Jancoran wrote: Its symptomatic. there should just BE a process and they should just never be ruling like this. Ever. if they really want the process to be trusted...make it an actual process and stick to it. Insteadof this free wheeling knee jerk reaction stuff.
How many times have we been on a forum and people are saying "End of the world is here. Faction X got Ability Z and now the entire universe of 40K is done for".
and then someone pokes his hand into the air and says "well... all you have to do is hit it with concussion and charge it with something REAL nasty and it goes away".
and then everyone relaxes and says "okay, adding Concussion to my Marines and Taking some Black Knights"
Codex's have also been sort of catching up to handle such things. the StormSurge, while a little on the frail side as such units go, answered the question every Tau was asking: what the heck do i do about THAT thing.
People got SO mad sooooooo mad about the Storm of Chaos. I mean it was a HUGE deal back in the day, remember that? And after some games people realized that hey, it CAN be bad...as CAN a hundred other things but it's not the game breaking thing people hated so much.
And here we are again. No evidence whatsoever that it's even an issue and we're nerfing things. Sorry. "Clarifying" things. by completely changing the rules.
The 40K community is so large (and I'm glad) compared to other games and a lot more passionate than any that I know of. I love that about it. It's why I can stomach some of these discussions and keep coming back for more. But that passion needs to be carefully managed when you are attemption to bean INAT or attempting to be an ITC etc... You're NOT just representing your little corner of the world any longer. there's responsibility that comes with that standing. Abuse it and people will just simply walk off and find tournaments and events they'd rather be at. The more you force a TO NOT to use your rules in their entirety, the more often they start questioning the need to use it at all.
And they should question it.
How about:
1) email Reece and voice your opinion
2) start a rival company, invent your own FAQ's and try to destroy Frontline Gaming
3) boycott them and their tournies
4) get over it and accept it.
I understand people's frustrations, but I feel like this is getting out of hand. People are treating these rulings as the end of the world.
Jancoran wrote: Its symptomatic. there should just BE a process and they should just never be ruling like this. Ever. if they really want the process to be trusted...make it an actual process and stick to it. Insteadof this free wheeling knee jerk reaction stuff.
How many times have we been on a forum and people are saying "End of the world is here. Faction X got Ability Z and now the entire universe of 40K is done for".
and then someone pokes his hand into the air and says "well... all you have to do is hit it with concussion and charge it with something REAL nasty and it goes away".
and then everyone relaxes and says "okay, adding Concussion to my Marines and Taking some Black Knights"
Codex's have also been sort of catching up to handle such things. the StormSurge, while a little on the frail side as such units go, answered the question every Tau was asking: what the heck do i do about THAT thing.
People got SO mad sooooooo mad about the Storm of Chaos. I mean it was a HUGE deal back in the day, remember that? And after some games people realized that hey, it CAN be bad...as CAN a hundred other things but it's not the game breaking thing people hated so much.
And here we are again. No evidence whatsoever that it's even an issue and we're nerfing things. Sorry. "Clarifying" things. by completely changing the rules.
The 40K community is so large (and I'm glad) compared to other games and a lot more passionate than any that I know of. I love that about it. It's why I can stomach some of these discussions and keep coming back for more. But that passion needs to be carefully managed when you are attemption to bean INAT or attempting to be an ITC etc... You're NOT just representing your little corner of the world any longer. there's responsibility that comes with that standing. Abuse it and people will just simply walk off and find tournaments and events they'd rather be at. The more you force a TO NOT to use your rules in their entirety, the more often they start questioning the need to use it at all.
And they should question it.
How about:
1) email Reece and voice your opinion
2) start a rival company, invent your own FAQ's and try to destroy Frontline Gaming
3) boycott them and their tournies
4) get over it and accept it.
I understand people's frustrations, but I feel like this is getting out of hand. People are treating these rulings as the end of the world.
I have voiced my opinion. They know this discussion is happening. Believe it. I'm not INTERESTED iun destroying anyone. I like Frontline Gaming. Haven't I said that repeatedly? yes. I have. And boycotting their tournaments is absolutely legitimate, although not in the negative way YOU are saying to do it. It's simply a matter of not wanting to be annoyed by the rules the entire time you're there. Eight straight games of going Z"oh yeah, they changed that?" and crap like that. Sure, I could be a Basement apartment nerd who does nothing BUT this game or I can be a functional nerd who just wants to play his game.
"Getting over it" is how you cope? So basically anything they put put, you'll accept because...why? Why WOULD you? If you're a T.O, at multiple events and you haveto make these decisions, it isn't JUST about how i feel about it. It's about how my players feel when saddled with these rulings. It's bigger than one persons satisfaction so with all due respect, I'm not going to get over it. I'm GOING to try and BETTER the ITC by being critical.
It's only antagonism if you wish Frontline Gaming ill. I don't. getting up and speaking out is what makes things better. And we ALL benefit if the ITC is beyond reasonable reproach.
A Super majority and minimum vote count makes the most sense if they want that to happen.
Edited by RiTides - Rule #1 of Dakka is "Be Polite"
Jancoran wrote: Its symptomatic. there should just BE a process and they should just never be ruling like this. Ever. if they really want the process to be trusted...make it an actual process and stick to it. Insteadof this free wheeling knee jerk reaction stuff.
How many times have we been on a forum and people are saying "End of the world is here. Faction X got Ability Z and now the entire universe of 40K is done for".
and then someone pokes his hand into the air and says "well... all you have to do is hit it with concussion and charge it with something REAL nasty and it goes away".
and then everyone relaxes and says "okay, adding Concussion to my Marines and Taking some Black Knights"
Codex's have also been sort of catching up to handle such things. the StormSurge, while a little on the frail side as such units go, answered the question every Tau was asking: what the heck do i do about THAT thing.
People got SO mad sooooooo mad about the Storm of Chaos. I mean it was a HUGE deal back in the day, remember that? And after some games people realized that hey, it CAN be bad...as CAN a hundred other things but it's not the game breaking thing people hated so much.
And here we are again. No evidence whatsoever that it's even an issue and we're nerfing things. Sorry. "Clarifying" things. by completely changing the rules.
The 40K community is so large (and I'm glad) compared to other games and a lot more passionate than any that I know of. I love that about it. It's why I can stomach some of these discussions and keep coming back for more. But that passion needs to be carefully managed when you are attemption to bean INAT or attempting to be an ITC etc... You're NOT just representing your little corner of the world any longer. there's responsibility that comes with that standing. Abuse it and people will just simply walk off and find tournaments and events they'd rather be at. The more you force a TO NOT to use your rules in their entirety, the more often they start questioning the need to use it at all.
And they should question it.
How about:
1) email Reece and voice your opinion
2) start a rival company, invent your own FAQ's and try to destroy Frontline Gaming
3) boycott them and their tournies
4) get over it and accept it.
I understand people's frustrations, but I feel like this is getting out of hand. People are treating these rulings as the end of the world.
I have voiced my opinion. They know this discussion is happening. Believe it. I'm not INTERESTED iun destroying anyone. I like Frontline Gaming. Haven't I said that repeatedly? yes. I have. And boycotting their tournaments is absolutely legitimate, although not in the negative way YOU are saying to do it. It's simply a matter of not wanting to be annoyed by the rules the entire time you're there. Eight straight games of going Z"oh yeah, they changed that?" and crap like that. Sure, I could be a Basement apartment nerd who does nothing BUT this game or I can be a functional nerd who just wants to play his game.
So what can you do beyond voice your opinion? Either play or don't. Until a vote comes out, that's it. Also, how is boycotting something never not negative? The act by itself is negative, that's the point.
Also, there's a reason these FAQs are released before the tourney, so there's no confusion, people have time to read, accept the rules, and get on with the game.
"Getting over it" is how you cope? So basically anything they put put, you'll accept because...why? Why WOULD you? If you're a T.O, at multiple events and you haveto make these decisions, it isn't JUST about how i feel about it. It's about how my players feel when saddled with these rulings. It's bigger than one persons satisfaction so with all due respect, I'm not going to get over it. I'm GOING to try and BETTER the ITC by being critical.
With some things? Yes, especially when it's out of my control. I just listed it as an option, I never said you had to just sit down and accept it.
It's only antagonism if you wish Frontline Gaming ill. I don't. getting up and speaking out is what makes things better. And we ALL benefit if the ITC is beyond reasonable reproach.
A Super majority and minimum vote count makes the most sense if they want that to happen.
And you and a majority of this thread aren't antagonistic? 90% of what I've seen has been very harsh towards the ITC ruling. Also, they've said there was going to be a vote at a later time, I'm guessing they didn't want to wait/rush a vote before the LVO.
Also, sorry if I hit a nerve. Apparently, this one ruling is genuinely upsetting for you.
So what can you do beyond voice your opinion? Either play or don't. Until a vote comes out, that's it. Also, how is boycotting something never not negative? The act by itself is negative, that's the point.
And you and a majority of this thread aren't antagonistic? 90% of what I've seen has been very harsh towards the ITC ruling. Also, they've said there was going to be a vote at a later time, I'm guessing they didn't want to wait/rush a vote before the LVO.
Also, sorry if I hit a nerve. Apparently, this one ruling is genuinely upsetting for you.
I don't think it's negative. No. You're not doing ti to "hurt them". You're doing ti to spend your limited money on the things you enjoy more.
And you should make the distinction here. i am harsh towards the ITC FAQ. What they wanted to do is irrelevant. What they DID do is rule on it dead wrong.
The ruling is Wrong. T.O.'s should not follow suit. the Detachment limit question sucked and the answer therefore meaningless. Everyone knows that and they fixed it...eventually. In the meantime people had to live with it IF the T.O. wouldn't override it. Many overrode it. this is good. This is what they need to do about this one too.
If you dont think a super majority makes sense, tell me why. Why is ITC stepping in on things that dont have a REAL majority opinion? Many of these were super close votes, some not so close. And some were becaue the wording was bad and people don't read the entirety of the rule, they just read the question. I promoise you there is a huge chunk of players who dont know every codex. They vote with or without that knowledge. a 50% or 55% vote is questionable in its meaning. You need a true super majority to make it stand on its own and put it beyond reasonable reproach.
GW rules are so slack that someone needs to step up and take responsibility for fixing them.
This used to be INAT, who did a sterling job, but since they went into a hiatus, ITC have taken up the cudgels.
The things I would say about ITC compared to INAT are that INAT used to class each decision as a clarification, rules change or whatever, and given their reasoning. This gave a lot of transparency to the FAQ.
Secondly, I don't think it helps for ITC to make these decisions subject to a vote. This confers a sense of democratic authority and fairness to be stamped on to completely arbitrary decisions.
So what can you do beyond voice your opinion? Either play or don't. Until a vote comes out, that's it. Also, how is boycotting something never not negative? The act by itself is negative, that's the point.
And you and a majority of this thread aren't antagonistic? 90% of what I've seen has been very harsh towards the ITC ruling. Also, they've said there was going to be a vote at a later time, I'm guessing they didn't want to wait/rush a vote before the LVO.
Also, sorry if I hit a nerve. Apparently, this one ruling is genuinely upsetting for you.
I don't think it's negative. No. You're not doing ti to "hurt them". You're doing ti to spend your limited money on the things you enjoy more.
And you should make the distinction here. i am harsh towards the ITC FAQ. What they wanted to do is irrelevant. What they DID do is rule on it dead wrong.
The ruling is Wrong. T.O.'s should not follow suit. the Detachment limit question sucked and the answer therefore meaningless. Everyone knows that and they fixed it...eventually. In the meantime people had to live with it IF the T.O. wouldn't override it. Many overrode it. this is good. This is what they need to do about this one too.
So...continue doing what I already said, T.O.'s over riding and making their own judgements? That's the whole point. The ITC FAQs something, use it or don't.
Also, they don't need to over ride this one too. They should put it to a vote, not automatically override it.
If you dont think a super majority makes sense, tell me why. Why is ITC stepping in on things that dont have a REAL majority opinion? Many of these were super close votes, some not so close. And some were becaue the wording was bad and people don't read the entirety of the rule, they just read the question. I promoise you there is a huge chunk of players who dont know every codex. They vote with or without that knowledge. a 50% or 55% vote is questionable in its meaning. You need a true super majority to make it stand on its own and put it beyond reasonable reproach.
They FAQed it because either A) it was seen as super powerful and needed a nerf or B) they thought that it was unclear enough to warrant a ruling and not waste the T.O.'s time at the events.
At this point I don't think a vote will help, I'm starting to think ITC should just FAQ things with no voting allowed, if the people are so uninformed or heated as you claim.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: GW rules are so slack that someone needs to step up and take responsibility for fixing them.
This used to be INAT, who did a sterling job, but since they went into a hiatus, ITC have taken up the cudgels.
The things I would say about ITC compared to INAT are that INAT used to class each decision as a clarification, rules change or whatever, and given their reasoning. This gave a lot of transparency to the FAQ.
Secondly, I don't think it helps for ITC to make these decisions subject to a vote. This confers a sense of democratic authority and fairness to be stamped on to completely arbitrary decisions.
I'm starting to think ITC should just FAQ things with no voting allowed, if the people are so uninformed or heated as you claim.
I could actually agree with the ITC just making a FAQ without voting - but in that case I think a process more like the INAT (with explanations and classifying different rulings into different categories) would definitely be needed.
With the Ghostkeel ruling, for instance, it isn't clear if they were doing it as just a slight power level adjustment, or if they were actually just making a true FAQ clarification of the rule, but going with the minority opinion of how to read it.
If they were to make their own committee decisions, but classify each into FAQ or Errata, then people could more easily choose what to use for their events. That would be even better than the chance to vote on things as it is now, imo, since the vote is a bit of the "wild wild west", and sometimes a very close vote makes a big decision. Not unlike actual political voting but since they have the choice to make their own system here, going with a committee and clearer explanations and classifications of rulings would be just as (or even more) effective, imo!
The Ghostkeel just seems to be a small nerf, but it exemplifies what the ITC has been doing (adjusting power level of new release units preemptively) rather than what I think they should be focused on (providing needed FAQ clarifications, and only adjusting things when absolutely necessary). And just because there is still a good way to run Ghostkeels, doesn't mean making them less attractive as a unit in a normal CAD is a good thing - the result is a restricted way to run the army, which isn't good for variety (believe me - as a Tyranids player where Flyrant spam is the only real effective way to play, variety is needed!).
"Less attractive as a unit in a normal CAD" means nothing to Tau players. They're either using the Dawn Blade Contingent(Ghostkeel Wing) or the Hunter Cadre(Optimised Stealth Cadre and Heavy Retribution Cadre). Both of those have reaaaaaaaaaaally big benefits for Ghostkeels in their formations(Optimised Stealth Cadre grants Ignores Cover and autohits on rear armor to all units in the formation near the Ghostkeels from the formation, Heavy Retribution Cadre gets you re-roll failed To Hit rolls for shooting attacks made by Stormsurges in the formation if the target unit is within 12" of a Ghostkeel from the formation, and the Ghostkeel Wing in the DBC grants an additional +1 BS for Ghostkeels in the formation if they shoot at a unit already fired at by any other Ghostkeel from the formation).
Running a unit of Ghostkeels nets you a bigger unit footprint(which is good for the Ghostkeel Wing formation in DBC; they grant Stealth(or if the unit already has Stealth? Shrouded) to all units within 12" of 2 or more units from the Formation), more Stealth Drones adding redundancy to the Stealth Field for the unit(if the MV5 Stealth Drones are alive, the Ghostkeels receive Shrouded), and the Fireteam bonus(+1 BS for having 3 MCs in the unit).
But most of all, it's just unnecessary, and shouldn't be OK to do just because it's "new"!
Who says it's being done "just because it's new"?
We got the new Tau stuff around Thanksgiving or so. There's been a good chunk of time for people to play with them at this point, and HCMs are definitely a big sticking point for many people.
Tinkrr wrote: Again, you do know they went with conservative rulings for the provisional rulings that are in place for the ITC but will have a vote later, right?
I was really with you, until you brought up the Ghostkeel topic, as I do agree the ITC doesn't exactly review past topics as much as it should from what I've seen personally, though it does bring some up on occasion.
Yes definitely, I'm aware that they're just provisional rulings - just voicing support for adding them to the ballot so that these don't become permanent without being looked at again! As you say, the ITC doesn't really review past topics - but as long as this at least makes the next ballot, I'll be happy (and I'm not a Tau player)
To your other points and Kanluwen's, I don't really see shifting the benefit to taking single Ghostkeels to be a good thing - ITC already has a lot of rulings favoring MSU style armies, and this would be another one moving the meta in that direction. But most of all, I think that each model (up to 3) being able to use their ability once per game is supported by (most people's) reading of the RAW (which should be kept intact when possible, and only clarified rather than changed for "preemptive balancing" of new units, imo).
Here's the thing, I encourage people trying to make their voices heard and conveying their views of what they believe should happen. What I have an issue with is how a lot of people present it on here, because when this thread opens with a conspiracy of how the ITC is being corrupted from within, or whatever, it's hard to take it seriously. Here's the thing, this thread is now over ten pages long, and no reply from Reece, in fact when I did a search to see if he posted here, all I found was myself mentioning him, and people bashing him, why would he want to respond to this? I wouldn't be surprised if someone read this and got something out of this in the ITC, but I doubt they'd take it at face value with all the crazy things said here.
Now look at it this way, I made one post, about one rule I disagreed with, I was polite and stated my views as to why it shouldn't be the way it is, and I got a reply from Reece, here it is:
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.
So yea, if people want to voice their views, awesome, I'm all for it, but keep the conspiracy theories and slander out, all it does is hurt the cause, because one well thought out post that shows them respect for their hard work has gotten a lot more done than this hate fest as far as we can see.
Tinkrr wrote: Again, you do know they went with conservative rulings for the provisional rulings that are in place for the ITC but will have a vote later, right?
I was really with you, until you brought up the Ghostkeel topic, as I do agree the ITC doesn't exactly review past topics as much as it should from what I've seen personally, though it does bring some up on occasion.
Yes definitely, I'm aware that they're just provisional rulings - just voicing support for adding them to the ballot so that these don't become permanent without being looked at again! As you say, the ITC doesn't really review past topics - but as long as this at least makes the next ballot, I'll be happy (and I'm not a Tau player)
To your other points and Kanluwen's, I don't really see shifting the benefit to taking single Ghostkeels to be a good thing - ITC already has a lot of rulings favoring MSU style armies, and this would be another one moving the meta in that direction. But most of all, I think that each model (up to 3) being able to use their ability once per game is supported by (most people's) reading of the RAW (which should be kept intact when possible, and only clarified rather than changed for "preemptive balancing" of new units, imo).
Here's the thing, I encourage people trying to make their voices heard and conveying their views of what they believe should happen. What I have an issue with is how a lot of people present it on here, because when this thread opens with a conspiracy of how the ITC is being corrupted from within, or whatever, it's hard to take it seriously. Here's the thing, this thread is now over ten pages long, and no reply from Reece, in fact when I did a search to see if he posted here, all I found was myself mentioning him, and people bashing him, why would he want to respond to this? I wouldn't be surprised if someone read this and got something out of this in the ITC, but I doubt they'd take it at face value with all the crazy things said here.
Now look at it this way, I made one post, about one rule I disagreed with, I was polite and stated my views as to why it shouldn't be the way it is, and I got a reply from Reece, here it is:
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.
So yea, if people want to voice their views, awesome, I'm all for it, but keep the conspiracy theories and slander out, all it does is hurt the cause, because one well thought out post that shows them respect for their hard work has gotten a lot more done than this hate fest as far as we can see.
So yea, if people want to voice their views, awesome, I'm all for it, but keep the conspiracy theories and slander out, all it does is hurt the cause, because one well thought out post that shows them respect for their hard work has gotten a lot more done than this hate fest as far as we can see.
Tinkrr wrote: Again, you do know they went with conservative rulings for the provisional rulings that are in place for the ITC but will have a vote later, right?
I was really with you, until you brought up the Ghostkeel topic, as I do agree the ITC doesn't exactly review past topics as much as it should from what I've seen personally, though it does bring some up on occasion.
Yes definitely, I'm aware that they're just provisional rulings - just voicing support for adding them to the ballot so that these don't become permanent without being looked at again! As you say, the ITC doesn't really review past topics - but as long as this at least makes the next ballot, I'll be happy (and I'm not a Tau player)
To your other points and Kanluwen's, I don't really see shifting the benefit to taking single Ghostkeels to be a good thing - ITC already has a lot of rulings favoring MSU style armies, and this would be another one moving the meta in that direction. But most of all, I think that each model (up to 3) being able to use their ability once per game is supported by (most people's) reading of the RAW (which should be kept intact when possible, and only clarified rather than changed for "preemptive balancing" of new units, imo).
Here's the thing, I encourage people trying to make their voices heard and conveying their views of what they believe should happen. What I have an issue with is how a lot of people present it on here, because when this thread opens with a conspiracy of how the ITC is being corrupted from within, or whatever, it's hard to take it seriously. Here's the thing, this thread is now over ten pages long, and no reply from Reece, in fact when I did a search to see if he posted here, all I found was myself mentioning him, and people bashing him, why would he want to respond to this? I wouldn't be surprised if someone read this and got something out of this in the ITC, but I doubt they'd take it at face value with all the crazy things said here.
Now look at it this way, I made one post, about one rule I disagreed with, I was polite and stated my views as to why it shouldn't be the way it is, and I got a reply from Reece, here it is:
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.
So yea, if people want to voice their views, awesome, I'm all for it, but keep the conspiracy theories and slander out, all it does is hurt the cause, because one well thought out post that shows them respect for their hard work has gotten a lot more done than this hate fest as far as we can see.
Kanluwen, when it comes to it, if a formation makes a unit a problem, I'd much rather see that adjusted than the unit itself! Because then you're all the more likely to only see it in a powerful formation, further reducing variety. That said I'm not a Tau player so don't know their formations, just that the Ghostkeel rule seemed fine - certainly not something that needed adjusting via FAQ / Errata.
Regarding new things, it seems to be that recent releases are adjusted more frequently, whereas there are really powerful existing things that aren't... so, I was just mentioning it'd be nice to let it play out a bit unless it's extremely powerful (and maybe even then!).
Finally, that is a great post and I commented over there too Tinkrr, but of course I think Reecius or any Frontline guys are running their event and not worrying about this this week! I'm also not condoning the starting premise of this thread (especially the former title, which I edited out). I emailed them, and hopefully others will do the same if they want something addressed / voted on / etc
Tinkrr wrote: Again, you do know they went with conservative rulings for the provisional rulings that are in place for the ITC but will have a vote later, right?
I was really with you, until you brought up the Ghostkeel topic, as I do agree the ITC doesn't exactly review past topics as much as it should from what I've seen personally, though it does bring some up on occasion.
Yes definitely, I'm aware that they're just provisional rulings - just voicing support for adding them to the ballot so that these don't become permanent without being looked at again! As you say, the ITC doesn't really review past topics - but as long as this at least makes the next ballot, I'll be happy (and I'm not a Tau player)
To your other points and Kanluwen's, I don't really see shifting the benefit to taking single Ghostkeels to be a good thing - ITC already has a lot of rulings favoring MSU style armies, and this would be another one moving the meta in that direction. But most of all, I think that each model (up to 3) being able to use their ability once per game is supported by (most people's) reading of the RAW (which should be kept intact when possible, and only clarified rather than changed for "preemptive balancing" of new units, imo).
