You have to love the suspense! Especially with everyone suspecting foul play from every direction be it players, flg, or people who dont even play the game!
CKO wrote: You have to love the suspense! Especially with everyone suspecting foul play from every direction be it players, flg, or people who dont even play the game!
CKO wrote: You have to love the suspense! Especially with everyone suspecting foul play from every direction be it players, flg, or people who dont even play the game!
Again, who's expecting foul play?
Lol have you read this thread at all? If you have you would not have asked that question.
Dozer Blades wrote: If you have something negative to say that's okay... But spamming it every post gets tired real fast.
I didnt say anything negative you interpreted what I said as negative. If he were to look throughout the thread he would run accross several post where players other than myself have voice concerns or pointed out flaws with the current voting system.
I have been rather conservative lately similar to their approach to rulings!
CKO wrote: You have to love the suspense! Especially with everyone suspecting foul play from every direction be it players, flg, or people who dont even play the game!
All people are saying is that this is more than a little bit of a dramatization. And revelling in it is hardly becoming.
Some people are apparently intent to just rag on the only group of people who have made a concerted effort to make 40k into a good competitive game, instead of the beer and pretzels that the brits at GW clearly think it is. It's your call to either join the naysayers or to join the efforts of those trying to make 40k better. I know which side I'm on
If they had read the thread they'd have seen a mod warning to stop with the random conspiracy "foul play is afoot" stuff. If you have nothing constructive (last warning, this stuff isn't constructive), then don't post on this thread. We had about half a page of alright discussion before it started to derail again, so this is the last warning
Motyak is right - this kind of discussion isn't productive. Probably best to table it until something happens on Monday (at which point I fully expect the talk to start up again and the thread to get locked down for not listening to the mods)
CKO wrote: So why is there such a backlash when someone complains about ITC?
There usually was something of a backlash from supporters of those events, the difference is in scale. Those are all single events that happen once a year, their main supporters are the TOs/staff/etc. the itc is not a single event, it's more of a...gaming club/regional community. It's a latge group of people that feel that they have ownership/involvement/are part of something.
Guys what is the one question you really hope go one way compared to the other option?
Me personally I hope Ghostkeels get 3 uses of counter measure. It just seems fair I mean before they buy any of the upgrades its 390 for 3 uses, and their gun is either a small blast melta shot or 6 str 7 shots.
FeindusMaximus wrote: Must be quite the large shipment that needed to unloaded all weekend . No signals or poll results.
Signals is available on their Twitch Channel. They gave partial results, the closer votes required verification of emails before announcing the results.
FeindusMaximus wrote: Must be quite the large shipment that needed to unloaded all weekend . No signals or poll results.
Signals is available on their Twitch Channel. They gave partial results, the closer votes required verification of emails before announcing the results.
So now that the results have been posted, I think we can all cease with the sky is falling. I play Tau and the vote literally went exactly how I voted except for the Corsairs rule (I thought they could use it in overwatch as well but oh well haha)
luke1705 wrote: So now that the results have been posted, I think we can all cease with the sky is falling. I play Tau and the vote literally went exactly how I voted except for the Corsairs rule (I thought they could use it in overwatch as well but oh well haha)
To be fair I am sure there will be unhappy tau about the piranha rulings.
And it's essentially it's a double nerf to eldar with corsairs and wraithknights taking a hit.
It also sounds like chaos armies got a decent boost.
The votes were all mostly clear with no real 50/50 vote. Overall this seems good for 40k as a whole although I'm kinda worried about what shenanigans can be pulled off with legacies on knights as I haven't seen anyone play with those combos before especially things like essentially never failing a psychic power again or crazy high invul on a knight (although I don't think that combo will work).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CKO wrote: Pretty decent results but what is the point of the Piranha formation now?
If you cannot regain models there is no seeker missiles nor drones you can restore!
Can someone tell me how to take advantage of this formation?
Or has the piranha formation became the first formation ever to be made useless by our voting process!
