too) but encouraged everyone to go play at least one game with the Tau and Tank Shock and to try to play with the Stompa too, to have an informed opinion so they could vote intelligently. We tried to present pros and cons to all the possible outcomes, too. We try to be as fair as possible but at the end of the day, we're all human and a perfectly fair way of gathering information--especially when using language as the medium of exchange--isn't possible.

So, anyway, thanks for the feedback everyone, we really do listen and are always trying to improve. Looking forward to TSFHT and LVO and Adepticon and NOVA and all of the other awesome events!

Well the SM players were able to successfully lobby against the nerf to battle brothers and chapter tactics thank the Emprah which could explain why this one was abrupt.

Quite Frankly, im thinking Battle Brothers is getting out of hand and all should be treated like Allies of Convinance.
This will solve like, 90% of all tournament problems.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Quite Frankly, im thinking Battle Brothers is getting out of hand and all should be treated like Allies of Convinance.
This will solve like, 90% of all tournament problems.

I dunno if you're being sarcastic or not, but honestly I would be so happy if this happened. There's a lot of perfectly fine stuff out there that suddenly feels like a load of bullpoop as soon as BB is taken into account.

I mean sure, it's fluffy and people have made really interesting forces out of BB lists, but it's a bit silly in some instances.

Since we are wishlisting I would like to see all SD removed from the game .

850ish votes on the latest poll? I thought a twitch cast said 10000ish email sent, and publicized on a few sites/boards.

It was sent 2 days prior to thanksgiving and tallied 2 days after? Seems like 850votes doesn't capture the communities views...

It dont matter much to me, Ill play either way at events that play it X or Y way. Just wonder why such a low voting turnout.

Well yeah, it is wishlisting, but as an army without BBs, I think I get to complain a little bit

On to the topic at large, I think part of it comes down to how people perceive organizations like the ITC.

On one hand, you have people who think they're there to just interpret the rules. Be the "final say", so to speak, on the sort of arguments that gamers get in over rules. And they do, as anyone who's played the game knows.

On the other, you have the group of people who think that ITC (and other similar organizations) are there to "patch" the rules, since GW is clearly not in the market of doing so. People who think that the organization is there to, in a way, change the game to make it more competitive.

So when something like this poll happens, you have two different types of people who are upset for two similar but somewhat different reasons. People from Group A are upset because RAW is fickle like that and their reading didn't get the final say. People from Group B are upset because in their minds, it's ITC "putting out a patch" that directly nerfs their army. Cue cries of "Blizz/Rito please".

In the end, while the polling isn't a perfect system, I think people need to realize that it's the one we have and deal with the results or organize a proper submission to have the results looked at/voted on again in the next poll cycle. I mean, who knows, maybe by the next poll, people will be less gunshy and scared by it, and vote to let Tau have all the fun toys at the same time.

You are the one that started the wishslisting ... well actually it was saucy but I think you get the gist it is annoying.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
You are the one that started the wishslisting ... well actually it was saucy but I think you get the gist it is annoying.

I just agreed with the guy above me, I have no standing complaints with the way ITC (or in fact, most tournament organizations) are set up and run their events.

Requizen wrote:
In the end, while the polling isn't a perfect system, I think people need to realize that it's the one we have and deal with the results or organize a proper submission to have the results looked at/voted on again in the next poll cycle. I mean, who knows, maybe by the next poll, people will be less gunshy and scared by it, and vote to let Tau have all the fun toys at the same time.

But it's a system that's Really easy to change... I don't know, I guess I think I'd actually prefer the ITC to just make the decisions they think are best for the game, informed by discussion with as many involved parties as possible. I've voted in a few of these (missed this last due to Thanksgiving) but it doesn't really seem to be the best approach (in my opinion) since it is so open to being influenced (the BB vote compared to this one is interesting).

So, I think it is great to see Reece / Gonyo / etc having a spirited discussion about the system here but I would love to see it modified for future decisions.

 minionboy wrote:
I think the problem with people arguing that it's a Tau nerf, is that they're missing the whole point of the vote. This isn't a Nerf, they aren't changing the rules, they took a community poll on how people interpret the rule. I'm sorry if you disagree with it, I actually do too (I believe it reads allowing sharing all rules but not allowed to split fire by any means), but a majority of the players interpreted it the way the vote went. This is absolutely nothing like the Invisibility or 2++ reroll nerf, where its a deliberate change to the rules.

For the last time it absolutely was not a rule interpretation question. Go back and read it. It was a how would you like to play it question. The follow up questions were interpretation questions, like do you think according to raw target locked firing models benefit from this rule.

 RiTides wrote:

Requizen wrote:
In the end, while the polling isn't a perfect system, I think people need to realize that it's the one we have and deal with the results or organize a proper submission to have the results looked at/voted on again in the next poll cycle. I mean, who knows, maybe by the next poll, people will be less gunshy and scared by it, and vote to let Tau have all the fun toys at the same time.

But it's a system that's Really easy to change... I don't know, I guess I think I'd actually prefer the ITC to just make the decisions they think are best for the game, informed by discussion with as many involved parties as possible. I've voted in a few of these (missed this last due to Thanksgiving) but it doesn't really seem to be the best approach (in my opinion) since it is so open to being influenced (the BB vote compared to this one is interesting).

So, I think it is great to see Reece / Gonyo / etc having a spirited discussion about the system here but I would love to see it modified for future decisions.

Well, if they just "made up their mind", I could see the outcry against Reese and the rest immediately. At least with the poll the blame isn't all on the people just trying to make a decent format.

But it is interesting. As you say, comparing it to the BB Space Marine vote and it's nearly completely opposite. SM ended up getting the ability to share rules that are insane multipliers, while that was denied from Tau who don't even pull it off through shenanigans like multiple detachments.

But, in the end, it's a rules interpretation. It doesn't really affect me because I play neither Imperials nor Tau, just something that I need to plan for.

 Orock wrote:

 minionboy wrote:
I think the problem with people arguing that it's a Tau nerf, is that they're missing the whole point of the vote. This isn't a Nerf, they aren't changing the rules, they took a community poll on how people interpret the rule. I'm sorry if you disagree with it, I actually do too (I believe it reads allowing sharing all rules but not allowed to split fire by any means), but a majority of the players interpreted it the way the vote went. This is absolutely nothing like the Invisibility or 2++ reroll nerf, where its a deliberate change to the rules.

For the last time it absolutely was not a rule interpretation question. Go back and read it. It was a how would you like to play it question. The follow up questions were interpretation questions, like do you think according to raw target locked firing models benefit from this rule.

RAW I think that models with target locks can't even target a different unit (as the more specific detachment rules would override the generic wargear rules), nor can GMC for that matter (same reason), but I do think that all the buffs are shared across the whole formation. The vote didn't go that way, it's how I voted. Fortunately, while the vote did go with the more conservative ruling about sharing rules, you're still allowed to split fire, making it a lot less likely that you'll overkill your target. People voted the way that they thought it should be played, which is fine, as there seems to be a dozen or so different ways to read it. I'm sorry the most OP interpretation didn't win, and somehow still getting a buff over the previous book is a nerf.

Requizen wrote:
Well, if they just "made up their mind", I could see the outcry against Reese and the rest immediately. At least with the poll the blame isn't all on the people just trying to make a decent format.

But it is interesting. As you say, comparing it to the BB Space Marine vote and it's nearly completely opposite. SM ended up getting the ability to share rules that are insane multipliers, while that was denied from Tau who don't even pull it off through shenanigans like multiple detachments.

But, in the end, it's a rules interpretation. It doesn't really affect me because I play neither Imperials nor Tau, just something that I need to plan for.

Yeah, just noting it's a risk when "opening it up to the masses". I think it might also give a little bit of a false sense of fairness, and while having the ITC guys just make their own decision wouldn't be as "democratic", it might end up being a bit fairer / less arbitrary on what is buffed / debuffed / etc. Just food for thought, and having the discussion might help with considering things next time around...

But definitely, as Target said, when you have the masses' reaction to any new book being "OMG OP BROKEN!", having a vote soon after release can be dangerous just because of that kneejerk reaction people have (if opening it up to a public vote). Whereas things that are (imo) actually somewhat OP but we're all used to, don't get quite the same reaction

It was a popularity contest and nothing more. If it was voting on allowing hell drakes 360 degree fire arc again, even if it was to help a super down in the dumps army, it would fail. Because marines would not like their saves taken away.

If we are voting on how people would like to play things, where is the vote for allllll the other op combinations?

The Ork stompa was definitely due to lobbying.

@Reece,

What does the ruling mean for Fireteam rules and Dronecontroller interaction with CF? Neither are USRs.

