The ghostkeel nerf is the only one that makes no sense. Its not even worded badly, its pretty clear its a model by model basis. Unless you sport ignores cover, theyre MORE durable than a riptide but they dont have the uber long range ap2 so you usually dont hear people flip out about them.

Coordinated Fire would be straight up beyond broken if it worked the way its read. Buffmander perks army-wide? Are you kidding me? ML requirements right out the window and then some.
Piranha Wing technically wasnt even a nerf. Theres a rule already preventing units from entering reserves the same turn they arrived. Not the first time (by a long shot) reece has put something in the ITC FAQ that was a straight up rule to begin with.
Even if it was legal, that would get out of hand quickly. The people who dont think its OP dont understand how nasty gun drones can be when massed. A simple 10man squad i dump off my 5 piranhas i run casually tends to do more damage than my firewarriors....thats kinda sad lol.
Yeah, they cant score unless a commander joins them, but who cares? They arent worth kill points, so they cant trigger any objective cards and theyre nasty enough to force your attention. Complete waste of your time but it will eat your face off if you ignore it.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
The ghostkeel nerf is the only one that makes no sense. Its not even worded badly, its pretty clear its a model by model basis. Unless you sport ignores cover, theyre MORE durable than a riptide but they dont have the uber long range ap2 so you usually dont hear people flip out about them.

Coordinated Fire would be straight up beyond broken if it worked the way its read. Buffmander perks army-wide? Are you kidding me? ML requirements right out the window and then some.
Piranha Wing technically wasnt even a nerf. Theres a rule already preventing units from entering reserves the same turn they arrived. Not the first time (by a long shot) reece has put something in the ITC FAQ that was a straight up rule to begin with.
Even if it was legal, that would get out of hand quickly. The people who dont think its OP dont understand how nasty gun drones can be when massed. A simple 10man squad i dump off my 5 piranhas i run casually tends to do more damage than my firewarriors....thats kinda sad lol.
Yeah, they cant score unless a commander joins them, but who cares? They arent worth kill points, so they cant trigger any objective cards and theyre nasty enough to force your attention. Complete waste of your time but it will eat your face off if you ignore it.

Can you build this scary drone list? I can almost promise you it will not have more than 1 unit of 5 piranhas, and at that point its not a true drone factory.

Although I dont plan on using the piranha formation as it is weak with or without the ruling.

I don't know why you keep saying anything less than a certain number of piranhas is not a "true drone factory". Its a formation that makes tons of drones, people refer to it as a drone factory. It is a nickname, not something that arises from a set number of models made per turn.

How many piranhas does it have to have to be a true drone factory? It has to be able to create a large amount of drones in order to be a drone factory, right?

No Its just a nickname for the formation

Name without meaning if there is no data or facts behind it! Lucky for us Nova is allowing it and we will see if it is broken I am sure someone will bring it only to realize how weak it is maybe as a complimentary to an army is the best it can do 360 points for drones is not a good deal add another 224 for the drone network at this point your getting low on points, trust me its not OP, the average player will struggle against it so I understand the fear factor.

Still waiting for a tau vs foot orks match =(

Its a nickname not a scientific name. Seriously like communities don't get together and look over a bunch of data and then give something a nickname they just happen. It's not hard to imagine how this nickname came up. Its a formation that makes drones, hence drone factory.

Like are you gonna go up to somebody saying they are running a cent star and tell them it isn't technically a cent star because they are only running 4 centurions not 6. There is no scientific, or regulated way to determine what is and is not a centstar. Its just a nickname.

Let me rephrase the question, how many drones per turn is to many?

 koooaei wrote:
Still waiting for a tau vs foot orks match =(

I just did that last night. used the Tidewall Rampart which was fun. My Fire Warriors were heroic, slaying his Stompa. hehehe.

 CKO wrote:
Let me rephrase the question, how many drones per turn is to many?

That's not a rephrasing of the question that is an entirely different question.

 coblen wrote:

 CKO wrote:
Let me rephrase the question, how many drones per turn is to many?

That's not a rephrasing of the question that is an entirely different question.

Well answer it, you obviously understand what I am talking about! I applaud your political skills and ability to dance around the question.

 CKO wrote:

 coblen wrote:

 CKO wrote:
Let me rephrase the question, how many drones per turn is to many?

That's not a rephrasing of the question that is an entirely different question.

Well answer it, you obviously understand what I am talking about! I applaud your political skills and ability to dance around the question.

Its not me dancing around the question. Its me not letting you change the conversation. The question was "How many piranhas does it have to have to be a true drone factory?". The answer is still none because it is a nickname to a formation, not a scientific description.

 coblen wrote:

 CKO wrote:

 coblen wrote:

 CKO wrote:
Let me rephrase the question, how many drones per turn is to many?

That's not a rephrasing of the question that is an entirely different question.

Well answer it, you obviously understand what I am talking about! I applaud your political skills and ability to dance around the question.

Its not me dancing around the question. Its me not letting you change the conversation. The question was "How many piranhas does it have to have to be a true drone factory?". The answer is still none because it is a nickname to a formation, not a scientific description.

Just say you dont know!

 CKO wrote:

 coblen wrote:

 CKO wrote:

 coblen wrote:

 CKO wrote:
Let me rephrase the question, how many drones per turn is to many?

That's not a rephrasing of the question that is an entirely different question.

Well answer it, you obviously understand what I am talking about! I applaud your political skills and ability to dance around the question.

Its not me dancing around the question. Its me not letting you change the conversation. The question was "How many piranhas does it have to have to be a true drone factory?". The answer is still none because it is a nickname to a formation, not a scientific description.

Just say you dont know!

How many spiders are a scarab farm?
Scarab farming refers to the tactic, not a discrete amount.

 =Angel= wrote:

 CKO wrote:

 coblen wrote:

 CKO wrote:

 coblen wrote:

 CKO wrote:
Let me rephrase the question, how many drones per turn is to many?

That's not a rephrasing of the question that is an entirely different question.

Well answer it, you obviously understand what I am talking about! I applaud your political skills and ability to dance around the question.

Its not me dancing around the question. Its me not letting you change the conversation. The question was "How many piranhas does it have to have to be a true drone factory?". The answer is still none because it is a nickname to a formation, not a scientific description.

Just say you dont know!

How many spiders are a scarab farm?
Scarab farming refers to the tactic, not a discrete amount.

I am not afraid to admit I dont know what would you consider a scarab farm.

Wowow.

How many piranhas In a drone factory?

However many a given list has that depends on making drones...

Lists can be different! (Though I realize net listing tends to mitigate this somewhat).

What is a "drone factory" or "daemon factory" here is not the same as in Caifornia I bet.

 CKO wrote:

Can you build this scary drone list? I can almost promise you it will not have more than 1 unit of 5 piranhas, and at that point its not a true drone factory.

 CKO wrote:

I am not afraid to admit I dont know what would you consider a scarab farm.

You do know, definitively, what a true drone factory is and is not but can't figure out what I, a 40k player, would consider a scarab farm.
That's all to do with player choice though (I would only ever choose to bring 3 Riptides, I'm a casual!) and none of that's really relevant to the discussion of how a broken codex should be balanced for tournament play.

 Jancoran wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Still waiting for a tau vs foot orks match =(

I just did that last night. used the Tidewall Rampart which was fun. My Fire Warriors were heroic, slaying his Stompa. hehehe.

Actually, I'm fairly certain that that was for me. I said I'd play a vassal match against him. koooaei, one of the links you sent me was infected. I'm fixing my computer now.

i wouldnt run a piranha wing for the sheer fact that i dont want that many piranhas. I could technically do it with my current 5 piranhas but nah i prefer to keep my mobile wall. They + the 10 drones usually keep my army safe from charges for 3 turns on average.