The piranha formation works exactly how the ork air armada works now. You regain hull and missiles and drones. You enter the board let loose drones, fire missiles, jink to your hearts content as it doesn't matter and leave the board the next turn. Come back the next turn and rinse and repeat except if a piranha dies you are down that model. Before people were going to completely ignore this formation as it was near impossible to kill all 3 piranha with jink saves and if you didn't kill all three you wasted all your shots because it comes back in full again. Now they might hit the formation with antiair and hope they do enough hull to kill a piranha. It's not a bad formation but it's not great either.
luke1705 wrote: So now that the results have been posted, I think we can all cease with the sky is falling. I play Tau and the vote literally went exactly how I voted except for the Corsairs rule (I thought they could use it in overwatch as well but oh well haha)
To be fair I am sure there will be unhappy tau about the piranha rulings.
And it's essentially it's a double nerf to eldar with corsairs and wraithknights taking a hit.
It also sounds like chaos armies got a decent boost.
The votes were all mostly clear with no real 50/50 vote. Overall this seems good for 40k as a whole although I'm kinda worried about what shenanigans can be pulled off with legacies on knights as I haven't seen anyone play with those combos before especially things like essentially never failing a psychic power again or crazy high invul on a knight (although I don't think that combo will work).
The relic that gives a bonus to the invuln save says that Khorne daemon models around the vehicle get +1 to their invuln save. It doesn't say that the vehicle gets the bonus.
You can get the 2++ re-rollable on the knight without the relics. Grimoire+cursed earth on tzeentch knight. So the worst abuse of the knight wasn't even on the ballot.
And thanks for the link, I had searched for it but honestly found it a bit hard to navigate to - overall the results are pretty clear on the votes that mattered (rather than the second follow-up questions which didn't come into play based on the results of the first). Democracy
They cant act like the air armada as they aren't flyers! They are 2 hp, open top, and armor 10 vehicles, the formation is useless unless you go first in which it becomes average.
If you go first you shoot your seekers second turn you get attacked by anti-tank unit 1-3 die and they cannot be revived! You come back with less than what you started with, I think its better to have more units on board than leave to get 4 drones or 4 seeker missiles.
My advice stay away from this formation, you were only gaining 2 drone units and 2 bonus seeker missiles uses in a 5 turn game prior to the vote. Now that models can not come back its even worse, just a horrible formation stay away your better off just leaving the piranhas on the board and using them to claim objectives.
CKO wrote: They cant act like the air armada as they aren't flyers! They are 2 hp, open top, and armor 10 vehicles, the formation is useless unless you go first in which it becomes average.
If you go first you shoot your seekers second turn you get attacked by anti-tank unit 1-3 die and they cannot be revived! You come back with less than what you started with, I think its better to have more units on board than leave to get 4 drones or 4 seeker missiles.
My advice stay away from this formation, you were only gaining 2 drone units and 2 bonus seeker missiles uses in a 5 turn game prior to the vote. Now that models can not come back its even worse, just a horrible formation stay away your better off just leaving the piranhas on the board and using them to claim objectives.
The air armada is also 2hp av10 vehicles they both jink except the air armada costs way more and doesn't have drones just bombs and hull that replenish. It's also not competitve because it costs a crap ton for subpar models. I think it would be fine if piranha respawned but the rules on respawning wasn't exactly clear either. It's not like the ITC community are the only ones who read it that way nova doesn't respawn either.
We cant compare a flyer to a land speeder, one has a built in defense you know the snapshot thing. Anyways just cause one formation is one way doesn't mean we should make the other just like it.
That line of thought is how Dark Eldar, Eldar's best friend got a 10 point hq.
The relic that gives a bonus to the invuln save says that Khorne daemon models around the vehicle get +1 to their invuln save. It doesn't say that the vehicle gets the bonus.
The legacy says "Daemon of Khorne within 6" get +1 invul". The vehicle is within 6" isn't it?
CKO wrote: They cant act like the air armada as they aren't flyers! They are 2 hp, open top, and armor 10 vehicles, the formation is useless unless you go first in which it becomes average.