To be clear I'm asking can I combine a Coldstar and two separate Riptides for a +1 BS or a Commander with two separate drone units for a BS 5 for the drones?

Thanks.

We havenmt even started to crack into the can of worms that is, ok if a unit that has usr's is involved in a CF tries to make of them, how does that work? This ruling, Again RAW - now by ITC - says no shared rules, but it affirms that this omni unit exists. So what the hell, now if my buffmander and 9 crisis suits join in they don't get their buffmander's rules?

I can see, through the ether of the interwebs some of you rolling your eyes. Trust me I agree. But stick with me for a moment, I happily play against the rest of the folks out here competitively and you think we won't invoke this complete horse crap question if we get near final table status against a hunter cadre? Now that you've basically rewritten how the rule works, of course I'm gonna contest any sort of sharing at all when someone invokes CF, because that's what this vote just made happen. No rules are shared during a coordinated firepower, done. But no, you'll all just continue pretending raw (even rewritten raw) don't matter. Of course this vote didn't "mean" that - right?

All you did is tear a nasty hole in the rules of a decurion detachment and invite more problems. And now you'll need another bs vote to figure it out again. And don't kid yourselve's, mont'ka is sweet but it has nowhere near the strength CF afforded Tau.

This is what happens when people spend no real time thinking things through. Three to five weeks is a blink of the eye in competitive 40k. But that's all it took to gut these rules, present it as a some form of rules vote, and force it on the itc league.

 Reecius wrote:


I . . . encouraged everyone to go play at least one game with the . . . Stompa too, to have an informed opinion. . .

doktor_g: I will have Vegas back for myself! He who controls the Stompa controls the universe and what Reecius did not tell you is we have control of someone who is very close, very close, to Elvis! This person, this traitor, will be worth more to us than ten legions of Orkdaukar!

Reecius:And who will field this Stompa?

doktor_g: I won't tell you who will control the Stompa, or when we'll attack. However, the Elvis will die before these eyes and he'll know, he'll know, that it is I, Baron Vladimir doktor_g, who encompasses his doom!

What are the odds there will be anymore polls before lvo?

 RiTides wrote:

Requizen wrote:
In the end, while the polling isn't a perfect system, I think people need to realize that it's the one we have and deal with the results or organize a proper submission to have the results looked at/voted on again in the next poll cycle. I mean, who knows, maybe by the next poll, people will be less gunshy and scared by it, and vote to let Tau have all the fun toys at the same time.

But it's a system that's Really easy to change... I don't know, I guess I think I'd actually prefer the ITC to just make the decisions they think are best for the game, informed by discussion with as many involved parties as possible. I've voted in a few of these (missed this last due to Thanksgiving) but it doesn't really seem to be the best approach (in my opinion) since it is so open to being influenced (the BB vote compared to this one is interesting).

So, I think it is great to see Reece / Gonyo / etc having a spirited discussion about the system here but I would love to see it modified for future decisions.

I hear you, RiTides. I think, and I certainly don't know, but I think the reason that Reece and company use the vote is that they have a very large crowd of people that enjoy their events and they want to give their customers the opportunity to voice their opinions. From listening to his podcasts and reading their emails/reports/whatever, I also don't think that Reece is a guy that wants to have to say "Look, this rule is stupid. You guys are going to play it this way in my events. Get over it!"

Anyhow, whether I agree or not (and some rulings I don't care for), I will say that the guys are certainly comprehensive and are doing a good job of covering unclear or fuzzy rules, as well as curbing abuse of same. In the end, I actually prefer a more Dictatorship-Style "fething get it done this way", but 20 years of corporate life will institutionalize you!

First off I want to give a big shout out for the ORK players out there, the stompa will help but its still an uphill climb

But we are used to having the oldest codex by now.

Big congrats to Reese for having a fair player voting system for his events. Everyone has his or her own opinions but he is letting us lunatics run the asylum, clap clap.

Every event has there own rule interpretations and some sort of imposed comp, ADEPTICON, ITC, NOVA, ETC, TLW, FTN and All the rest.

I have been playing this silly game of toy soldiers for a long time and seen it all and had more then my fair share of success if that is how we rate what our opinions are worth, be glad that there is a clear set of rules that will be in effect rather than getting blind sided in Vegas.

If you are going all nerd rage over a ruling, just vote with your wallet and don't go, no need to take this stuff personal.

In fact I am offering to buy Reese and Frankie whatever they are drinking for all their hard work and effort they have put into this.

No better way to start a new year off then in vegas playing toy and having a good time.


marc parker

I know what you'll be bringing now.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I know what you'll be bringing now.

Whiskey, and probably beer.

I think Im gonna install a flask in my Leman Russ.
That will help me sneak in booze.

Just chug a ton in your hotel room early in the morning... If you got the stones.

I'm gonna sneak my liquor in by putting it n my stomach.

 jy2 wrote:
I'm gonna sneak my liquor in by putting it n my stomach.

Tis in fact the boldest move, cotton

 gameandwatch wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
I'm gonna sneak my liquor in by putting it n my stomach.

Tis in fact the boldest move, cotton

Finally, a return to what matters at these things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DirtyDeeds wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I know what you'll be bringing now.

Whiskey, and probably beer.

Yeah, I only talk about the stuff that matters. Whether CF works or not isn't important. What is is should I bring whiskey or tequila?

Or maybe I should just get some Everclear like I did last year on the strip at the LVO.

I remember meeting you saturday and all you yelled was "I AM SO #$%#, I shouldnt be playing"

 jy2 wrote:
I'm gonna sneak my liquor in by putting it n my stomach.

Rock on brother !

Jim, you should bring the Eversor you won on the stream last night! haha, if you win with him, I will buy you any booze you want!

Reece, I will if you let me ally him with my bugs.

 jy2 wrote:
Reece, I will if you let me ally him with my bugs.

Seems reasonable. It's in the BRB, after all

Lol, touche, sir! haha

Given the expansion of the field, has any thought been given to making the top eight a top sixteen bracket instead?

That isn't possible for logistics reasons. We only have time for 3 games in a day which limits us to a final 8.

 Reecius wrote:
That isn't possible for logistics reasons. We only have time for 3 games in a day which limits us to a final 8.

Cool. Just curious. Looking forward to another great FLG event and surprising people with Sisters.

Can't wait to have you! Man, starting to feel the pressure as we come into the last month, haha. Still a ton to do! Going to be awesome, though.

 Reecius wrote:
That isn't possible for logistics reasons. We only have time for 3 games in a day which limits us to a final 8.

Have you considered doing split formats then? You could have day one be 1k points and day two be top 8 playing with 1850pts along with everyone else in their own bracket playing. Maybe not those exact values, but something of the sort to get more rounds in to crown a more decisive winner.

You can also do pods like the GP for magic in Vegas did where it was actually four GPs day one basically and they fed into a single one day two, since they had like 5k people that year.

One of these days... Good luck to everyone that's going!

 Reecius wrote:
Can't wait to have you! Man, starting to feel the pressure as we come into the last month, haha. Still a ton to do! Going to be awesome, though.

i keep thinking oooh one month till vegas then remembering i have to finish my army and thinking gak, one month till vegas

@Tinkrr

We do have a clear winner due to the Swiss format. However, we have looked at formats where you can enter into a new tournament essentially, after day 1 so you get another shot at a big win.

We're always tinkering with ideas like that. Thanks for the suggestion!

@Nomeny

Maybe in 2017!

@kloma

Haha, I know that feeling all too well! I get more painting done before a tournament than at any other time.

 Reecius wrote:
@Tinkrr

We do have a clear winner due to the Swiss format. However, we have looked at formats where you can enter into a new tournament essentially, after day 1 so you get another shot at a big win.

We're always tinkering with ideas like that. Thanks for the suggestion!

Awesome, thanks for the input.

So hey if you ever want advise in terms of tournament judging and organisation let me know because I have experience with some rather solid MtG stuff, and can always bounce ideas off multiple people working as high muckity-mucks at Wizards on a friendly basis. I'm more of a security and intelligence person on the scene but I'm also the first pseudo-judge to ever issue a triple Dairy Queen (ok that was a joke and only during a judge conference that had dealings with rulings and shady things, but people laughed so I'm in the clear!). In other words, I can provide my opinion, and if you want more than that I can bounce things off of far more professional people who deal with rulings and judge stuff in a much larger game, which could always be a good resource regardless if you use it or not when making your own decisions.

Yeah, we're open to any good ideas to improve. We feel like we've gotten things pretty dialed in but there is always room for improvement.