I have avoided posting in this thread until now, but I suppose I must finally take the bait.

OP, most of your arguments thus far can be succinctly summarized as "L2P, git gud scrub". When presented with evidence to the contrary, you either provide biased examples or move the goalposts for disproving your argument.

I don't hate Tau. I hate the kind of players that Tau brings, the ones with a genuine sense of entitlement that their army should simply be better than the rest. Screw game balance, I've got mine and you should just wait around until you get your army's overpowered buff. This doesn't apply to all Tau players naturally, but the OP is certainly one of them.

The OP claims that the ITC is biased against Tau in favor of Eldar and Space Marines. Nothing could be further from the truth. Teh ranged D restrictions in the ITC were a direct result of the new Eldar codex dropping. Warp Spiders are nerfed, and Scatbikers were almost nerfed. If put to a vote, I would vote to nerf Scatbikers because I believe that they are bad for the balance of the game as a whole. The Allies shenanigans that the Imperium can pull off are nerfed by source and detachment restrictions.

The conspiracy theory that DE were left alone to make Eldar more powerful doesn't hold up either. Sure, DE can take a 10 point HQ. This unit also has only one wound, and unimpressive statline, and a 5+ armour save. Not exactly the height of game-breaking power.

I think that the OP has fundamentally misunderstood the concept behind groups like the ITC and NOVA. They are not there to be biased against certain armies. They exist to allow most every army to at least be able to show up and have fun at their tournaments, even if they have no shot at winning. Winners are decided primarily by player skill and luck of the dice. Tau are nerfed, along wiht others, to create a more inclusive environment at tournaments.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I have avoided posting in this thread until now, but I suppose I must finally take the bait.

OP, most of your arguments thus far can be succinctly summarized as "L2P, git gud scrub". When presented with evidence to the contrary, you either provide biased examples or move the goalposts for disproving your argument.

I don't hate Tau. I hate the kind of players that Tau brings, the ones with a genuine sense of entitlement that their army should simply be better than the rest. Screw game balance, I've got mine and you should just wait around until you get your army's overpowered buff. This doesn't apply to all Tau players naturally, but the OP is certainly one of them.

The OP claims that the ITC is biased against Tau in favor of Eldar and Space Marines. Nothing could be further from the truth. Teh ranged D restrictions in the ITC were a direct result of the new Eldar codex dropping. Warp Spiders are nerfed, and Scatbikers were almost nerfed. If put to a vote, I would vote to nerf Scatbikers because I believe that they are bad for the balance of the game as a whole. The Allies shenanigans that the Imperium can pull off are nerfed by source and detachment restrictions.

The conspiracy theory that DE were left alone to make Eldar more powerful doesn't hold up either. Sure, DE can take a 10 point HQ. This unit also has only one wound, and unimpressive statline, and a 5+ armour save. Not exactly the height of game-breaking power.

I think that the OP has fundamentally misunderstood the concept behind groups like the ITC and NOVA. They are not there to be biased against certain armies. They exist to allow most every army to at least be able to show up and have fun at their tournaments, even if they have no shot at winning. Winners are decided primarily by player skill and luck of the dice. Tau are nerfed, along wiht others, to create a more inclusive environment at tournaments.

Also, don't forget that battle companies were single-target nerfed without a vote by moving the purge mission up to round 3 and returning the tertiaries to the normal fb,lb,stw. They used to sneak through round 2 purge by winning 7-4 with maelstrom plus objective-based tertiaries, while having a good chance of still having an easy opponent. Now the chances of an easy opponent are hilariously lower, and all the opponent needs to do is snag first blood, linebreak at the end of the game, and not get tabled and the battleco literally can't win.

Can we get a mod to lock this thread please? There's literally no tactics discussion here other than a couple people arguing "More players need to L2P, their armies aren't bad, they just suck as generals!", people complaining about the ITC Tau rulings (not the place for it) and people taking shots at each other/posting snarky replies.

This was entertaining, but it's been 11 pages of just a mess.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 CKO wrote:

harkequin wrote:
Don't be TFG. Acknowledge that your codex is top tier. Eldar / necron and SM players acknowledge it. You should too.

I am not trying to deny which armies are top tier I am saying that they all can be beat with superior tactics

That may be the case at your FLGS. If someone is playing Tau at your FLGS, they might be able to be bested by the ork player in the corner who has a deep understanding of the game.

That does not apply to everyone, and certainly does not apply to national events like NOVA, LVO, and Adepticon. There is a reason you see Tier 1 armies placing in the top brackets at those events -- it's because they are the most effective. If just 'using better tactics' was the solution, you would see a variety of armies instead.

Years ago, I used to say similar things that you do. "Anyone can win with anything with the right tactics" I was always the best player at my FLGS.
Then I started attending competitive events with extremely skilled players and realized how much more I had to learn about the game of 40k.
I would like to invite you to come try those events as well. I expect it would greatly change your perspective on this game.

Quoted for truth. Haha.

When I first started playing two and half years ago I was bad. No doubt about it. After a year or so, I won 2-3 local tournaments at my FLGS and I was like "damn, I'm getting pretty good at this game".

About 3 months after that, 2 gentleman that have been playing for over 12 years and attended hundreds of small or large GTs over the years came in and swept everyone in my gaming group. We got their names and numbers and we invited them over to our weekly games. 2 years later we're all still playing together. The two new additions to the group suggested that we try out NovaOpen 2014. We did and I did the best out of our original gaming group at Rank 150+? Haha. I was embarrassed but I had a blast. This past year at NovaOpen 2015 I placed Rank 45 (mid 40s). Definitely improved and got better but I still have tons to learn.

I have been following this post from the beginning and I feel like it's a lot of back and forward with personal attacks and literally reading each others posts in the worst light possible. I believe that both sides have valid points but they fail to express themselves correct.

In my personal opinion, the top tier armies keep getting top8 at GTs because they are good. They are simply better and have better rules. Other armies, like Orks, CAN win, but they have to use superior tactics in order to win against the top tier codexes. That being said, all top tier players are exactly that, top tier. They aren't going to let Orks beat them when they have a better codex backing them up. Both sides of the argument in this post can be right, stop reading the posts as if the other person can't be right because you both are.

Saythings wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

 CKO wrote:

harkequin wrote:
Don't be TFG. Acknowledge that your codex is top tier. Eldar / necron and SM players acknowledge it. You should too.

I am not trying to deny which armies are top tier I am saying that they all can be beat with superior tactics

That may be the case at your FLGS. If someone is playing Tau at your FLGS, they might be able to be bested by the ork player in the corner who has a deep understanding of the game.

That does not apply to everyone, and certainly does not apply to national events like NOVA, LVO, and Adepticon. There is a reason you see Tier 1 armies placing in the top brackets at those events -- it's because they are the most effective. If just 'using better tactics' was the solution, you would see a variety of armies instead.

Years ago, I used to say similar things that you do. "Anyone can win with anything with the right tactics" I was always the best player at my FLGS.
Then I started attending competitive events with extremely skilled players and realized how much more I had to learn about the game of 40k.
I would like to invite you to come try those events as well. I expect it would greatly change your perspective on this game.

Quoted for truth. Haha.

When I first started playing two and half years ago I was bad. No doubt about it. After a year or so, I won 2-3 local tournaments at my FLGS and I was like "damn, I'm getting pretty good at this game".

About 3 months after that, 2 gentleman that have been playing for over 12 years and attended hundreds of small or large GTs over the years came in and swept everyone in my gaming group. We got their names and numbers and we invited them over to our weekly games. 2 years later we're all still playing together. The two new additions to the group suggested that we try out NovaOpen 2014. We did and I did the best out of our original gaming group at Rank 150+? Haha. I was embarrassed but I had a blast. This past year at NovaOpen 2015 I placed Rank 45 (mid 40s). Definitely improved and got better but I still have tons to learn.