If you go first you shoot your seekers second turn you get attacked by anti-tank unit 1-3 die and they cannot be revived! You come back with less than what you started with, I think its better to have more units on board than leave to get 4 drones or 4 seeker missiles.
My advice stay away from this formation, you were only gaining 2 drone units and 2 bonus seeker missiles uses in a 5 turn game prior to the vote. Now that models can not come back its even worse, just a horrible formation stay away your better off just leaving the piranhas on the board and using them to claim objectives.
The air armada is also 2hp av10 vehicles they both jink except the air armada costs way more and doesn't have drones just bombs and hull that replenish. It's also not competitve because it costs a crap ton for subpar models. I think it would be fine if piranha respawned but the rules on respawning wasn't exactly clear either. It's not like the ITC community are the only ones who read it that way nova doesn't respawn either.
If you mean NOVA the tournament, they are playing Piranhas by the rules, meaning "the unit returns at full strength" literally means what it says - the dead models come back. NOVA doesn't typically do nerfs, and they aren't doing them here.
It's an absurd result to a vote, but it's not surprising - you ask people to vote on something, who aren't informed and don't even know the rule, and the majority don't play that army and have heard its a busted formation....and it gets banned. It's about as far from surprising as it gets.
The best part is claiming "we don't know what they mean by full strength" when the rule existed identically for years with a clarif associated with it from GW...which said this is exactly what it meant, dead models come back.
C'est la vie. I'll still bring piranhas, because I want to. They'll just suck.
The relic that gives a bonus to the invuln save says that Khorne daemon models around the vehicle get +1 to their invuln save. It doesn't say that the vehicle gets the bonus.
The legacy says "Daemon of Khorne within 6" get +1 invul". The vehicle is within 6" isn't it?
CKO wrote: They cant act like the air armada as they aren't flyers! They are 2 hp, open top, and armor 10 vehicles, the formation is useless unless you go first in which it becomes average.
If you go first you shoot your seekers second turn you get attacked by anti-tank unit 1-3 die and they cannot be revived! You come back with less than what you started with, I think its better to have more units on board than leave to get 4 drones or 4 seeker missiles.
My advice stay away from this formation, you were only gaining 2 drone units and 2 bonus seeker missiles uses in a 5 turn game prior to the vote. Now that models can not come back its even worse, just a horrible formation stay away your better off just leaving the piranhas on the board and using them to claim objectives.
The air armada is also 2hp av10 vehicles they both jink except the air armada costs way more and doesn't have drones just bombs and hull that replenish. It's also not competitve because it costs a crap ton for subpar models. I think it would be fine if piranha respawned but the rules on respawning wasn't exactly clear either. It's not like the ITC community are the only ones who read it that way nova doesn't respawn either.
If you mean NOVA the tournament, they are playing Piranhas by the rules, meaning "the unit returns at full strength" literally means what it says - the dead models come back. NOVA doesn't typically do nerfs, and they aren't doing them here.
It's an absurd result to a vote, but it's not surprising - you ask people to vote on something, who aren't informed and don't even know the rule, and the majority don't play that army and have heard its a busted formation....and it gets banned. It's about as far from surprising as it gets.
The best part is claiming "we don't know what they mean by full strength" when the rule existed identically for years with a clarif associated with it from GW...which said this is exactly what it meant, dead models come back.
C'est la vie. I'll still bring piranhas, because I want to. They'll just suck.
You are right about nova. Odd I swear they ruled it that way before. Never mind.
The relic that gives a bonus to the invuln save says that Khorne daemon models around the vehicle get +1 to their invuln save. It doesn't say that the vehicle gets the bonus.
The legacy says "Daemon of Khorne within 6" get +1 invul". The vehicle is within 6" isn't it?
Indeed it is! More blood for the blood God!
Ya this argument is what i meant by the invul shenanigans however I doubt it will work that way.
The relic that gives a bonus to the invuln save says that Khorne daemon models around the vehicle get +1 to their invuln save. It doesn't say that the vehicle gets the bonus.
The legacy says "Daemon of Khorne within 6" get +1 invul". The vehicle is within 6" isn't it?