Here's the thing, I encourage people trying to make their voices heard and conveying their views of what they believe should happen. What I have an issue with is how a lot of people present it on here, because when this thread opens with a conspiracy of how the ITC is being corrupted from within, or whatever, it's hard to take it seriously. Here's the thing, this thread is now over ten pages long, and no reply from Reece, in fact when I did a search to see if he posted here, all I found was myself mentioning him, and people bashing him, why would he want to respond to this? I wouldn't be surprised if someone read this and got something out of this in the ITC, but I doubt they'd take it at face value with all the crazy things said here.
Now look at it this way, I made one post, about one rule I disagreed with, I was polite and stated my views as to why it shouldn't be the way it is, and I got a reply from Reece, here it is:
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.
So yea, if people want to voice their views, awesome, I'm all for it, but keep the conspiracy theories and slander out, all it does is hurt the cause, because one well thought out post that shows them respect for their hard work has gotten a lot more done than this hate fest as far as we can see.
I'm very unsure of how much the Ghostkeel change was good or bad, I actually saw it mentioned before and had a conversation about it in the Tau Tactic Thread. The thing about the stacking Holophoton is that it does actually scale per Ghostkeel in the unit, instead of being static, so two Ghostkeels in a unit versus two individual Ghostkeels are better when Holophotons stack. That being said, how often, or how much better it would be is hard to say without excessive testing. I think it was more that some people in the ITC wrote blogs that played it that way, and that carried over to the provisional rulings.
That would actually be a good thing to bring up to the ITC more often, a great focus on the rules as a whole, instead of just the newer rulings. Though it is harder to constantly review everything, and easier to focus on specific things. Generally things have been good enough to not warrant significant attention to past topics, though on occasion they do come up.
Maybe we just need special Tau Ambassadors for the Dakka Dakka forums, since so many people can't seem to control their emotions it wouldn't be the worst thing to have translators for them to communicate a more reasonable message to the ITC. You know, let the Fire Caste be Fire Caste, and employ the Water Caste to do the talking D:
Tinkrr wrote: You know, let the Fire Caste be Fire Caste, and employ the Water Caste to do the talking D:
It's not a bad idea
I think the ITC probably gets bombarded from all directions, especially when rulings like this drop, and that reasoned discourse does yield a much better result!
That said, part of the reason I haven't been posting in the LVO thread about this is:
1) This is their week to have an awesome event, and not to worry about this stuff, there's nothing to be done for the LVO now other than have a great time 2) In the past, it hasn't really been effective discussing things in the LVO / ITC / etc threads in the tournament section, as again, I'm sure any argument made the Frontline guys have heard from some sector or other. What they've said makes a difference is how many people request that a certain ruling be addressed or voted on, and the only way to do that is by emailing them here:
frankie AT frontlinegaming DOT org
I keep listing that with the "AT" and "DOT" so hopefully no spambot picks it up which would be a danger with how often I'm trying to post it! But I think the problem is, right now most gamers don't know that that is the avenue to bring up an issue for the ITC to consider for voting / consideration / etc, and so we have threads like this but the concerns might not be getting to the eyes they need to. I'm all for an open discussion, and I think sometimes it even helps to have it separate from the "first party" / official thread / etc... but in the end the only way to get something addressed by the ITC is to let them know you want it voted on, and that's by emailing the above!
Other than these specific concerns, there is the larger discussion of how they should be addressing rules (just the newest or a comprehensive review, adjusting everything for power level or doing the least interference possible, etc). I think that's a great thing to talk about, and although won't involve immediate action, might move the needle a bit over time if Frontline sees that folks want the rules to be left as intact / unchanged as possible... or the inverse, if people want them to do even more re-balancing. It's a great discussion and one I enjoy... although it might be easier since it's not actually my army hanging in the balance! But I'm thinking of it as if it is, because it's always easy to say "Yeah nerf the other guy!" until you Are the other guy
Tinkrr wrote: You know, let the Fire Caste be Fire Caste, and employ the Water Caste to do the talking D:
It's not a bad idea
I think the ITC probably gets bombarded from all directions, especially when rulings like this drop, and that reasoned discourse does yield a much better result!
That said, part of the reason I haven't been posting in the LVO thread about this is:
1) This is their week to have an awesome event, and not to worry about this stuff, there's nothing to be done for the LVO now other than have a great time 2) In the past, it hasn't really been effective discussing things in the LVO / ITC / etc threads in the tournament section, as again, I'm sure any argument made the Frontline guys have heard from some sector or other. What they've said makes a difference is how many people request that a certain ruling be addressed or voted on, and the only way to do that is by emailing them here:
frankie AT frontlinegaming DOT org
I keep listing that with the "AT" and "DOT" so hopefully no spambot picks it up which would be a danger with how often I'm trying to post it! But I think the problem is, right now most gamers don't know that that is the avenue to bring up an issue for the ITC to consider for voting / consideration / etc, and so we have threads like this but the concerns might not be getting to the eyes they need to. I'm all for an open discussion, and I think sometimes it even helps to have it separate from the "first party" / official thread / etc... but in the end the only way to get something addressed by the ITC is to let them know you want it voted on, and that's by emailing the above!
Other than these specific concerns, there is the larger discussion of how they should be addressing rules (just the newest or a comprehensive review, adjusting everything for power level or doing the least interference possible, etc). I think that's a great thing to talk about, and although won't involve immediate action, might move the needle a bit over time if Frontline sees that folks want the rules to be left as intact / unchanged as possible... or the inverse, if people want them to do even more re-balancing. It's a great discussion and one I enjoy... although it might be easier since it's not actually my army hanging in the balance! But I'm thinking of it as if it is, because it's always easy to say "Yeah nerf the other guy!" until you Are the other guy
That might be all the more reason to have army representatives from these forums to communicate with the ITC. Even if they get a lot of messages, there's only so much they can process at any given time, but if there's a direct line that takes some of that burden off of them, and compiles it into a compact form, they can quickly look it over and have a good idea of which issues are important or not. It would b a huge task for anyone doing the mediating, and it would involve a lot of power, so it would have to be someone not only consistent but able to step back from their own personal agendas or views, though if done right it would create a much more expedited system. Basically lobbying x_x
1.) + 2.) I don't wish to suggest people go there and spam them with their complaints. I don't know Reece or Frankie personally, but I've at least always gotten a reply from Reece when posting in regards to him because I've always tried my best to be constructive with my views, and I've always tried to make it clear that they were only my views and aren't necessarily correct. What I was trying to get across, was more that if people simply act reasonably, they could get a positive response for a better ITC format. As you said yourself, you edited the title to this thread but it still says "Avoid the ITC if you can", just imagine how that'd look to someone who is working on the LVO, while also doing everything else. They're incredibly busy people, but even so they take a lot of time to interact with the community.
That would actually be a really good discussion to have, though it would be one that couldn't be taken at full value, as often times what people truly want and what they say they want, are very different things. That's not to say they're malicious or lying, simply that many things seem good in concept but ultimately result poorly in practice, so the discussion would only be part of solution as a whole. Also, if it helps, I love the Tau, I want to only play Tau, like forever (though I'll probably have another army at some point) and oddly these changes don't bother me at all, in fact I would have voted against the stronger forms of CFP as I had stated it was too strong on these forums multiple times before that. Now again, you can clearly see I don't always agree with the rulings, but I am willing to accept playing by them until they are addressed later. To me the Tau just has enough variety, and there are enough goodies for me to try out or explore that I don't feel like these changes exactly hurt my play, more so the changes don't even make the specific units unplayable, they simply make them play differently. Though maybe I'm just weird, but hey I'll take the highs and the lows, as I ultimately believe the ITC is doing a lot more good than harm in the long run.
RiTides wrote: Kanluwen, when it comes to it, if a formation makes a unit a problem, I'd much rather see that adjusted than the unit itself! Because then you're all the more likely to only see it in a powerful formation, further reducing variety. That said I'm not a Tau player so don't know their formations, just that the Ghostkeel rule seemed fine - certainly not something that needed adjusting via FAQ / Errata.
You don't see how a unit of 3 MCs that have Stealth, Shrouded, and +2 to their Cover Save when over 12" from the unit firing at them being able to force Snap Shots on demand against units isn't a "problem"?
You really, really, really need to understand that the Ghostkeel as it stands? It's not going to be making an appearance in CADs to begin with. It's competing against Riptides--and nothing beats the Riptide. The formations that Ghostkeels are required for(Optimised Stealth Cadre, Heavy Retribution Cadre, and the Ghostkeel Wing) are just such autoinclude options that it's not going to be the case where you see Ghostkeels without them being present in those formations.
Regarding new things, it seems to be that recent releases are adjusted more frequently, whereas there are really powerful existing things that aren't... so, I was just mentioning it'd be nice to let it play out a bit unless it's extremely powerful (and maybe even then!).
Recent releases, if I had to guess, tend to get adjusted more frequently because people don't really have experience playing against them even in their unadjusted forms.
Kanluwen wrote: You don't see how a unit of 3 MCs that have Stealth, Shrouded, and +2 to their Cover Save when over 12" from the unit firing at them being able to force Snap Shots on demand against units isn't a "problem"?
Let's see, nope! There's enough "ignore cover" in this game to mitigate the 2+ cover, and it's not impossible to get within 12" of a unit that has a 24" range on its weapons OR kill the drones in the unit. As for the forced snap shots, that ceases to be a problem when they're in assault.
Kanluwen wrote: You don't see how a unit of 3 MCs that have Stealth, Shrouded, and +2 to their Cover Save when over 12" from the unit firing at them being able to force Snap Shots on demand against units isn't a "problem"?
Let's see, nope! There's enough "ignore cover" in this game to mitigate the 2+ cover, and it's not impossible to get within 12" of a unit that has a 24" range on its weapons OR kill the drones in the unit. As for the forced snap shots, that ceases to be a problem when they're in assault.
Kanluwen wrote: You don't see how a unit of 3 MCs that have Stealth, Shrouded, and +2 to their Cover Save when over 12" from the unit firing at them being able to force Snap Shots on demand against units isn't a "problem"?
Let's see, nope! There's enough "ignore cover" in this game to mitigate the 2+ cover, and it's not impossible to get within 12" of a unit that has a 24" range on its weapons OR kill the drones in the unit. As for the forced snap shots, that ceases to be a problem when they're in assault.
How much ignore cover also is good against T6 3+?
A lot? Land Raider Redeemer flamers (and thus the Baal turret flamer), other Tau shenanigans, anything good you use "Fire on my Target" on, and anything good that you cast Perfect Timing on. There are plenty of other examples that I'm forgetting too I'm sure.
Kanluwen wrote: You don't see how a unit of 3 MCs that have Stealth, Shrouded, and +2 to their Cover Save when over 12" from the unit firing at them being able to force Snap Shots on demand against units isn't a "problem"?
Let's see, nope! There's enough "ignore cover" in this game to mitigate the 2+ cover, and it's not impossible to get within 12" of a unit that has a 24" range on its weapons OR kill the drones in the unit. As for the forced snap shots, that ceases to be a problem when they're in assault.
How much ignore cover also is good against T6 3+?
A lot? Land Raider Redeemer flamers (and thus the Baal turret flamer), other Tau shenanigans, anything good you use "Fire on my Target" on, and anything good that you cast Perfect Timing on. There are plenty of other examples that I'm forgetting too I'm sure.
So two terrible units, a guard infantry unit (which is at most 3-5 ap2 shots at BS3) and a randomly generated psychic power which can only be cast on the psyker and the unit he's joined to.. Other then tau marker lights you aren't actually providing any good ap3 ignore cover.
The Ghostkeel Wing change really isn't that big of a deal, it's a durable unit against shooting even without Holophoton Countermeasures and does quite a bit for it's cost. The point of the nerf is the fact the Ghostkeels can choose which shooting attacks to turn into Snap Shots, so they are able to trust their cover and armour against light attacks, and if something threatening comes up they can opt to effectively shut it down.
To do this 3 times would be ridiculous in a game that is usually a done deal by turn 5 and where melee is vastly underpowered compared to shooting. An opponent would have to shoot at them 3 times with attacks that are powerful enough to make the Tau player use Holophotons, only to BEGIN shooting at them normally. To that you need to add the lighter attacks the Tau player decides aren't threatening enough and sucks up with his 2+ Cover, T5 and 3+ Armour. And that's all against this one mobile unit in an army that shoots back better and more accurately when used correctly.
Stop overreacting and making a fuss about something this meaningless, especially when it's a sensible change. Next to that, as mentioned before, everyone who is in there for a win will be using the Riptidewing.
im upset about the ghostkeel changes but ITC is still better then running straight BRB events. more clarity and less time spent arguing over rules interpretations.
Runic wrote: Stop overreacting and making a fuss about something this meaningless, especially when it's a sensible change. Next to that, as mentioned before, everyone who is in there for a win will be using the Riptidewing.
So it's simultaneously a sensible change to a unit that was too powerful to remain as-printed, and a nerf to a weaker option that few competitive players were going to use in the first place. Makes sense to me...
And good to see we've abandoned any defense of the nerf as a "clarification" and admitted the obvious, that the entire reasoning behind the change is "it's too powerful".
I was not aware that the holophoton bonus is stacking. It would strongly support the view that the RAW follows the RAI and that ITC is wrong on this particular point.
Kilkrazy wrote: I was not aware that the holophoton bonus is stacking. It would strongly support the view that the RAW follows the RAI and that ITC is wrong on this particular point.
I don't think the RAW is clear one way or the other
RAW is extremely clear in the ghostkeel case, and also for the rest of the nerfs, firestream, coordinated firepower etc. Saying stuff like "but but you have other formations which are still really good so dont feel bad bla bla" is just plain condescending. All of the prime strenghts of these units/rules have been gutted, be it shooting or any form of wargear.
X078 wrote: RAW is extremely clear in the ghostkeel case, and also for the rest of the nerfs, firestream, coordinated firepower etc. Saying stuff like "but but you have other formations which are still really good so dont feel bad bla bla" is just plain condescending. All of the prime strenghts of these units/rules have been gutted, be it shooting or any form of wargear.
My best guess is they thought thought that Holophoton Countermeasures effectively gave Invisibility to the unit for a turn, which would be fairly powerful, instead of actually causing a single enemy unit to only fire Snap Shots per use. With the actual reading, you can only cause Snap Shots per unit per activation, which would be three units in one turn, or one unit over three turns, and all the variants in between.
Now if they did say that it did cause all enemy units to only fire snap shots at them for one turn at the cost of all Holophoton Countermeasures, I would say that is a net buff, but completely missed the original point of the rule.
Kilkrazy wrote: I was not aware that the holophoton bonus is stacking. It would strongly support the view that the RAW follows the RAI and that ITC is wrong on this particular point.
I don't think the RAW is clear one way or the other
Mojo1jojo wrote: Maybe they should just remove all Tau from ITC games then we don't have to hear more whinning
I fail to see how this is helping in the current discussion? From what I can see RAW the Ghostkeel reads just fine and that this was a rushed knee jerk reaction by ITC to get this rule out before the LVO so they could have a rule in place while the tournament is run. I honestly would like to see better advertising of when a vote is occuring, as several people have already pointed out many didnt even know that a vote had occured.
Since I don't play Tau ATM, I have no interest in whether Tau get nerfed or not by a ruling. However I think it is very important that with all the terrible bad writing in GW rules, if they actually do write a clear rule, it should be upheld rather than overturned.
The Holophoton rule seems perfectly clear, and is supported by the other rule that Holophotons stack. (If I have understood that correctly.)
I accept that people may find it unclear.
It would be very useful if they would explain their reasons, as this would be helpful to everyone including ITC in improving the way they write rules, errata and FAQs.
AlexRae wrote: There's plenty of other formations. But when people just default to Riptide Wing it says a lot.
This is what I don't understand... as I've been trying to express, nerfing the Ghostkeel results in even less variety (more Riptides) which is bad for the game / meta as a whole. Why in the world does it make sense to nerf a unit just because an army has another good unit in the same slot?
Again, it's just completely unnecessary, and the ITC should go with a policy of having the least interference possible, imo. Otherwise they're basically picking winners and losers for unit types, and remarkably seem to ignore the most powerful units when doing so! I am really against this and cannot believe the Riptide being awesome is somehow logic for nerfing the Ghostkeel.
There is a quarterly vote after the lvo. Stop overreacting these changes were specifically to answer questions for judges so they can uniformly play the same rules.
If you have an issue then submit the question to the ITC rules committee. Reece already said there are a bunch of questions being placed on this next quarterly update.
I fully expect the ghostkeel question to be answered and reversed, I expect the Stormsurge to stay, coordinated firepower might be reversed just like time original str d rule was and I expect the toe in cover gmc rule to be brought up this time however no clue how it will go.
AlexRae wrote: There's plenty of other formations. But when people just default to Riptide Wing it says a lot.
This is what I don't understand... as I've been trying to express, nerfing the Ghostkeel results in even less variety (more Riptides) which is bad for the game / meta as a whole. Why in the world does it make sense to nerf a unit just because an army has another good unit in the same slot?
Again, it's just completely unnecessary, and the ITC should go with a policy of having the least interference possible, imo. Otherwise they're basically picking winners and losers for unit types, and remarkably seem to ignore the most powerful units when doing so! I am really against this and cannot believe the Riptide being awesome is somehow logic for nerfing the Ghostkeel.
Have even more exalt! (At this point I think I've exalted all your posts over the last like seven pages haha).
Despite how clearly and concisely you've made your points, over and over and over again, people STILL don't seem to get it. The opposing comments coming in now however are more instigative than helpful and really don't add much to the conversation except attempts to troll because you, Kilkrazy, and Jancoran have pointed out the obvious so many times. I'm not sure where this thread has left to go honestly. You're making all the right points and doing so in a very professional way, and the argument against what you're saying is basically boiling down to "nu-uh!"s and "if you're so smart then go make your own ITC".
AlexRae wrote: There's plenty of other formations. But when people just default to Riptide Wing it says a lot.
This is what I don't understand... as I've been trying to express, nerfing the Ghostkeel results in even less variety (more Riptides) which is bad for the game / meta as a whole. Why in the world does it make sense to nerf a unit just because an army has another good unit in the same slot?
Why do you continually keep referring to it as "nerf a unit just because an army has another good unit in the same slot"?
Nobody plays Tau as a standard CAD now. They really don't. They run the unique detachments, and the standard CAD is ignored--or they just run multiples of the individual formations. The existence of the Riptide meant that nothing else really got picked for the Elite slot even before the Ghostkeel. The Ghostkeel was something, prior to the reveal of the formations and the change to Riptides(minimal but for the ability to be taken in trios for a single slot and the +1 BS for having 3 in a unit), that was considered to be competitive with the Riptide.
As soon as we saw the Detachments and the Formations that make them up? It was over. Ghostkeels can be taken without needing to compete with Riptides. The only place where they actually are competing is in the "Hunter Cadre" Core choice--which is you choosing between Riptide, Ghostkeel, Stealth Suits, or Crisis Suits.
Again, it's just completely unnecessary, and the ITC should go with a policy of having the least interference possible, imo. Otherwise they're basically picking winners and losers for unit types, and remarkably seem to ignore the most powerful units when doing so! I am really against this and cannot believe the Riptide being awesome is somehow logic for nerfing the Ghostkeel.
Again:
Even IF this change were significant enough to make people stay away from Ghostkeels(it's not), if they were to make decisions based solely upon the CAD method? Ghostkeels almost certainly wouldn't be showing up in the first place when Riptides are in the running with the buffs that Tau MCs and vehicles have seen.
Kanluwen, I think you might be missing my point a bit - it shouldn't matter if there's a good formation for a unit, or that the army has another good unit and "it wouldn't be taken anyway" in a CAD, when deciding whether or not to nerf it. I only compared it to a Riptide because you did so in mentioning that it would never be taken in a CAD (even though that's how I wanted to take it if I ever play Tau ). For one, that would mean there's even less reason to nerf it, and secondly if the formation is the problem, nerf the formation, not the unit!
In other words, no matter how you look at it (whether it's too powerful in a formation, or not powerful enough in a CAD) to me the solution should never be to nerf the unit... and that's why I wanted to make a point of this, in relation to the ITC's approach more generally. My hope is they will be less active in these kinds of unnecessary "preemptive power level adjustments" for any army or unit, not just specifically Tau.
I hope that's clear, maybe we can take it to PM otherwise as I don't actually disagree with what you're saying about the Riptide / formation / etc - I'm just saying it shouldn't result in the Ghostkeel (or any unit) getting nerfed!
Nobody plays Tau as a standard CAD now. They really don't. They run the unique detachments, and the standard CAD is ignored--
Well that's definitely not the case. I know someone whose taking two Riptide Wings and a Piranha formation as his entire army. There are others doing a similar thing. But there's plenty of people who get the value of the Obsec. Plenty.
Nobody plays Tau as a standard CAD now. They really don't. They run the unique detachments, and the standard CAD is ignored--
Well that's definitely not the case. I know someone whose taking two Riptide Wings and a Piranha formation as his entire army. There are others doing a similar thing. But there's plenty of people who get the value of the Obsec. Plenty.
Not really the point here but since it came up.
Really? You edit out the part where I specifically said:
or they just run multiples of the individual formations.
Way to make my point though buddy. And ObSec isn't really something that can be considered competitive at this juncture for Tau when they can just y'know...shoot you off the objective.
Kanluwen wrote: And ObSec isn't really something that can be considered competitive at this juncture for Tau when they can just y'know...shoot you off the objective.
Doesn't that remain to be seen, though? I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm just saying, this is a release from less than 4 months ago or the like... I really don't think we should head down a path of nerfing units that are not even the most powerful in their own book that early after release!
For those saying only the Riptide Wing is playable, and it will always be taken by default because it's a no brainer, the Tau list we saw win round two of the LVO (yes, the game itself was kind of whatever but the list won round one too it means, so it's doing at least something right) is as follows:
Spoiler:
Israel Sanchez’s List
Tau Formation-Based Detachment (Farsight Enclaves)
The list has no Riptide Wing, but does run an allied CAD and the Piranha Wing. So contrary to popular belief around here, these other formations can still compete with the Riptide Wing for list allocation.
Did you really just use a list of Dawn Blade Contingent with an Allied CAD that is clearly Farsight and only used as such to shove in a Y'vara Battlesuit and a Tetra Scout Speeder Team to show how things can compete with a Riptide Wing?
Or you know, you can look at what you'd normally consider the weakest aspects of the list, instead of the Y'vara or Tetras which you consider stronger, since you know you'd usually start by cutting the former and not the latter when making changes.
That being said, in this case it's the Wall of the Martyrs (with comm relay) and Piranha Firestream Wing with a total of seven Piranha that competes with the Riptide Wing. More so, he's running two Mark'Os, a Drone Net, and Tetras, so it's not like he doesn't have wiggle room with the Tetras.
Even more so, who cares if it's just the Tetras and Y'vara that compete with the Riptide Wing, it's still yet another option people can take that shows the Riptide Wing is being way over blown in this thread as a whole.