@Thread

We have some room left in the 40k Champs! With a shuffling of the tables around, we have room for another 37 40k players! If you want to come, be sure to jump in and grab your ticket! http://store.frontlinegaming.org/lvo-warhammer-40k-championships/dp/12863

The 40k Narrative had a few drops so we have a tin y bit of room left! Be sure to grab tickets if you want to go, these will go fast! http://store.frontlinegaming.org/lvo-40k-narrative-3-day-pass/dp/12892

We've also got room in Wamrachine, X-Wing, the Hobby Seminars, Malifaux, and a few spots left for Infinity and DzC!

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/las-vegas-open-2016/

Can't wait to see everyone there!

 Reecius wrote:
Yeah, we're open to any good ideas to improve. We feel like we've gotten things pretty dialed in but there is always room for improvement.

I think you guys are awesome, and are doing great work. However, 40k to me seems like it's still in the beta stages of its development, despite its age, and as such so are you guys.

I'm not saying that you're doing anything wrong exactly, I'm just saying it's really strange for me to go into this game after being a part of the Magic community for so long, and having gone to various Judge conferences, assistant judging small and medium events (several hundred people playing as opposed to several thousand), and participating in events that were larger (thousands of players, or hundred dollar entry fees for example) and getting to the later stages of it. More so, I do have friends who have been pro players and went onto work for Wizards, or people who worked for Wizards and advanced, which also probably gives me a skewed perspective. Again, not saying I know better or anything, simply that I have experience in such things.

So my best advise would be that after you guys finish with the LVO this year, since that's the main priority right now, try to get in touch with some of the higher up judges and event organizers in the Magic community, and try to probe them for what they do to both make events run more smoothly and what the game/company as a whole does to really promote their franchise. I think a lot of stuff happens behind the scenes that most people simply aren't aware of, and I'm sure the same is true for the amount of work that goes on for the LVO that plenty of people take for granted.

One thing that stood out to me was how you guys were discussing the ways you'd do streaming of the event. In Magic it's been done a certain way for well over a decade now, even when it was on ESPN 2 during the lat 90's and early 2000's, they had table side judges for the feature match and then commentators in a booth on basically the opposite side of the room. The table side judges had head sets that let them relay information to the commentator booth. If there was time they'd bring in the winning player for some pre or post game chat, in between rounds they'd have "deck tech" segments which were basically a list for review style thing where the player talked about the list and why they were running what they were for that tournament. More so, they weren't shy in bringing in players who were pros that scrubbed out early and dropped in major events to sit and provide commentary in the booth with the normal guys, which gave a lot of insight into things. I get that last part doesn't really work in 40k, due to the structure, but you never know, especially if a high end charismatic player shows up not for the main event but for something else or whatever.

Edit: You can also pre-film the List for Review segment with pretty armies on display and some overlays, that way you can play those recorded things during breaks or if a feature match ends early and you don't have a back up match stable set up.

Edit 2: And please, please make some kind of overlay to show victory points as the game goes on, along with units dead and such. Sometimes there's just a major disconnect between what's happening in the game as it looks one way but is actually going completely differently. Imagine a sports game where there wasn't a score board going the whole time, it works for Chess because there's no accumulating victory condition, but anything that has one needs one displayed.

40k also has no direct goal post, so unlike other sports games where you can track points based on one object entering another, it's that much harder to track the varying conditions. Sometimes you're just sitting there and hear a final point count that is stunning, but have no idea why it happened. Just imagine a magic tournament where life totals weren't displayed, or poison counters, or timers, or anything, and that would only be a small fraction of what's going on in 40k. More so, anyone tuning in, or having the stream up on their second or third monitor, is hurt a lot by not having a displayed point and kill overlay, as tuning in mid game is basically not worth it, nor is it really worth it to partially watch it in the background because we can't track things without full attention to the game at hand, which makes it less likely for people to watch. Also, new players who aren't familiar with the game don't know what's being said exactly, so having a simple overlay of points and kills helps put things into perspective for people who know less about the game.

I guess you missed the Nova Open GT 40K streaming.

@Tinkrr
The on-screen scoreboard idea sounds viable and do-able. The rest sounds expensive.

...

As for commentators, I know INcontrol had done a few of these, but if we want old time pros, I hear that Stephanie Edwards and Bob Eubanks are available.

really quick question, possibly in the wrong place. I've never played ITC before. Missions 1,2,3 and 6 the maelstrom mission 6 is worded slightly differently, is this intentional to differentiate between partial and full for each mission or just a typo?

 Brothererekose wrote:
@Tinkrr
The on-screen scoreboard idea sounds viable and do-able. The rest sounds expensive.

...

As for commentators, I know INcontrol had done a few of these, but if we want old time pros, I hear that Stephanie Edwards and Bob Eubanks are available.

It's expensive, but there are ways to make it not expensive. For example, Magic judges are all volunteers but leave with hundreds of dollars, since they get paid in product and then Wizards provides special judge promos that sell for a few dollars to a few hundred dollars. Now I know GW won't ever support their product and more importantly their community or FLGSes in same way Wizards does (handing out tons of free rewards constantly at all levels), but the ITC still has opportunity to use their product line to their advantage.

For example, they have a new terrain piece coming out, that they haven't revealed yet as far as I know. Now I'm sure if they got in contact with various TO's in the area and offered them that piece in exchange for being judges or more, they'd get at least a few bites, especially if it would be early access. This also has the added benefit of getting TO's a sample of the product, since TO's probably always need more than one piece of terrain for their events, and it gives them exposure to the TO's community since that's where it will be used the most. They could even probably find some form of tax write off since the judges would be volunteers and the product would be considered a given away product (probably a business cost or loss, but I don't know the full tax code). All of this combined gives them skilled volunteers, puts their product out into the community in a good way (I'm sure those who get it will be more than happy to post their new and temporarily exclusive toy on various forms of media, they could even try to make one awesome new thing come out each LVO and use that as the product reveal, building up expectation), and lets them pay people more than minimum wage for their work while having less than minimum wage costs. It also encourages a formation of a judge community, for players who love the rules, but not exactly being highly competitive players, after all, having a dedicated "judge community" across the world is huge for a game.

As a whole though, the idea is to have expensive ideas, but to find ways to use the best resource gaming has, which its community, to do it in an inexpensive way.

Oh, and I really enjoyed when INcontrol was there, not that I don't like Reece and Frankie, it's just always good to have variety and he was a lot of fun.

The TO's that I know for the 40K Champs are getting a good deal but there is always room for more stuff

Just wanted to say that as someone who can't go but really likes tourneys, I would enjoy a stream or VOD of at least the top few tables!

 Bahkara wrote:
The TO's that I know for the 40K Champs are getting a good deal but there is always room for more stuff

Oh, don't get me wrong I don't wish to make any assumption or claim about their current staff, as I know nothing about it, though I'm sure the ITC is upstanding and takes good care of their people. I'm just offering different ideas and methods of staffing solutions, and in the end there's no one system that's the best, since even MtG events use a mix of compensation methods for different staff and more.

Thanks for all the killer feedback, everyone! Much appreciated.

GW does actually support their stores. Honestly, they're pretty dang generous. We all criticize them at times but I have to give credit where it's due: GW stands behind their product and their stores. Now if they'd just get over the dumb "no web cart sales" policy. But, I digress.

Compensating judges and staff is always a challenge. These events run on thin margins so there isn't a ton of room for getting extravagant in that department. But as Bahkara noted, we take care of anyone that helps us out. There's a reason why our volunteers and staff always want to come back!

As for score cards on the screen, we have figured out a way to do it, but so far, it looks like crap. We're working on a nicer looking solution and think we've got it worked out.

The LVO this year will have seriously unprecedented media coverage. We've made a large investment into making that a priority. We'll have a staff dedicated to live coverage of the event with two tables being streamed, live commentary, live coverage of the main hall, interviews, live blogging on the site, etc. We'll have the schedule of coverage up on the site, soon.

There have been events with live coverage before, such as NOVA or the LVO 2015 as Junlecs pointed out. However, there's never been anything like this, with roaming cameras and such. Not to put anyone else down or take anything away from other efforts, but this seriously will be a first in terms of breadth of coverage of a miniatures table top gaming event. I am sure it will still be a bit rough compared to professional coverage, but it will be a huge step forward.

@Kloma

It's the same objective each time, but yes, it is worded slightly differently. Thanks for pointing that out, I will clean it up to be uniform.

Im so excited, I cant wait to loose all my school book money at the tables
My goal
win 3 games

@Kloma. Its written differently to accommodate the different deployment zones.

Cheers for clearing it up guys.