I think that more speaks to the fact that the community got the vote wrong here. You shouldn't be able to add the relics to something with the daemon rule.
The relic that gives a bonus to the invuln save says that Khorne daemon models around the vehicle get +1 to their invuln save. It doesn't say that the vehicle gets the bonus.
The legacy says "Daemon of Khorne within 6" get +1 invul". The vehicle is within 6" isn't it?
I think that more speaks to the fact that the community got the vote wrong here. You shouldn't be able to add the relics to something with the daemon rule.
Not what the rules say. Says you can't put a relic on a Daemon Engine. There is no rule that a vehicle with the daemon rule is a Daemon Engine. So by RAW it works.
gigasnail wrote: Hey, now all tyranid GMC are dead turn 1 in ITC. That's highly amusing and great and all. Good job, trooper!
Yes, I know they're somewhat terrible to begin with. Now, they're unusable. Any newly released GMC will be useless as well.
You can still put them behind things and get buffs from Venomthropes/Malanthropes. You just can't put .01" of their base on the outside edge of a building terrain and suddenly become invincible. Nid GCs are easier to hide than WKs anyway, much more squat.
I can count on my hand the number of time I've seen nid players use a GMC. Let's be honest nids rely on FMC and MC to do the heavy lifting and none of those were touched by this ruling. The barbed heirodule is just awful (same stats as wraithknight without the str d shooting at 2x the cost) the harridan is a FMC and not allowed most times anyway in the ITC and doninatrix doesn't exist. This is about as big a nerf to tyranids as the Orks losing toe in cover on a gargantuan squiggoth.
gungo wrote: I can count on my hand the number of time I've seen nid players use a GMC. Let's be honest nids rely on FMC and MC to do the heavy lifting and none of those were touched by this ruling.
That's because our current choices are terrible/overcosted. Anything in the future will be equally useless now.
The relic that gives a bonus to the invuln save says that Khorne daemon models around the vehicle get +1 to their invuln save. It doesn't say that the vehicle gets the bonus.
The legacy says "Daemon of Khorne within 6" get +1 invul". The vehicle is within 6" isn't it?
I think that more speaks to the fact that the community got the vote wrong here. You shouldn't be able to add the relics to something with the daemon rule.
Not what the rules say. Says you can't put a relic on a Daemon Engine. There is no rule that a vehicle with the daemon rule is a Daemon Engine. So by RAW it works.
Oh I understand the RAW, I just don't agree with it. Based on how awkward the wording is, I don't FW anticipated having a Knight that can be upgraded with the daemon special rule. But hey, the community has spoken so I'll trudge forward with my 4++ chaos knight.
The relic that gives a bonus to the invuln save says that Khorne daemon models around the vehicle get +1 to their invuln save. It doesn't say that the vehicle gets the bonus.
The legacy says "Daemon of Khorne within 6" get +1 invul". The vehicle is within 6" isn't it?
I think that more speaks to the fact that the community got the vote wrong here. You shouldn't be able to add the relics to something with the daemon rule.
Not what the rules say. Says you can't put a relic on a Daemon Engine. There is no rule that a vehicle with the daemon rule is a Daemon Engine. So by RAW it works.
Oh I understand the RAW, I just don't agree with it. Based on how awkward the wording is, I don't FW anticipated having a Knight that can be upgraded with the daemon special rule. But hey, the community has spoken so I'll trudge forward with my 4++ chaos knight.
BTW, I ran a Chaos Knight with a Legacy Relic at the LVO. They can be quite strong.
In any case, my army Chaos army remains unchanged unless I opt to run the Daemoncurions.
gungo wrote: I can count on my hand the number of time I've seen nid players use a GMC. Let's be honest nids rely on FMC and MC to do the heavy lifting and none of those were touched by this ruling.
That's because our current choices are terrible/overcosted. Anything in the future will be equally useless now.
No the harridan is decent just not allowed
The dominatrix has no rules or model
The barbed herodule is awful cost and ability.
Oddly enough other gargantuans have invul, thier own cover, or just dirt cheap. This doesn't mean a tyranid gmc won't ever get those same abilities.