I have been following this post from the beginning and I feel like it's a lot of back and forward with personal attacks and literally reading each others posts in the worst light possible. I believe that both sides have valid points but they fail to express themselves correct.

In my personal opinion, the top tier armies keep getting top8 at GTs because they are good. They are simply better and have better rules. Other armies, like Orks, CAN win, but they have to use superior tactics in order to win against the top tier codexes. That being said, all top tier players are exactly that, top tier. They aren't going to let Orks beat them when they have a better codex backing them up. Both sides of the argument in this post can be right, stop reading the posts as if the other person can't be right because you both are.

I agree that this post has devolved into personal attacks, you all have to admit, its amusing when forum posts turn into "The real housewives of dakka dakka" the past few weeks its mostly been Tau players. Not to say all Tau players are a pain in the ass but come on. If you got nerfed to gak and 2 players of your army still ranked around 8th in that bloody tournament then you can't complain, let alone write countless bitchy threads and flood the general discussion with "boycott the tournament" or "look at this injustice!" I mean am I the only one who thinks that is a bit immature?

Reavas wrote:

Saythings wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

 CKO wrote:

harkequin wrote:
Don't be TFG. Acknowledge that your codex is top tier. Eldar / necron and SM players acknowledge it. You should too.

I am not trying to deny which armies are top tier I am saying that they all can be beat with superior tactics

That may be the case at your FLGS. If someone is playing Tau at your FLGS, they might be able to be bested by the ork player in the corner who has a deep understanding of the game.

That does not apply to everyone, and certainly does not apply to national events like NOVA, LVO, and Adepticon. There is a reason you see Tier 1 armies placing in the top brackets at those events -- it's because they are the most effective. If just 'using better tactics' was the solution, you would see a variety of armies instead.

Years ago, I used to say similar things that you do. "Anyone can win with anything with the right tactics" I was always the best player at my FLGS.
Then I started attending competitive events with extremely skilled players and realized how much more I had to learn about the game of 40k.
I would like to invite you to come try those events as well. I expect it would greatly change your perspective on this game.

Quoted for truth. Haha.

When I first started playing two and half years ago I was bad. No doubt about it. After a year or so, I won 2-3 local tournaments at my FLGS and I was like "damn, I'm getting pretty good at this game".

About 3 months after that, 2 gentleman that have been playing for over 12 years and attended hundreds of small or large GTs over the years came in and swept everyone in my gaming group. We got their names and numbers and we invited them over to our weekly games. 2 years later we're all still playing together. The two new additions to the group suggested that we try out NovaOpen 2014. We did and I did the best out of our original gaming group at Rank 150+? Haha. I was embarrassed but I had a blast. This past year at NovaOpen 2015 I placed Rank 45 (mid 40s). Definitely improved and got better but I still have tons to learn.

I have been following this post from the beginning and I feel like it's a lot of back and forward with personal attacks and literally reading each others posts in the worst light possible. I believe that both sides have valid points but they fail to express themselves correct.

In my personal opinion, the top tier armies keep getting top8 at GTs because they are good. They are simply better and have better rules. Other armies, like Orks, CAN win, but they have to use superior tactics in order to win against the top tier codexes. That being said, all top tier players are exactly that, top tier. They aren't going to let Orks beat them when they have a better codex backing them up. Both sides of the argument in this post can be right, stop reading the posts as if the other person can't be right because you both are.

I agree that this post has devolved into personal attacks, you all have to admit, its amusing when forum posts turn into "The real housewives of dakka dakka" the past few weeks its mostly been Tau players. Not to say all Tau players are a pain in the ass but come on. If you got nerfed to gak and 2 players of your army still ranked around 8th in that bloody tournament then you can't complain, let alone write countless bitchy threads and flood the general discussion with "boycott the tournament" or "look at this injustice!" I mean am I the only one who thinks that is a bit immature?

Top Tau ranks were 12 and 18. I wouldn't exactly call that exactly amazing.

notredameguy10 wrote:
Top Tau ranks were 12 and 18. I wouldn't exactly call that exactly amazing.

What were top Ork ranks?
How about SoB? Blood Angels? Harlequins? CSM? Dark Eldar?

Tau are far from the bottom

notredameguy10 wrote:


Top Tau ranks were 12 and 18. I wouldn't exactly call that exactly amazing.

Yeah it is amazing. Considering the 8th spot was a a 3 way tie with 9th and 10th place That means Tau was two spots away from qualifying for Top 8. Not only that but considering how luck based 40k tounraments are (maelstrome objectives, match ups, dice rolls) pretty much anyone if the top 24 would have been able to make it to Top 8 if they were just a little luckier

War Convocation did worse than Tau too.

FLG is planning on doing a vote for the Tau stuff, they only made a ruling for the tournament.

Y'all need to cool it.

Pff this post is nothing but personal attacks and claims.

As a tau player myself I feel that ITC doesn't like in its current state. I can understand where they are coming from but doing all this nerfes without real testing just feels wrong to me. I have to admit tau where getting an awesome boost in a meta that already skewed towards shooting. However with this lots of nerds I see against tau i just feel they are biased. Focus on the word feel! Nobody likes that there toys/good tactics are removed or adapted, especially if you have been practicing and relying on certain techniques.

No I am not a cheese monger I play to have the most fun. That's means for me and my opponent. So I play friendly versions of the rules. I understand the hate issues that the OP tries to address and I agree with his statement that people just don't like tau by default that makes me a sad fish:( I just walk in with tau people are like not this army again. Anyway just wanted to share my thoughts. Hope they close the post soon..

 carldooley wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Still waiting for a tau vs foot orks match =(

I just did that last night. used the Tidewall Rampart which was fun. My Fire Warriors were heroic, slaying his Stompa. hehehe.

Actually, I'm fairly certain that that was for me. I said I'd play a vassal match against him. koooaei, one of the links you sent me was infected. I'm fixing my computer now.

Can't be. Having 0 issues running them. What kind of virus is that?

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I have avoided posting in this thread until now, but I suppose I must finally take the bait.

OP, most of your arguments thus far can be succinctly summarized as "L2P, git gud scrub". When presented with evidence to the contrary, you either provide biased examples or move the goalposts for disproving your argument.

What is wrong with the mentality of "I lost I need to get better"?

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I don't hate Tau. I hate the kind of players that Tau brings, the ones with a genuine sense of entitlement that their army should simply be better than the rest. Screw game balance, I've got mine and you should just wait around until you get your army's overpowered buff. This doesn't apply to all Tau players naturally, but the OP is certainly one of them.

Those players with a sense of entitlement are every where its not just some Tau players. I don't own any Tau I have one Riptide that my friend got me because he wanted me to start back playing. I did not turn this thread into Tau, Tau, and more Tau you clearly feel a certain way about some Tau players thus the reason why it was used as an example.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
The OP claims that the ITC is biased against Tau in favor of Eldar and Space Marines. Nothing could be further from the truth. Teh ranged D restrictions in the ITC were a direct result of the new Eldar codex dropping. Warp Spiders are nerfed, and Scatbikers were almost nerfed. If put to a vote, I would vote to nerf Scatbikers because I believe that they are bad for the balance of the game as a whole. The Allies shenanigans that the Imperium can pull off are nerfed by source and detachment restrictions.