My goal, top half of those of us travelling over from the UK, top 25% overall would be nice. My goal is also to get Jesse drunk, but that's basically written in stone lol

 Reecius wrote:

As for score cards on the screen, we have figured out a way to do it, but so far, it looks like crap. We're working on a nicer looking solution and think we've got it worked out.

Well if you're using OBS you can just do it in layers like photoshop, and then use icon for various things, so it's cleaner. Magic streams use a Phyrexian symbol for poison and a number next to it, instead of "Poison Counters: X", and yes I bring up Magic a lot, but it's not because I think it's the end all be all, it's just I think they're the biggest and in turn the best. I don't want you guys to just copy them, but use their knowledge and make it your own awesome thing for 40k that will one day rival them D:

Also, if you go with icons for things you can do a ton since you can compress a lot of information in a small space, even show full army lists with gear and what's left since it just takes an icon of a Riptide head with a red dot and a burst cannon behind the head to convey a full load out, that can be compressed to a fraction of the space. Then just have a link to a chart that explains the icons to anyone who isn't familiar. Then if it's dead you have the same icon with a red X overlayed on it.

Probably not feseable for this upcoming LVO, but if you want to show more than just current VP, and show what the VPs are from you can have a box that says "VP: X" on it, or just a box with a number, and then have different icons under it like a Warboss head with a number in the corner to convey something like Slay The Warlord with a Dx roll for bonus points. That way it conveys the important information in bold with the number of VPs, and those interested can look at the icons under it and get a better idea of where the points came from, it's very neat and simple that way without much clutter, the hard part is finding good icons for each objective you're using.

Edit: And again, please don't take anything I say as "you're wrong, I'm right" or "you don't know what you're doing" that's not my intention at all, I absolutely am astounded by how much work you guys put in, so everything I'm offering is simply my opinion that I don't expect to be taken completely seriously, but simply to provide a data point that might be useful.

with two tables being streamed,

This is seriously impressive, I didn't even suggest this because of how difficult I thought it would be with a mini wargame. Are you doing two different channels, or are you switching between the two games? I'm super hyped to watch as much of this live as I can now D:

@Hot Sizzle

Good luck!

@Kloma

Np

@Tinkrr

No worries, dude, we appreciate the feedback. You don't seem like you're being bossy (or what have you) at all. The enthusiasm and pointed feedback are appreciated.

We came to the same conclusion with the photo-shopped overlay. Luckily, Mariana is really good with Photoshop, so she will be able to whip something up.

But yeah, we'll have two tables separate from the main Con which will be rigged for streaming, along with a (semi) mobile cam, too. We'll be going back and forth between tables to cover multiple games. That gives the shout casters a break, too, as commentating for hours on end is rough.

We're very excited for it. Going to be a great event. Only 4 weeks to go!

 Reecius wrote:
@

We'll be going back and forth between tables to cover multiple games.

The one bad thing about that is if you're really getting into a game as a spectator and it swaps to a game you're less interested in, it can really kill the mood. Granted, that doesn't mean it will always ruin it, just that it has to be done very well to keep it from making someone go "Aw man, I had a great time watching that DE vs. Tau game and then they swapped it to Spice Marines vs. Spice Wolves, and I don't even like Dune D: "

Yeah, it will be a balancing act and a learning experience, I have no doubt of that. I don't expect the team to be 100% pro this year, but it will be a step in that direction.

Feel free to note any good and bad points you see during the stream and let us know your thoughts. We always appreciate the feedback.

Something I'd really like to see, is to see all the main tournament lists posted, I'd even volunteer to type them up and format them if needed. Having that data available is massive for analyzing what's going on, and developing armies for players.

That being said, if it would be possible to type up the lists of the feature matches and post them during the game, even if it's like ten minutes in, and then link them to a Twitch Bot so a "!command" will post a link to them, or have a link in the stream page somewhere, it would be an awesome reference while watching the game since some of the wargear and such gets lost when zoomed out.

Additionally for the first couple feature matches, before there's an easy way to go "Well these people are X-0, put them on" how are you going to select people? If possible I'd advise picking top end players who are playing unconventional armies/lists since they're less likely to make it into the later rounds. Not because they're not good, or they can't make it, simply because there will be a lot more players running a standard army/list and it's more likely that one of the X players makes it then the one player running something different. That way there can be a showcase early on of some of the more interesting things, that can still carry over to later rounds, but it's not quite as lost due to compression of large sample sizes. Basically, if Willow is there with her DE, since she's in the top 20, she should be in the first round of streaming, since most people don't play DE, and if they do it's not at that level, meaning that if you don't get her in early, there's a chance something like bad luck, or simply the number of players in the event could edge her out from being featured in later rounds in a game that involves equal skill. This becomes even more important if they're playing a more common list that round, since it can showcase how it preforms against something more tried and true, as opposed to two off the wall lists bashing heads with no internal reference from the spectator.

Edit: Also, as a side note, as a Tau player, I hate how the vocal minority of the community has reacted to the ITC. I absolutely support all your voting results for the Tau, since I thought CFP in RAW form was absurd. I think the current version of the ITC rules for Tau are pretty spot on, aside from the things that don't have a ruling (Piranhas, Earth Caste Pilot Arrays on regular Riptides, etc). It's not like Tau was exactly bad before either, it just wasn't top tier, now it has so many optional buffs and new toys that it could honestly just ignore the Decurion and still be completely fine, as many players have... Even the Tau Tactica thread constantly has people talking about an abundance of options now when building a list, some of which even disagree with your rulings.

I've heard rumours and hushed whisperings from the darkest corners of a pub crawl? (or i saw pictures of last years) Is this gonna happen this year?

@kloma Short Answer, yes. You sign up for it on the website

Thanks Mate, so many links, this is what i get for letting my bud organise the whole thing lol.

Yeah, Pub Crawl here: It's an absolute riot! http://store.frontlinegaming.org/lvo-pub-crawl-ticket/dp/12905

Event info, here: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/lvo-2016-pub-crawl/

Run by LaJollaGrad on these forums if you want any info. Every year it is seriously a blast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Tinkrr

Thanks for the support, much appreciated!

And yeah, we use the !list command with Twitch Bot to bring up player's lists, it's a good feature.

We're leading off with the former champ, Sean Nayden for the first game (and whomever he draws as his first game).

 Reecius wrote:
Yeah, Pub Crawl here: It's an absolute riot! http://store.frontlinegaming.org/lvo-pub-crawl-ticket/dp/12905

Event info, here: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/lvo-2016-pub-crawl/

Run by LaJollaGrad on these forums if you want any info. Every year it is seriously a blast.

It will be legendary

Oh, and here's PP's announcement that they'll be at the LVO!

http://privateerpress.com/community/privateer-insider/insider-01-13-2016

I have a feeling eldar with the new corsair book are going to crush the competition this year. Hoping I'm wrong though and there is more parity between armies.

gungo wrote:
I have a feeling eldar with the new corsair book are going to crush the competition this year. Hoping I'm wrong though and there is more parity between armies.

No they won't. There's actually a good balance of top-tier teams with Eldar, Tau, Space Marines, Necrons and even War Convocation.

But mainly, the top tournament players there won't all be running Eldar.

Looking forward to LVO 2017, when I wont be deployed. : /

Cant wait for this years coverage though, good luck to all!

 jy2 wrote:

gungo wrote:
I have a feeling eldar with the new corsair book are going to crush the competition this year. Hoping I'm wrong though and there is more parity between armies.

No they won't. There's actually a good balance of top-tier teams with Eldar, Tau, Space Marines, Necrons and even War Convocation.

But mainly, the top tournament players there won't all be running Eldar.

I understand not everyone is taking them I just expect them to take it all. Not a rant or claiming thier overpowered. It's just my opinion they are the strongest army for this tournament and I expect them to win it all.

Eldar and Eldar Corsairs hasn't been doing that great in the ITC format. Especially when Eldar goes first.

I truly feel Battle Company is gonna do amazing at LVO.

 Julnlecs wrote:
Eldar and Eldar Corsairs hasn't been doing that great in the ITC format. Especially when Eldar goes first.

I truly feel Battle Company is gonna do amazing at LVO.

That's just the post coitus euphoria yer feelin' after schtupping GTA's Corsairs at the Butcher's of Bakersfield GT.

The battle company is cute.

I'm just pumped to see it all go down! Going to be so much fun.

@lechine

Stay safe during your deployment!

Reecius is the new Skathach Wraithknight allowed at LVO?

Also would any American's like to save on FW postage for a nearly new Skathach Wraithknight?

He should be legal as long as his Hellstorm isn't Torrent. He is, after all, still a Wraithknight, which is a legal LoW in the ITC.

 jy2 wrote:
He should be legal as long as his Hellstorm isn't Torrent. He is, after all, still a Wraithknight, which is a legal LoW in the ITC.