The relic that gives a bonus to the invuln save says that Khorne daemon models around the vehicle get +1 to their invuln save. It doesn't say that the vehicle gets the bonus.
The legacy says "Daemon of Khorne within 6" get +1 invul". The vehicle is within 6" isn't it?
I think that more speaks to the fact that the community got the vote wrong here. You shouldn't be able to add the relics to something with the daemon rule.
Not what the rules say. Says you can't put a relic on a Daemon Engine. There is no rule that a vehicle with the daemon rule is a Daemon Engine. So by RAW it works.
Oh I understand the RAW, I just don't agree with it. Based on how awkward the wording is, I don't FW anticipated having a Knight that can be upgraded with the daemon special rule. But hey, the community has spoken so I'll trudge forward with my 4++ chaos knight.
Considering that the Daemon Knight rules were already in IA13 (on Chaos Titans) its obvious that they already knew about giving chaos vehicles the daemon rule and if they didn't want Daemon Titans to have Legacies they would have said so.
That sets a precedent that they don't have a problem with Chaos Knights taking legacies either.
To further clarify and sound less like a salty whiner, my issue is there is no RAW reason for the GMC ruling, it is only people, well, being salty whiners. I do not (and will not) support house ruling according to a popularity contest.
gungo wrote: I can count on my hand the number of time I've seen nid players use a GMC. Let's be honest nids rely on FMC and MC to do the heavy lifting and none of those were touched by this ruling.
That's because our current choices are terrible/overcosted. Anything in the future will be equally useless now.
No the harridan is decent just not allowed
The dominatrix has no rules or model
The barbed herodule is awful cost and ability.
Oddly enough other gargantuans have invul, thier own cover, or just dirt cheap. This doesn't mean a tyranid gmc won't ever get those same abilities.
The harridans isn't allowed and the dominatrix doesn't exist. Therefore, they're not relevant to the discussion any more than a warhound titan is. The other choices, as already noted, are bad/overcosted. I'm not sure what your point is.
There aren't a plethora of invul saves in the faction, and I have zero faith any new units will have a useful one.
gigasnail wrote: To further clarify and sound less like a salty whiner, my issue is there is no RAW reason for the GMC ruling, it is only people, well, being salty whiners. I do not (and will not) support house ruling according to a popularity contest.
gungo wrote: I can count on my hand the number of time I've seen nid players use a GMC. Let's be honest nids rely on FMC and MC to do the heavy lifting and none of those were touched by this ruling.
That's because our current choices are terrible/overcosted. Anything in the future will be equally useless now.
No the harridan is decent just not allowed
The dominatrix has no rules or model
The barbed herodule is awful cost and ability.
Oddly enough other gargantuans have invul, thier own cover, or just dirt cheap. This doesn't mean a tyranid gmc won't ever get those same abilities.
The harridans isn't allowed and the dominatrix doesn't exist. Therefore, they're not relevant to the discussion any more than a warhound titan is. The other choices, as already noted, are bad/overcosted. I'm not sure what your point is.
There aren't a plethora of invul saves in the faction, and I have zero faith any new units will have a useful one.
This was a poor decision.
Just wanted to point out that most people voted on this with the Wraithknight in mind. That unit is the biggest offender.
Raw is a horrid argument at this point. Not a single person here truly believes GW is writing clear balanced rules. If they were we wouldn't need the ITC. That ship has sailed. GW sucks at writing decent rules. The ITC is just taking the gak GW gives us and tries to put it in a format that's playable and fun. Sometimes this means changing things even when the rules allow it to work differently, sometimes it means just ban the unit because it is beyond fixing. GMC toe in cover is a clear example of how the community wants it to be played and not a RAW argument.
gigasnail wrote: To further clarify and sound less like a salty whiner, my issue is there is no RAW reason for the GMC ruling, it is only people, well, being salty whiners. I do not (and will not) support house ruling according to a popularity contest.