So please, take a little time and let the shock and outrage pass, and allow yourself to better analyse the situation before making a post that probably isn't very constructive.
Nobody plays Tau as a standard CAD now. They really don't. They run the unique detachments, and the standard CAD is ignored--
Well that's definitely not the case. I know someone whose taking two Riptide Wings and a Piranha formation as his entire army. There are others doing a similar thing. But there's plenty of people who get the value of the Obsec. Plenty.
Not really the point here but since it came up.
Really? You edit out the part where I specifically said:
or they just run multiples of the individual formations.
Way to make my point though buddy. And ObSec isn't really something that can be considered competitive at this juncture for Tau when they can just y'know...shoot you off the objective.
Stating they dont play with CAD's was the only part I was interested in responding to.
Tinkrr wrote: Or you know, you can look at what you'd normally consider the weakest aspects of the list, instead of the Y'vara or Tetras which you consider stronger, since you know you'd usually start by cutting the former and not the latter when making changes.
That being said, in this case it's the Wall of the Martyrs (with comm relay) and Piranha Firestream Wing with a total of seven Piranha that competes with the Riptide Wing. More so, he's running two Mark'Os, a Drone Net, and Tetras, so it's not like he doesn't have wiggle room with the Tetras.
The downside of the DBC is that it does not have the bonus BS for combining fire.
This list fixes that.
Even more so, who cares if it's just the Tetras and Y'vara that compete with the Riptide Wing, it's still yet another option people can take that shows the Riptide Wing is being way over blown in this thread as a whole.
Yeaahh...not many people were actually discussing the Riptide Wing.
Riptides by themselves are powerful enough, and it's not like the Riptide Wing is competing for the same slot as the Ghostkeel Wing. Neither of those Formations are in the DBC or the HC Detachments. They're literally meant to be standalone formations that get no benefits from their respective detachments.
So please, take a little time and let the shock and outrage pass, and allow yourself to better analyse the situation before making a post that probably isn't very constructive.
I'm not the one who posted up an "example of a CAD" to show how people are avoiding Riptide Wings; when the CAD in question is basically nonexistent(2 Crisis Suits, a Crisis Commander--it's literally the bare minimum you can get away with to bring in Tetras, a Y'Vara and a Wall of Martyrs).
Nobody plays Tau as a standard CAD now. They really don't. They run the unique detachments, and the standard CAD is ignored--
Well that's definitely not the case. I know someone whose taking two Riptide Wings and a Piranha formation as his entire army. There are others doing a similar thing. But there's plenty of people who get the value of the Obsec. Plenty.
Not really the point here but since it came up.
Really? You edit out the part where I specifically said:
or they just run multiples of the individual formations.
Way to make my point though buddy. And ObSec isn't really something that can be considered competitive at this juncture for Tau when they can just y'know...shoot you off the objective.
Stating they dont play with CAD's was the only part I was interested in responding to.
Selective editing is frowned upon--especially when you're engaged in a debate.
The downside of the DBC is that it does not have the bonus BS for combining fire.
Neither does a normal CAD, such as the one Frankie ran, that also needed Markers for the D-Missiles, and he only needed a Drone Squads and a Mark'O to get by for the most part. This player has two Mark'Os and a Drone Net, the Tetras can still have functionality but I wouldn't be surprised if they could be cut completely or even replaced by a Skyray with some consideration. More so, the Riptide Wing does buff its own BS.
Yeaahh...not many people were actually discussing the Riptide Wing.
Riptides by themselves are powerful enough, and it's not like the Riptide Wing is competing for the same slot as the Ghostkeel Wing. Neither of those Formations are in the DBC or the HC Detachments. They're literally meant to be standalone formations that get no benefits from their respective detachments.
Multiple people brought up the Riptide Wing in the last couple of pages and how it was the default, and there was even more discussion about Riptides being too good and as a result stamping out variety.
I'm not the one who posted up an "example of a CAD" to show how people are avoiding Riptide Wings; when the CAD in question is basically nonexistent(2 Crisis Suits, a Crisis Commander--it's literally the bare minimum you can get away with to bring in Tetras, a Y'Vara and a Wall of Martyrs).
Actually it was to show that people will take the Piranha formation regardless of the changes, and there are other options to the Riptide Wing as a whole, whether it's a CAD or not is not actually important. In other words, ignore that it's a CAD being allied (call it the Y'vara Ret formation if you really want,) and more that it's a wide variety of units and formations that a lot of people have discounted being played in this list.
I took issue with the Tyranid Tyrannocyte weapon firing arc ruling completely ignoring the MC firing rules for line of sight/firing arcs, where it instead made them have individual firing arcs per weapon, like vehicles. I asked about the ruling repeatedly here and in comments on FLG, and talked to the nid players on other boards. It took a few months, but the issue was eventually put to a vote and was reversed.
I don't always agree with the ITC, but it sure beats 1000 different regional FAQs. There is a process for feedback (which, honestly, I do sometimes feel is part of the problem but it is what it is), use it.
Do the same, they've already said the ghostkeel decision was short term and will be voted on after LVO.
gigasnail wrote: I took issue with the Tyranid Tyrannocyte weapon firing arc ruling completely ignoring the MC firing rules for line of sight/firing arcs, where it instead made them have individual firing arcs per weapon, like vehicles. I asked about the ruling repeatedly here and in comments on FLG, and talked to the nid players on other boards. It took a few months, but the issue was eventually put to a vote and was reversed.
I don't always agree with the ITC, but it sure beats 1000 different regional FAQs. There is a process for feedback (which, honestly, I do sometimes feel is part of the problem but it is what it is), use it.
Do the same, they've already said the ghostkeel decision was short term and will be voted on after LVO.
That's awesome, gigasnail! And wow, really glad they reversed that Tyrranocyte ruling, that would have been rough otherwise (I've got some conversions I'm working on for mine, but didn't even know about that!). Hopefully the same can happen for the Ghostkeel
When you say you posted comments on FLG, where did you do this - in the comment section of articles? Did you also email them? Making that suggestion process a bit clearer would really help things too, I think.
I started with comments to Reece here on dakka (I don't post a lot so I can track down links if you want, won't be too difficult), and then on comments on FLG articles. I didn't see an issue that needed correcting, as the unit is overcosted and not anything close to OP, and there being no rules issue/ambiguity (there was confusion when the rules popped in WD, because there is some really dumb flavor text in the margins of the article, but nothing even hinting using vehicle rules for firing arcs in the actual rules). The ruling made an already iffy unit marginal at best for competition.
Reece's responses seemed kind of blase, and I know he has larger issues to manage than one players gripes, but as others have pointed out the ITC shapes local rules and tournaments and I had been pushing the guys I play with towards the ITC FAQ just to have a consistent framework.
So I went to the http://thetyranidhive.proboards.com/ and we had a lot of discussion (some of it quite heated, as folks have noted just because something is clear to you, doesn't mean it's undisputed) about the pods and the ITC in general. I encouraged everyone to get over to FLG and make thier voices (politely!) heard, or the issue wasn't going to get addressed.
It took a few months but we kept piping in whenever the issue was mentioned, and eventually we had enough people asking about it where they put it to a vote. I have no idea how many of our guys at TTH actually put in votes, but I like to think we made a difference. The vote was pretty close.
There were a number of people involved in this (westrider and kwood to name the first two that come to mind); I do not want to imply this was a solo effort.
For what its worth, Reece has since said the initial decision on the pods was back when they were on the...eh, name escapes me I think he called it the FAQ council, it was the body that brain storms up the issues for several of the big national tournaments (I dunno I have the name of that right, I'm sure someone will correct me) and it was leftover from before they really started putting out thier own FAQ for the ITC.
tl;dr: I disagreed, and talked to everyone I knew with an interest in nids to get the issue out there, and we voted when the chance came up. ITC effects a lot of people even the guys like me that only play locally.
Edit: I didn't say above specifically, but yeah I emailed several times over the time period to their feedback/questions address. They're pretty good about getting back with you.
Kilkrazy wrote: Reading these last few posts makes me think that 40K is a lost cause.
The only way forwards is to burn it all and start again.
The problem is the company that makes it doesn't care about the game, so all the rot starts at the head and everyone else is just putting bandages on it in hopes of making it functional enough to actually play.
ERJAK wrote: Play Sisters of Battle from now on. I GUARANTEE that no ruling by ITC or ANYONE ELSE will EVER impact your army in any way. Impossible to get nerfed if no one remembers you exist.
LOL, I was wondering how long it would take for the "at least you don't play SISTERS!" whingers to come out of the woodwork. First page, I'm impressed! I didn't think any of you lot paid much attention anymore, what with your army barely even being a part of 40K
ERJAK wrote: Play Sisters of Battle from now on. I GUARANTEE that no ruling by ITC or ANYONE ELSE will EVER impact your army in any way. Impossible to get nerfed if no one remembers you exist.
LOL, I was wondering how long it would take for the "at least you don't play SISTERS!" whingers to come out of the woodwork. First page, I'm impressed! I didn't think any of you lot paid much attention anymore, what with your army barely even being a part of 40K
Regarding the Tyrranocyte ruling, and eventual vote leading to a reversal:
gigasnail wrote: I started with comments to Reece here on dakka (I don't post a lot so I can track down links if you want, won't be too difficult), and then on comments on FLG articles. I didn't see an issue that needed correcting, as the unit is overcosted and not anything close to OP, and there being no rules issue/ambiguity (there was confusion when the rules popped in WD, because there is some really dumb flavor text in the margins of the article, but nothing even hinting using vehicle rules for firing arcs in the actual rules). The ruling made an already iffy unit marginal at best for competition.
Reece's responses seemed kind of blase, and I know he has larger issues to manage than one players gripes, but as others have pointed out the ITC shapes local rules and tournaments and I had been pushing the guys I play with towards the ITC FAQ just to have a consistent framework.
So I went to the http://thetyranidhive.proboards.com/ and we had a lot of discussion (some of it quite heated, as folks have noted just because something is clear to you, doesn't mean it's undisputed) about the pods and the ITC in general. I encouraged everyone to get over to FLG and make thier voices (politely!) heard, or the issue wasn't going to get addressed.
It took a few months but we kept piping in whenever the issue was mentioned, and eventually we had enough people asking about it where they put it to a vote. I have no idea how many of our guys at TTH actually put in votes, but I like to think we made a difference. The vote was pretty close.
There were a number of people involved in this (westrider and kwood to name the first two that come to mind); I do not want to imply this was a solo effort.
For what its worth, Reece has since said the initial decision on the pods was back when they were on the...eh, name escapes me I think he called it the FAQ council, it was the body that brain storms up the issues for several of the big national tournaments (I dunno I have the name of that right, I'm sure someone will correct me) and it was leftover from before they really started putting out thier own FAQ for the ITC.
tl;dr: I disagreed, and talked to everyone I knew with an interest in nids to get the issue out there, and we voted when the chance came up. ITC effects a lot of people even the guys like me that only play locally.
Edit: I didn't say above specifically, but yeah I emailed several times over the time period to their feedback/questions address. They're pretty good about getting back with you.
That is an extremely helpful writeup of the process you went through, gigasnail! I really appreciate you taking the time to share that
Luckily it sounds like the Ghostkeel should be on the next ballot and so all that might not be needed. Wouldn't hurt to email Frontline if anyone wants to make sure, though!
Stop, just stop. There were two Tau players competing for top 8 in the last round, they were tables 3 and 4, they lost to Demons and Necrons. Tau had all the capability of making top 8, they just missed out in the last bit. Both Tau lists were completely different too, one was FSE with Ghostkeel and stuff, while the other was a basic CAD with double Stormsurges and a Riptide Wing.
You know who wasn't in the top 8 competition? War Convocation, no War Convocation list was able to make top 8 in the last round, as none were in the top 16 going into that round. More so the finals were Eldar vs. Eldar, so clearly the ITC has the massive Imperium bias I keep hearing about, right :/.
Tinkrr wrote: Stop, just stop. There were two Tau players competing for top 8 in the last round, they were tables 3 and 4, they lost to Demons and Necrons. Tau had all the capability of making top 8, they just missed out in the last bit. Both Tau lists were completely different too, one was FSE with Ghostkeel and stuff, while the other was a basic CAD with double Stormsurges and a Riptide Wing.
You know who wasn't in the top 8 competition? War Convocation, no War Convocation list was able to make top 8 in the last round, as none were in the top 16 going into that round. More so the finals were Eldar vs. Eldar, so clearly the ITC has the massive Imperium bias I keep hearing about, right :/.
Yeah, and only one SM battle company too? They just didn't nerf xenos hard enough. I can see Reece and Frankie fuming at the front table now that their chosen people didn't win out /sarcasm/.
Tinkrr wrote: Stop, just stop. There were two Tau players competing for top 8 in the last round, they were tables 3 and 4, they lost to Demons and Necrons. Tau had all the capability of making top 8, they just missed out in the last bit. Both Tau lists were completely different too, one was FSE with Ghostkeel and stuff, while the other was a basic CAD with double Stormsurges and a Riptide Wing.
You know who wasn't in the top 8 competition? War Convocation, no War Convocation list was able to make top 8 in the last round, as none were in the top 16 going into that round. More so the finals were Eldar vs. Eldar, so clearly the ITC has the massive Imperium bias I keep hearing about, right :/.
Yeah, and only one SM battle company too? They just didn't nerf xenos hard enough. I can see Reece and Frankie fuming at the front table now that their chosen people didn't win out /sarcasm/.
Come tomorrow he's going to launch a full out WAAAAGH! on the xenos!
That being said, one thing that really surprised me, outside of War Convocation not having a chance of top 8 at all, is that no Orks lists were there either. I figured with the super cheap Stompa at least one would sneak in, but I guess not enough people were running it to get there?
One thing that would be cool to see is how many people played a given army, if they had a lot of Tau and only made it that far, maybe it's something, but I'm guessing there was a lot more BC than Tau out there, and only one made it to the end.
X078 wrote: Wait what so now that the (many many) nerfed Tau armies playing did not make it to the top 8 the reason is that they were...
... drumroll...
unlucky?
And WarCon being superstrong not making it says what?
You do understand the difference was that Tau had two potential players making it into the top 8 in the last round, and both lost that last round, that's bad luck. War Convocation had zero people competing for top 8 in the last round, which can still be chalked up to luck to an extent, but it's significantly worse than the Tau.
Again, I'll repeat, there was a Tau player on table 3 and 4 in the last round before the top 8, there was no War Convocation player in the top 8 table (top 16 players) in the last round before top 8. There was easily a chance of up to Tau players in the top 8, there was zero chance of War Convocation.
Izzy's tau actually went undefeated. Unfortunately it was 4w2d0L which made him unable to hit top 8. Either one of those draws being a win and he would've been in, knocking out Aleong's wolfravenstar.
Of course, this being the Internet, the goalposts would move anyway. If one made top 8, someone would be like "y you no make top 7!?" anyway.
X078 wrote: Wait what so now that the (many many) nerfed Tau armies playing did not make it to the top 8 the reason is that they were...
... drumroll...
unlucky?
And WarCon being superstrong not making it says what?
You do understand the difference was that Tau had two potential players making it into the top 8 in the last round, and both lost that last round, that's bad luck. War Convocation had zero people competing for top 8 in the last round, which can still be chalked up to luck to an extent, but it's significantly worse than the Tau.
Again, I'll repeat, there was a Tau player on table 3 and 4 in the last round before the top 8, there was no War Convocation player in the top 8 table (top 16 players) in the last round before top 8. There was easily a chance of up to Tau players in the top 8, there was zero chance of War Convocation.
To look at this from a theoretical viewpoint is that an argument for doing minor nerfs to Tau (the Ghost Keel Holophotons) or an argument for giving War Convocation a boost?
Is it actually the role of ITC to boost factions that GW have left badly sub-par? I don't think ITC would want to go down that road.
As I understand it, the AdMech isn't really a complete codex, though offering more choices than Knights. Should players realistically expect to be competitive when really their codex is actually actually to sell some cool kits for use as allies in IG or SM armies?
Swampmist - They were near the top in an earlier round (6 I believe?) but lost before the top 8 were finalized.
It was really cool watching the live stream although I do think some of the rulings that had to be made really quickly for the event will be put up for vote... maybe in the future Tau can put Eldar in in check a bit?
Anything is better than just one army dominating, imo! Awesome to see Sean Nayden running 5 Talos in his army at the top table in the finals, though, he always seems to come up with something unique (I know it was the formation special rules he was really after, but still!)
Only 2 Tau in top 16, both with different lists. Literally unplayable race, ITC has broken the game.
Disclaimer: This is obvious sarcasm.
Much better result than I had expected! With that said, looking forward to the next poll as I know some of the FAQ updates were there specifically to have a firm ruling in place for LVO.
X078 wrote: Wait what so now that the (many many) nerfed Tau armies playing did not make it to the top 8 the reason is that they were...
... drumroll...
unlucky?
And WarCon being superstrong not making it says what?
You do understand the difference was that Tau had two potential players making it into the top 8 in the last round, and both lost that last round, that's bad luck. War Convocation had zero people competing for top 8 in the last round, which can still be chalked up to luck to an extent, but it's significantly worse than the Tau.
Again, I'll repeat, there was a Tau player on table 3 and 4 in the last round before the top 8, there was no War Convocation player in the top 8 table (top 16 players) in the last round before top 8. There was easily a chance of up to Tau players in the top 8, there was zero chance of War Convocation.
I do not think it is a matter of potentionally two Tau players almost making it or not, as much as it is that people probably expected to see at least 50% Tau in the top because of all the nerfs and op-crying they recieved. Even after the nerfs they were said to be super good so one would reasonable expect several competing in the top 8 finals.
Anyways, there is know a first sample of empirical data stating otherwise.
X078 wrote: Wait what so now that the (many many) nerfed Tau armies playing did not make it to the top 8 the reason is that they were...
... drumroll...
unlucky?
And WarCon being superstrong not making it says what?
You do understand the difference was that Tau had two potential players making it into the top 8 in the last round, and both lost that last round, that's bad luck. War Convocation had zero people competing for top 8 in the last round, which can still be chalked up to luck to an extent, but it's significantly worse than the Tau.
Again, I'll repeat, there was a Tau player on table 3 and 4 in the last round before the top 8, there was no War Convocation player in the top 8 table (top 16 players) in the last round before top 8. There was easily a chance of up to Tau players in the top 8, there was zero chance of War Convocation.
I do not think it is a matter of potentionally two Tau players almost making it or not, as much as it is that people probably expected to see at least 50% Tau in the top because of all the nerfs and op-crying they recieved. Even after the nerfs they were said to be super good so one would reasonable expect several competing in the top 8 finals.
Anyways, there is know a first sample of empirical data stating otherwise.
Considering this is one event, it was Maelstrom-ish which Tau definitely can have a hard time with, and one player literally went undefeated, I'd hardly say Tau are not OP. Sure, it wasn't a blow out, but Tau are still crazy strong, especially with their formation that lets you always hit the rear armor of a vehicle.
If Tau wer THAT strong compared to all the other armies around there should at least 2-3 Tau armies in the top 8.
Simply because top players usualy choose a top army to play. If Tau were that OP they should also exel at Mealstrom Missions. Simply because a super OP army shoudl be able to take some points n blow out the oponent. Surprisingly Tau were not that OP. it also seems that not that many player considered them as such a super OP army. because if they did there would have been more of them and especialy more of them in the top 8.
So it comes down to: Tau are a strong army. but not that OP.
oh btw. comparing Tau with CSM or a other super bad Codex proves nothing. simply because these super weak Codieces suck against other strong Codiecies as well.
I'm actually pleasantly surprised by those results. I didn't expect any Tau player to breach the top 8 (16 certainly) but that one went undefeated is pretty impressive to me.
Not remotely surprised some people are arguing Tau are OP for making it into the top 16, though that some are doing it while accusing Tau players of moving the goalposts is its own kind of impressive.
_ghost_ wrote: If Tau wer THAT strong compared to all the other armies around there should at least 2-3 Tau armies in the top 8.
Simply because top players usualy choose a top army to play. If Tau were that OP they should also exel at Mealstrom Missions. Simply because a super OP army shoudl be able to take some points n blow out the oponent. Surprisingly Tau were not that OP. it also seems that not that many player considered them as such a super OP army. because if they did there would have been more of them and especialy more of them in the top 8.
So it comes down to: Tau are a strong army. but not that OP.
oh btw. comparing Tau with CSM or a other super bad Codex proves nothing. simply because these super weak Codieces suck against other strong Codiecies as well.
Not really. The main reason Tau didn't make Top 8 is because Eldar. I would like to see a breakdown of armies that entered, not just TOP 8, but all over. I would bet there's twice as many Eldar players as Tau. That doesn't mean Tau/SM/Daemons aren't OP, just that Eldar, like always, take the cake.
Quickjager wrote: OOooh a GK player got 21st place? I kinda want to see his list as it did above average in most of his games. Maybe he got lucky in matchups?
EDIT: aaaand the other GK players are in the bottom 25% dammit
If your NDK make a lot of saves during the tournament you could easily wreck a lot of top lists. Problem is they usually all are dead turn 2-3.
Quickjager wrote: OOooh a GK player got 21st place? I kinda want to see his list as it did above average in most of his games. Maybe he got lucky in matchups?
EDIT: aaaand the other GK players are in the bottom 25% dammit
If your NDK make a lot of saves during the tournament you could easily wreck a lot of top lists. Problem is they usually all are dead turn 2-3.
Pretty much, if a NDK is still alive by turn 3 that means it will be making all of its points back. But like ya said, people know that.
I'm more curious that somebody took an Obelisk AND a Monolith.
Their highest place was 12th,
Obelisk and Monolith were awesome to see doing well. Shame that the winner was SpiderSpam. I guess I should be happy that ScatterSpam didn't win but eh.
I'm more curious that somebody took an Obelisk AND a Monolith.
Their highest place was 12th,
Obelisk and Monolith were awesome to see doing well. Shame that the winner was SpiderSpam. I guess I should be happy that ScatterSpam didn't win but eh.
Spider spam is a permutation of scatterspam. It's still all about the S6, the panacea of 7th ed.
It's better too, what with the wound on initiative and in-built protection by flicker jump.
I know it's for a tournament but it's just bland and boring. I like originality and things we haven't seen before. I only play spam lists when my friends do.
I've been playing spider spam since the craft world Eldar supplement released. It's both nice and strange that my army went from average to very powerful, but at least I don't have to change my list to play locally anymore.
So I've had a read of Pablo's post on FLG about the results. Very interesting. With all the utterly baseless claims here that Tau DESERVED these nerfs because "ZOMG they're so OP waaaa!", you would expect that to be represented with all top 8 spots being Tau right? Right? I mean my god, they're just so OP! Hide yo kids!
Here's the actual top 8:
White Scars Gladius Strike Force Eldar Warp Spider Spam + Inquisitor Chaos Daemons Double CAD Necron Decurion Eldar CAD + Corpse-Thief Claw Eldar CAD + DECAD Necron Formations Ravenwing CAD + SWCAD
It's a few of the usual suspects, no? And hmm, no Tau...
Just to reiterate the point, there were two Tau lists in top 16 (one of which was undefeated before not making top 8) but that STILL doesn't somehow translate to Tau being uuber OP.