I don't agree with trying to change some of those things if its broken vote on it but don't vote on it because its really good! That's my main problem we all can tell when something is broken like ranged D but stuff like scatbikes are amazingly good but are they ranged d or 2+ re-roll able good no so why vote on it? I don't have a problem with the ITC I have a problem with the way that it operates, anyone can tell when something is broken and it needs to be voted on but when it comes to things that are just really good why do we need to vote on stuff like that.

You say I am complaining but you guys are the one that are constantly wanting more and more change in hopes of gaining an advantage. I am the one saying leave it as is and I am ridiculed for being conservative but at the end of the day people are using a democratic process to try to win more games that's what it boils down to.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
The conspiracy theory that DE were left alone to make Eldar more powerful doesn't hold up either. Sure, DE can take a 10 point HQ. This unit also has only one wound, and unimpressive statline, and a 5+ armour save. Not exactly the height of game-breaking power.

Your missing the point archon I believe is 60 the hq choice is 10 they gain 50 points, that's enough to points to upgrade all of the aspect host sergeants or get another venom to put the bs 5 fire dragons. Acting as if not paying the hq tax for Cads or allied detachment is a small thing is crazy if marines could do it they would get 55 extra points.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I think that the OP has fundamentally misunderstood the concept behind groups like the ITC and NOVA. They are not there to be biased against certain armies. They exist to allow most every army to at least be able to show up and have fun at their tournaments, even if they have no shot at winning. Winners are decided primarily by player skill and luck of the dice. Tau are nerfed, along wiht others, to create a more inclusive environment at tournaments.

I think I understand you when it comes to the top tables it doesn't matter player skill come into effect but at other tables you don't want players losing just because they brought a certain army it should be a test of skill. Gotcha!

Tau Empire has always been (to me) even when they were one of the worst and outdated codex's (which was most of its life) the funnest army to play.

They look cooler than any other army (to me). They allow me to play my deployment shenanigans. They have really really impressive shooting, and they are very dynamic with their movement.

They aren't the fastest army, but they are not the slowest. They can get blown up pretty badly by Psychic attacks (Flickering Fire, LD attacks and similar powers all threaten the Tau Empire pretty badly as evidenced in my most recent game where i was lifting entire units off the table in the Psyker phase). Tau Empire cant fight out of a wt paper bag so you have to learn to play FROSTY when you play them. I never understood Gunline Tau much for that reason. You're lining the pins up for the bowling ball when you do that. Makes me pretty nervous so I was downright frightened to try my Tidewall.

But in all this joy of playing the Tau Empire, a couple things that have nothing to actually DO with the Tau Empire are impinging on the enjoyment of others.

In the ITC, they smartly limited the number of Detachments but then allowed a guy (Eldar) to win with six detachments. this kind of loop holing is also affecting the Tau Empire too. Their units aren't the boogeyman. Not even the StormSurge (mine costs me 440 points!).

Players who don't "like" the Tau Empire really just don't like facing the Super detachments. Same for the Decurion. Same for the Gladius. Same for the Hunter Contingent. And so on.

I see a pattern.

These detachments aren't going away. i see this Tau hate as being a product far more of the Detachment rules and far less of the Tau Empire list. In a CAD, a Tau list looks remarkably sane no matter what you put in it. Even with two Detachments the same can be said.

When you expand it to three, it takes all of the restraint out of list building. SOME more elite armies only need two to blow up the balance. Tau kind of needs three to get to that higher level of play and even then look at the standings: did they as a whole do any better than one would have expected? Not really. Good generals matter.

So I wonder aloud here if the Detachment limits of the ITC and how they ARENT truly limiting them wouldn't be a better place to aim some heated passion.

I also think that tournaments like our Elvensword Ambassadorial tournament have put armies back on a sane footing with the way we limit Detachments. No long drawn out list of allowables and provisos.

We essentially banned just two things: Stronghold Assault/Escalation which are kind of one thing really and then Forge World.

We allowed the normal fortifications from Stronghold Assault (but not Void Shields and trap doors etc...). 0-1 Super Heavy. Three Detachments, and the third would have to be a CAD. This last point above all others unintentionally balanced things beyond our wildest hopes. So many things that would otherwise go from "cool' to "not cool" are avoided this way.

That's it. The result was immensely more enjoyable play that is still highly competitive. Just as importantly it keeps the cost of competing at a more reasonable level (note that I didn't say reasonable hehehe).

Of all the factions to dislike, one would think eldar would get more of this than Tau Empire. By a long shot. Good in melee, good in Psyker phase, great in shooting, great with movement... there is no real area they dont compete well in. But there's nothing wrong with that. They can be beaten. it just makes their internal balance better meaning they can take a larger combo of units to be effective but effective doesn't mean they dont have to be played well. Just means more variety can win (see Warp Spiders list for details).

Tau Empire basically does exceedingly well in one phase and pretty well at movement if they want to. two out of four doesn't strike me as unbalanced. i think that the lists facing it will have to account for any and all possible threats and i think that some of this hate is just because people know they have to paint more models and rearrange their cheese to fight the various threats. but i promise: i am as worried about a Battle Company as anyone, Tau or no Tau. I am as worried about Eldar as anyone, Tau or no Tau. Decurions, and all the rest of it.

The ITC Detachment rules might need to be revisited again.

 CKO wrote:

What is wrong with the mentality of "I lost I need to get better"?

There is a difference between "I lost and I need to get better", and "you lost because you suck". You think your saying the former, but you come off as saying the latter.

 CKO wrote:

You say I am complaining but you guys are the one that are constantly wanting more and more change in hopes of gaining an advantage. I am the one saying leave it as is and I am ridiculed for being conservative but at the end of the day people are using a democratic process to try to win more games that's what it boils down to.

 CKO wrote:

Your missing the point archon I believe is 60 the hq choice is 10 they gain 50 points, that's enough to points to upgrade all of the aspect host sergeants or get another venom to put the bs 5 fire dragons. Acting as if not paying the hq tax for Cads or allied detachment is a small thing is crazy if marines could do it they would get 55 extra points.

The court is an HQ choice. Its listed as such in the rule book. The vote was not to change it to an HQ choice but whether to keep it as it was. They decided to keep it RAW.

On the one hand you have a statement saying how you want the ITC to keep the rules as it is, and on the other you have a statement complaining that they didn't choose to change it. Your upset that the ITC changed a formation that gives upwards of several hundred free points, but also upset that they let dark eldar have 50 more points than you think they should have.

 coblen wrote:


There is a difference between "I lost and I need to get better", and "you lost because you suck". You think your saying the former, but you come off as saying the latter.
.

How you take such statements is a self esteem thing. If you are confident, then you assume no one is probably ABLE to impugn you. If you are not, you here persecution everywhere.

I would not ascribe motivations to people online. Its far too difficult to know for sure.

I am showing how bias voters can be!

Retainers: For each Archon included in a detachment, the detachment can include a court of the archon that does not take up a slot on the force organization chart.

That's what it says you can rule lawyer your way into believing the way we are doing it now is okay but, honestly we all know its not right an hq choice for less than a marine come on now!

As for the drone factory I wrote a very detail article on it explaining why its not OP I am not going to put any more energy into it and turn this thread into another drone factory argument, I don't care about that ruling because I think its weak regardless of the ruling.

 CKO wrote:
I am showing how bias voters can be!

Retainers: For each Archon included in a detachment, the detachment can include a court of the archon that does not take up a slot on the force organization chart.

That's what it says you can rule lawyer your way into believing the way we are doing it now is okay but, honestly we all know its not right an hq choice for less than a marine come on now!

That rule is for taking a court without an HQ slot. It doesn't make you do anything if you use an HQ slot

Do you think its fair for them to have a 10 point hq choice?

 CKO wrote:
Do you think its fair for them to have a 10 point hq choice?

Why does it have to be fair? What does fair have anything to do with what the rules say?