I have been saying this for almost 1-2 months now however things all of a sudden change when its your codex that gets hit. Not saying you gigasnail but players in general, they nerf stuff to pieces than they realize hey that's going to ruin my day they get mad after the fact when I was warning them prior to voting but people tend to ignore that smart little voice in their heads!
gigasnail wrote: To further clarify and sound less like a salty whiner, my issue is there is no RAW reason for the GMC ruling, it is only people, well, being salty whiners. I do not (and will not) support house ruling according to a popularity contest.
I have been saying this for almost 1-2 months now however things all of a sudden change when its your codex that gets hit. Not saying you gigasnail but players in general, they nerf stuff to pieces than they realize hey that's going to ruin my day they get mad after the fact when I was warning them prior to voting but people tend to ignore that smart little voice in their heads!
Yep everyone votes to nerf everything thats not their army. They why Ghostkeel's Holophon got nerfed and Chaos Knights can't take Legacies
gigasnail wrote: To further clarify and sound less like a salty whiner, my issue is there is no RAW reason for the GMC ruling, it is only people, well, being salty whiners. I do not (and will not) support house ruling according to a popularity contest.
gungo wrote: I can count on my hand the number of time I've seen nid players use a GMC. Let's be honest nids rely on FMC and MC to do the heavy lifting and none of those were touched by this ruling.
That's because our current choices are terrible/overcosted. Anything in the future will be equally useless now.
No the harridan is decent just not allowed
The dominatrix has no rules or model
The barbed herodule is awful cost and ability.
Oddly enough other gargantuans have invul, thier own cover, or just dirt cheap. This doesn't mean a tyranid gmc won't ever get those same abilities.
The harridans isn't allowed and the dominatrix doesn't exist. Therefore, they're not relevant to the discussion any more than a warhound titan is. The other choices, as already noted, are bad/overcosted. I'm not sure what your point is.
There aren't a plethora of invul saves in the faction, and I have zero faith any new units will have a useful one.
This was a poor decision.
Your comment on choices implies more then 1 choice.
My comment was relevant because it's all the known choices. If you were only taking about the heirodule then that's a single choice.
And it's aweful because it's a 2x cost wraithknight without str d shooting. In other words crap rules nothing to do with an unreliable cover save.
The dominatrix if they ever build it is psychic and since tyranids seem to only love telepathy means it will likely have access to invis.
If I had to guess if they ever make that model which. Is ur complaint it would likely be worth it since invis gmc are a pain to kill.
I'm well aware the issue is with undercosted units (wraithknight, for sure), letting people vote on what they want purely because they don't like something is still a bad idea.
gigasnail wrote: To further clarify and sound less like a salty whiner, my issue is there is no RAW reason for the GMC ruling, it is only people, well, being salty whiners. I do not (and will not) support house ruling according to a popularity contest.
gungo wrote: I can count on my hand the number of time I've seen nid players use a GMC. Let's be honest nids rely on FMC and MC to do the heavy lifting and none of those were touched by this ruling.
That's because our current choices are terrible/overcosted. Anything in the future will be equally useless now.
No the harridan is decent just not allowed
The dominatrix has no rules or model
The barbed herodule is awful cost and ability.
Oddly enough other gargantuans have invul, thier own cover, or just dirt cheap. This doesn't mean a tyranid gmc won't ever get those same abilities.
The harridans isn't allowed and the dominatrix doesn't exist. Therefore, they're not relevant to the discussion any more than a warhound titan is. The other choices, as already noted, are bad/overcosted. I'm not sure what your point is.
There aren't a plethora of invul saves in the faction, and I have zero faith any new units will have a useful one.
This was a poor decision.
There is no RAW reason, there is a WK reason. And clearly a RAI reason, cover is intended to indicate having a chance to hit the building instead of the target. Seeing a 6 story WK stand vaguely next to a pile of rubble does not logically mean you have a 50% chance to miss them. That's just... dumb. Super dumb.
gigasnail wrote: To further clarify and sound less like a salty whiner, my issue is there is no RAW reason for the GMC ruling, it is only people, well, being salty whiners. I do not (and will not) support house ruling according to a popularity contest.