Nah not torrent and the 7" blast doesn't ignore cover.

In case of daemons, break out the Daemonology: Sanctic. I'm gonna watch those Khorne Dogs dodge multiple vortices. Imperial Knight? Enemy WK? Boring game?

In case of Irrelevant, just-for-fun Round 5. Or Round 4. Or Round 3 ....

The answer to all of these:

Sasquatch Wraithknight is good to go, yeah.

 Reecius wrote:
Sasquatch Wraithknight is good to go, yeah.

Are they called sasquath because they will be so rare no one actually sees one?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
Sasquatch Wraithknight is good to go, yeah.

Are they called sasquath because they will be so rare no one actually sees one?

Nah, they're just hairy because they're allergic to the wax the other Wraithknights use to be dolphin smooth.

Lol

Which army does everyone think will win it all ? My top picks in no order are eldar, Space Marines and Tau.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Which army does everyone think will win it all ? My top picks in no order are eldar, Space Marines and Tau.

Agree with this list although I can see a dark angel/space wolf army break into the top 3 and knock down tau to 4th.
War convocation, chaos demon, with at least another space marine and eldar corsair list will round out top 8.

People always claim necron is stronger yet they Couldnt break the top 15 in this event last year using the old or new book and not much has changed for them since.

I would bet that Knight armies will end up ranking highly as well, especially things like Knights + Libby Conclave or similar. Especially with how strong the newer variants are, such as the Crusader, Castigator, and the Atrapos.

Requizen wrote:
I would bet that Knight armies will end up ranking highly as well, especially things like Knights + Libby Conclave or similar. Especially with how strong the newer variants are, such as the Crusader, Castigator, and the Atrapos.

I'm putting the finishing touches on my army of 5 Knights right now, but as much as I love playing them (and will be playing them in Vegas), I don't think they have the tools to truly compete in Frontline events due to the additional victory points for hull points lost. Also, the strength of the Conclave in lists like Superfriends doesn't translate to Knights very well, since you can't buff both the Knight and your Conclave, leaving one of them undefended. The Knight list that I expect to see do well in Vegas is the CSM army of Bel'akor, Fateweaver, D-Thirster, Tzeentch Knight, etc. You have the tools to give your Knight (or Thirster) a 2++ save, invisibility, or both, and can summon to claim objectives. Definitely an effective combo.

 somerandomidiot wrote:

Requizen wrote:
I would bet that Knight armies will end up ranking highly as well, especially things like Knights + Libby Conclave or similar. Especially with how strong the newer variants are, such as the Crusader, Castigator, and the Atrapos.

I'm putting the finishing touches on my army of 5 Knights right now, but as much as I love playing them (and will be playing them in Vegas), I don't think they have the tools to truly compete in Frontline events due to the additional victory points for hull points lost. Also, the strength of the Conclave in lists like Superfriends doesn't translate to Knights very well, since you can't buff both the Knight and your Conclave, leaving one of them undefended. The Knight list that I expect to see do well in Vegas is the CSM army of Bel'akor, Fateweaver, D-Thirster, Tzeentch Knight, etc. You have the tools to give your Knight (or Thirster) a 2++ save, invisibility, or both, and can summon to claim objectives. Definitely an effective combo.

Truly a pretty scary list. Wish more events allowed Chaos Knights, they're awesome and I'd love to run mine more often.

My bet is either Eldar or Spacies for first place, with Tau and War Convocation not far behind. I also wouldn't be surprised at seeing an Ork in the top8 with their new Stompa toy.

taudar, marines, eldar, KDK, guard

 Tinkrr wrote:
My bet is either Eldar or Spacies for first place, with Tau and War Convocation not far behind. I also wouldn't be surprised at seeing an Ork in the top8 with their new Stompa toy.

Forgot about big Mek stompas... Definitely a possible to sneak into the top 8 with a zhardsnark bike swarm.

I don't see Cronz doing anything major.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I don't see Cronz doing anything major.

I'm with you on this, Cronz are super resilient but as a whole they don't really do what you want them to.

that being said, who knows, maybe someone will surprise us by bringing a heavy engage list that then has units to camp objectives. As in, they just use the bulk of their army to tie up things while using a small dedicate force to soak objectives and more.

I did a bit of analysis based on the Torrent of Fire data, and the expected meta (ie Nash equilibrium)would be

Eldar 55%
Imp Knights 10%
Necrons 35%

So my money is on Eldar. As the spine on the 1999 codex says - "Their arrogance is only matched by their firepower."

I bet on players, not armies, personally!

And, as we're in Vegas, you all can actually do just that!

I doubt IK can pull it off. There are too many solid counters.

Reece, do you have a ruling on Ravenwing rule and Characters? As in do they gain the ravenwing rule when put on a bike?

Oddly enough GW actually released a faq on that rule. No need for a ruling.
http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/7th-faq/Dark_Angels_v1.0_Dec15.pdf

Gungo beat me to it!

Money is on SM winning this

Gotta say, never been this excited to lose horribly at an event before

 Reecius wrote:
I bet on players, not armies, personally!

And, as we're in Vegas, you all can actually do just that!

A guy named Allan, Nick or Alan. Or Casey, and I don't mean Casey Dunn, nice guy that he is.

I'm voting for Ncontrol Robinson, I always enjoyed battle reports with him as he seems to really be willing to call games and play more to get as much practice in as he can. There's something to be said about testing that much.

Would be nice to see someone new win it this year.

It's going to be so exciting to see who wins it! There are a lot of very good players all poised to take the entire ITC, but PJ Pants has a commanding lead this year, he's out in front by a significant portion. To win the ITC really, he just needs to make the final 8 and then hope a 3 score player doesn't come and eat his lunch!

But the ITC this year is his to lose, he's in the lead. So many good players coming, going to be awesome to see how it all shakes down!

Aw, no love for either of the two previous LVO winners to win it again

I'm betting that an East coast player wins LVO, to make it three in a row

I'm gona go with either an Alex or a Sean to win it. I mean no one else has so might as well go with the averages.

And to get more specific I think someone from Connecticut will win it again for the third year in a row. Hopefully Reece has figured out how to ship that trophy.

Should be an awesome event again. Really excited!

Lol, if a Connecticut player wins it again we may have to send it out to the state to hang out for the year, lol!

I'm pulling for a west coast victor !!!

East Coast is best coast, now bring the ITC to the actual East Coast not the imposter we call Connecticut.

Also can I change my vote to Reece and Franz-Swiss winning the ITC since clearly the rumours state that they make all the rules to benefit their own armies.

@Dozer

It's be nice if that hapenned for a change of pace as much as anything else, lol1

@Tinkrr

Duh! We always, obviously bend the rules to our favor so that we can win our own events that we don't play in! Makes perfect sense, haha =P

Someone English is winning it

Haha, that would be awesome! But, the Australians are coming in hot, too! Gonna be a tough battle.

 Reecius wrote:

@Tinkrr

Duh! We always, obviously bend the rules to our favor so that we can win our own events that we don't play in! Makes perfect sense, haha =P

Well duh! Why else would you ever buff Tau if it wasn't for Frank-n-Beans picking it up at the same time, pretty suspicious if you ask me.

You even change the dates on your events just so you're the only two that show up and win all the prizes.

Oh! And don't even get me started on your discounts, I bet you are secretly convincing GW to boost their prices just so you can pretend to give a discount and corner the market.

Illuminate Reece confirmed!

Someone English is winning it

Someone English already did

@Alex

Hey, hey, you can't claim Connecticut AND England!

@Tinkrr

I know right, the prize support we win that we paid for....lol!

I dont know what yall are talking about. I saw the golden toilet at the shop they bought with all the funds.

 Reecius wrote:


@Tinkrr

I know right, the prize support we win that we paid for....lol!

It's not about the winnings, it's about sending a message young Lorgar.

My prediction. Winner will be an Al(l)an, Geoff, Nick, Doug, Cooper, or Liz.

My hope is a complete outsider, dark shadow, Sisters of Battle CAD no allies player take it all.

I am pulling for a cool army. Go Lizzie !

I don't know who's going to take it this year, but my personal goal is to make it to Sunday.

BTW, I'm feeling the itch to write again. What better time to kick it off than the LVO?

Good luck Jim !

@Hotsauce

Gah, no one was supposed to see that! haha

@Tinkrr

Lorgar?!?! That's pistols at 10 paces, sir!

@Jim

We'd love to have any articles from you, buddy! If you do one of yoru awesome write-ups for Dakka, do you also want to post it on FLG? Those are great bat reps.