 CrownAxe wrote:

 CKO wrote:
Do you think its fair for them to have a 10 point hq choice?

Why does it have to be fair? What does fair have anything to do with what the rules say?

Because we vote to make things fair! We don't vote on just the OP things we vote on things to make them fair. So that's why what is fair is important.

 CKO wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 CKO wrote:
Do you think its fair for them to have a 10 point hq choice?

Why does it have to be fair? What does fair have anything to do with what the rules say?

Because we vote to make things fair! We don't vote on just the OP things we vote on things to make them fair. So that's why what is fair is important.

Oh so thats why Scat bikes didn't get their scatter latters reduces to 1 -in-3 bikes, to make it fair right?

 CKO wrote:
I am showing how bias voters can be!

Retainers: For each Archon included in a detachment, the detachment can include a court of the archon that does not take up a slot on the force organization chart.

That's what it says you can rule lawyer your way into believing the way we are doing it now is okay but, honestly we all know its not right an hq choice for less than a marine come on now!

As for the drone factory I wrote a very detail article on it explaining why its not OP I am not going to put any more energy into it and turn this thread into another drone factory argument, I don't care about that ruling because I think its weak regardless of the ruling.

It has an HQ marking in the corner. That marking is literally all anybody has to determine what slot anything takes. Nowhere are the words, an archon can be taken as an HQ choice. He is taken as one because he has the HQ marking in his data sheet, just like the court does, just like every single unit in this game does. The retainer rule is something special that lets you take them without it taking up a force org slot.

Whether it is OP or not has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of your statements. You simultaneously argue that the ITC should change more and less. You complain when other armies get what you consider 50 free points, but think its offside that people don't want tau to get hundreds of free points. You're not showing how biased the voters are your showing how biased you are.

Don't get upset with me that I bring these things to light.

Bias towards what?

 CKO wrote:
Don't get upset with me that I bring these things to light.

Your bias? Because I'm not seeing a lot of other things being brought to light.

 coblen wrote:
Whether it is OP or not has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of your statements. You simultaneously argue that the ITC should change more and less. You complain when other armies get what you consider 50 free points, but think its offside that people don't want tau to get hundreds of free points. You're not showing how biased the voters are your showing how biased you are.

Each ruling is different and some things need to change and some don't I cant say everything needs to stay the same or change that's not the case. I have a problem with the process and as a result of my problem I dislike some of the rulings, do you see the difference?

 CKO wrote:
Do you think its fair for them to have a 10 point hq choice?

I still dont like this and I play Dark Eldar. it bothers me that its clearly talking about a Court of the Archon... and you need not take an Archon?

Dumb. i play them and I say its dumb. I've bnevr done it, mostly out of protest.

 CKO wrote:

 coblen wrote:
Whether it is OP or not has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of your statements. You simultaneously argue that the ITC should change more and less. You complain when other armies get what you consider 50 free points, but think its offside that people don't want tau to get hundreds of free points. You're not showing how biased the voters are your showing how biased you are.

Each ruling is different and some things need to change and some don't I cant say everything needs to stay the same or change that's not the case. I have a problem with the process and as a result of my problem I dislike some of the rulings, do you see the difference?

The Dark Eldar one you're complaing about because you don't think its fair because its clearly RAW

 CrownAxe wrote:
The Dark Eldar one you're complaing about because you don't think its fair because its clearly RAW

This is where manipulation comes into effect you think your voting on a rules issue when in reality your voting to give them an extra 50 points to upgrade their 3 Aspect Host warp spider sergeants or to get an extra venom for their fire dragons!

 CKO wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
The Dark Eldar one you're complaing about because you don't think its fair because its clearly RAW

This is where manipulation comes into effect you think your voting on a rules issue when in reality your voting to give them an extra 50 points to upgrade their 3 Aspect Host warp spider sergeants or to get an extra venom for their fire dragons!

Eldar don't need to ally dark eldar to be broken. see the top two eldar lists at LVO

 CrownAxe wrote:

 CKO wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
The Dark Eldar one you're complaing about because you don't think its fair because its clearly RAW

This is where manipulation comes into effect you think your voting on a rules issue when in reality your voting to give them an extra 50 points to upgrade their 3 Aspect Host warp spider sergeants or to get an extra venom for their fire dragons!

Eldar don't need to ally dark eldar to be broken. see the top two eldar lists at LVO

Even more reason not to give them the option to ally by only paying 10 points I believe 6th place used it however.

 CKO wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 CKO wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
The Dark Eldar one you're complaing about because you don't think its fair because its clearly RAW

This is where manipulation comes into effect you think your voting on a rules issue when in reality your voting to give them an extra 50 points to upgrade their 3 Aspect Host warp spider sergeants or to get an extra venom for their fire dragons!

Eldar don't need to ally dark eldar to be broken. see the top two eldar lists at LVO

Even more reason not to give them the option to ally by only paying 10 points I believe 6th place used it however.

CSMs can ally with Dark Eldar so clearly you should let Dark Eldar have a 10pt HQ to buff CSM

also a top 8 necron list had a monolith and obelisk doesn't make them borken

So the ITC votes are being manipulated by eldar players is that what your saying? Also keep it straight they did not vote to give it to them, they voted not to take it away.

This is my last post on this thread you guys are putting words in my mouth and its pointless.

 CKO wrote:
This is my last post on this thread you guys are putting words in my mouth and its pointless.

No, people are pointing out what you are saying and how biased it is. You are quite literally saying

"Oh poor little me, my super special army is being called overpowered and people are calling it to be brought back down to realistic levels. How dare these ignorant scrubs call for such a thing they should L2P better. My army is not OP it is really weak, you mooks are just terrible players"

All the while ignoring the points other people are making and changing the goalposts at whim.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 CKO wrote:

 coblen wrote:
Whether it is OP or not has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of your statements. You simultaneously argue that the ITC should change more and less. You complain when other armies get what you consider 50 free points, but think its offside that people don't want tau to get hundreds of free points. You're not showing how biased the voters are your showing how biased you are.

Each ruling is different and some things need to change and some don't I cant say everything needs to stay the same or change that's not the case. I have a problem with the process and as a result of my problem I dislike some of the rulings, do you see the difference?

The Dark Eldar one you're complaing about because you don't think its fair because its clearly RAW

Some of us play without loop holes and some with. I find this one distasteful.

If someone asks me if they ought to, my disdainful response is: "Sure. You could..."




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 coblen wrote:
So the ITC votes are being manipulated by eldar players is that what your saying? Also keep it straight they did not vote to give it to them, they voted not to take it away.

\

You can't deny the simple truth of those votes: any vote they ask for is being voted on primarily by people who don't play that army. Any given vote is that way! let the meaning of that sink in.

So if you think people aren't posessed of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy, re-read this thread and ask yourself: does 50% mean anything after reading threads like we've been plagued with recently? After reading this thread, can anyone possibly believe that people aren't willing to allow a moment of pettiness to get the better of them when voting?

Don't be naive. That's my suggestion. Eyes wide open. Eyes wide open.

you guys do know elder can do this already without allies, right? No-one does it, but you can take a single warlock as an HQ choice because of how the Warlock conclave works. So, really, this does nothing for the elder, and really doesn't do anything for the DE either as an archon can actually be decent with WWP and that shadowfield or w\e.

 Jancoran wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 CKO wrote:

 coblen wrote:
Whether it is OP or not has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of your statements. You simultaneously argue that the ITC should change more and less. You complain when other armies get what you consider 50 free points, but think its offside that people don't want tau to get hundreds of free points. You're not showing how biased the voters are your showing how biased you are.