I have been saying this for almost 1-2 months now however things all of a sudden change when its your codex that gets hit. Not saying you gigasnail but players in general, they nerf stuff to pieces than they realize hey that's going to ruin my day they get mad after the fact when I was warning them prior to voting but people tend to ignore that smart little voice in their heads!
Yep everyone votes to nerf everything thats not their army. They why Ghostkeel's Holophon got nerfed and Chaos Knights can't take Legacies
Oh wait...
Or the last lvo vote that said "hey we don't allow multiple LOW should we change it just for tau to bring in multiple Stormsurges?"
Or we don't slow multiple fortifications should we allow if just for tau?
Or we don't allow fw experimental rules for 40k should we change it mostly for tau.
gigasnail wrote: I'm well aware the issue is with undercosted units (wraithknight, for sure), letting people vote on what they want purely because they don't like something is still a bad idea.
Not like something might be to direct? It was voted on how fun or fair it is to play against, mask it how you want. People playing the game took a vote, out of the people who bothered to vote it was decided by a very big margin.
This doesn't have to be accepted my everyone, nor will it be, it just requires compliance at the ITC events that stick to ITC rulings. People playing that tourney now know what to expect, and people being offended by the nerf are in the minority to those who wanted it nerfed...
It's Just like people have to comply with the fact, that people will complain regardless how the vote goes. Someone will be offended, and someone will argue any little metaphysical subtleties on anything said, just for the sake of arguing. People might laugh and not like it, but the internet deems the right for anyone to be offended and voice complaint whenever they want, so says the magic box, so by the word! it is done.
gigasnail wrote: To further clarify and sound less like a salty whiner, my issue is there is no RAW reason for the GMC ruling, it is only people, well, being salty whiners. I do not (and will not) support house ruling according to a popularity contest.
gungo wrote: I can count on my hand the number of time I've seen nid players use a GMC. Let's be honest nids rely on FMC and MC to do the heavy lifting and none of those were touched by this ruling.
That's because our current choices are terrible/overcosted. Anything in the future will be equally useless now.
No the harridan is decent just not allowed
The dominatrix has no rules or model
The barbed herodule is awful cost and ability.
Oddly enough other gargantuans have invul, thier own cover, or just dirt cheap. This doesn't mean a tyranid gmc won't ever get those same abilities.
The harridans isn't allowed and the dominatrix doesn't exist. Therefore, they're not relevant to the discussion any more than a warhound titan is. The other choices, as already noted, are bad/overcosted. I'm not sure what your point is.
There aren't a plethora of invul saves in the faction, and I have zero faith any new units will have a useful one.
This was a poor decision.
There is no RAW reason, there is a WK reason. And clearly a RAI reason, cover is intended to indicate having a chance to hit the building instead of the target. Seeing a 6 story WK stand vaguely next to a pile of rubble does not logically mean you have a 50% chance to miss them. That's just... dumb. Super dumb.
It's hardly the only dumb rule in 40k. It's not even the only super dumb rule.
gungo wrote: Or the last lvo vote that said "hey we don't allow multiple LOW should we change it just for tau to bring in multiple Stormsurges?"
Or we don't slow multiple fortifications should we allow if just for tau?
Or we don't allow fw experimental rules for 40k should we change it mostly for tau.
To be fair, one unit of stormsurges is still one lord of war. Even if the unit had 15 Stormsurges in it, it's still one lord of war choice. The multiple fortifications got shut down by the latest vote. The experimental rules only effect the xv109 and xv107 from FW, one of which is nerfed into uselessness, so Tau get 1 model from that ruling. IoM get a few flavors of knights with silly shield rules, SM get quad-mortars and some special tanks/dreads, Chaos get their Knights and other units.
My only complaint with this recent round of votes is the Chaos Knights taking Legacies. I don't have a problem with the knights taking legacies, as long as they're not also upgraded with a daemon rule. Knights are already stupid tough, they don't need a reliable 2++ on every side.
gigasnail wrote: To further clarify and sound less like a salty whiner, my issue is there is no RAW reason for the GMC ruling, it is only people, well, being salty whiners. I do not (and will not) support house ruling according to a popularity contest.
gungo wrote: I can count on my hand the number of time I've seen nid players use a GMC. Let's be honest nids rely on FMC and MC to do the heavy lifting and none of those were touched by this ruling.