@Thread

Soooooooo close! Only 7 days till we are in the hall setting up! It's crazy at the shop and studio, everyone's running around like mad people getting ready. Going to be awesome.

My personal goal is to make Top 8 as well.

I'm so stoked. See you all soon.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
My prediction. Winner will be an Al(l)an, Geoff, Nick, Doug, Cooper, or Liz.

My hope is a complete outsider, dark shadow, Sisters of Battle CAD no allies player take it all.

No love for your representative peep?

Douche.

Go go go Julio !!!

 jy2 wrote:
I don't know who's going to take it this year, but my personal goal is to make it to Sunday.

BTW, I'm feeling the itch to write again. What better time to kick it off than the LVO?

I hope i play you J just so i can be featured on an article, even though ill probably lose lol

Question for the thread, this is my first large out of town GT, what do I need to bring with me other than army, dice, rules, lists etc?

@jy2 still owes me a write up from last year. But I'm willing to give him a mulligan.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Question for the thread, this is my first large out of town GT, what do I need to bring with me other than army, dice, rules, lists etc?

Water bottle, though the venue provides a bar (last year, anyway), and water, but there were points when that got tapped out and there wasn't water for a while.

Last year, you gave the cash to two ... candy-stripers? Two nice gals who gave you a ticket, which the bartenders gave you a drink for. Bring cash bills for tips.

Aspirin or your favorite hangover remedy. For both mornings. It is Vegas.

Pen and pencil. Post Its for quickie rules-markers for Psy-powers used during the game, if you don't have psy-cards.

**Snacks inna bag. Peanuts, banana, jerky. Proteins are better than carbs ... a least from my drinking beer point of view. Srsly.**

See Reece's post below on not bringing food or drink into the venue.

Comfiest shoes you own.

Deodorant.

Camera. You're likely to see some really well painted, bad-assed armies. Hunt down Obadiah Hampton, Israel Sanchez's Tau and Mike Fox's orks, among others.

I wish I could Write, maybe I will do a write up on the Trip LoL

Quick rules question came up when I was finalizing my list - can a riptide take the earth caste pilot array (ECPA) anymore? It's likely an FAQ item, as the ECPA is a signature system and riptides in the new book cannot take signature systems - however it's a signature system for riptides (allows rerolls of the nova reactor).

RAW I think it's a no (no sig system allowance), RAI is likely a yes (its a riptide-sig system). Just want to know so I don't show up with a potentially illegal upgrade - either way is understandable.

Thanks!

I'm looking forward to seeing the top Necron lists and stealing good ideas from them

Will lists be available after the tournament or will we have to scrounge around for second hand recollections?

Brother Ereokse's list was solid except there is not outside food and beverage allowed int he halls per Vegas hotel policy.

@Target

We read it as only O'Vesa gets the ECPA this edition.

@Requizen

We will post the top 8 lists on Saturday after we determine finalists!

Soak long sleeves in vodkas then suck on them. It works well.

Got it, thanks

 Reecius wrote:

We read it as only O'Vesa gets the ECPA this edition.

Wait, you where saying when it first came out it was obvious that the riptides would ECPA. Why the change of heart?

 Reecius wrote:


@Tinkrr

Lorgar?!?! That's pistols at 10 paces, sir!

Alright, but if I win I get ownership of Frontline and custody rights of France-Waaaagh!

SOOOO many things have to go just right in order to make Sunday... matchups, initiative, lucky D shots, hangover mitigation.... You just have to go in planning to celebrate the hobby. If you're lucky you'll have 6 cool opponents. Or maybe a chance to continue your undefeated streak against JimY!

 jy2 wrote:
I don't know who's going to take it this year, but my personal goal is to make it to Sunday.

BTW, I'm feeling the itch to write again. What better time to kick it off than the LVO?

I'm looking forward to making it to Sunday. Gotta be confident in yourself.

 Reecius wrote:
@Jim

We'd love to have any articles from you, buddy! If you do one of yoru awesome write-ups for Dakka, do you also want to post it on FLG? Those are great bat reps.

Sure thing! I actually took a break and stopped writing for a while, but when I get back into it, I'll definitely do it in a format that will be appropriate for FLG.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Good luck Jim !

Thanks!

Hope to see you there, that is, if you're going.

 Julnlecs wrote:
My personal goal is to make Top 8 as well.

I'm so stoked. See you all soon.

You can do it! You've been on a roll as of late.

We gotta play each other one of these days. Maybe it'll be at the LVO. Good luck!

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
I don't know who's going to take it this year, but my personal goal is to make it to Sunday.

BTW, I'm feeling the itch to write again. What better time to kick it off than the LVO?

I hope i play you J just so i can be featured on an article, even though ill probably lose lol

Question for the thread, this is my first large out of town GT, what do I need to bring with me other than army, dice, rules, lists etc?

Your War Convo looks scary. You might be able to kick my arse if we play. But no matter, I'm sure we'll have a fun time rolling dice.

PanzerLeader wrote:
@jy2 still owes me a write up from last year. But I'm willing to give him a mulligan.

Haha....I had one of the biggest brain farts when I played against your army. I definitely owe you one, both a report and a rematch. Hope we can play again. Cheers!

Coldsteel wrote:
SOOOO many things have to go just right in order to make Sunday... matchups, initiative, lucky D shots, hangover mitigation.... You just have to go in planning to celebrate the hobby. If you're lucky you'll have 6 cool opponents. Or maybe a chance to continue your undefeated streak against JimY!

 jy2 wrote:
I don't know who's going to take it this year, but my personal goal is to make it to Sunday.

BTW, I'm feeling the itch to write again. What better time to kick it off than the LVO?

Man, East Coast/Midwest is kicking my arse. Next time I play against them, I'm sitting down. Lol.

BTW, great game at NOVA, even if my arse is still red from over there.

@jy2: That was a classic brain fart but we all have those moments. Maybe we'll get paired up this year. Are you bringing PenTyrant again?

its all getting a bit real now. Last day in the UK tomorrow then we'll have to see if there's some kind of entertainment in this Las Vegas place ;P

PanzerLeader wrote:
@jy2: That was a classic brain fart but we all have those moments. Maybe we'll get paired up this year. Are you bringing PenTyrant again?

25% chance that I will bring bugs. I'm feeling a little chaotic lately. Heh heh....

One thing about brain fart moments is the double doocey... Your opponent f's up then you get overconfident and make an even bigger mistake. I've seen it happen and account it to game pressure.

So silly question but what is the standard table size for a ITC 40k game, it's like 4x6 or 4x8?

 Tinkrr wrote:
So silly question but what is the standard table size for a ITC 40k game, it's like 4x6 or 4x8?

4x6' . And, likely, as was with BAO (and last year's LVO?), all tables will be on FAT mats, which makes for a lots less dice chasing to the floor.

Tinkrr, have you been to a tourney that used 4x8 foot?

 Brothererekose wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
So silly question but what is the standard table size for a ITC 40k game, it's like 4x6 or 4x8?

4x6' . And, likely, as was with BAO (and last year's LVO?), all tables will be on FAT mats, which makes for a lots less dice chasing to the floor.

Tinkrr, have you been to a tourney that used 4x8 foot?

I haven't but I also hadn't considered table size as a whole in terms of an actual dimension, until now when I moved into a new place and had a 4x4 table sitting around and started to wonder if it would just be two of those put together to make a 40k table with a fat mat over it. It certainly didn't seem that much bigger, so it made me question if I was actually right on the 4x6 measurement I though originally.

We use 4x6', Tinkrr.

@Thread

Getting sooooooooo close!!! Can't wait!

So I found out I have Acute Pneumonia......So No drinking or staying out late for me. Still gonna have fun though.

Get some anti biotics !

Already did. Got a shot today, going back for another shot wednesday and I got antibiotics so strong I can only take them once a day unlike the usual 2 times

Not contagious are you?

Pneumonia is an infection, not a Virus, so dont worry, besides, in a hall of about 1000 people probably, there are gonna be sick people, so its a given anyway.

So just to go back to the Earth Caste thing, I don't want to derail thing (any more than I have already) but I don't agree with restricting it from being taken on Riptides. My reasons:

1) it was allowed in the past edition, so it will not be a direct rule change and won't cause excessive confusion. It's similar to the cheap Stompa upgrade, not exactly RAW but has been played as such in the past.

2) It's basically the only playable signature system for Far Sight Enclaves, and it's only really competitive on a Riptide.

3) O'vesa is no longer something you can easily take in Farsight lists, as he's now only an option in The Eight formation which is insanely expensive.