Each ruling is different and some things need to change and some don't I cant say everything needs to stay the same or change that's not the case. I have a problem with the process and as a result of my problem I dislike some of the rulings, do you see the difference?

The Dark Eldar one you're complaing about because you don't think its fair because its clearly RAW

Some of us play without loop holes and some with. I find this one distasteful.

If someone asks me if they ought to, my disdainful response is: "Sure. You could..."

Sure you could be TFG and make your opponent waste points on crappy DE HQs just because "it doesn't feel right"

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 CKO wrote:

 coblen wrote:
Whether it is OP or not has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of your statements. You simultaneously argue that the ITC should change more and less. You complain when other armies get what you consider 50 free points, but think its offside that people don't want tau to get hundreds of free points. You're not showing how biased the voters are your showing how biased you are.

Each ruling is different and some things need to change and some don't I cant say everything needs to stay the same or change that's not the case. I have a problem with the process and as a result of my problem I dislike some of the rulings, do you see the difference?

The Dark Eldar one you're complaing about because you don't think its fair because its clearly RAW

Some of us play without loop holes and some with. I find this one distasteful.

If someone asks me if they ought to, my disdainful response is: "Sure. You could..."

Sure you could be TFG and make your opponent waste points on crappy DE HQs just because "it doesn't feel right"

Oh I think you misread me on purpose.

I cant make my opponent do anything. i imagine they would be asking me long beforea game happens.

As for being TFG: I am pretty sure gimping myself on purpose doesnt make me TFG. Pro tip: that's not what a TFG does. Lol.

 Jancoran wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 CKO wrote:

 coblen wrote:
Whether it is OP or not has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of your statements. You simultaneously argue that the ITC should change more and less. You complain when other armies get what you consider 50 free points, but think its offside that people don't want tau to get hundreds of free points. You're not showing how biased the voters are your showing how biased you are.

Each ruling is different and some things need to change and some don't I cant say everything needs to stay the same or change that's not the case. I have a problem with the process and as a result of my problem I dislike some of the rulings, do you see the difference?

The Dark Eldar one you're complaing about because you don't think its fair because its clearly RAW

Some of us play without loop holes and some with. I find this one distasteful.

If someone asks me if they ought to, my disdainful response is: "Sure. You could..."

Sure you could be TFG and make your opponent waste points on crappy DE HQs just because "it doesn't feel right"

Oh I think you misread me on purpose.

I cant make my opponent do anything. i imagine they would be asking me long beforea game happens.

As for being TFG: I am pretty sure gimping myself on purpose doesnt make me TFG. Pro tip: that's not what a TFG does. Lol.

Then why are you looking down on other DE players that do play it that way?

 CrownAxe wrote:


Then why are you looking down on other DE players that do play it that way?

Maybe you think I should support everything everyone has a right to do? In that event the main Rule Book for 40K allows me to do a lot of things you wouldn't like. Like 5 WraithKNights. it's allowed, you know. But we don't do it. Why?

Same reason I don't want to do this, only on a smaller scale. It is my prerogative to show self restraint despite the "right" to do something. We exercise that restraint in all kinds of ways. i think it very appropriate and socially acceptable behavior to show restraint, don't you?

If it is indeed good behavior to show restraint (and i know: we all fail sometimes), then this falls under the category of something I believe we should. I'm not going to say otherwise just so you won't feel bad while doing it. How you feel is a function of your self esteem, not a function of what I think about it. So you get to decide how you feel about it and I get to decide how i feel about it. And we can both play at the same table while doing so.

After all, it's not against the rules, right?

 Jancoran wrote:

 coblen wrote:
So the ITC votes are being manipulated by eldar players is that what your saying? Also keep it straight they did not vote to give it to them, they voted not to take it away.

\

You can't deny the simple truth of those votes: any vote they ask for is being voted on primarily by people who don't play that army. Any given vote is that way! let the meaning of that sink in.

So if you think people aren't posessed of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy, re-read this thread and ask yourself: does 50% mean anything after reading threads like we've been plagued with recently? After reading this thread, can anyone possibly believe that people aren't willing to allow a moment of pettiness to get the better of them when voting?

Don't be naive. That's my suggestion. Eyes wide open. Eyes wide open.

Your description of voting does nothing to prove that it is being manipulated by eldar players. Eldar players get just as much a say in the matter as every other army. The only thing I can think of that would give any weight to that is if there was a significantly higher number of eldar players than other armies. I don't however think this is true.

Also if we follow your argument to its logical conclusion then its not going to make sense. If each vote is done primarily by players who are not that army, and these players are "posessed of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy" than it follows that the ITC votes would constantly ere on the side of nerfing things when they came to be voted on. This however has not been the case. The ITC has instated very little nerfs, and has also instated several buffs.

 coblen wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 coblen wrote:
So the ITC votes are being manipulated by eldar players is that what your saying? Also keep it straight they did not vote to give it to them, they voted not to take it away.

\

You can't deny the simple truth of those votes: any vote they ask for is being voted on primarily by people who don't play that army. Any given vote is that way! let the meaning of that sink in.

So if you think people aren't posessed of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy, re-read this thread and ask yourself: does 50% mean anything after reading threads like we've been plagued with recently? After reading this thread, can anyone possibly believe that people aren't willing to allow a moment of pettiness to get the better of them when voting?

Don't be naive. That's my suggestion. Eyes wide open. Eyes wide open.

Your description of voting does nothing to prove that it is being manipulated by eldar players. .

Oh I wasnt saying it was specifically Eldar players. that was someone else. In fact I AM an Eldar playr (and i play every other army but three).

So you see, it's not just an anti-Eldar bias i am explaining.

and they DO err on the side of nerfing things by the way. the entire ITC HANDBOOK is one big list of nerfs, or had you not noticed? others are just confirmations of what we already knew.

 Jancoran wrote:

 coblen wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 coblen wrote:
So the ITC votes are being manipulated by eldar players is that what your saying? Also keep it straight they did not vote to give it to them, they voted not to take it away.

\

You can't deny the simple truth of those votes: any vote they ask for is being voted on primarily by people who don't play that army. Any given vote is that way! let the meaning of that sink in.

So if you think people aren't posessed of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy, re-read this thread and ask yourself: does 50% mean anything after reading threads like we've been plagued with recently? After reading this thread, can anyone possibly believe that people aren't willing to allow a moment of pettiness to get the better of them when voting?

Don't be naive. That's my suggestion. Eyes wide open. Eyes wide open.

Your description of voting does nothing to prove that it is being manipulated by eldar players. .

Oh I wasnt saying it was specifically Eldar players. that was someone else. In fact I AM an Eldar playr (and i play every other army but three).

So you see, it's not just an anti-Eldar bias i am explaining.

and they DO err on the side of nerfing things by the way. the entire ITC HANDBOOK is one big list of nerfs, or had you not noticed? others are just confirmations of what we already knew.

Right I guess the part where you responded to my comment made me think it was actually in regard to my question.

The handbook is not the place to go when looking at whether they more often choose to nerf things or not instead you should look at the poll results themselves. If things don't get nerfed they will not end up in the handbook.

They choose not to nerf scatter bikes, stormsurges, tyrannocytes , and the Angel’s Fury Spearhead Force Formation. They choose to allow orks to get the misprinted point on mek boss buzzgobs big mek stompa. They allowed the use of experimental forge world rules. They buffed khorn daemonkin summoning bloodthirsters, and they buffed ravenwing characters on bikes to be able to be in the ravenwing detachment before gw FAQ'ed it.

This does not sound like a group of people "posessed of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy".

Angel's fury? Really?

CKO, pls change an avatar - can't read any of your stuff =(


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CKO wrote:

Black Yellow Black Yellow Black Yellow Seizure HGGGGGG

 coblen wrote:

Right I guess the part where you responded to my comment made me think it was actually in regard to my question.