Against the better players in my group I don't always come away with a "W" when I'm playing as Tau. In fact I lose some games. There's an Ork player who not only got the charge off against my front lines in one game wiping me off the table in a turn, but he actually OUT-SHOT ME in another game! In fact I don't think I've beaten him yet with my Tau... Hmm, I may need some more games against him! And as I said previously I was 2/3rds wiped off the board in a game against a Knight formation and some Militarum Tempestus just a few weeks ago. What I'm saying is anything is possible when you put your mind to it and practice as often as possible! If the supposed worst codex in the game (Orks) can beat my supposed most OP codex in the game (Tau as people would have you believe) on multiple occasions without nit-picking every rule and we can still come away with some extremely enjoyable games, then clearly some people have missed the point entirely.
I'm not saying that the ITC have crippled Tau [in their events] with these rulings, so to imply that is a lie. Of course Tau still remain extremely powerful. My point has been that Tau aren't the end-all be-all of 40k like people scream about, and that for FLG to arbitrarily nerf units/formations directly without proper explanation, transparency, and proof of analysis is inappropriate at best. As RiTides has said a dozen times, they should really be hands-off with those kinds of rulings unless it's something more universal (and more detrimental) to the game (2+ re-rollables, etc).
dbgoldberg323 wrote: So I've had a read of Pablo's post on FLG about the results. Very interesting. With all the utterly baseless claims here that Tau DESERVED these nerfs because "ZOMG they're so OP waaaa!", you would expect that to be represented with all top 8 spots being Tau right? Right? I mean my god, they're just so OP! Hide yo kids!
Here's the actual top 8:
White Scars Gladius Strike Force
Eldar Warp Spider Spam + Inquisitor
Chaos Daemons Double CAD Necron Decurion
Eldar CAD + Corpse-Thief Claw
Eldar CAD + DECAD Necron Formations
Ravenwing CAD + SWCAD
It's a few of the usual suspects, no? And hmm, no Tau...
Just to reiterate the point, there were two Tau lists in top 16 (one of which was undefeated before not making top 8) but that STILL doesn't somehow translate to Tau being uuber OP.
Just because something else is OP doesn't automatically mean Tau aren't OP. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Also, guess what, Tau didn't place in the Top 8, considering there were double their numbers in Eldar players. Again, just because something else is OP doesn't automatically mean Tau aren't OP.
Against the better players in my group I don't always come away with a "W" when I'm playing as Tau. In fact I lose some games. There's an Ork player who not only got the charge off against my front lines in one game wiping me off the table in a turn, but he actually OUT-SHOT ME in another game! In fact I don't think I've beaten him yet with my Tau... Hmm, I may need some more games against him! And as I said previously I was 2/3rds wiped off the board in a game against a Knight formation and some Militarum Tempestus just a few weeks ago. What I'm saying is anything is possible when you put your mind to it and practice as often as possible! If the supposed worst codex in the game (Orks) can beat my supposed most OP codex in the game (Tau as people would have you believe) on multiple occasions without nit-picking every rule and we can still come away with some extremely enjoyable games, then clearly some people have missed the point entirely.
So, sounds like either A) you had bad luck or B) you're a terrible player, especially if neither of you are running fully optimized lists. Honestly, in a first to 5 match, I'd put money on Tau over either of those armies. Also, just cuz a weaker codex (Orks) can beat a superior codex (Tau) in a match, does not automatically mean the two are balanced.
I'm not saying that the ITC have crippled Tau [in their events] with these rulings, so to imply that is a lie. Of course Tau still remain extremely powerful. My point has been that Tau aren't the end-all be-all of 40k like people scream about, and that for FLG to arbitrarily nerf units/formations directly without proper explanation, transparency, and proof of analysis is inappropriate at best. As RiTides has said a dozen times, they should really be hands-off with those kinds of rulings unless it's something more universal to the game (2+ re-rollables, etc).
I would rather have these rulings with after the fact voting than have them waste a TO's and each opponent's time making individual rulings. This way, going in everyone knows what the rules are and there are no confusions.
Also, guess what? Even with the nerfs, some of the Tau formations are still extremely broken, especially the always hits rear armor that you can give Ignores Cover too. Your army lost to Eldar. Hey, so did 4 other extremely strong armies. That doesn't make your army weak.
First no one is saying Tau is the most OP codex in the game. Quit making up stuff to fit your narrative. The most common complaints about Tau is that they are the least fun to play against due to them not participating in two phases of the game.
Second your anecdotal evidence means nothing. I can just as easily infer you are bad at the game from such a statement.
Lastly this tourney just confirms one thing, the powerhouses are still powerhouses and Tau can match them blow for blow.
niv-mizzet wrote: Izzy's tau actually went undefeated. Unfortunately it was 4w2d0L which made him unable to hit top 8. Either one of those draws being a win and he would've been in, knocking out Aleong's wolfravenstar.
Of course, this being the Internet, the goalposts would move anyway. If one made top 8, someone would be like "y you no make top 7!?" anyway.
I think the records are more important than the top 8 thing. What does the preponderance of the evidence tell us? It doesn't tell us that Tau did poorly. It certainly tells us ZILCH as to whether the ITC "decision" affected them.
More importantly, the lists themselves were run by actual Generals. We cannot attribute the top 8 to just the lists. Worthy lists were no doubt struck dead by superior strategy. The ultimate truth is that better generals end up in the finals a lot, despite their competitions best efforts and best lists. Lists don't win championships. We do.
niv-mizzet wrote: Izzy's tau actually went undefeated. Unfortunately it was 4w2d0L which made him unable to hit top 8. Either one of those draws being a win and he would've been in, knocking out Aleong's wolfravenstar.
Of course, this being the Internet, the goalposts would move anyway. If one made top 8, someone would be like "y you no make top 7!?" anyway.
I think the records are more important than the top 8 thing. What does the preponderance of the evidence tell us? It doesn't tell us that Tau did poorly. It certainly tells us ZILCH as to whether the ITC "decision" affected them.
More importantly, the lists themselves were run by actual Generals. We cannot attribute the top 8 to just the lists. Worthy lists were no doubt struck dead by superior strategy. The ultimate truth is that better generals end up in the finals a lot, despite their competitions best efforts and best lists. Lists don't win championships. We do.
I'd say this is only partially true, because you can't dodge the math forever.
X078 wrote: Wait what so now that the (many many) nerfed Tau armies playing did not make it to the top 8 the reason is that they were...
... drumroll...
unlucky?
And WarCon being superstrong not making it says what?
You do understand the difference was that Tau had two potential players making it into the top 8 in the last round, and both lost that last round, that's bad luck. War Convocation had zero people competing for top 8 in the last round, which can still be chalked up to luck to an extent, but it's significantly worse than the Tau.
Again, I'll repeat, there was a Tau player on table 3 and 4 in the last round before the top 8, there was no War Convocation player in the top 8 table (top 16 players) in the last round before top 8. There was easily a chance of up to Tau players in the top 8, there was zero chance of War Convocation.
To look at this from a theoretical viewpoint is that an argument for doing minor nerfs to Tau (the Ghost Keel Holophotons) or an argument for giving War Convocation a boost?
Is it actually the role of ITC to boost factions that GW have left badly sub-par? I don't think ITC would want to go down that road.
As I understand it, the AdMech isn't really a complete codex, though offering more choices than Knights. Should players realistically expect to be competitive when really their codex is actually actually to sell some cool kits for use as allies in IG or SM armies?
Neither, it's an argument to show the absurtity of the Imperium receiving excessive favourtism or the Tau being unplayable because of the minor nerfs. Honestly, I'm on the dense about the Ghostkeel change, and oppose the ECPA change, but otherwise I think the Tau are spot on in the ITC. I have no real stance on the War Convocation one way or the other.
niv-mizzet wrote: Izzy's tau actually went undefeated. Unfortunately it was 4w2d0L which made him unable to hit top 8. Either one of those draws being a win and he would've been in, knocking out Aleong's wolfravenstar.
Of course, this being the Internet, the goalposts would move anyway. If one made top 8, someone would be like "y you no make top 7!?" anyway.
I think the records are more important than the top 8 thing. What does the preponderance of the evidence tell us? It doesn't tell us that Tau did poorly. It certainly tells us ZILCH as to whether the ITC "decision" affected them.
More importantly, the lists themselves were run by actual Generals. We cannot attribute the top 8 to just the lists. Worthy lists were no doubt struck dead by superior strategy. The ultimate truth is that better generals end up in the finals a lot, despite their competitions best efforts and best lists. Lists don't win championships. We do.
I'd say this is only partially true, because you can't dodge the math forever.
You're not dodging the math. On the contrary. You're using it to your advantage.
niv-mizzet wrote: Izzy's tau actually went undefeated. Unfortunately it was 4w2d0L which made him unable to hit top 8. Either one of those draws being a win and he would've been in, knocking out Aleong's wolfravenstar.
Of course, this being the Internet, the goalposts would move anyway. If one made top 8, someone would be like "y you no make top 7!?" anyway.
I think the records are more important than the top 8 thing. What does the preponderance of the evidence tell us? It doesn't tell us that Tau did poorly. It certainly tells us ZILCH as to whether the ITC "decision" affected them.
More importantly, the lists themselves were run by actual Generals. We cannot attribute the top 8 to just the lists. Worthy lists were no doubt struck dead by superior strategy. The ultimate truth is that better generals end up in the finals a lot, despite their competitions best efforts and best lists. Lists don't win championships. We do.
I'd say this is only partially true, because you can't dodge the math forever.
You're not dodging the math. On the contrary. You're using it to your advantage.
I don't think you and I have the same concept of math, then. There's a reason BA maxed at 93rd place. Unless your contention is that NO good generals were playing BA.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'm more curious that somebody took an Obelisk AND a Monolith.
Living Tomb formation, so it's all about the auto-entry zero scatter T2 deepstrike
The Monolith only gets the non-scatter (and Monoliths are GARBAGE). Otherwise, the Obelisk is...okay. I feel like paying the extra 200+ for the Vault might be better though.
I knew about the formation, I just don't see what it did for the list. I mean, the Monolith can pull the Praetorians to a different location which is nice.
That said, Praetorians making a showing was nice. They're good; they just take more points in the Decurion to make one really want to run them.
War convocation can be powerful, the problem is its strictly mono build. Most of your points are chosen for you, and your lists end up being samey and predictable. Once someone has played against it 1 or 2 times its same ol same ol. Predictability can go a long way in making the game easier.
Orock wrote: War convocation can be powerful, the problem is its strictly mono build. Most of your points are chosen for you, and your lists end up being samey and predictable. Once someone has played against it 1 or 2 times its same ol same ol. Predictability can go a long way in making the game easier.
Scatterlasers and WKs would like a word with you just because a list is predictable as far as units go, doesn't make it weak.
I can't do much more than shake my head at the confirmation bias in this thread - Tau are OP, they needed to be nerfed\Tau didn't make T8 but they are still OP.
Orock wrote: War convocation can be powerful, the problem is its strictly mono build. Most of your points are chosen for you, and your lists end up being samey and predictable. Once someone has played against it 1 or 2 times its same ol same ol. Predictability can go a long way in making the game easier.
true, but playing with an extra 600pts over your opponent is often an insurmountable barrier for anything but another top tier gimmick
I was surprised by the winning list. To be honest he made a lot of choices in his list that I don't agree with. For example his devs only took 1 grav cannon each. Like what? non of his tacs took combis. I just think the player of that list is obviously excellent and also got very lucky.
Orock wrote: War convocation can be powerful, the problem is its strictly mono build. Most of your points are chosen for you, and your lists end up being samey and predictable. Once someone has played against it 1 or 2 times its same ol same ol. Predictability can go a long way in making the game easier.
true, but playing with an extra 600pts over your opponent is often an insurmountable barrier for anything but another top tier gimmick
never built a list that got more than 460 free points. of which only 300 are actually good, and the others were "well why not" like digital weapons that never came into play. Its not like gladius where a free vehicle is always useful and fantastic.
Last time i faced such a list it had ~560 or so points worth of free stuff, but even if its "just" 300 that matter...thats 300 extra points! If I showed up to a game with a CADig list eoth two extra russ tanks, nobody woukd doubt that that would play a very strong role in shifting the expected outcome of victory. Thr mechanicum is getting those free points on great stuff too like assault 3 plasma guns...that also cannot "get hot" and benefit from both skitarii and mechanicum special rules and abilities.
Not saying there arent other powerful absurdiies as well, but theyre all exactly that, absurdities, abortions of game design that give outrageously powerful bonuses
niv-mizzet wrote: Izzy's tau actually went undefeated. Unfortunately it was 4w2d0L which made him unable to hit top 8. Either one of those draws being a win and he would've been in, knocking out Aleong's wolfravenstar.
Of course, this being the Internet, the goalposts would move anyway. If one made top 8, someone would be like "y you no make top 7!?" anyway.
I think the records are more important than the top 8 thing. What does the preponderance of the evidence tell us? It doesn't tell us that Tau did poorly. It certainly tells us ZILCH as to whether the ITC "decision" affected them.
More importantly, the lists themselves were run by actual Generals. We cannot attribute the top 8 to just the lists. Worthy lists were no doubt struck dead by superior strategy. The ultimate truth is that better generals end up in the finals a lot, despite their competitions best efforts and best lists. Lists don't win championships. We do.
I'd say this is only partially true, because you can't dodge the math forever.
You're not dodging the math. On the contrary. You're using it to your advantage.
I don't think you and I have the same concept of math, then. There's a reason BA maxed at 93rd place. Unless your contention is that NO good generals were playing BA.
Is your contention that they were?
the trouble in even going down that road is: i don't know, and you don't either. Most "good Generals" dont have the guts to play something unusual anyways. The best Generals don't suffer from a lack of confidence but it does mean they probably want no part of any chance at all at losing. So they will gravitate to the power units and if that isn't enough, they'll accept it.
So i anticipate that almost none of hte top Generals brought a Blood angels list. Not because they couldn't win. It's because they didn't want to find out. Since there's only ever one winner anyways, this is hardly a realistic way to view things, but its how they probably do. It's what drove my friend who is quite skilled to bring six Riptides and a Drone factory formation. yeah he's good, but he wanted super powerful toys to play with in the hopes they might, I don't know... compensate for a bad dice roll here or there? I don't know what his thinking was. I do know it availed him not at all. he took two losses and i think if he had been less fixated on shiny things, he was good enough that he could have been at that top table.
So my guess... is just a guess. 93rd wasn't exactly a position of shame either. But I suspect that whoever was playing the Blood Angels was probably not in the same conversations as the ones in the top 16. Could that be totally off base? abso-freaking lutely. He might have been THE best there, hampered only by his list or he might have been the worst there, but aided by his list. we just don't know.
Where are the standings by the way? anyone got a link?
Anywho, we really can't go down that road, either one of us. we just don't know.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Last time i faced such a list it had ~560 or so points worth of free stuff, but even if its "just" 300 that matter...thats 300 extra points! If I showed up to a game with a CADig list eoth two extra russ tanks, nobody woukd doubt that that would play a very strong role in shifting the expected outcome of victory. Thr mechanicum is getting those free points on great stuff too like assault 3 plasma guns...that also cannot "get hot" and benefit from both skitarii and mechanicum special rules and abilities.
Not saying there arent other powerful absurdiies as well, but theyre all exactly that, absurdities, abortions of game design that give outrageously powerful bonuses
I fought a Battle Company yesterday. I won. it was incredibly difficult to play against. You have to expend resources to kill ghosts, things that literally wouldn't exist in any other list. In the meantime he can fire the ghost and the guys inside until you do. So Grav Cannons. Yup. And why wouldn't he?
It was skillful use of terrain that was what saved me. i simply hit behind a rock and made his Drop pods come for me. His free Drop pods. they washed me with flame and did their damage as i was clumped. then i killed the lot of them and stayed behind the rock some more other than sacrificing a bike squad to go get some maelstrom points round 3 but I essentially surrendered an entire round of Maelstrom points round one just to survive long enough to compete later in the game. A necessary sacrifice.
In the end, i caught up. Tied on Primary..barely...tied on Maelstom...barely. Neither army had Line Breaker nor Warlord, so it ended up being a 1001 point victory (ITC way of scoring) for me due to First Blood. It was... easily the most heinous battle I have fought in a long time. The General is one who i respect anyways but a Battle Company in his hands? Deadly. Just deadly. But not unbeatable.
Some more fun statistics now that all lists and standings have been posted:
There were 22 Tau players total, meaning 7% of the field. There were 5 Tau players in the top 50, or 6 if you count the multiple top 50s players making it 6 out of 53, meaning the top 50 was either 10% or 11% Tau, based on which you choose.
There were 44 Marine players, with only 5 or 6 in the top 50/53, meaning they had 10% or 11% of the top 50. Despite having a showing twice as high as Tau, they had less than half as many placing players in the top 50. (Derp: CSM)
There were 42 Eldar players in the event, with 10 or 13 in the top 50, meaning they had 20-26% of the top 50. More than double the Tau representation, with slightly less players than double that of Tau. (Correction: Accidentally counted a DE as Eldar)
Other armies in the top 50 (using the 53 figures):
Necrons (5): 9.4%
Dark Angels (5 out of 11 players): 9.4%
Renegades (5 out of 7 players!): 9.4%
Cult Mech (3): 5.6%
Daemons (3): 5.6%
Tyranids (2): 3.7%
Grey Knights (1): 1.8%
CSM (1): 1.8%
Inquisition (1): 1.8%
SoBs (1): 1.8%
Dark Eldar (1): 1.8%
(Source: http://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/lvo2016 )
Basically Eldar are way ahead of everyone, then Tau and Space Marines are close, and finally everyone else.
Edit: Updated some errors due to search methods, the new figures show Tau is strictly better than Space Marines in terms of top 50 results.
The antidote to awesome free stuff in formations is for everyone to have awesome free stuff in formations. Once you go down this route, what actually is the point of points and army lists?
Quickjager wrote: There are quite a few duds in war convo. Electro priests suck model AND rulewise.
War Convocation doesn't require Electro-Priests.
War Convocation is the Formation consisting of an Oathsworn Knight Detachment(1-3 Oathsworn Knights of any type), Cult Mechanicus Battle Congregation(Detachment consisting of 1 HQ and 2 Troops minimum), and Skitarii Battle Maniple(1 of each unit in the Skitarii book; player's choice between Dragoons or Ironstriders) and free weapon/wargear upgrades in the Formation. The Cohort Mechanicus Formation is the big web-exclusive Formation that had everything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Last time i faced such a list it had ~560 or so points worth of free stuff, but even if its "just" 300 that matter...thats 300 extra points! If I showed up to a game with a CADig list eoth two extra russ tanks, nobody woukd doubt that that would play a very strong role in shifting the expected outcome of victory. Thr mechanicum is getting those free points on great stuff too like assault 3 plasma guns...that also cannot "get hot" and benefit from both skitarii and mechanicum special rules and abilities.
Not saying there arent other powerful absurdiies as well, but theyre all exactly that, absurdities, abortions of game design that give outrageously powerful bonuses
Not to be rude, but you do understand that the "Assault 3 Plasma Guns" are only available on 2 units in the entirety of what you take for the Skitarii, right?
Rangers and Vanguard are the two units which can take them. You get exactly one unit of Rangers and one unit of Vanguard in the War Convocation.
If you're arguing that a grand total of 6 18" S7 AP2 Assault 3 Plasma Guns on T3 platforms--even with the loss of "Gets Hot"--are skewing the War Convocation into such a great place, I would have to question that stance greatly.
The plasma guns was an example, that said, those 6 plasma weapons alone are 270pts worth of gear putting out up to 18 S7 ap2 shots a turn at very high BS ratings, typically also paired with cover save reducing wargear (that is also free courtesy of the formation) not counting their ability to ignore Gets Hot and benefit from Mechanicum rules. That is not an inconsequential firepower boost.
Tinkrr, honestly I think the numbers can point a number of ways... for instance, sure there are always a lot of marine players, but you also always have quite a few marine players who just play their army as-is (themed, rules be darned). That's true of many armies, of course, but I've encountered a lot of marine players who don't optimize. So, marines having more numbers overall but not more in the top 50 isn't surprising.
I would also say, based on your numbers, that the percentage of Tau in the top 50 is extremely close to Necrons, DA, and Renegades (!). So, I think it's a bit of a stretch to conclude this:
Basically Eldar are way ahead of everyone, then Tau and Space Marines are close, and finally everyone else.
Based on your data, if you wanted to draw a conclusion a fairer statement would have been to say it's Eldar, then Space Marines / Tau / Necrons / DA / Renegades () and finally everyone else.
But I think "percentage of the top 50" isn't necessarily a good metric, since as you point out it depends on how many people bring a certain army. Tau didn't have any lists in the top 10, although after that they show up at a 10% average just fine (2 in the top 20, 3 in the top 30, 4 in the top 40).
If you were to have chosen top 20 instead, you'd have these numbers:
Eldar - 6 out of 20 (30%)
Necrons - 3 out of 20 (15%)
Space marines - 2 out of 20 (10%)
Daemons - 2 out of 20 (10%)
Dark Angels - 2 out of 20 (10%)
Tau - 2 out of 20 (10%)
Cult Mechanicus - 2 out of 20 (10%)
Renegades - 1 out of 20 (5%)
That paints a much broader picture, and I honestly don't think you can look at the LVO results and think that Tau stood out beyond any of the armies listed above as being over the top. Not that you were - but, the idea that Tau are broken seemed to be bouncing around, resulting in preemptive nerfs as thoroughly discussed here... so when the actual voting comes, I hope people look at this and realize they're just not showing up as scary as people seemed to expect them to be, and so might not need to be preemptively adjusted like was done on a trial basis here.
The question then is, since they didnt place terribly, but rather, just solidly but not outstandingly, had the nerfs not been there would they have been over the top like Eldar?
Hard to know either way, but i dont see the changes to Tau as having been terribly harsh on their standings aside from dronespam simply overunning many opponents that just could never possibly deal with that (making skill rather meaningless).
Vaktathi wrote: The plasma guns was an example, that said, those 6 plasma weapons alone are 270pts worth of gear putting out up to 18 S7 ap2 shots a turn at very high BS ratings, typically also paired with cover save reducing wargear (that is also free courtesy of the formation) not counting their ability to ignore Gets Hot and benefit from Mechanicum rules. That is not an inconsequential firepower boost.
18 S7 AP2 shots a turn at high BS skill within 18 inches of a target.
The lack of "Gets Hot" is a mixed bag. Skitarii BS values are high enough that once you pop your best two Doctrina Imperatives(+2 and +3 BS) you're getting rerolls--and that's without factoring in "Benediction of Omniscience" from the Canticles in War Convocation, which many players will pop first(allows you to re-roll all failed To Hit rolls when making shooting attacks at 5+ units) before applying the Doctrina Imperatives for +2/+3 BS.
The lack of "Gets Hot" really only comes into play if you run Kataphron Destroyers with Plasma Culverin(Plasma Cannons that are Heavy 2, Blast with 24" range and are on a BS3 platform)--but the other option there is the Heavy Grav-Cannon.