4) It makes Heavy Burst Cannons on Riptides a much more relevant option when running only one or even two Riptides. It's not they're bad, it's just you get hot on Nova and then on 12 shots, which is terrifying, but the Earth Caste really let's you mitigate a lot of that, while also getting more chances to rend. Basically it's a good way to encourage more weapon diversity on Riptides as a whole.

.

In either case I'll play by whatever decision you guys make, but that's just my thoughts on it and I hope it can provide a different look on the matter. Plus, come on, they're Dwarf Tau riding mech suits, don't let them go the way of the Squats D:

 Tinkrr wrote:
So just to go back to the Earth Caste thing, I don't want to derail thing (any more than I have already) but I don't agree with restricting it from being taken on Riptides. My reasons:

1) it was allowed in the past edition, so it will not be a direct rule change and won't cause excessive confusion. It's similar to the cheap Stompa upgrade, not exactly RAW but has been played as such in the past.

Not only that, but they changed the Iron Hands Chapter Tactics because of the previous editions rules said their vehicles get IWND so I feel that it is kinda has a precedent.
But y'know SM gets all the love.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
So just to go back to the Earth Caste thing, I don't want to derail thing (any more than I have already) but I don't agree with restricting it from being taken on Riptides. My reasons:

1) it was allowed in the past edition, so it will not be a direct rule change and won't cause excessive confusion. It's similar to the cheap Stompa upgrade, not exactly RAW but has been played as such in the past.

Not only that, but they changed the Iron Hands Chapter Tactics because of the previous editions rules said their vehicles get IWND so I feel that it is kinda has a precedent.
But y'know SM gets all the love.

See, the first part if that is helpful, the second is not. You know, something about honey and vingar.

That being said, it's also a recent ruling and they've gone both ways with it since it has come out. There's also no official ruling and only a temporary one to cover the LVO, which would make sense to default to RAW until there's more time to consider and vote on such things. In other words, give it time, be respectful, and hope for the best.

I do say that as a dedicated sm player with 10000 points in SM and 1850 if I give my riptides to many upgrades

We had a ton of new material we had to plow through for the LVO guys, and nearly 600 questions on the ITC questionnaire submission form to answer before the event. It was a massive task to put it mildly.

We'll have a vote coming out of the LVO for the next season and a lot of these issues will be voted on like the Riptide question which does seem like it could be an oversight.

GMC Toe in cover i hope is one

Off topic though. VEGGAAASSSSSSSSS

 Reecius wrote:
We had a ton of new material we had to plow through for the LVO guys, and nearly 600 questions on the ITC questionnaire submission form to answer before the event. It was a massive task to put it mildly.

We'll have a vote coming out of the LVO for the next season and a lot of these issues will be voted on like the Riptide question which does seem like it could be an oversight.

Cool, great to hear and I look forward to the vote.

I fully understand the need for provesional rules with how little time there was before the LVO.

I'm super pumped for this event and will try to watch as much as possible live. Hopeful my internet is connected by then.

Hey folks! Going to my first GT! WOOT!
I live in Vegas so I only have to drive about 10 min. So question here, do we need to bring scoresheets and objective markers and such or is that provided?

@tinkrr

See you on line!

@hivetyrantman

We provide the player packets, we are scoring digitally though, so no need to tear them off and bring them up or anything, and bring your own objective markers, if you don't have any, we'll be selling some sweet ITC objective markers at the event.

See you there!

Sorry, one last tournie question. I can't find anything about this in the FAQ. So I have two older biovores on the bases they came with at the time. they're the size of tyranid warriors. The new biovores have bigger bases. Am I going to be fine using them on the smaller bases or do I need to use something else?

hivetyrantman wrote:
Sorry, one last tournie question. I can't find anything about this in the FAQ. So I have two older biovores on the bases they came with at the time. they're the size of tyranid warriors. The new biovores have bigger bases. Am I going to be fine using them on the smaller bases or do I need to use something else?

I've seen many Tyranid players run biovores with the older bases. You should be ok as long as the model is the size of the new biovores and not the old biovores. But just in case, bring the larger base as well so that if anyone is anal enough to complain about it, you can just put the big base underneath.

Thanks!

Sorry if I missed this, but will LVO be live-streaming games anywhere? I assume Twitch, but do they just use Frontline's twitch channel, or is there a specific one? When does coverage begin?

I'll happily throw on popcorn and paint to the sounds of LVO all weekend. :-p

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Sorry if I missed this, but will LVO be live-streaming games anywhere? I assume Twitch, but do they just use Frontline's twitch channel, or is there a specific one? When does coverage begin?

I'll happily throw on popcorn and paint to the sounds of LVO all weekend. :-p

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2016/01/27/lvo-2016-broadcasting-schedule/

Can't wait to watch !

Good luck boys and girls! And remember that electrolytes help with hangovers!

So before the big thing starts, let's look at the top 16 players of the ITC currently and what armies they play.

1.) Orks, Demons, one game eldar
2.) Agents, Tyranids
3.) Space Marines, Eldar
4.) Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Marines
5.) Eldar, Tau
6.) Edlar, Space Marines
7.) Agents, Eldar, Tau
8.) Orks
9.) Demons, Eldar, Grey Knights, Tyranids
10.) Imperial Guard

11.) Agents, Grey Knights
12.) Wolves
13.) CSM,Eldar
14.) Agents (2 games), Tau
15.) Agents
16.) CSM

More so, you'll notice there are no DE, Blood Angels, SoBs, or Necrons in the top 16. If this is extended to the top 20, there will be two Necron players and one Dark Eldar player, so yea, some rather solid diversity and no one is really out of the running for the LVO winner at this point, given some good luck.

Also, Tau is a weird one as it has recently gotten a major overhaul, and those results are probably heavily weighted with the pre-buff lists. I fully expect Tau in the top 8.


Edit: My crazy dreams is to see Nurgle stuff in the top tables (Drones or whatever), and SoBs. It would just be cool to see that kind of fringe stuff make it into the top 8, I don't mean as a major factor, but at least one off the wall list that just gets there into the top 8... That's what Makes a large event great for me, seeing that one guy who has that one weird thing, that got there that one time, it's a ton of fun.

How about you guys?

Tinkrr: Link please.... also I'll see you in Vegas... Single CAD orks + formation. Wooot Greenskins!

I just went to the ITC standings ( https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-rankings/ ) and did a search by name.

Good luck at the LVO, best of luck.

 Tinkrr wrote:
I just went to the ITC standings ( https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-rankings/ ) and did a search by name.

Good luck at the LVO, best of luck.

I love the ITC so don't get me wrong. But it's not really an accurate representation of the best players in the country. There are a lot of good players in there but its missing a lot of the best.

That's simply because ITC is much more widely used on the West coast than elsewhere in the country. Rankings HQ had closer to the top players back when it was used. But still had plenty of problems.

Good luck to all! I'll be watching tomorrow at work when I can. Hoping to see at least one Necron in the top 8 haha!

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Sorry if I missed this, but will LVO be live-streaming games anywhere? I assume Twitch, but do they just use Frontline's twitch channel, or is there a specific one? When does coverage begin?

I'll happily throw on popcorn and paint to the sounds of LVO all weekend. :-p

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2016/01/27/lvo-2016-broadcasting-schedule/

Thank you very much. :-)

My predictions: http://ftgtgaming.blogspot.com/2016/02/lvo-predictions.html

Expecting mostly Space Marines and Eldar in the top 8, personally.

I think Tau will win 1st place.

 FTGTEvan wrote:
My predictions: http://ftgtgaming.blogspot.com/2016/02/lvo-predictions.html

Expecting mostly Space Marines and Eldar in the top 8, personally.

I agree almost dead on with your predictions. I'll be (very) happily surprised if there's a Tau player in the top 8, though.

None the less, I'll be glued to the stream from the moment it starts

I'm sure there will be at least two Tau in top 8.

I still think Daemons are relatively strong enough to be in top 8, especially since there are at least 2 really strong Daemon players that still use them (Nick and Alan).

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I think Tau will win 1st place.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I'm sure there will be at least two Tau in top 8.

Wait... does anyone know what Dozer thinks Tau will do

I'd like to see some skin in the game here! What happens if you are wrong? Perhaps an updated signature of some sort

Looking forward to the live coverage! Link for those who missed it from last page:
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2016/01/27/lvo-2016-broadcasting-schedule/

Requizen wrote:
I still think Daemons are relatively strong enough to be in top 8, especially since there are at least 2 really strong Daemon players that still use them (Nick and Alan).

Yeah, honestly they're my #3 army in ITC. And no telling what Alan will use - he's brought a slightly different army to nearly every event (though usually with a heavy daemon presence).