The handbook is not the place to go when looking at whether they more often choose to nerf things or not instead you should look at the poll results themselves. If things don't get nerfed they will not end up in the handbook.

They choose not to nerf scatter bikes, stormsurges, tyrannocytes , and the Angel’s Fury Spearhead Force Formation. They choose to allow orks to get the misprinted point on mek boss buzzgobs big mek stompa. They allowed the use of experimental forge world rules. They buffed khorn daemonkin summoning bloodthirsters, and they buffed ravenwing characters on bikes to be able to be in the ravenwing detachment before gw FAQ'ed it.

This does not sound like a group of people "posessed of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy".

They actually DIDNT vote on everything in the FAQ. You are misinformed. Badly.

 Jancoran wrote:

 coblen wrote:

Right I guess the part where you responded to my comment made me think it was actually in regard to my question.

The handbook is not the place to go when looking at whether they more often choose to nerf things or not instead you should look at the poll results themselves. If things don't get nerfed they will not end up in the handbook.

They choose not to nerf scatter bikes, stormsurges, tyrannocytes , and the Angel’s Fury Spearhead Force Formation. They choose to allow orks to get the misprinted point on mek boss buzzgobs big mek stompa. They allowed the use of experimental forge world rules. They buffed khorn daemonkin summoning bloodthirsters, and they buffed ravenwing characters on bikes to be able to be in the ravenwing detachment before gw FAQ'ed it.

This does not sound like a group of people "posessed of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy".

They actually DIDNT vote on everything in the FAQ. You are misinformed. Badly.

Whether they voted on everything has nothing to do with your criticism of the votes. We can see by looking at the poll results that that they are not in accordance with you're idea of a voting base of people ""posessed of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy". Your argument about the voters voting only in there self interest has no bases on fact. When you look at the actual poll results you can see a trend of not nerfing things, and in some cases buffing things.

The results are public, and not hard to find.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/10/12/itc-2015-season-3rd-quarter-update-poll-results/
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/11/29/3rd-quarter-mid-season-itc-update-poll-results/
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/05/08/itc-2015-mid-season-update-poll-results-are-in/
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/08/07/itc-2015-season-quarterly-update-results/

 coblen wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 coblen wrote:

Right I guess the part where you responded to my comment made me think it was actually in regard to my question.

The handbook is not the place to go when looking at whether they more often choose to nerf things or not instead you should look at the poll results themselves. If things don't get nerfed they will not end up in the handbook.

They choose not to nerf scatter bikes, stormsurges, tyrannocytes , and the Angel’s Fury Spearhead Force Formation. They choose to allow orks to get the misprinted point on mek boss buzzgobs big mek stompa. They allowed the use of experimental forge world rules. They buffed khorn daemonkin summoning bloodthirsters, and they buffed ravenwing characters on bikes to be able to be in the ravenwing detachment before gw FAQ'ed it.

This does not sound like a group of people "posessed of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy".

They actually DIDNT vote on everything in the FAQ. You are misinformed. Badly.

Whether they voted on everything has nothing to do with your criticism of the votes. We can see by looking at the poll results that that they are not in accordance with you're idea of a voting base of people ""posessed of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy". Your argument about the voters voting only in there self interest has no bases on fact. When you look at the actual poll results you can see a trend of not nerfing things, and in some cases buffing things.

The results are public, and not hard to find.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/10/12/itc-2015-season-3rd-quarter-update-poll-results/
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/11/29/3rd-quarter-mid-season-itc-update-poll-results/
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/05/08/itc-2015-mid-season-update-poll-results-are-in/
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/08/07/itc-2015-season-quarterly-update-results/

Again moving the goal post = bad form. stating that the votes make it all legit is crazy because.... they WERENT all voted on! Its patently false. So using it as your underlying reasoning is necessarily undermining your case. Not mine.

My criticism comes from a different direction.

 Jancoran wrote:

 coblen wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 coblen wrote:

Right I guess the part where you responded to my comment made me think it was actually in regard to my question.

The handbook is not the place to go when looking at whether they more often choose to nerf things or not instead you should look at the poll results themselves. If things don't get nerfed they will not end up in the handbook.

They choose not to nerf scatter bikes, stormsurges, tyrannocytes , and the Angel’s Fury Spearhead Force Formation. They choose to allow orks to get the misprinted point on mek boss buzzgobs big mek stompa. They allowed the use of experimental forge world rules. They buffed khorn daemonkin summoning bloodthirsters, and they buffed ravenwing characters on bikes to be able to be in the ravenwing detachment before gw FAQ'ed it.

This does not sound like a group of people "posessed of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy".

They actually DIDNT vote on everything in the FAQ. You are misinformed. Badly.

Whether they voted on everything has nothing to do with your criticism of the votes. We can see by looking at the poll results that that they are not in accordance with you're idea of a voting base of people ""posessed of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy". Your argument about the voters voting only in there self interest has no bases on fact. When you look at the actual poll results you can see a trend of not nerfing things, and in some cases buffing things.

The results are public, and not hard to find.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/10/12/itc-2015-season-3rd-quarter-update-poll-results/
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/11/29/3rd-quarter-mid-season-itc-update-poll-results/
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/05/08/itc-2015-mid-season-update-poll-results-are-in/
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/08/07/itc-2015-season-quarterly-update-results/

Again moving the goal post = bad form. stating that the votes make it all legit is crazy because.... they WERENT all voted on! Its patently false. So using it as your underlying reasoning is necessarily undermining your case. Not mine.

My criticism comes from a different direction.

How is this moving the goal post? Here is what I originally responded to.

 Jancoran wrote:
You can't deny the simple truth of those votes: any vote they ask for is being voted on primarily by people who don't play that army. Any given vote is that way! let the meaning of that sink in.

So if you think people aren't posessed of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy, re-read this thread and ask yourself: does 50% mean anything after reading threads like we've been plagued with recently? After reading this thread, can anyone possibly believe that people aren't willing to allow a moment of pettiness to get the better of them when voting?

You where criticizing the voting system and laying false accusations that the voters vote based on "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy". I have attempted to disprove that, and have presented evidence of actual votes that took place in which the results do not line up with your accusations. The actual rules in the ITC handbook are irrelevant to my argument. My argument is based solely on disproving the notion that the voters are voting out of "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy".

 coblen wrote:

You where criticizing the voting system and laying false accusations that the voters vote based on "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy". I have attempted to disprove that, and have presented evidence of actual votes that took place in which the results do not line up with your accusations. The actual rules in the ITC handbook are irrelevant to my argument. My argument is based solely on disproving the notion that the voters are voting out of "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy".

Except ITC even admitted that there was a lot of fake voting for the elder related votes (Scat bikes for example).

And yes, they are voting for their own self interest. If you don't think that is the case then you are extremely naive. Just looking at the comments on this site I see that from a ton of people (many of which literally said "Nerf the crap out of Tau. I hate them")

How many individual posters are we talking about? Or was it a couple of posters saying it a lot? And how much of that is hyperbole just to wind you guys up?

notredameguy10 wrote:

 coblen wrote:

You where criticizing the voting system and laying false accusations that the voters vote based on "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy". I have attempted to disprove that, and have presented evidence of actual votes that took place in which the results do not line up with your accusations. The actual rules in the ITC handbook are irrelevant to my argument. My argument is based solely on disproving the notion that the voters are voting out of "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy".

Except ITC even admitted that there was a lot of fake voting for the elder related votes (Scat bikes for example).