The Omnispex is also a no-brainer upgrade that every Skitarii player takes, whether they are running a War Convocation or not, because the other option(Enhanced Data-Tether) is a joke. It's literally "-1 to a Cover Save" or "+1 LD when under the effects of Doctrina Imperatives"(not stackable with Broad Spectrum Data-Tethers; which come standard on Onagers, Dragoons, and Ironstriders and rather than applying to 1 unit instead get bubbled out).
RiTides wrote: Tinkrr, honestly I think the numbers can point a number of ways... for instance, sure there are always a lot of marine players, but you also always have quite a few marine players who just play their army as-is (themed, rules be darned). That's true of many armies, of course, but I've encountered a lot of marine players who don't optimize. So, marines having more numbers overall but not more in the top 50 isn't surprising.
I would also say, based on your numbers, that the percentage of Tau in the top 50 is extremely close to Necrons, DA, and Renegades (!). So, I think it's a bit of a stretch to conclude this:
Basically Eldar are way ahead of everyone, then Tau and Space Marines are close, and finally everyone else.
Based on your data, if you wanted to draw a conclusion a fairer statement would have been to say it's Eldar, then Space Marines / Tau / Necrons / DA / Renegades () and finally everyone else.
But I think "percentage of the top 50" isn't necessarily a good metric, since as you point out it depends on how many people bring a certain army. Tau didn't have any lists in the top 10, although after that they show up at a 10% average just fine (2 in the top 20, 3 in the top 30, 4 in the top 40).
If you were to have chosen top 20 instead, you'd have these numbers:
Eldar - 6 out of 20 (30%)
Necrons - 3 out of 20 (15%)
Space marines - 2 out of 20 (10%)
Daemons - 2 out of 20 (10%)
Dark Angels - 2 out of 20 (10%)
Tau - 2 out of 20 (10%)
Cult Mechanicus - 2 out of 20 (10%)
Renegades - 1 out of 20 (5%)
That paints a much broader picture, and I honestly don't think you can look at the LVO results and think that Tau stood out beyond any of the armies listed above as being over the top. Not that you were - but, the idea that Tau are broken seemed to be bouncing around, resulting in preemptive nerfs as thoroughly discussed here... so when the actual voting comes, I hope people look at this and realize they're just not showing up as scary as people seemed to expect them to be, and so might not need to be preemptively adjusted like was done on a trial basis here.
Considering this is the LVO, I doubt the number of themed lists exceeded anything more than negligible.
The issue you're presenting here is "are" or "were", because right now Tau aren't broken, but they're extremely competitive. If you want to phrase it as "were Tau broken?" then yes, they clearly were because of how immensely stronger CFP was, which was the major change. The only other big change was that to the Piranha Wing, but that can be argued a lot more, though in my opinion it was a change for the better.
More so, the other thing too look at these numbers, is that the same amount of Marines or Tau made the top 20 or top 50, and yet there are constant cries on here about Marine favourtism or whatnot, which clearly isn't the case when looking at the numbers. It's not so much favourtism, it's how much one army needs to be altered in comparison to the others, and yes you can argue some changes aren't necessary, such as the Holophoton one, or in my case I disagree with the ECPA change, but it shouldn't be reasonable to argue about the major changes like CFP or to a lesser extent Drone Factories, since Tau is already highly competitive without them, and could easily become broken with them. So yes, Tau are fine currently, and maybe then can get some of the small things back, but they surely don't need the big things.
Again, this is coming from someone who only intends to play Tau in the foreseeable future.
Edit: Oh, I forgot the Tau'nar change, but I'm sure we can all agree that was correct, even though there were (maybe are) plenty of people saying that was unfair.
Vaktathi wrote: The plasma guns was an example, that said, those 6 plasma weapons alone are 270pts worth of gear putting out up to 18 S7 ap2 shots a turn at very high BS ratings, typically also paired with cover save reducing wargear (that is also free courtesy of the formation) not counting their ability to ignore Gets Hot and benefit from Mechanicum rules. That is not an inconsequential firepower boost.
18 S7 AP2 shots a turn at high BS skill within 18 inches of a target.
yea, but thats often eminently possible from even turn 1. Thats 3 squads of IG plasma vets as 12" worth of fire (not counting doctrinas and whatnot), not an inconsiderable level of free firepower at all.
The lack of "Gets Hot" is a mixed bag. Skitarii BS values are high enough that once you pop your best two Doctrina Imperatives(+2 and +3 BS) you're getting rerolls--and that's without factoring in "Benediction of Omniscience" from the Canticles in War Convocation, which many players will pop first(allows you to re-roll all failed To Hit rolls when making shooting attacks at 5+ units) before applying the Doctrina Imperatives for +2/+3 BS.
right, but it basically eliminates any shred of risk that might slip through, on top of all the other special rules, and, as noted, for the K Destroyers
The Omnispex is also a no-brainer upgrade that every Skitarii player takes, whether they are running a War Convocation or not, because the other option(Enhanced Data-Tether) is a joke. It's literally "-1 to a Cover Save" or "+1 LD when under the effects of Doctrina Imperatives"(not stackable with Broad Spectrum Data-Tethers; which come standard on Onagers, Dragoons, and Ironstriders and rather than applying to 1 unit instead get bubbled out).
right, but they get the goodies for free. They add up and have a very real effect, the points costs ostensibly were there for a reason, getting them for free adds up.
Either way, ultimately its a lot of extra capability that one wouldnt be able to bring to if the full value of those points was accounted for.
Tinkrr wrote: Considering this is the LVO, I doubt the number of themed lists exceeded anything more than negligible.
The issue you're presenting here is "are" or "were", because right now Tau aren't broken, but they're extremely competitive. If you want to phrase it as "were Tau broken?" then yes, they clearly were because of how immensely stronger CFP was, which was the major change. The only other big change was that to the Piranha Wing, but that can be argued a lot more, though in my opinion it was a change for the better.
More so, the other thing too look at these numbers, is that the same amount of Marines or Tau made the top 20 or top 50, and yet there are constant cries on here about Marine favourtism or whatnot, which clearly isn't the case when looking at the numbers. It's not so much favourtism, it's how much one army needs to be altered in comparison to the others, and yes you can argue some changes aren't necessary, such as the Holophoton one, or in my case I disagree with the ECPA change, but it shouldn't be reasonable to argue about the major changes like CFP or to a lesser extent Drone Factories, since Tau is already highly competitive without them, and could easily become broken with them. So yes, Tau are fine currently, and maybe then can get some of the small things back, but they surely don't need the big things.
Again, this is coming from someone who only intends to play Tau in the foreseeable future.
Edit: Oh, I forgot the Tau'nar change, but I'm sure we can all agree that was correct, even though there were (maybe are) plenty of people saying that was unfair.
Exalted for truth.
I would say that at that level player skill has the most to do with the final placings. Looking purely by rankings, Tau did very well at the LVO, despite all the calls that they were "unplayable" with the new changes.
I do find it ironic that despite the calls that the ITC is biased toward the Imperium, Tau did on average batter than most Space Marine players.
Tinkrr wrote: Some more fun statistics now that all lists and standings have been posted:
There were 22 Tau players total, meaning 7% of the field. There were 5 Tau players in the top 50, or 6 if you count the multiple top 50s players making it 6 out of 53, meaning the top 50 was either 10% or 11% Tau, based on which you choose.
There were 44 Marine players, with only 5 or 6 in the top 50/53, meaning they had 10% or 11% of the top 50. Despite having a showing twice as high as Tau, they had less than half as many placing players in the top 50. (Derp: CSM)
There were 42 Eldar players in the event, with 10 or 13 in the top 50, meaning they had 20-26% of the top 50. More than double the Tau representation, with slightly less players than double that of Tau. (Correction: Accidentally counted a DE as Eldar)
Other armies in the top 50 (using the 53 figures):
Necrons (5): 9.4%
Dark Angels (5 out of 11 players): 9.4%
Renegades (5 out of 7 players!): 9.4%
Cult Mech (3): 5.6%
Daemons (3): 5.6%
Tyranids (2): 3.7%
Grey Knights (1): 1.8%
CSM (1): 1.8%
Inquisition (1): 1.8%
SoBs (1): 1.8%
Dark Eldar (1): 1.8%
(Source: http://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/lvo2016 )
Basically Eldar are way ahead of everyone, then Tau and Space Marines are close, and finally everyone else.
Edit: Updated some errors due to search methods, the new figures show Tau is strictly better than Space Marines in terms of top 50 results.
Tinkrr - Very fair points, although I would say 2 Marines and 2 Dark Angels is for all intents and purposes 4 Marine players in the top 20. Not that I think there is any Marine bias, but I don't distinguish a lot between different colors of Marines
Additionally, I think with any army it's going to be hard to draw conclusions based on "what if". I.e. "what if" the ITC had not nerfed Tau for the LVO?
But that's really the question going forward, since some of these things will almost certainly be on their next ballot. Based on these results, I don't think everything was necessary... but again, the only one I was really making a point of was the Ghostkeel ruling, since it seemed the most unnecessary of all.
You could say the inverse of your question - "Would not nerfing the Ghostkeel make Tau broken?" And I think the answer to that should be obvious, and hope voters are feeling generous towards their Tau brethren (which again I do Not play) when it comes time to vote
RiTides wrote: Tinkrr, honestly I think the numbers can point a number of ways... for instance, sure there are always a lot of marine players, but you also always have quite a few marine players who just play their army as-is (themed, rules be darned). That's true of many armies, of course, but I've encountered a lot of marine players who don't optimize. So, marines having more numbers overall but not more in the top 50 isn't surprising.
.
Additionally, I think with any army it's going to be hard to draw conclusions based on "what if". I.e. "what if" the ITC had not nerfed Tau for the LVO?
yeah going there isn't worth it. We can never really know.
The sisters of Battle showing sucked. We have got to mobilize the sistahs. We created a Facebook for that. I am hoping we get off the schneid and start organizing our various forces. I would love to see some Suisters at these things more frequently. It makes me want to go despite all my reservations, just to kick hiney with them.
As pointed out above, if you count Dark Angels, Marines would be 20% of the Top 20 or Top 50 (4 or 11 armies, respectively). Not that it means anything, just pointing out how the numbers can be pretty subjective depending on how you slice them!
I just don't see any numbers here that point to Tau having been a real problem, and so some of the more minor nerfs (aka Ghostkeel) might not be needed.
The point's probably crystal clear by now so I'll bow out of the thread, but I really appreciate the intelligent discussion / debate, from Tinkrr especially!
Vaktathi wrote: The plasma guns was an example, that said, those 6 plasma weapons alone are 270pts worth of gear putting out up to 18 S7 ap2 shots a turn at very high BS ratings, typically also paired with cover save reducing wargear (that is also free courtesy of the formation) not counting their ability to ignore Gets Hot and benefit from Mechanicum rules. That is not an inconsequential firepower boost.
18 S7 AP2 shots a turn at high BS skill within 18 inches of a target.
yea, but thats often eminently possible from even turn 1. Thats 3 squads of IG plasma vets as 12" worth of fire (not counting doctrinas and whatnot), not an inconsiderable level of free firepower at all.
In order to take 3 Plasma Calivers per squad, you need to take a full squad of 10 models. That's 100 points for the Vanguard and 120 points for the Rangers. There's a 95 point difference in favor of the Vanguard/Rangers between those twenty guys and your 30 Plasma Gun vets with no other upgrades being factored in. Adding in Carapace Armor for 15 pts/squad brings the difference up to 140 points--but the Guardsmen are now suddenly as survivable as the Skitarii, have an additional 10 models on them and still have the option for a Veteran Weapons Team in each squad.
The lack of "Gets Hot" is a mixed bag. Skitarii BS values are high enough that once you pop your best two Doctrina Imperatives(+2 and +3 BS) you're getting rerolls--and that's without factoring in "Benediction of Omniscience" from the Canticles in War Convocation, which many players will pop first(allows you to re-roll all failed To Hit rolls when making shooting attacks at 5+ units) before applying the Doctrina Imperatives for +2/+3 BS.
right, but it basically eliminates any shred of risk that might slip through, on top of all the other special rules, and, as noted, for the K Destroyers
When you're paying double the points to begin with for an additional shot at 6" more than the Rapid Fire version, there should not be that risk in the first place.
Nobody really runs Kataphron Destroyers with Plasma Culverin though. Grav-Cannons are far more effective/necessary for Mechanicus.
The Omnispex is also a no-brainer upgrade that every Skitarii player takes, whether they are running a War Convocation or not, because the other option(Enhanced Data-Tether) is a joke. It's literally "-1 to a Cover Save" or "+1 LD when under the effects of Doctrina Imperatives"(not stackable with Broad Spectrum Data-Tethers; which come standard on Onagers, Dragoons, and Ironstriders and rather than applying to 1 unit instead get bubbled out).
right, but they get the goodies for free. They add up and have a very real effect, the points costs ostensibly were there for a reason, getting them for free adds up.
And even if they were paying for them, they'd still be taken. That's where your argument falls apart.
20 points for the Skitarii Vanguard and Rangers to ignore a single point of Cover is not as big as you seem to think it is.
Either way, ultimately its a lot of extra capability that one wouldnt be able to bring to if the full value of those points was accounted for.
Putting it rather bluntly, the points values for Skitarii upgrades are dumb to begin with. They're more dumb than most Imperial upgrades are.
Tinkrr wrote: Some more fun statistics now that all lists and standings have been posted:
There were 22 Tau players total, meaning 7% of the field. There were 5 Tau players in the top 50, or 6 if you count the multiple top 50s players making it 6 out of 53, meaning the top 50 was either 10% or 11% Tau, based on which you choose.
There were 44 Marine players, with only 5 or 6 in the top 50/53, meaning they had 10% or 11% of the top 50. Despite having a showing twice as high as Tau, they had less than half as many placing players in the top 50. (Derp: CSM)
There were 42 Eldar players in the event, with 10 or 13 in the top 50, meaning they had 20-26% of the top 50. More than double the Tau representation, with slightly less players than double that of Tau. (Correction: Accidentally counted a DE as Eldar)
Other armies in the top 50 (using the 53 figures):
Necrons (5): 9.4%
Dark Angels (5 out of 11 players): 9.4%
Renegades (5 out of 7 players!): 9.4%
Cult Mech (3): 5.6%
Daemons (3): 5.6%
Tyranids (2): 3.7%
Grey Knights (1): 1.8%
CSM (1): 1.8%
Inquisition (1): 1.8%
SoBs (1): 1.8%
Dark Eldar (1): 1.8%
(Source: http://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/lvo2016 )
Basically Eldar are way ahead of everyone, then Tau and Space Marines are close, and finally everyone else.
Edit: Updated some errors due to search methods, the new figures show Tau is strictly better than Space Marines in terms of top 50 results.
I'm surprised that such great units like Mutilators and Warp Talons didn't make CSM appear more.
It shouldnt be surprising that Necrons did well...theyve got astounding mobility and even better resiliency and have shown strongly at every event in the last year
Vaktathi wrote: Last time i faced such a list it had ~560 or so points worth of free stuff, but even if its "just" 300 that matter...thats 300 extra points! If I showed up to a game with a CADig list eoth two extra russ tanks, nobody woukd doubt that that would play a very strong role in shifting the expected outcome of victory. Thr mechanicum is getting those free points on great stuff too like assault 3 plasma guns...that also cannot "get hot" and benefit from both skitarii and mechanicum special rules and abilities.
Not saying there arent other powerful absurdiies as well, but theyre all exactly that, absurdities, abortions of game design that give outrageously powerful bonuses
If the dark eldar rumors are to be believed (and I think they are too specific) you can expect alot more of the same going forward as GW tries to temp people to buy more things with free transports to cram that many more points into their games.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Either way, ultimately its a lot of extra capability that one wouldnt be able to bring to if the full value of those points was accounted for.
If I was making a tournament list, many of those points would be made up from not taking sub standard units. As much as I like ruststalkers, they are 160 points of dead weight in many tournaments, unless free. If I was hurting even more for points, I would rather have more vanguard then infiltrators too. Lost too many of that more than a terminator cost unit to one guy with an assault cannon then I would like to in competative games.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also orks not even making the top 50, even WITH the option of a semi cheating half priced stompa, is super depressing. For gods sake, even sisters made it.
I'm really sad no Orks were in the top 50, I was really hoping for some good showings with the Stompa change, but oh well. The closest one was something like 54 I think?
RiTides wrote: As pointed out above, if you count Dark Angels, Marines would be 20% of the Top 20 or Top 50 (4 or 11 armies, respectively). Not that it means anything, just pointing out how the numbers can be pretty subjective depending on how you slice them!
I just don't see any numbers here that point to Tau having been a real problem, and so some of the more minor nerfs (aka Ghostkeel) might not be needed.
The point's probably crystal clear by now so I'll bow out of the thread, but I really appreciate the intelligent discussion / debate, from Tinkrr especially!
I tend to let the ITC slice it, since it seems like they distinguish some Space Marine armies, but not others. Though if you wish to not slice them, when you take the number of all Marine lists (Wolves, DA, BA, and Spice), you have 71 players running Marines, which is almost 25% of the field, but their showing in the top 20 would only be 20%, while Tau still hold a 10% showing, making them have half the showing with less than a third of the players. No matter how you really slice it, it looks in Tau's favour.
Again, all the numbers are in a post nerf world, which means the nerfs worked as they kept Tau highly competitive, but not broken, I'd say that's what most would call good balance. As for the Ghostkeel changes, as I've said, that one can go either way for me, I don't see a real issue with it and it would probably be one of the first on the list to be reversed out of all the changes. However, as we can see, the changes weren't bias against Tau, but rather simple balancing that put them in a very good place.
I do find it ironic that despite the calls that the ITC is biased toward the Imperium, Tau did on average batter than most Space Marine players.
Everyone has played space marines. They have probably made up 40 to 50 precent of the played armies in this game since launch. Most people know what to expect and have had extensive practice playing them. You would have a hell of a time trying to find someone who has not played or played against marines. That comes with familiarity. And with it, knowledge of how to beat them. Eldar tau and necrons are far more rare comparitively. You may even have at that tournament had a population as high as 10 precent that had not even played the new tau since the codex dropped. Even higher numbers that have mabye faced them casually/not at all. Many marine losses can be contributed to the marines opponent knowing his enemies army better than he knows his opponents. That is a huge advantage to overcome. The marine books power helps flush that out, and since they are GW's bread and butter they have vested interest in improving their sales, many ways by giving them new hot units/rules. Nobody thought to themselves marines needed something like skyhammer annihilation force. Nobody thought marines needed 20+ units to have objective secured to compete in objective based missions. But here we are. You are not taking any of the factors into play, just saying "see, imperium is perfectly balanced guys" its not. And grav weapons have been responsible for more than one person I know completely quitting the game.
Eldar are rarer than Space Marines? You do know they only had two less players in the event running Eldar, and in the ITC as a whole 393 players have played Eldar, while only 376 players have played Space Marines.
You're being very disingenuous when you claim Marines are somehow significantly more common than Eldar.
Tinkrr wrote: Eldar are rarer than Space Marines? You do know they only had two less players in the event running Eldar, and in the ITC as a whole 393 players have played Eldar, while only 376 players have played Space Marines.
You're being very disingenuous when you claim Marines are somehow significantly more common than Eldar.
Originally I thought he meant historically, which I think most of us would agree is true but I certainly can't prove with tournament results, but after reading his post over now I'm not so sure.
Locally at least, Eldar and Necrons are the most popular. When I look at tournaments, it does seem that Eldar and Marines are equal, with Necrons and Tau having about 2/3-1/3 of their numbers with every other army lagging behind by quite a bit in representation.
Well that is a large eldar jump from previously. It would also explain how they skitted by the scat bike nerf vote. I dont think it changes my point much. You dont see eldar nearly as much as marines outside of a competative tournament. And I am willing to bet the average person has played 2-3x as many games against marines as against eldar.
Yup, because all those Marine players, and every other army player, wouldn't have voted against the bikes if they wanted to nerf them. Not only that but Bikes weren't the problem in the LVO, but rather Warp Spiders.Clearly the Eldar and Marines alley to nerf Tau, but when it's the Eldar vote, the Tau, Marines, Necrons, whatever don't alley to vote against them, because reasons. Remember, no matter what army you play, there are infinitely more people that don't play it than people who do play it.
Additionally, this is a competitive tournament, in fact this is THE competitive tournament, so all of these players have been playing competitively and have probably seen as much Eldar as they have Space Marines. Though lets even assume they only saw it half as much, are you really going to claim that there's no benefit decay after a certain point, and they just continue to get better against Marines at the same rate each game, from game one to game twenty?
You're just being silly now if that's what you're claiming in any of this.
As I have stated before, the ITC gets no respect from me until the nerf bat hits the Eldar. Hard. Ban scatterlasers perhaps so they get to play the same game as the rest of us.
First of all, the eldar scat bike nerf was advertised weeks in advance for the vote, and BARELY squeaked by less than 10 votes needed to nerf them. Also there was talk, BY frontline, of ballot stuffing. So lets not pretend everyone was hunky dorey on the imperial side of things, and voted fairly, as opposed to in their best interest.
The tau vote, on the other hand had less than 5 days notice, and STILL was plagued with rumors of ballot stuffing. Both were "how do you want to play it" with eldar just straight up getting less access to the bike guns, and tau's special rules being nerfed-not clarified as so many claimed. THEN when people were talking about the holophoton projectors being a sensible nerf, HALF the people commmenting thought it was just 3 instances of turn long straight up invisibility. When its one round of snap firing, per unit used, on ONE unit.
You even said yourself there are far more eldar players than tau. Well majority vote isnt always a fair system. So lets not pretend the tau nerfs were any more justified than what eldar had coming to them if not for their majority voting getting them out of trouble.
I'll take sentences I never thought I'd hear for 500 please.
Still, it's impressive that spiders are that good now. Guess that explains why I do so well locally.
And here I thought I was at a handicap staying away from the bikes
Martel732 wrote: As I have stated before, the ITC gets no respect from me until the nerf bat hits the Eldar. Hard. Ban scatterlasers perhaps so they get to play the same game as the rest of us.
That's the thing of it. The Tau were not nerfed directly. The new Tau models got an abundance of units with ambiguous rules. When decisions were made how to interpret the rules, the more conservative interpretations were used. If GW explicitly wrote:
"and shooting as one unit allows all the special rules to be transferred" or
"the piranhas can enter from reserves and leave in the same movement phase" or
"countermeasures affect all models in the unit and the ability can be used by each model in the unit once"
the Tau would not have been "nerfed".
The rules for warp spiders were ambiguous and the less powerful interpretation of the rules was used.
The only things that the ITC "nerfed" at the behest of its players was invisibility and 2+ re-rollable saves. If the actual vote to change the availability of scatter lasers passed, we'd never hear the end of the complaining.
Martel732 wrote: As I have stated before, the ITC gets no respect from me until the nerf bat hits the Eldar. Hard. Ban scatterlasers perhaps so they get to play the same game as the rest of us.
That's the thing of it. The Tau were not nerfed directly. The new Tau models got an abundance of units with ambiguous rules. When decisions were made how to interpret the rules, the more conservative interpretations were used. If GW explicitly wrote:
"and shooting as one unit allows all the special rules to be transferred" or
"the piranhas can enter from reserves and leave in the same movement phase" or
"countermeasures affect all models in the unit and the ability can be used by each model in the unit once"
the Tau would not have been "nerfed".