Tau I don't think make the top 8 because of their relative lack of mobility is a hindrance in Maelstrom, and combined with the FAQ nerfs, I just don't think they have quite enough. They still could - Gonyo is taking them - but they're an outside shot in my opinion, same with Necrons.

For all the bitching and moaning the new Tau are still way strong as you'll come to find out. Tau can literally table armies in three turns.

Budzerker wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
I just went to the ITC standings ( https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-rankings/ ) and did a search by name.

Good luck at the LVO, best of luck.

I love the ITC so don't get me wrong. But it's not really an accurate representation of the best players in the country. There are a lot of good players in there but its missing a lot of the best.

That's simply because ITC is much more widely used on the West coast than elsewhere in the country. Rankings HQ had closer to the top players back when it was used. But still had plenty of problems.

Well yea, I mean that list is simply the list of people who had events to go to and did well at those events. That's also why I left the name off of the placing and just posted the armies those players ran, it was just to show that almost all of the armies in the game are doing ok in the events available and in a large event a little luck can go a long way.

I was the last carry-on allowed on my flight. Pleaded the flight attendants to allow it after they were going to gate check it. Hopefully this is a sign of things to come.

Gl everyone. See y'all tomorrow.

Round 1 done.

Any notable early defeats?

yes the 2nd one in ITC ranking Geoff Robinson, lost 6-2

You can't win the tournament the first day, but you can certainly lose it.

blackmage wrote:
yes the 2nd one in ITC ranking Geoff Robinson, lost 6-2

What did he lose to?

Requizen wrote:

blackmage wrote:
yes the 2nd one in ITC ranking Geoff Robinson, lost 6-2

What did he lose to?

Another War Convocation

and also Nick Nanavati lost to Tau

blackmage wrote:
and also Nick Nanavati lost to Tau

Technically? That was pretty terrible, they only played 2 turns, and Nick's turns, including being intercepted were probably 35-40 minutes total.

 FTGTEvan wrote:

blackmage wrote:
and also Nick Nanavati lost to Tau

Technically? That was pretty terrible, they only played 2 turns, and Nick's turns, including being intercepted were probably 35-40 minutes total.

Out of a game that lasted an hour and eight minutes that seems fair. I watched it and they had ~30 more minutes and extra time for the late start but Nick conceded, it's kind of bogus to sell Israel short on his win. Nick fell behind on maelstrom and his assaults to grab the relic and pin his other riptide BOTH failed resulting in bad instability rolls. He also failed grimoir on his knight and was about to eat a crap ton of seeker missiles on a 3hp knight. Honestly even had they continued he wasn't winning that game unless something crazy happened which is probably why he conceded.

It sucks that the game started late and they ended it early due to a player calling it, but you can hardly blame it on time or slow play when the loser concedes even before time is up.

I agree. I was watching the game, and even though Nick has a right to be unhappy about the time, he wasn't winning that game unless Isreal's dice totally betrayed him.

Was Israel late? Why did they get a late start?

I started watching late, but from the sound of it, it was just an extra long deployment/set up followed by slow play.

It's honestly a shame as I was really excited about that match up after seeing the lists.

As for the stream as a whole now, I'd say the main thing they could fix is to have more pre-recorded content in down time. It's just a matter of playing audio in the background, such as the ITC player interviews they had at the end of Signals. Those make the event easier to relate to, and they are already formatted for that kind of thing.

I missed the 40K games today and the Twitch has moved on to Warmachine at the moment - will be trying to catch at least one of the games tomorrow

The real question is, which of you will be watching the final round instead of the Super Bowl on Sunday

Nerd Hammer > Sports Ball

bogalubov wrote:
Was Israel late? Why did they get a late start?

45 minute interview segment on the stream with Nick.

Then it's even more ridiculous to blame Israel when Nick is holding the game up in an interview.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Then it's even more ridiculous to blame Israel when Nick is holding the game up in an interview.

It seemed to me that Israel had the game in Hand. It was a rough mission and matchup for Nick. When Tau start beating Demons in CC, it isn't going well for the Demons.

I have a feeling if the game had gone on, then Nick would have contested the Relic, but I doubt he had a route to victory once his Knight went down, and he failed to tarpit the Riptides.

I may have misread it. Nick still had lots of summoning ability, but Tau had utterly dominant board position, and lots and lots of firepower.

Tomorrow I play against the LVO winner from 2 years ago, Alex Fennell. Woohoo! It's gonna be a good fight.

 jy2 wrote:
Tomorrow I play against the LVO winner from 2 years ago, Alex Fennell. Woohoo! It's gonna be a good fight.

I hope you crush him, for no other reason that I recognize your avatar from a thread talking about being new to the ITC recently... I'm a petty and fickle Tinkrr that favours new comers D:

What are you running bee-tee-dubs?

 Red Corsair wrote:
Then it's even more ridiculous to blame Israel when Nick is holding the game up in an interview.

He wasn't holding the game up, the interviewers on the stream were holding the game up.

And Nick didn't concede, time was called at the end of Turn 2.

So some sketchy misrepresentations of what happened in this thread that can easily sway public perception in the wrong direction. I didn't get the impression Nick or anyone else was blaming Israel more than being very pissed that time was called in only turn 2 with less than 2 hours of play time allowed, given the late start was due to the stream dudes not the players.

AlexRae wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Then it's even more ridiculous to blame Israel when Nick is holding the game up in an interview.

He wasn't holding the game up, the interviewers on the stream were holding the game up.

And Nick didn't concede, time was called at the end of Turn 2.

So some sketchy misrepresentations of what happened in this thread that can easily sway public perception in the wrong direction. I didn't get the impression Nick or anyone else was blaming Israel more than being very pissed that time was called in only turn 2 with less than 2 hours of play time allowed, given the late start was due to the stream dudes not the players.

They had 30 mins left when Nick conceded

Well...the entire game can be seen here:

http://www.twitch.tv/frontlinegaming_tv/v/40913092

But if I wanted to parse the time...the entire clip is 2:46 min long. I do not know exactly when the broadcast started in real time. If anyone knows for sure, please feel free to let us know.

They're both at the table at the 10ish minute mark, though none of the models appear to be deployed.

Pablo interviews both players starting around the 20 minute mark. The interview lasts until the 23:40 mark, which at that point I believe they start deploying.

The game appears to start somewhere between the 40 or 42 minute mark.

The commentator interviewed them between round 1 and 2 (a little after 1:19). It took almost exactly 1 mintue.

They are told there is only 1 hour left to play at 1:21. At this point, they'd only been at the table for 40ish minutes. If their game was supposed to be two and half hours long, they've somehow lost 50 minutes of play time prior to deploying.

A little after 2:14, Nick concedes. I was watching the stream live...I believe they would have only had around 15 mintues of time left to play at that point if they weren't awarded any extra time.

There actual game playing time, in total, was around 94 or so minutes. Like I just mentioned, they could have played another 15ish minutes if Nick thought it would matter, but the writing was pretty much on the wall if he wasn't going to get multiple turns to claw his way back into the game.

So...the 50 lost minutes. They spent 10 minutes or so at the table before Pablo's interview talking and rolling dice...I assume doing the pregame roll offs and placing objectives. Pablo's interview only lasts around 3 and a half minutes. Soooooo...there's around 37 or so minutes that's unaccounted for prior to the game. It was said that setting up the game for live streaming took some time, but it's unclear how much. I HEARD somewhere (maybe twitch chat) that they were both late to the game hanging out in the bar, but it may have only been a few minutes and is pure speculation at this point.

Either way, I've spent way more time that I would have thought doing this, which is sad on a lot of levels, so I'm just going to stop now....just sad all around.

@Voidwraith: thanks for parsing that out.

The 15 minute concession is important because it's not that he's conceding the game is unwinnable, but that in a 15 minute turn 3, going second, he wouldn't be able to finish his play. His list, combined with how he deployed, really hits its stride turn 3 and 4. As someone who has seen him play and how the list works, he was still in good shape to pretty much take over turn 4.

If someone was really dedicated, they could time active player time and see how little time Nick really got. As I mentioned earlier, his turn 2 was somewhat long, but a LOT of that was interceptor and overwatch. I actually took a shower after overwatch began, and came back to Israel still firing overwatch.

Not going to say there was intentional slow play, but just I totally understand Nick's frustration because he barely got to play. In hindsight, he should have been more active in getting Israel to move faster, but with missing 40 minutes or so of game play in already short rounds, it would be tough.

How was the Dark angel Libby Conclave summoning in the first game with Nayden?

I thought conclave couldn't do so in ITC?

Seriously? the interviewers took 50 minutes? that sucks for nick...

having watched how long the interceptor phase took... I'm not so sure we can call nick as delaying the game... anyone want to time how long he is actually moving models of his own?