And yes, they are voting for their own self interest. If you don't think that is the case then you are extremely naive. Just looking at the comments on this site I see that from a ton of people (many of which literally said "Nerf the crap out of Tau. I hate them")

There is a difference between some people voting in a "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy" way, and the general voting populous voting in that way. Anecdotal remarks from commentators are not the same as actual poll results.

If there are fake votes then that is an entirely seperate problem. I'm not saying that the ITC is perfect, or even great. I'm only attempting to disprove that the voting populous as a majority votes out of "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy".

 coblen wrote:


You where criticizing the voting system and laying false accusations that the voters vote based on "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy". I have attempted to disprove that, and have presented evidence of actual votes that took place in which the results do not line up with your accusations. The actual rules in the ITC handbook are irrelevant to my argument. My argument is based solely on disproving the notion that the voters are voting out of "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy".

I WASNT criticizing the voting system so stop saying that i am as a premise to argue with me. if everthing was voted with a super majority Id be the biggest ITC fan you ever saw.

And when does restating the obvious that no one debated become an argument...again? I know there WERE some votes. On SOME things. That is beyond dispute...and no one is disputing it...which makes this paragraph limited in value.

One must wear ridiculously rose colored glasses to think for one moment that this voting represented a majority of their decisions.

EVERY "inclusion" is a decision. But its really just telling us what we already knew. Unnecessary.

Every EXCLUSION was a conscious choice and NOT voted on in a ton of cases. A lot.

Every rules re-write (and there are FAR too many) is a conscious choice and they ALSO were not all voted on.

So. In the end... What i am saying.... Is that you cannot use this as any kind of argument. That some things got voted by SOME people isn't being debated here by me.

But lets walk down the path of wrong assumptions and say that they were all voted on (they weren't). In that case what you essentially have is players of 15 codex's voting on whether YOUR one codex should be nerfed (yes I know very well that some play multiple codex's as i do). You're asking them whether they want the codex they FACE to be nerfed. Wait for it... Let it sink in...

For one to in any way pass a straight face test, one is not going to state here and now that the voters have no self interest and that they would never dream of having a human moment of petty jealousy.

You've read DakkaDakka for whatever period of time and seen Eldar hate and Storm of Chaos hate and Tau hate and freaking Triple Heldrake hate and War Convocation hate and the list is endless. My own dislike of Forge Wolrd is an example of an area i don't think should be allowed and given a vote, I'd vote it out. You've seen the most spurious of arguments for and against things and you think after all that that I am going to assume for one minute that this self interest, spurious logic, sore losers and poor Generals (and yes the good ones) aren't going to let their hate of a certain faction affect their vote?

Give. Me. A. Break.

So if you want this voting thing to matter... Revote it all. Require a Super Majority in order to keep it. Because only a super majority will tell you whether the community is self interested (50-55%) or they really are overwhelmingly in agreement (65-70%) enough to take those things and change them.

Some of those decisions go back two to three years before they voted on a thing.

Self interest is real. Saying otherwise and arguing with me about it is your prerogative. Pointing out its obvious presence is mine.

I think the confusion is coming from you responding to me with things that have nothing to do with what I originally said.

I asked CKO if he thought that the ITC votes where being manipulated. I asked this because he had alluded to it several times but I wanted it laid out plainly.

You responded to me telling me that
A) Most people who vote on each decision are not the people who play that army.
B) People vote out of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy

You then went on to tell me that I should ask myself if 50% really meant anything as a result of this. Leading me to believe that you don't think 50% means anything, because of the above.

I believed that this was a response to my question, because you did it as a response to my question, and if it was true then it would prove a significant level of manipulation was at hand. I then went on to try to prove that there where not enough voters voting out of "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy" to have affected the vote outcomes.

If all you where trying to say is that some people vote out of "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy". Then yes obviously some people do. I don't know what your point is though.

I said nothing about the current rules, I never said everything was voted on. I never said the outcomes where good, or bad. I only ever said that if you look at the outcomes of the polls it does not look like polls that where dominated by voters voting out of "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy".

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 LValx wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 CKO wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Because most people agreed with the changes because they evaluated the nerfs themselves before the thread was made and they were sick of seeing a new 'ITC nerfed Tau please fix' thread every day?

What changes did you agree with? Besides the obvious coordinated fire power one. I am starting to understand why you rarely see the big names post on forums because this is getting no where fast.

All of them. As a Guard player (the original gunline army - yes, someone did it before the spacefishcowcommies) I hate the Tau with a passion. I have to get close to them with an army that struggles to move more that 6+D6" per turn. They can out shoot me. Their basic guns ignore my armour and the only save I get - cover - is completely ignored by their markerlights. If I try to shoot them then I barely even scratch them and starting a shooting war with them is tantamount to suicide but assault is pointless too as whatever tattered remnants make it close enough will be annihilated by their supporting fire and overwatch.
My tanks are laughable against their Railguns, D missiles, Ghost Keels and the like whilst their Riptides and Stormsurges are basically immune to my army as I have no feasible way of putting out enough firepower to kill them.

Tau are massively overpowered and the ITC nerfs are very, very, welcome and much needed.

Want to make your Tau matchup better?

Some tips: Take a huge blob of Guardsmen, 50 man big. Take Azrael from Dark Angels. All your Guardsmen now have a 4++ save at worst. This means all Tau weaponry will become very inefficient at removing your squad. For fun, add psykers and attempt to get more buffs (Sanctuary for a 3++ save on the entire blob, Invisibility because.. yeah, endurance for 4+ FNP and eternal warrior), take an inquisitor for Rad and Psychostroke grenades, load up on power axes and your blob will actually be very formidable in CC (I used to use a list like this, if you want I can PM you details). Load up on Wyverns, i'd recommend 2 squads of 2, they absolutely shred any non-MC infantry tau take, including the drones from both the drone net and the spawned drones. By taking SM allies you also gain the ability to bring along FA Drop Pods. Place Command Squads or Veterans squads inside the pods, load up on plasmas. A command squad full of Plasma, with rerolls and orders should be able to put a dent into some of those Tau MCs, you could also ally in Grav from Codex: SM to shore up that weakness.

As an imperial player, you should be using all the tools at your disposal. Bring along your buddies for the assistance you require.

So in order to stand up up to an even moderate tau list, take a very specific build, that A requires atleast three different books, B pisses all over the fluff. No army should have to stoop that low.

If you are playing against competitive Tau lists, yeah a lot of armies have to stoop that low. If you are playing against a casual Tau army it shouldnt be that big of a deal. But if your opponent is bringing a Riptide wing then you shouldnt feel at all bad about using all the assets available to you. Like it or not the game has allies and it is one of the few advantages that Imperials have over Tau/Eldar/Daemons/Crons.

"stoop"? Its called adaption. Its one thing to say a Codex CAN'T do something and another to say YOU WON'T.

If you won't that's a choice. Not a requirement to struggle.

 Jancoran wrote:
"stoop"? Its called adaption. Its one thing to say a Codex CAN'T do something and another to say YOU WON'T.

If you won't that's a choice. Not a requirement to struggle.

Yes, stoop. Having to buy, by my count, 4 codices just to be competitive is insane. Not to mention that it's hard to claim you're bringing a guard army to the table when you've tacked on DA, Inquisitors, and SMs to your little bit of IG.

MIni MIehm wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
"stoop"? Its called adaption. Its one thing to say a Codex CAN'T do something and another to say YOU WON'T.

If you won't that's a choice. Not a requirement to struggle.

Yes, stoop. Having to buy, by my count, 4 codices just to be competitive is insane. Not to mention that it's hard to claim you're bringing a guard army to the table when you've tacked on DA, Inquisitors, and SMs to your little bit of IG.

Again... Your choice. Dont tack anything on to it. it is self sufficient but you'll probably have to buy a few new toys. that's never not been the case though.