The rules for warp spiders were ambiguous and the less powerful interpretation of the rules was used.
The only things that the ITC "nerfed" at the behest of its players was invisibility and 2+ re-rollable saves. If the actual vote to change the availability of scatter lasers passed, we'd never hear the end of the complaining.
They came right out in the vote and said "How would you like to play it?" they clarified nothing. Because all the "its confusing!' arguements fell flat shortly before the vote even took place. The countermeasures were not even VOTED on, just straight up decided. Personally I thought the piranha formation was broken as written, so am not upset, but it was VERY clear, especially since it was an apocalypse formation years before, crystal clear, and nobody complained.
Martel732 wrote: As I have stated before, the ITC gets no respect from me until the nerf bat hits the Eldar. Hard. Ban scatterlasers perhaps so they get to play the same game as the rest of us.
That's the thing of it. The Tau were not nerfed directly. The new Tau models got an abundance of units with ambiguous rules. When decisions were made how to interpret the rules, the more conservative interpretations were used. If GW explicitly wrote:
"and shooting as one unit allows all the special rules to be transferred" or
"the piranhas can enter from reserves and leave in the same movement phase" or
"countermeasures affect all models in the unit and the ability can be used by each model in the unit once"
the Tau would not have been "nerfed".
The rules for warp spiders were ambiguous and the less powerful interpretation of the rules was used.
The only things that the ITC "nerfed" at the behest of its players was invisibility and 2+ re-rollable saves. If the actual vote to change the availability of scatter lasers passed, we'd never hear the end of the complaining.
Such complaining would be music to my ears. Eldar have had it too good for too long.
They came right out in the vote and said "How would you like to play it?" they clarified nothing. Because all the "its confusing!' arguements fell flat shortly before the vote even took place. The countermeasures were not even VOTED on, just straight up decided. Personally I thought the piranha formation was broken as written, so am not upset, but it was VERY clear, especially since it was an apocalypse formation years before, crystal clear, and nobody complained.
The reason it was phrased "how would you like to play it" is because there is no definitive answer in the rulebook. It's ambiguous, so we got to pick which interpretation was used. If there was no interpretation picked, people would be having debates during the games.
No one complained about the piranha apocalypse formation because no one plays apocalypse competitively. As for the countermeasures, they needed a decision before the LVO, so they made a decision. I imagine it will get a vote on the next ballot. If they don't, we can promise to take out the pitchforks and pack up our toys and go home.
I also don't understand the answer of "it's crystal clear!!!" whenever rule ambiguity comes up. You can tell me that I'm dumb or being a selfish non-Tauist, but I'm certain that the rule is ambiguous because I don't read it the same way as others in this thread. We can discuss which interpretation is more correct, but I won't presume that other interpretations don't exist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Such complaining would be music to my ears. Eldar have had it too good for too long.
They did suck in 5th edition and the start of 6th. Which I guess is a relatively short term compared to the BA sucking since 3rd edition except for a short blip in 5th edition.
There is no cavet for "shoots as one unit". Can one unit benefit from objective based buffs like skyfire? Yes. Can a unit with a buffmander benefit from his buffs? Yes. Can one unit use all markerlights? Yes. In both 12+ page threads argueng "unit coherency" and other nonsense, after credible sources were quoted and discussion, the non-buff sharing arguments died out. so unless you have some other argument that 300+ people had not thought of, it was settled decisively.
Orock wrote: There is no cavet for "shoots as one unit". Can one unit benefit from objective based buffs like skyfire? Yes. Can a unit with a buffmander benefit from his buffs? Yes. Can one unit use all markerlights? Yes. In both 12+ page threads argueng "unit coherency" and other nonsense, after credible sources were quoted and discussion, the non-buff sharing arguments died out. so unless you have some other argument that 300+ people had not thought of, it was settled decisively.
The rule makes specific allowances, the sharing of marker lights. It says nothing else about sharing special rules. If firing as one unit in this instance brought all the implicit benefits of being one unit, the marker light usage would not have to be clarified. By explicitly specifying that marker lights can be shared across units the writer indicates that "one unit" doesn't have all the usual implications.
And lo and behold, sharing marker lights and improved ballistic skill are a buff that you get for using the formation.
Eldar were mediocre in 5th edition. Not awful, had a couplr neat tricks, but not too tier. Its just about the only edition where they werent at the top of the power pyramid
Orock wrote: There is no cavet for "shoots as one unit". Can one unit benefit from objective based buffs like skyfire? Yes. Can a unit with a buffmander benefit from his buffs? Yes. Can one unit use all markerlights? Yes. In both 12+ page threads argueng "unit coherency" and other nonsense, after credible sources were quoted and discussion, the non-buff sharing arguments died out. so unless you have some other argument that 300+ people had not thought of, it was settled decisively.
The rule makes specific allowances, the sharing of marker lights. It says nothing else about sharing special rules. If firing as one unit in this instance brought all the implicit benefits of being one unit, the marker light usage would not have to be clarified. By explicitly specifying that marker lights can be shared across units the writer indicates that "one unit" doesn't have all the usual implications.
And lo and behold, sharing marker lights and improved ballistic skill are a buff that you get for using the formation.
permissible does not denote denial, otherwise all rules would have to be 3 page explanations.
Flying monstrous creatures have the ability to shoot at flyers normally. This does not mean they have skyfire and snapfire at the ground.
Marines may throw a grenade in the shooting phase. This does not mean they cannot also fire the rest of their weapons.
They used markerlights as an example, as discussed hundreds of pages over. It very clearly says "shoots as if it was one unit" If it did not intend for the unit to count as one unit, it would simply say everyone firing at the same unit if more than 3 units gain +1 BS and can benefit from the same markerlights. It does not. As much as tau haters would like it the other way, its not the way it works.
yeah going there isn't worth it. We can never really know.
The sisters of Battle showing sucked. We have got to mobilize the sistahs. We created a Facebook for that. I am hoping we get off the schneid and start organizing our various forces. I would love to see some Suisters at these things more frequently. It makes me want to go despite all my reservations, just to kick hiney with them.
I've got a nice sisters/BA combo list written up that I'd love to take to events...if I had money for sisters models!
Feel free to donate some and I'll gladly run em all the time.
permissible does not denote denial, otherwise all rules would have to be 3 page explanations.
Flying monstrous creatures have the ability to shoot at flyers normally. This does not mean they have skyfire and snapfire at the ground.
Marines may throw a grenade in the shooting phase. This does not mean they cannot also fire the rest of their weapons.
They used markerlights as an example, as discussed hundreds of pages over. It very clearly says "shoots as if it was one unit" If it did not intend for the unit to count as one unit, it would simply say everyone firing at the same unit if more than 3 units gain +1 BS and can benefit from the same markerlights. It does not. As much as tau haters would like it the other way, its not the way it works.
We can make this pretty simple. You and I read the same rule. We have come to two different interpretations. I am fairly certain that you won't convince me and I'm fairly certain that I won't convince you. Ergo, the rule is ambiguous. I can certainly see how people arrive at the same conclusion you did, I just simply don't agree with it. I can probably be extended the same courtesy, that my opinion is not out of the realm of possibility even if you don't agree with it. Since we can't agree and until GW clarifies what they meant with a FAQ we don't have a concrete reason to side with either interpretation.
I've mentioned this in a different thread on the same topic, but really the ruling here doesn't matter to me. What does matter is that we have a clear ruling that's made before an event. In a tournament setting there is not enough time to hash out the reasons for playing the game one way or the other. That's why I support the ITC. They actually take the time to identify sloppy rule writing and address the issue before events. Whether I agree with their rulings or not is irrelevant to me in terms of my support. It keeps me from having pointless debates where neither side will convince the other one because we can't point to a page number to get a black or white answer.
permissible does not denote denial, otherwise all rules would have to be 3 page explanations.
Flying monstrous creatures have the ability to shoot at flyers normally. This does not mean they have skyfire and snapfire at the ground.
Marines may throw a grenade in the shooting phase. This does not mean they cannot also fire the rest of their weapons.
They used markerlights as an example, as discussed hundreds of pages over. It very clearly says "shoots as if it was one unit" If it did not intend for the unit to count as one unit, it would simply say everyone firing at the same unit if more than 3 units gain +1 BS and can benefit from the same markerlights. It does not. As much as tau haters would like it the other way, its not the way it works.
We can make this pretty simple. You and I read the same rule. We have come to two different interpretations. I am fairly certain that you won't convince me and I'm fairly certain that I won't convince you. Ergo, the rule is ambiguous. I can certainly see how people arrive at the same conclusion you did, I just simply don't agree with it. I can probably be extended the same courtesy, that my opinion is not out of the realm of possibility even if you don't agree with it. Since we can't agree and until GW clarifies what they meant with a FAQ we don't have a concrete reason to side with either interpretation.
I've mentioned this in a different thread on the same topic, but really the ruling here doesn't matter to me. What does matter is that we have a clear ruling that's made before an event. In a tournament setting there is not enough time to hash out the reasons for playing the game one way or the other. That's why I support the ITC. They actually take the time to identify sloppy rule writing and address the issue before events. Whether I agree with their rulings or not is irrelevant to me in terms of my support. It keeps me from having pointless debates where neither side will convince the other one because we can't point to a page number to get a black or white answer.
Following this, the Coordinated Firepower rule is fairly tight. It fails on using an active voice, but solid otherwise. This was an unnecessary change.
For the Holophoton Countermeasures, it changes its focus half way through the rule. The first half of the rule references only a single model and a single enemy unit, the second half references the unit now, but refers back to the single enemy unit in the first half. This is a mess of a rule in all regards and needed an FAQ, but was controversial in how it was done.
yeah going there isn't worth it. We can never really know.
The sisters of Battle showing sucked. We have got to mobilize the sistahs. We created a Facebook for that. I am hoping we get off the schneid and start organizing our various forces. I would love to see some Suisters at these things more frequently. It makes me want to go despite all my reservations, just to kick hiney with them.
I've got a nice sisters/BA combo list written up that I'd love to take to events...if I had money for sisters models!
Feel free to donate some and I'll gladly run em all the time.
Oh I have a lot of them. If you came I could loan them to you for the weekend. Do the whole late night painting roomate thing and then juts kick the doors in and say "We are come, destroyers of worlds.
If you don't like the ITC, don't play in it. I don't because you have "D" all around, but can't use a Warhound because they are too broken. 7th Ed is just Apoc light for all purposes.
But they do get cudoes for trying to clarify ambiguous GW rules.
4th edition. This was Harlies in unkillable god-falcons. They then nerfed the god-falcons in 5th edition. Eldar's 5th edition codex was not updated throughout 5th so armies like Space Wolves and Grey Knights were in the ascendancy.
Eldar were strong in 3rd edition with seer villages and starcannon spam. We know what's happened with Eldar in 6th and 7th edition.
Martel732 wrote: As I have stated before, the ITC gets no respect from me until the nerf bat hits the Eldar. Hard. Ban scatterlasers perhaps so they get to play the same game as the rest of us.
That's the thing of it. The Tau were not nerfed directly. The new Tau models got an abundance of units with ambiguous rules. When decisions were made how to interpret the rules, the more conservative interpretations were used. If GW explicitly wrote:
"and shooting as one unit allows all the special rules to be transferred" or
What are you saying? That the often quoted rule of an IC being part of the unit for all rules purposes suddenly has no bearing here? What's ambiguous in a unit of 1 buffmander and 9 crisis suits with target locks vs 1 buffmander in a unit of 3 crisis suits joining fire with 2 other units of 3 crisis suits? Suddenly our minds can't bend to fact that in both cases there's just one unit doing a shooting attack? Let's not kid ourselves here, please.
"the piranhas can enter from reserves and leave in the same movement phase" or
This ruling made sense, but it's not a rules clarification.
"countermeasures affect all models in the unit and the ability can be used by each model in the unit once"
It clearly states who the actor is here. Using the countermeasures does not benefit the unit, it affects the enemy. There's nothing ambiguous in that.
the Tau would not have been "nerfed".
What? So trying to limit scatterbikes to one heavy per a unit of three would have been because the rule was ambiguous? Or is it because people see them as being too powerful?
The rules for warp spiders were ambiguous and the less powerful interpretation of the rules was used.
While I agree with the ruling I don't see it being ambiguous either. There's no limitation saying it works once.
The only things that the ITC "nerfed" at the behest of its players was invisibility and 2+ re-rollable saves. If the actual vote to change the availability of scatter lasers passed, we'd never hear the end of the complaining.
If you want to be more accurate, they were also doing very poorly for over half of 6th. Its just that they stomped *so very hard* for the smaller portion of 6th that the larger portion gets forgotten.
Bharring wrote: If you want to be more accurate, they were also doing very poorly for over half of 6th. Its just that they stomped *so very hard* for the smaller portion of 6th that the larger portion gets forgotten.
Yes, that's the way that usually works. But the real fallacy is that they were bad in 5th. They weren't. All the new hotness that came out in 5th still fell before the scatterlaser, just as everything falls now. You could realistically damage out a vehicle in 5th without exploding it with as many shots as it had. Also, lots of players rightly paid for power weapons in 5th. Very juicy targets for the Eldar. Basically, causing 50+ wounds a turn never goes out of style, and the Eldar were the original offenders.
We all hate taus, they are whinnig all the time.... CLOSE THIS THREAD PLZ
I mean your codex is awsome and still you are unhappy.... I know i know, you guys deserve D weapons on every units and a 2+ invu re-rollable. Of course, all ur units should have 10 wounds and be invisible all the time. Moreover, they should give you WS 9 and BS 9 on every single unit.
I hope GW gives you a terrible codex in the next edition.
Hopefully as bad as orks so we can have some fun against you.
alex0911 wrote: We all hate taus, they are whinnig all the time.... CLOSE THIS THREAD PLZ
I mean your codex is awsome and still you are unhappy....
I hope GW gives you a terrible codex in the next edition.
Hopefully as bad as orks so we can have some fun.
lol and you, sir, are exactly what the Tau players are complaining about. People wanting Tau to be bad just because they hate tau.
Idc about taus haha I just hate the fact that you guys are never happy. Maybe you could think about chaos space marines, dark eldars or orks and ask yourself : Are taus that bad ?
alex0911 wrote: We all hate taus, they are whinnig all the time.... CLOSE THIS THREAD PLZ
I mean your codex is awsome and still you are unhappy....
I hope GW gives you a terrible codex in the next edition.
Hopefully as bad as orks so we can have some fun.
lol and you, sir, are exactly what the Tau players are complaining about. People wanting Tau to be bad just because they hate tau.
Idc about taus haha I just hate the fact that you guys are never happy. Maybe you could think about chaos space marines, dark eldars or orks and ask yourself : Are taus that bad ?
wow 200 posts on a troll account. Hey, so if someone plays tau and 3 other armies, are they still "those dirty tau" when they rightly bring up nerf complaints. My main army is and always will be orks, and I think tau got screwed. This us or them mentality dosent work in tabletop, people change armies like they change the paint on their walls. That guy you compained about for playing tau might take up sisters of battle one day. You gonna write his name down in your journal of irrational hate and look it up every time he posts about sisters getting no support too?
alex0911 wrote: We all hate taus, they are whinnig all the time.... CLOSE THIS THREAD PLZ
I mean your codex is awsome and still you are unhappy....
I hope GW gives you a terrible codex in the next edition.
Hopefully as bad as orks so we can have some fun.
lol and you, sir, are exactly what the Tau players are complaining about. People wanting Tau to be bad just because they hate tau.
Idc about taus haha I just hate the fact that you guys are never happy. Maybe you could think about chaos space marines, dark eldars or orks and ask yourself : Are taus that bad ?
Well lets see here. NONE of those have gotten their codex updated with the new meta of formations. That means that they still will and most likely WILL get a huge boost.
alex0911 wrote: We all hate taus, they are whinnig all the time.... CLOSE THIS THREAD PLZ
I mean your codex is awsome and still you are unhappy....
I hope GW gives you a terrible codex in the next edition.
Hopefully as bad as orks so we can have some fun.
lol and you, sir, are exactly what the Tau players are complaining about. People wanting Tau to be bad just because they hate tau.
Idc about taus haha I just hate the fact that you guys are never happy. Maybe you could think about chaos space marines, dark eldars or orks and ask yourself : Are taus that bad ?
wow 200 posts on a troll account. Hey, so if someone plays tau and 3 other armies, are they still "those dirty tau" when they rightly bring up nerf complaints. My main army is and always will be orks, and I think tau got screwed. This us or them mentality dosent work in tabletop, people change armies like they change the paint on their walls. That guy you compained about for playing tau might take up sisters of battle one day. You gonna write his name down in your journal of irrational hate and look it up every time he posts about sisters getting no support too?
LOL Why so mad? Maybe some players are fine, im just tired of every single whiners which doesnt understand that taus are fine the way they are. Be honest, some armies are terrible compared to taus. However, people deal with it and we wait for the next codex instead of crying ... Thanks about the idea of a journal.
wow 200 posts on a troll account. Hey, so if someone plays tau and 3 other armies, are they still "those dirty tau" when they rightly bring up nerf complaints. My main army is and always will be orks, and I think tau got screwed. This us or them mentality dosent work in tabletop, people change armies like they change the paint on their walls. That guy you compained about for playing tau might take up sisters of battle one day. You gonna write his name down in your journal of irrational hate and look it up every time he posts about sisters getting no support too?
I own and play every army except Chaos Daemons, Tyranids and Mechanicus. I own every other army and switch off constantly.
So I agree. Its ridiculous to say the "Tau" are whining. It's the ruling that sucked. Its the sore losers that suck. it's not the "Tau". And those "Tau" were playing the Tau for the three Editions they WEREN'T "good" also.
alex0911 wrote: We all hate taus, they are whinnig all the time.... CLOSE THIS THREAD PLZ
I mean your codex is awsome and still you are unhappy....
I hope GW gives you a terrible codex in the next edition.
Hopefully as bad as orks so we can have some fun.
lol and you, sir, are exactly what the Tau players are complaining about. People wanting Tau to be bad just because they hate tau.
Idc about taus haha I just hate the fact that you guys are never happy. Maybe you could think about chaos space marines, dark eldars or orks and ask yourself : Are taus that bad ?
Well lets see here. NONE of those have gotten their codex updated with the new meta of formations. That means that they still will and most likely WILL get a huge boost.
Ofc they will, at the 8th edition just like the rest of the armies.
alex0911 wrote: We all hate taus, they are whinnig all the time.... CLOSE THIS THREAD PLZ
I mean your codex is awsome and still you are unhappy....
I hope GW gives you a terrible codex in the next edition.
Hopefully as bad as orks so we can have some fun.
lol and you, sir, are exactly what the Tau players are complaining about. People wanting Tau to be bad just because they hate tau.
Idc about taus haha I just hate the fact that you guys are never happy. Maybe you could think about chaos space marines, dark eldars or orks and ask yourself : Are taus that bad ?
wow 200 posts on a troll account. Hey, so if someone plays tau and 3 other armies, are they still "those dirty tau" when they rightly bring up nerf complaints. My main army is and always will be orks, and I think tau got screwed. This us or them mentality dosent work in tabletop, people change armies like they change the paint on their walls. That guy you compained about for playing tau might take up sisters of battle one day. You gonna write his name down in your journal of irrational hate and look it up every time he posts about sisters getting no support too?
LOL Why so mad? Maybe some players are fine, im just tired of every single whiners which doesnt understand that taus are fine the way they are. Be honest, some armies are terrible compared to taus. However, people deal with it and we wait for the next codex instead of crying ... Thanks about the idea of a journal.
You are missing the point, again. The army WAS fine the way it was, and ITC changed a bunch of things, many without a vote or discussion just because they felt like it
alex0911 wrote: We all hate taus, they are whinnig all the time.... CLOSE THIS THREAD PLZ
I mean your codex is awsome and still you are unhappy....
I hope GW gives you a terrible codex in the next edition.
Hopefully as bad as orks so we can have some fun.
lol and you, sir, are exactly what the Tau players are complaining about. People wanting Tau to be bad just because they hate tau.
Idc about taus haha I just hate the fact that you guys are never happy. Maybe you could think about chaos space marines, dark eldars or orks and ask yourself : Are taus that bad ?
wow 200 posts on a troll account. Hey, so if someone plays tau and 3 other armies, are they still "those dirty tau" when they rightly bring up nerf complaints. My main army is and always will be orks, and I think tau got screwed. This us or them mentality dosent work in tabletop, people change armies like they change the paint on their walls. That guy you compained about for playing tau might take up sisters of battle one day. You gonna write his name down in your journal of irrational hate and look it up every time he posts about sisters getting no support too?
LOL Why so mad? Maybe some players are fine, im just tired of every single whiners which doesnt understand that taus are fine the way they are. Be honest, some armies are terrible compared to taus. However, people deal with it and we wait for the next codex instead of crying ... Thanks about the idea of a journal.
You are missing the point, again. The army WAS fine the way it was, and ITC changed a bunch of things, many without a vote or discussion just because they felt like it
alex0911 wrote: We all hate taus, they are whinnig all the time.... CLOSE THIS THREAD PLZ
I mean your codex is awsome and still you are unhappy....
I hope GW gives you a terrible codex in the next edition.
Hopefully as bad as orks so we can have some fun.
lol and you, sir, are exactly what the Tau players are complaining about. People wanting Tau to be bad just because they hate tau.
Idc about taus haha I just hate the fact that you guys are never happy. Maybe you could think about chaos space marines, dark eldars or orks and ask yourself : Are taus that bad ?
wow 200 posts on a troll account. Hey, so if someone plays tau and 3 other armies, are they still "those dirty tau" when they rightly bring up nerf complaints. My main army is and always will be orks, and I think tau got screwed. This us or them mentality dosent work in tabletop, people change armies like they change the paint on their walls. That guy you compained about for playing tau might take up sisters of battle one day. You gonna write his name down in your journal of irrational hate and look it up every time he posts about sisters getting no support too?
LOL Why so mad? Maybe some players are fine, im just tired of every single whiners which doesnt understand that taus are fine the way they are. Be honest, some armies are terrible compared to taus. However, people deal with it and we wait for the next codex instead of crying ... Thanks about the idea of a journal.
You are missing the point, again. The army WAS fine the way it was, and ITC changed a bunch of things, many without a vote or discussion just because they felt like it
Is the army still fine the with the nerfs?
The army is still awsome, they nerfed the OP stuff that everyone hated, deal with it
You know what is funny ? People voted it so there might be a reason why some rules were apply ? Maybe some stuff were too good and tabling people every games isnt that great ?
alex0911 wrote: We all hate taus, they are whinnig all the time.... CLOSE THIS THREAD PLZ
I mean your codex is awsome and still you are unhappy....
I hope GW gives you a terrible codex in the next edition.
Hopefully as bad as orks so we can have some fun.
lol and you, sir, are exactly what the Tau players are complaining about. People wanting Tau to be bad just because they hate tau.
Idc about taus haha I just hate the fact that you guys are never happy. Maybe you could think about chaos space marines, dark eldars or orks and ask yourself : Are taus that bad ?
wow 200 posts on a troll account. Hey, so if someone plays tau and 3 other armies, are they still "those dirty tau" when they rightly bring up nerf complaints. My main army is and always will be orks, and I think tau got screwed. This us or them mentality dosent work in tabletop, people change armies like they change the paint on their walls. That guy you compained about for playing tau might take up sisters of battle one day. You gonna write his name down in your journal of irrational hate and look it up every time he posts about sisters getting no support too?
LOL Why so mad? Maybe some players are fine, im just tired of every single whiners which doesnt understand that taus are fine the way they are. Be honest, some armies are terrible compared to taus. However, people deal with it and we wait for the next codex instead of crying ... Thanks about the idea of a journal.
You are missing the point, again. The army WAS fine the way it was, and ITC changed a bunch of things, many without a vote or discussion just because they felt like it
Is the army still fine the with the nerfs?
Why should we accept just being "fine"? How is that fair? If we are given very good things in our codex why should we not be able to use them? How about another army other than Eldar, Space marine, or Necrons finally start winning tournaments?
alex0911 wrote: We all hate taus, they are whinnig all the time.... CLOSE THIS THREAD PLZ
I mean your codex is awsome and still you are unhappy....
I hope GW gives you a terrible codex in the next edition.
Hopefully as bad as orks so we can have some fun.
lol and you, sir, are exactly what the Tau players are complaining about. People wanting Tau to be bad just because they hate tau.
Idc about taus haha I just hate the fact that you guys are never happy. Maybe you could think about chaos space marines, dark eldars or orks and ask yourself : Are taus that bad ?
wow 200 posts on a troll account. Hey, so if someone plays tau and 3 other armies, are they still "those dirty tau" when they rightly bring up nerf complaints. My main army is and always will be orks, and I think tau got screwed. This us or them mentality dosent work in tabletop, people change armies like they change the paint on their walls. That guy you compained about for playing tau might take up sisters of battle one day. You gonna write his name down in your journal of irrational hate and look it up every time he posts about sisters getting no support too?
LOL Why so mad? Maybe some players are fine, im just tired of every single whiners which doesnt understand that taus are fine the way they are. Be honest, some armies are terrible compared to taus. However, people deal with it and we wait for the next codex instead of crying ... Thanks about the idea of a journal.
You are missing the point, again. The army WAS fine the way it was, and ITC changed a bunch of things, many without a vote or discussion just because they felt like it
Is the army still fine the with the nerfs?
Why should we accept just being "fine"? How is that fair? If we are given very good things in our codex why should we not be able to use them? How about another army other than Eldar, Space marine, or Necrons finally start winning tournaments?
nerf them too then, taus are good the way they are, they won some locals tournements here. I mean itc nerfed them but theyr are still really good man, much better then most armies ! Orks and dark eldars didnt even make it to top 32 and did they cry ? Nah taus did with 6 players in top 32. Shhhh now
alex0911 wrote: We all hate taus, they are whinnig all the time.... CLOSE THIS THREAD PLZ
I mean your codex is awsome and still you are unhappy....
I hope GW gives you a terrible codex in the next edition.
Hopefully as bad as orks so we can have some fun.
lol and you, sir, are exactly what the Tau players are complaining about. People wanting Tau to be bad just because they hate tau.
Idc about taus haha I just hate the fact that you guys are never happy. Maybe you could think about chaos space marines, dark eldars or orks and ask yourself : Are taus that bad ?
wow 200 posts on a troll account. Hey, so if someone plays tau and 3 other armies, are they still "those dirty tau" when they rightly bring up nerf complaints. My main army is and always will be orks, and I think tau got screwed. This us or them mentality dosent work in tabletop, people change armies like they change the paint on their walls. That guy you compained about for playing tau might take up sisters of battle one day. You gonna write his name down in your journal of irrational hate and look it up every time he posts about sisters getting no support too?
LOL Why so mad? Maybe some players are fine, im just tired of every single whiners which doesnt understand that taus are fine the way they are. Be honest, some armies are terrible compared to taus. However, people deal with it and we wait for the next codex instead of crying ... Thanks about the idea of a journal.
You are missing the point, again. The army WAS fine the way it was, and ITC changed a bunch of things, many without a vote or discussion just because they felt like it
Is the army still fine the with the nerfs?
Why should we accept just being "fine"? How is that fair? If we are given very good things in our codex why should we not be able to use them? How about another army other than Eldar, Space marine, or Necrons finally start winning tournaments?
nerf them too then, taus are good the way they are, they won some locals tournements here. I mean itc nerfed them but theyr are still really good man, much better then most armies ! Orks and dark eldars didnt even make it to top 32 and did they cry ? Nah taus did with 6 players in top 32. Shhhh now
Pretty sure it was 2 (maybe 3) it the top 32. And again, its because Orks / Dark Eldar have not gotten their new codex yet. This is the equivalent of your Orks getting a new codex and ITC nerfing multiple formations right off the bat. Wouldn't you be mad as well?
alex0911 wrote: We all hate taus, they are whinnig all the time.... CLOSE THIS THREAD PLZ
I mean your codex is awsome and still you are unhappy....
I hope GW gives you a terrible codex in the next edition.
Hopefully as bad as orks so we can have some fun.
lol and you, sir, are exactly what the Tau players are complaining about. People wanting Tau to be bad just because they hate tau.
Idc about taus haha I just hate the fact that you guys are never happy. Maybe you could think about chaos space marines, dark eldars or orks and ask yourself : Are taus that bad ?
wow 200 posts on a troll account. Hey, so if someone plays tau and 3 other armies, are they still "those dirty tau" when they rightly bring up nerf complaints. My main army is and always will be orks, and I think tau got screwed. This us or them mentality dosent work in tabletop, people change armies like they change the paint on their walls. That guy you compained about for playing tau might take up sisters of battle one day. You gonna write his name down in your journal of irrational hate and look it up every time he posts about sisters getting no support too?
LOL Why so mad? Maybe some players are fine, im just tired of every single whiners which doesnt understand that taus are fine the way they are. Be honest, some armies are terrible compared to taus. However, people deal with it and we wait for the next codex instead of crying ... Thanks about the idea of a journal.
You are missing the point, again. The army WAS fine the way it was, and ITC changed a bunch of things, many without a vote or discussion just because they felt like it
Is the army still fine the with the nerfs?
Why should we accept just being "fine"? How is that fair? If we are given very good things in our codex why should we not be able to use them? How about another army other than Eldar, Space marine, or Necrons finally start winning tournaments?
nerf them too then, taus are good the way they are, they won some locals tournements here. I mean itc nerfed them but theyr are still really good man, much better then most armies ! Orks and dark eldars didnt even make it to top 32 and did they cry ? Nah taus did with 6 players in top 32. Shhhh now
Pretty sure it was 2 (maybe 3) it the top 32. And again, its because Orks / Dark Eldar have not gotten their new codex yet. This is the equivalent of your Orks getting a new codex and ITC nerfing multiple formations right off the bat. Wouldn't you be mad as well?
dude you had 6 in top 32, which is the highest amount with eldars and still you are unhappy. I would not care, orks are so bad they can t get any worst haha im done with you now
Martel732 wrote: There's nothing itc can do to BA that GW hasn't already done. So no, I wouldn't care.
lol so you are telling me, after how much I have heard you complain on here that BA are terrible right now, that when their new codex comes out and they finally have new formations / units that would mean you may actually win some tournaments now and ITC immediately nerf them, you wouldn't be mad?
alex0911 wrote: We all hate taus, they are whinnig all the time.... CLOSE THIS THREAD PLZ
I mean your codex is awsome and still you are unhappy....
I hope GW gives you a terrible codex in the next edition.
Hopefully as bad as orks so we can have some fun.
lol and you, sir, are exactly what the Tau players are complaining about. People wanting Tau to be bad just because they hate tau.
Idc about taus haha I just hate the fact that you guys are never happy. Maybe you could think about chaos space marines, dark eldars or orks and ask yourself : Are taus that bad ?
wow 200 posts on a troll account. Hey, so if someone plays tau and 3 other armies, are they still "those dirty tau" when they rightly bring up nerf complaints. My main army is and always will be orks, and I think tau got screwed. This us or them mentality dosent work in tabletop, people change armies like they change the paint on their walls. That guy you compained about for playing tau might take up sisters of battle one day. You gonna write his name down in your journal of irrational hate and look it up every time he posts about sisters getting no support too?
LOL Why so mad? Maybe some players are fine, im just tired of every single whiners which doesnt understand that taus are fine the way they are. Be honest, some armies are terrible compared to taus. However, people deal with it and we wait for the next codex instead of crying ... Thanks about the idea of a journal.
You are missing the point, again. The army WAS fine the way it was, and ITC changed a bunch of things, many without a vote or discussion just because they felt like it
Is the army still fine the with the nerfs?
Why should we accept just being "fine"? How is that fair? If we are given very good things in our codex why should we not be able to use them? How about another army other than Eldar, Space marine, or Necrons finally start winning tournaments?
nerf them too then, taus are good the way they are, they won some locals tournements here. I mean itc nerfed them but theyr are still really good man, much better then most armies ! Orks and dark eldars didnt even make it to top 32 and did they cry ? Nah taus did with 6 players in top 32. Shhhh now
Pretty sure it was 2 (maybe 3) it the top 32. And again, its because Orks / Dark Eldar have not gotten their new codex yet. This is the equivalent of your Orks getting a new codex and ITC nerfing multiple formations right off the bat. Wouldn't you be mad as well?
dude you had 6 in top 32, which is the highest amount with eldars and still you are unhappy. I would not care, orks are so bad they can t get any worst haha im done with you now
BA aren't going to get those things because trying to do assault with meqs in 7th is never going to work. And that's BA. We have no MCs and likely never will so we are boned.
Dozer Blades wrote: The problem with BA is gw gave them nothing new unlike Tau. They just got back things that had been taken away from them.
That and their entire concept fails because meqs are now target dummies with the life expectancy of a guardsman. But please thread tell me how the codex with the stormsurge is getting so shafted.
If adding only single sentence replies, please do not repeatedly quote large blocks of text - it is not needed and makes the thread very difficult to read.
Instead, you can just hit "Post Reply" at the bottom of the page to make a fresh post, or delete some of the text you are replying to if hitting the "Quote" button.
Dozer Blades wrote: The problem with BA is gw gave them nothing new unlike Tau. They just got back things that had been taken away from them.
That and their entire concept fails because meqs are now target dummies with the life expectancy of a guardsman. But please thread tell me how the codex with the stormsurge is getting so shafted.
SS is good. But it is also 435 points and dies very quickly compared to other GMC since it is T6/3+
Dozer Blades wrote: The problem with BA is gw gave them nothing new unlike Tau. They just got back things that had been taken away from them.
That and their entire concept fails because meqs are now target dummies with the life expectancy of a guardsman. But please thread tell me how the codex with the stormsurge is getting so shafted.
SS is good. But it is also 435 points and dies very quickly compared to other GMC since it is T6/3+
If by quickly, you mean never, I agree. Gmcs are only thing more unfair than mcs.
Dozer Blades wrote: The problem with BA is gw gave them nothing new unlike Tau. They just got back things that had been taken away from them.
That and their entire concept fails because meqs are now target dummies with the life expectancy of a guardsman. But please thread tell me how the codex with the stormsurge is getting so shafted.
SS is good. But it is also 435 points and dies very quickly compared to other GMC since it is T6/3+
If by quickly, you mean never, I agree. Gmcs are only thing more unfair than mcs.
Watch some BR. SS die very quickly. Frontline had 1 die in a round of shooting to grave cents. Miniwargaming had 1 die in one round of shooting to Kastelan's
Dozer Blades wrote: The problem with BA is gw gave them nothing new unlike Tau. They just got back things that had been taken away from them.
That and their entire concept fails because meqs are now target dummies with the life expectancy of a guardsman. But please thread tell me how the codex with the stormsurge is getting so shafted.
SS is good. But it is also 435 points and dies very quickly compared to other GMC since it is T6/3+
If by quickly, you mean never, I agree. Gmcs are only thing more unfair than mcs.
Watch some BR. SS die very quickly. Frontline had 1 die in a round of shooting to grave cents. Miniwargaming had 1 die in one round of shooting to Kastelan's
You're talking to a BA player. He doesn't have grav centurions, castellans, grav cannon devastators, or a way to reliably get even grav guns into a storm surge's threat zone without being taken out.
niv-mizzet wrote: You're talking to a BA player. He doesn't have grav centurions, castellans, grav cannon devastators, or a way to reliably get even grav guns into a storm surge's threat zone without being taken out.
It's really a shame Lib Dreadnoughts aren't more viable. They'd be great GMC killers.
niv-mizzet wrote: You're talking to a BA player. He doesn't have grav centurions, castellans, grav cannon devastators, or a way to reliably get even grav guns into a storm surge's threat zone without being taken out.
It's really a shame Lib Dreadnoughts aren't more viable. They'd be great GMC killers.
They need 4 base attacks. You'd be surprised how less terrible melee Dreads are thanks to that minor buff. All the FW dreads need that too.
Dozer Blades wrote: The problem with BA is gw gave them nothing new unlike Tau. They just got back things that had been taken away from them.
That and their entire concept fails because meqs are now target dummies with the life expectancy of a guardsman. But please thread tell me how the codex with the stormsurge is getting so shafted.
SS is good. But it is also 435 points and dies very quickly compared to other GMC since it is T6/3+
If by quickly, you mean never, I agree. Gmcs are only thing more unfair than mcs.
Watch some BR. SS die very quickly. Frontline had 1 die in a round of shooting to grave cents. Miniwargaming had 1 die in one round of shooting to Kastelan's
You're talking to a BA player. He doesn't have grav centurions, castellans, grav cannon devastators, or a way to reliably get even grav guns into a storm surge's threat zone without being taken out.
It's all in the viewpoints man.
Its 7th ed. He isn't a BA player, hes an imperial player. Ally in some Cents, Ally in some Ad mech.
Martel732 wrote: There is no codex IoM. I am a BA player. By the time you ally in cents, you might as well throw the BA in the garbage can and build a new list.
Loved it when BA did great in a tournament when they actually brought a priest, some scouts and enough drop pods for Skitarii, and people were like "look, BA did great in that tournament, there's nothing wrong with them."
Martel732 wrote: There is no codex IoM. I am a BA player. By the time you ally in cents, you might as well throw the BA in the garbage can and build a new list.
Loved it when BA did great in a tournament when they actually brought a priest, some scouts and enough drop pods for Skitarii, and people were like "look, BA did great in that tournament, there's nothing wrong with them."
Seriously every xenos player who goes "waaah IoM codex" needs to stfu because they know thats bs. I didn't come to the table to play Space Wolves I came to play Grey Knights. Just like the Blood Angels came to play Blood Angels.
If we go by that Eldar and DE need to be merged. Oh wait they pretty already are because BB as well. But not a single Imperium player on this forum has bitched about that.
Tau used to be BB with Eldar as well. We know how that went.
It is not an argument to say "go play another army".
IMO netting tau blatantly and ignoring rules as written would be fine and dandy if this was done to every big army. As it stands though, needing tau but not eldar and space marines as much sort of makes this a pointless thing. If you need the second most powerful army instead of the top of the top, all your doing is making it so the game is still broken whilst also limiting veriety in the top tier. If you don't bring all the top tier cheese down, all your doing is making it so there are less flavors of top tier cheese.
Regardless of if tau deserve to be nerfed for being op, it won't make more lists viable if they are unless all other op armies are nerfed. Hitting one of the top armies for no reason while leaving the rest untouched will simply leave you with one less top army, and less veriety. You need top hit all the top armies or buff all the bad ones so they're at the same power level of you want everyone viable.
The simple fact remains that picking on tau arbitrarily instead of others that are also out of line shows that tau are getting special treatment, and indeed is getting unfair treatment. If you think tau need to be nurfed then you should argue that eldar necrons and space marines need it. Tau players also are justified in being mad, as they are getting unequal treatment compared to better armies.
Tau players would be fine if the same nerfs happened to Eldar. Most Tau players feel that they have been target and they have been. Since the codex came out there have been 6 nerfs or conservative interpretations to their rules. This did not occur with the Eldar codex. There has always been a long standing rule in the ITC that hell storm templates or ranged D blasts would be banned or nerfed. The new Wraithknight from the IA book received no critical review. The warp Hunter also received a pass. Wait till you see this combo hit the competively scene en masse. Those two units will push the bad feeling games to a new level and yet received not one acknowledgment that they might be game breaking.
The new Eldar IA also came out two (three?) weeks ago. After a participants list had been locked in as far as I am aware. So it won't even be in this tourney and thus does not have to be ruled yet.
Quickjager wrote: The new Eldar IA also came out two (three?) weeks ago. After a participants list had been locked in as far as I am aware. So it won't even be in this tourney and thus does not have to be ruled yet.
List have been locked? I don't think so. The ghost keel and piranha rulings were done with one weeks notice.
The same could have been done for the doom of mymearya.
Jaxler wrote: IMO netting tau blatantly and ignoring rules as written would be fine and dandy if this was done to every big army. As it stands though, needing tau but not eldar and space marines as much sort of makes this a pointless thing. If you need the second most powerful army instead of the top of the top, all your doing is making it so the game is still broken whilst also limiting veriety in the top tier. If you don't bring all the top tier cheese down, all your doing is making it so there are less flavors of top tier cheese.
Regardless of if tau deserve to be nerfed for being op, it won't make more lists viable if they are unless all other op armies are nerfed. Hitting one of the top armies for no reason while leaving the rest untouched will simply leave you with one less top army, and less veriety. You need top hit all the top armies or buff all the bad ones so they're at the same power level of you want everyone viable.
The simple fact remains that picking on tau arbitrarily instead of others that are also out of line shows that tau are getting special treatment, and indeed is getting unfair treatment. If you think tau need to be nurfed then you should argue that eldar necrons and space marines need it. Tau players also are justified in being mad, as they are getting unequal treatment compared to better armies.
Unequal? Hardly. Merely measured according to their power level.
Take Eldar. Shortly after the most recent Eldar codex came out, the ITC voted in new restrictions on ranged D-weapons. Coincedence? There's only one army that has as great access to the D, and that's Eldar. Nerfs to Invisibility and 2+ re-rollable saves, along with the limitation of having only one unit of GC, have done much to tone down some of the most egregious traits of Eldar.
In addition to being hurt by the 2+ re-rollable and Invisibility nerfs, limits on the number of detachments one can take and sources from which one may draw units have toned down the Allies shenanigans that the Imperium can abuse.
EDIT: It says on their format what books ARE allowed and it doesn't look like IA:11 is on it. So I guess I was right.
Incorrect , both Eldar players in the top table used units from that book. The warp Hunter from that book is 185 points and the WK Skathach, 2x deathshrouds, scatter laser 330.
The simple fact remains that picking on tau arbitrarily instead of others that are also out of line shows that tau are getting special treatment, and indeed is getting unfair treatment. If you think tau need to be nurfed then you should argue that eldar necrons and space marines need it. Tau players also are justified in being mad, as they are getting unequal treatment compared to better armies.
I'd say the Tau dodged a bullet. The Tau haven't faced near the backlash the Eldar got. If ITC Un-nerfed them. I would imagine a ton of anti-Tau threads will be on Dakka with in a week. The Tau hate wouldn't be conspiracy theory anymore it would be very real.
The simple fact remains that picking on tau arbitrarily instead of others that are also out of line shows that tau are getting special treatment, and indeed is getting unfair treatment. If you think tau need to be nurfed then you should argue that eldar necrons and space marines need it. Tau players also are justified in being mad, as they are getting unequal treatment compared to better armies.
I'd say the Tau dodged a bullet. The Tau haven't faced near the backlash the Eldar got. If ITC Un-nerfed them. I would imagine a ton of anti-Tau threads will be on Dakka with in a week. The Tau hate wouldn't be conspiracy theory anymore it would be very real.
I'll say again the only thing I think ITC did unfairly is the Ghostkeel. Most everything else is ok. As far as Tau hate goes, it is very real. I've played Tau since they were still using their 4th edition codex and I still get accused of being a bandwagoner and using cheese because I have a Tau army. People either like Tau, or hate Tau and really nothing in between. It's actually detered me from going to play games before because I don't want to listen to someone complain about the ARMY I'm playing, while I'm losing the game (dice hate me...).
Oh yeah, tau hate on pre-codex late 5th was also a thing, not that it was even remotely playable back then other than gimmick trolling lists (aka kroot trump bike marines case)
In any case. We DO get unequal, and unfair treatment.
Had these units and formations been allowed to make a test run, and proven in action to be overwhelming, not a single tau player would argue against a correction nerf.
But preemptive nerfing, on things that are questionably even as good as currently running units, that's plain nasty.
Ghostkneel trick is watered down invisibility - might be auromatic and no psyker required, but it's limited use. Had they allowed it to simply work under invisibility changes (bs1 rather than snaps, so templates and blasts still work) would it be a problem? No.
Instead, in pure tau hating they took out the ability from potential 3 single shots per game, to max 1 time. Not even 1 turn, just 1 shot. On an MC that us within ID range anyway.
Pirana firestorm? No reason to belive it's any better than all existing auto-spawner, respawner and freeby units formations and FOCs out there, none of them git nerfed, most of them are not even seeing competitive play, let alone top tables.
The assumption that it MUST be OP despite zero evidence and the outright ignoring of the many issues and strings attached of the formation from all who advocate against it is mind boggling.
Might it be too much? Yes. But that's far from being proven. It never saw a competitive table, nor will it ever see under the nerf.
Tau isn't in a bad spot, even after the nerf. Bit they were unfair, unequal and unnecessary.
Tau has things that need to be fixed, both buffing and nerfing (at times on the same unit/mechanic you need one side buffed and another nerfed, for example broadside HYMP and HRR), but these were not the things that were modified, nor was it done correctly.
ITC ruling is "popular vote". This means popular armies get a built in edge over unpopular ones on ruling, and tau were hated even when they were bottom tier, they are simply disliked by a portion of the community due to thier different style.
IoM is a big faction with many players, even obvious ruling against it are unlikely to ever pass.
Orks were always popular, so they get slowed ruling in thier favor like the super cheap stompa that passed a while ago. They need to be better, but this isn't the way.
ITC is very anti-tau, and don't even try to hide it. During the votes on these many people on forums, this one included, outright said they don't even play ITC, but voted against tau just to feth them over because of simple hate.
The questions were not even worded as rules questions, but as "what would you like it to be". It's not clarifications or corrections, it's outright modified rules.
The only other such case I recall is ranged D weapons. And I'm still not convinced it was justified. Against most things a D and S10 are mechanically identical, and nobody flocked to wraith guard when they had S10 guns, while the knight is just as OP anyhow as that was never the thing that was broken in it, but it's endurance and GMC immunities.
And that wasn't limited to eldar. They took the biggest hit, but others have ranged D as well.
Heck, tau are not even allowed the railshark, and it's 660 points for a single D shot (high accuracy, but single shot.) on a 12/12/10/6 jet. It's not even DECENT. it's just banned for no reason at all.
Frozocrone wrote: Its banned for being a super heavy flyer, one of the criterion for banning super heavies (that said I think one of the IOM SHF is allowed, unsure).
I agree with the fire stream nerf despite playing tau, there is nothing you can do the source of the free units when player unerfed.
The fact you can't stop it (baring interceptor) is powerful indeed.
But fact is, it takes way too long to fire up, the drones waste valuable turns moving up field due to backfield spawn zone, it's the ONLY spawn mechanic that isn't scoring and that it's highly reliant on having first turn (because if not,they either start off field wating for reserve roll, greatly diminishing the spawning, or start on field and risk getting nuked as they are made of paper)
It's good, its PROBABLY not overpowered though. Just good. Doubt it will make it to top 8 in big turnies.
Under the nerf though, it won't even see the table.
Preemptive nerfing with zero evidence, results or records is stupid, unprofessional, and harmful. It shouldn't be done.
You realise it didn't even got tested ONCE before the nerf? It's a knee jerk if I ever saw one. And streams straight from Reece's not even subtle tau hate (he tried to limit stormsurge to one per army at first. Despite an enite army of imp Knights being kosher. How us that "fair treatment"? Anyone even thinking too highly on the surge?)
Imperial Knights as an army suck though, it loses out on objectives. You keep putting a single element in isolation and saying "this is proof of x". It isn't.
Otherwise I could single out the Dreadknight as proof the Grey Knights are op.
I agree the Stormsurge thing was a kneejerk. But in his defense at that point it was just Game Workshop literally making rules to feth with the tourney scene. It had never been done before. But hey it ended well at least.
Character assassination violates the dakka code of conduct. It's not needed to make a point. Reece and company do their best and put on a good show. Without them the hobby withers and dies. Lastly, it's toy soldiers!
3 things to make Tau players happy:
1. Revisit the Tau Hunter contingent and give us the choice of the middle ground ( sharing buffs to only the primary target ) or the current ruling.
BoomWolf wrote: Tau isn't in a bad spot, even after the nerf. Bit they were unfair, unequal and unnecessary.
Tau has things that need to be fixed, both buffing and nerfing (at times on the same unit/mechanic you need one side buffed and another nerfed, for example broadside HYMP and HRR), but these were not the things that were modified, nor was it done correctly.
ITC ruling is "popular vote". This means popular armies get a built in edge over unpopular ones on ruling, and tau were hated even when they were bottom tier, they are simply disliked by a portion of the community due to thier different style.
IoM is a big faction with many players, even obvious ruling against it are unlikely to ever pass.
Orks were always popular, so they get slowed ruling in thier favor like the super cheap stompa that passed a while ago. They need to be better, but this isn't the way.
ITC is very anti-tau, and don't even try to hide it. During the votes on these many people on forums, this one included, outright said they don't even play ITC, but voted against tau just to feth them over because of simple hate.
The questions were not even worded as rules questions, but as "what would you like it to be". It's not clarifications or corrections, it's outright modified rules.
The only other such case I recall is ranged D weapons. And I'm still not convinced it was justified. Against most things a D and S10 are mechanically identical, and nobody flocked to wraith guard when they had S10 guns, while the knight is just as OP anyhow as that was never the thing that was broken in it, but it's endurance and GMC immunities.
And that wasn't limited to eldar. They took the biggest hit, but others have ranged D as well.
I agree with this, but the important bit is bolded. My biggest problem with the ITC polling was the bias. As said above, the question wasn't 'what is RaW', but rather 'how do you want to play it?'
If the ITC is going to nerf everything that comes out in the future to the extent of what they did to tau, why not restrict the tournaments to anything published before XX\XX\XXXX?
And a question: why the Tau hate? Tau only excel in shooting. They are nonexistent in the Psychic phase, and fold in the Assault phase. They don't excel in all phases like Eldar. They aren't generalists like Marines. They don't have the durability of Knights, etc. so why the hate?
BoomWolf wrote: Tau isn't in a bad spot, even after the nerf. Bit they were unfair, unequal and unnecessary.
Tau has things that need to be fixed, both buffing and nerfing (at times on the same unit/mechanic you need one side buffed and another nerfed, for example broadside HYMP and HRR), but these were not the things that were modified, nor was it done correctly.
ITC ruling is "popular vote". This means popular armies get a built in edge over unpopular ones on ruling, and tau were hated even when they were bottom tier, they are simply disliked by a portion of the community due to thier different style.
IoM is a big faction with many players, even obvious ruling against it are unlikely to ever pass.
Orks were always popular, so they get slowed ruling in thier favor like the super cheap stompa that passed a while ago. They need to be better, but this isn't the way.
ITC is very anti-tau, and don't even try to hide it. During the votes on these many people on forums, this one included, outright said they don't even play ITC, but voted against tau just to feth them over because of simple hate.
The questions were not even worded as rules questions, but as "what would you like it to be". It's not clarifications or corrections, it's outright modified rules.
The only other such case I recall is ranged D weapons. And I'm still not convinced it was justified. Against most things a D and S10 are mechanically identical, and nobody flocked to wraith guard when they had S10 guns, while the knight is just as OP anyhow as that was never the thing that was broken in it, but it's endurance and GMC immunities.
And that wasn't limited to eldar. They took the biggest hit, but others have ranged D as well.
I agree with this, but the important bit is bolded. My biggest problem with the ITC polling was the bias. As said above, the question wasn't 'what is RaW', but rather 'how do you want to play it?'
If the ITC is going to nerf everything that comes out in the future to the extent of what they did to tau, why not restrict the tournaments to anything published before XX\XX\XXXX?
And a question: why the Tau hate? Tau only excel in shooting. They are nonexistent in the Psychic phase, and fold in the Assault phase. They don't excel in all phases like Eldar. They aren't generalists like Marines. They don't have the durability of Knights, etc. so why the hate?
Because they can basically play solo? It's the same reason Eldar get so much hate, because they can invalidate the movement phases (JSJ moves) and shoot you off the Table before you get to play.
I've literally seen games like this. Tau player goes first, shoots off half the opponent's army. "GG, wanna go again?"
If Assault wasn't so nerfed in this game, Tau and Eldar would have a harder time, but given this edition, Assault armies are basically hamstringed.
jreilly89 wrote: but given this edition, Assault armies are basically hamstringed.
so the hate for tau is because the edition is broken? that is like blowing the hell out of your neighbor when you are pissed at the UN! It happens, sure, but it isn't exactly fair.
jreilly89 wrote: but given this edition, Assault armies are basically hamstringed.
so the hate for tau is because the edition is broken? that is like blowing the hell out of your neighbor when you are pissed at the UN! It happens, sure, but it isn't exactly fair.
It's very frustrating that the part of the game they needed gimped got gimped.
Accourding to your statement Assault could be 10000 times better and still would not make any impakt in any game against Tau. Just because your units are dead before they hit in CC...
_ghost_ wrote: Accourding to your statement Assault could be 10000 times better and still would not make any impakt in any game against Tau. Just because your units are dead before they hit in CC...
If we could hide in Rhinos and assault out of them, that would change a lot. Just as example. If I could assault from deep strike, that would change a lot. So no, a few changes to assault rules makes things a lot different.
_ghost_ wrote: so... hiding in turn one and then walk in turn 2?
assault after deepstrike is bad.
You can counter shooting by good terrain and LoS and such... against a asssaulting deepstriker yyou cant do anything
That's what I keep hearing, but it never seems to work out. Mostly because the good lists only need one turn of shooting to cripple you. The turn right before assault is usually the fatal one.
Assault after deepstrike is "bad" says the lists that are making mockeries of other lists. Maybe so, but the job of nail gets old after a while.
_ghost_ wrote: so... hiding in turn one and then walk in turn 2?
assault after deepstrike is bad.
You can counter shooting by good terrain and LoS and such... against a asssaulting deepstriker you cant do anything
Other than craploads of EWO with SMS, nope can't do anything.
I mean this in the nicest way possible:
You have no clue what you're talking about. I've been running the Shadowstrike Kill-Team(2-4 Scout Squads and 1-3 Vanguard Veteran Squads with on-demand Deep Strike, no scatter if within range of 2 Scout Squads, and Assault on the turn they arrive) pretty regularly against Tau, and I'm gonna tell you right now--it'd be great, if the other person wasn't paying 5 flippin' points for Interceptor on demand and they didn't already have a weapon(Smart Missile System) that Ignores Cover AND Ignores Line of Sight restrictions and they didn't get to Overwatch with basically their whole damn army.
What about Guard? Other SM? DE? Harlies? Corsairs? Even CWE?
At least the shooting units are simply overturned. Assault still matters, just only if they can't shoot you off the table. Assault from Deep strike makes everything but CC completely irrelevant.
For the triple SR formation, do you really need the DCs? Most of the units I saw in the top 10 would fold to an assault from a 10-man Tac squad.
What about Guard? Other SM? DE? Harlies? Corsairs? Even CWE?
At least the shooting units are simply overturned. Assault still matters, just only if they can't shoot you off the table. Assault from Deep strike makes everything but CC completely irrelevant.
For the triple SR formation, do you really need the DCs? Most of the units I saw in the top 10 would fold to an assault from a 10-man Tac squad.
The tacs can't assault because the flyers are zooming.
You lose the guardians. Just like I lose my entire list to Eldar right after I set it up. I think players of these top lists are not used to taking casualties. But they sure are used to dishing them out.
Bharring wrote: When your solution can curbstomp the top dog, along with everything else, that doesn't fix the problem, it just moves it.
I'm not even seriously advocating assault from deep strike. But it would be very cathartic as this point. Since shooting lists basically have the inverse set up in place.
What about Guard? Other SM? DE? Harlies? Corsairs? Even CWE?
Guard, SM, CWE all have access to Psyker ICs. Psykers have access to a Blessing that allows them to have Counter-Attack and fire Overwatch at their full BS.
At least the shooting units are simply overturned. Assault still matters, just only if they can't shoot you off the table. Assault from Deep strike makes everything but CC completely irrelevant.
Oh please. Assault from Deep Strike still has to go through Overwatch, and given the number of formations/special rules that have been added to beef up Overwatch it's silly to suggest that the ability for Assault from Deep Strike will invalidate shooting.
For most others, Overwatch is still on a 6+, unless you have +100ish points for a Psyker, and get the power you want, for each squad that is going to be assaulted.
Even a Tac squad assaulting a Guardian, DA, Guardsmen, Kalabite, Harlie, etc squad and suffering a *full BS* round of shooting will still win the assault, more often than not.
BoomWolf wrote: Oh yeah, tau hate on pre-codex late 5th was also a thing, not that it was even remotely playable back then other than gimmick trolling lists (aka kroot trump bike marines case)
In any case. We DO get unequal, and unfair treatment.
snip.....
Heck, tau are not even allowed the railshark, and it's 660 points for a single D shot (high accuracy, but single shot.) on a 12/12/10/6 jet. It's not even DECENT. it's just banned for no reason at all.
So what do you want affirmative action for Tau? The Tau's problem is it is not fun to play against. I know I played them for two editions. I got tried of seeing the demoralized look in my opponents eyes. Few people like to get punched in the dick for two hours. Even the most ardent Tau players know this on some level because I rarely see two Tau players face off.
My gaming group has a TAC tau player and I struggled to win against him since 6th edition with my Angels. But over time as he learned my army and read forums on how to play his it went from uphill to... I'm not even sure what. With the newest edition of tau, I find that unless you (the tau player) choose to hold back or your (the tau opponent) has to list tailor. Tau has a close combat weakness in an edition that nerfed close combat. Furthermore it overcomes that weakness with overcompensation on it's strength (shooting). The entire army benefits from really good and cheap units./upgrades. Because of this it can shoot at insane twin linked, low ap, mass shots that ignore cover or Los and then jump out into LOS cover. Tau ignore deep strike, jinxing and night fighting. It ignores monstrous creatures and vehicles and ignores hordes and elite units because they have answers to all of these in spades. So what's left to counter a Tau list that is tailored to defeat everything. Let me know. I'm curious. Can you provide me with a list or unit /method for all the codexes that struggle
There is no need for affirmative action.
Regarding the ITC .. well ... a lil more honesty about their intends.
The claim to pref nerf things is just a dishonest thing. especialy when we look at all the other stuff thats around now (Gladius etc..) or the Eldar in general.
What happend to the Tau in the way it happened was just... **********
Regarding Deep Strike and assaulting. Seriiously? allowing this in general is a much bigger pain in the arse for everybody else than Tau. Tau get interceptor cheap. weh have a formation that allows us to set Markers during intercepting .... the better overwatch....
I still thing it is a bad idea to allwo deep strike and assault the very same turn for everybody.
Inkubas wrote: My gaming group has a TAC tau player and I struggled to win against him since 6th edition with my Angels. But over time as he learned my army and read forums on how to play his it went from uphill to... I'm not even sure what. With the newest edition of tau, I find that unless you (the tau player) choose to hold back or your (the tau opponent) has to list tailor. Tau has a close combat weakness in an edition that nerfed close combat. Furthermore it overcomes that weakness with overcompensation on it's strength (shooting). The entire army benefits from really good and cheap units./upgrades. Because of this it can shoot at insane twin linked, low ap, mass shots that ignore cover or Los and then jump out into LOS cover. Tau ignore deep strike, jinxing and night fighting. It ignores monstrous creatures and vehicles and ignores hordes and elite units because they have answers to all of these in spades. So what's left to counter a Tau list that is tailored to defeat everything. Let me know. I'm curious. Can you provide me with a list or unit /method for all the codexes that struggle
Again the pathetic BA argument?
BA doesn't work against ANYTHING.
It has nothing to do with tau being overwhelming, but to BA bring nonfunctional. Even in thier supposed niches they don't shine compared to other marines.
Tau has close combat in an edition where CC is not as powerful? True. But you don't NEED cc monsters to take out tau. Most shoot units are enough.
Overcompensating it's strength? So what do you want, equal shooting with inferior CC? If you give something up, you should get something in return, and tau gave up both CC and morak. And Tau are not the only shooty army out there.
Ignores LoS? For the umpteen time, the only tau guns ignoring LoS are the SMS and AFP, both of low S 4/5 and AP5. Marines can get such guns too. Guard gets far superior indirect fire. You got the tools, you refuse to use them.
Ignoring cover? So does everyone with psykers,and many units and upgrades across armies do naturally.
Twin linked? Ditto.
Jump back away? Yes. It's one of the few tau "things". Not only tau does it though, and most armied got things that are just faster.
Ignores deep strike? No. It has an answer to it, for a price. A price wasted if you didn't DS as its only relevant when you do. Fair Trade.
Ignores monsterus creatures, vehicles, hordes and elites because they got answers. Seriously? THEY CAN FIGHT? An army that doesn't have all these tools is unplayable! If every army didn't have at least an answer to every threat in its arsenal, the game would be reduced to rock paper scissors.
I don't know who to defeat a tau list tailored to defeat everything,because such list does not exist. CAN'T exist.
Tau lists CAN be tailored against any one thing, just like most armies. But not against everything at once.
Your fallacy nightmare schrodinger tau isn't real. Give me an actual tau list. Any tau list, and I'll find its weak spots within minutes - because I know the army well, strengths and weaknesses alike.
I agree that the weapons that don't need LoS aren't the issue. The issue is that the only need a couple Riptides and a marker light team to get a single turn of shooting off to cripple you.
I have never given the SMS systems a second thought. They can't put out enough wounds to matter, imo. It's all about IA and HYMP and maybe plasma crisis suits.
Obviously they should nerf Orks, Sisters of battle, Dark eldars and CSM. Man Taus are so ugly with their new toys like stormsurge ! I can t beleive ITC and GW did that to you... Im sorry guys play our codex you will understand why we never get nerfed
None of this Codex hating is doing any of you any good. And if I hear someone say one more time that a 200 point Basilisk is somehow UNFAIR, i am going to scream. Seriously. because that is nearly what you have in the Riptide, only it injures itself trying and doesn't always get to fire when it tries.
Jancoran wrote: None of this Codex hating is doing any of you any good. And if I hear someone say one more time that a 200 point Basilisk is somehow UNFAIR, i am going to scream. Seriously. because that is nearly what you have in the Riptide, only it injures itself trying and doesn't always get to fire when it tries.
Go ahead and scream then, because I think the Riptide is most certainly unfair. Because it is immortal.
Hey calm down man, none of us want to make you scream... Its a game after all. You take it way to serious. Are you sure you are ok? We can help you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jancoran wrote: None of this Codex hating is doing any of you any good. And if I hear someone say one more time that a 200 point Basilisk is somehow UNFAIR, i am going to scream. Seriously. because that is nearly what you have in the Riptide, only it injures itself trying and doesn't always get to fire when it tries.
Sometimes you have to let it out... Please release your rage and share with us how you feel... We can HELP you, we won t leave you behind !
Jancoran wrote: None of this Codex hating is doing any of you any good. And if I hear someone say one more time that a 200 point Basilisk is somehow UNFAIR, i am going to scream. Seriously. because that is nearly what you have in the Riptide, only it injures itself trying and doesn't always get to fire when it tries.
Go ahead and scream then, because I think the Riptide is most certainly unfair. Because it is immortal.
"immortal" if you never shoot high strength or weight of fire attacks at it..... or grav.
Jancoran wrote: None of this Codex hating is doing any of you any good. And if I hear someone say one more time that a 200 point Basilisk is somehow UNFAIR, i am going to scream. Seriously. because that is nearly what you have in the Riptide, only it injures itself trying and doesn't always get to fire when it tries.
Go ahead and scream then, because I think the Riptide is most certainly unfair. Because it is immortal.
"immortal" if you never shoot high strength or weight of fire attacks at it..... or grav.
A squad of grav cent with amp cant take down a riptide in 1 turn if you do the math... So i guess you are right, its not unfair at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quickjager wrote: WHO THE DUCK HAS GRAV BETWEEN BLOOD ANGELS AND GREY KNIGHTS?!?
Jancoran wrote: None of this Codex hating is doing any of you any good. And if I hear someone say one more time that a 200 point Basilisk is somehow UNFAIR, i am going to scream. Seriously. because that is nearly what you have in the Riptide, only it injures itself trying and doesn't always get to fire when it tries.
Go ahead and scream then, because I think the Riptide is most certainly unfair. Because it is immortal.
"immortal" if you never shoot high strength or weight of fire attacks at it..... or grav.
A squad of grav cent with amp cant take down a riptide in 1 turn if you do the map... So i guess you are right, its not unfair at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quickjager wrote: WHO THE DUCK HAS GRAV BETWEEN BLOOD ANGELS AND GREY KNIGHTS?!?
Who s the duck ????
Correct me if I am wrong, but here is the math:
3 grave cents with amps 15 shots
10 hits
9.7 wounds
5++ armor save = 6.5 unsaved wounds
Dead Riptide (not even counting the hurricane bolters firing)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Yeah I'm kinda unsure why anyone wouldn't buy FNP for their Riptide. It makes them effectively 2+/4++ for all intents and purposes.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Yeah I'm kinda unsure why anyone wouldn't buy FNP for their Riptide. It makes them effectively 2+/4++ for all intents and purposes.
I almost never because it costs 35 additional points
5++ and 5+++ have a 55% save chance, which is about a 4++ save. A little better, really. FNP on the Riptide is just amazing and should probably be removed as an option. FNP makes it a pocket GMC.
Jancoran wrote: None of this Codex hating is doing any of you any good. And if I hear someone say one more time that a 200 point Basilisk is somehow UNFAIR, i am going to scream. Seriously. because that is nearly what you have in the Riptide, only it injures itself trying and doesn't always get to fire when it tries.
Go ahead and scream then, because I think the Riptide is most certainly unfair. Because it is immortal.
"immortal" if you never shoot high strength or weight of fire attacks at it..... or grav.
A squad of grav cent with amp cant take down a riptide in 1 turn if you do the map... So i guess you are right, its not unfair at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quickjager wrote: WHO THE DUCK HAS GRAV BETWEEN BLOOD ANGELS AND GREY KNIGHTS?!?
Who s the duck ????
Correct me if I am wrong, but here is the math:
3 grave cents with amps 15 shots
10 hits
9.7 wounds
5++ armor save = 6.5 unsaved wounds
Dead Riptide (not even counting the hurricane bolters firing)
hummm 3++ armure so 2-3 wounds and thats without FNP...
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Yeah I'm kinda unsure why anyone wouldn't buy FNP for their Riptide. It makes them effectively 2+/4++ for all intents and purposes.
I almost never because it costs 35 additional points
I wish I had something that good to spend 35 pts on in my list.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Yeah I'm kinda unsure why anyone wouldn't buy FNP for their Riptide. It makes them effectively 2+/4++ for all intents and purposes.
I almost never because it costs 35 additional points
I wish I had something that good to spend 35 pts on in my list.
Jancoran wrote: None of this Codex hating is doing any of you any good. And if I hear someone say one more time that a 200 point Basilisk is somehow UNFAIR, i am going to scream. Seriously. because that is nearly what you have in the Riptide, only it injures itself trying and doesn't always get to fire when it tries.
Go ahead and scream then, because I think the Riptide is most certainly unfair. Because it is immortal.
"immortal" if you never shoot high strength or weight of fire attacks at it..... or grav.
A squad of grav cent with amp cant take down a riptide in 1 turn if you do the map... So i guess you are right, its not unfair at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quickjager wrote: WHO THE DUCK HAS GRAV BETWEEN BLOOD ANGELS AND GREY KNIGHTS?!?
Who s the duck ????
Correct me if I am wrong, but here is the math:
3 grave cents with amps 15 shots
10 hits
9.7 wounds
5++ armor save = 6.5 unsaved wounds
Dead Riptide (not even counting the hurricane bolters firing)
hummm 3++ armure so 2-3 wounds and thats without FNP...
Well I love that you aren't taking into account failing the nova charge into your wound calculation, or if the grave cents are turn 1 shooting I cannot activate it, or that I don't want to activate it because I am using nova charge for one of the other ability. but sure push your agenda
Jancoran wrote: None of this Codex hating is doing any of you any good. And if I hear someone say one more time that a 200 point Basilisk is somehow UNFAIR, i am going to scream. Seriously. because that is nearly what you have in the Riptide, only it injures itself trying and doesn't always get to fire when it tries.
Go ahead and scream then, because I think the Riptide is most certainly unfair. Because it is immortal.
"immortal" if you never shoot high strength or weight of fire attacks at it..... or grav.
A squad of grav cent with amp cant take down a riptide in 1 turn if you do the map... So i guess you are right, its not unfair at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quickjager wrote: WHO THE DUCK HAS GRAV BETWEEN BLOOD ANGELS AND GREY KNIGHTS?!?
Who s the duck ????
Correct me if I am wrong, but here is the math:
3 grave cents with amps 15 shots
10 hits
9.7 wounds
5++ armor save = 6.5 unsaved wounds
Dead Riptide (not even counting the hurricane bolters firing)
hummm 3++ armure so 2-3 wounds and thats without FNP...
Well I love that you aren't taking into account failing the nova charge into your wound calculation, or if the grave cents are turn 1 shooting I cannot activate it, or that I don't want to activate it because I am using nova charge for one of the other ability. but sure push your agenda
If you have second turn just keep them in reserve -.- Is it that hard ? Riptide wing allows you to re-roll your nova which means you have it up most of the time...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Then you throw ur S8 ap2 above their heads twice and you say see ya !
That's the whole point. The ITC 
but since they have the choice to make their own system here, going with a committee and clearer explanations and classifications of rulings would be just as (or even more) effective, 
(and I'm not a Tau player)