That's because our current choices are terrible/overcosted. Anything in the future will be equally useless now.
No the harridan is decent just not allowed
The dominatrix has no rules or model
The barbed herodule is awful cost and ability.
Oddly enough other gargantuans have invul, thier own cover, or just dirt cheap. This doesn't mean a tyranid gmc won't ever get those same abilities.
The harridans isn't allowed and the dominatrix doesn't exist. Therefore, they're not relevant to the discussion any more than a warhound titan is. The other choices, as already noted, are bad/overcosted. I'm not sure what your point is.
There aren't a plethora of invul saves in the faction, and I have zero faith any new units will have a useful one.
This was a poor decision.
Just wanted to point out that most people voted on this with the Wraithknight in mind. That unit is the biggest offender.
Exactly, Jy2
@gigasnail
I sincerely applaud employing a local favored set of rules. Srsly. I have posted it before, GameEmpire Pasadena uses the harsher Crunch! Tank shock and we like it. So a non sarcastic kudos to you on that.
But otherwsie your posts are all pretty much out of California's Napa Valley.
You can see *my* WK's foot in my dakka avatar, stepping on a speeder. His name is Skippy, and he's enjoyed toe-in cover since 6e.
I have felt toe-in cover is a ridiculous rule since 4e. I play a WraithKnight, a Riptide. Back in 4e I played bugs, giving my tyrant and carnifexes Cover. I thought it was lame, but went with the ruling convention. It has been a non fluffy, honked up, counter intuitive rule for years. And I helped vote it down, and so did my buddies.
Hide your gmc behind the terrain, roll your gmc MoveThroughCover and assault from the open. Skippy will adapt.
The relic that gives a bonus to the invuln save says that Khorne daemon models around the vehicle get +1 to their invuln save. It doesn't say that the vehicle gets the bonus.
The legacy says "Daemon of Khorne within 6" get +1 invul". The vehicle is within 6" isn't it?
I think that more speaks to the fact that the community got the vote wrong here. You shouldn't be able to add the relics to something with the daemon rule.
Not what the rules say. Says you can't put a relic on a Daemon Engine. There is no rule that a vehicle with the daemon rule is a Daemon Engine. So by RAW it works.
Oh I understand the RAW, I just don't agree with it. Based on how awkward the wording is, I don't FW anticipated having a Knight that can be upgraded with the daemon special rule. But hey, the community has spoken so I'll trudge forward with my 4++ chaos knight.
Considering that the Daemon Knight rules were already in IA13 (on Chaos Titans) its obvious that they already knew about giving chaos vehicles the daemon rule and if they didn't want Daemon Titans to have Legacies they would have said so.
That sets a precedent that they don't have a problem with Chaos Knights taking legacies either.
That is actually a great reference Crown and I really appreciate you putting it in there. This would have been great info for the ITC crew to put on the poll and again I am glad you provided it here!
Do you guys want me to apologize? Like 2-3 people have quoted me and I do not believe I have said anything malicious.
I usually dont have a problem with the results, I have a problem with the way the questions are asked or when a question is on the poll that I am not sure where it came from. Why is the piranha formation nerf again? I believe both Nova and Adepticon are allowing the piranhas to come back. Who asked about the GMC cover save? I think they should literally have a poll where the public can submit and look at questions that are already submited and we can discuss them on their forum.
I feel that every player that voted to further nerf the piranha formation dont know the game well enough and I can beat them easily. If you cannot exploit the weakness of this formation your player skill is beneath me. The crazy part is that this formation would be able to beat msu warp spiders easily but you guys voted against it, so the scissors to their paper has been demolished. This entire segment you got to see a side of me I usually do not expose but whatever, deal with it! I do apologize however!
I usually dont have a problem with the results, I have a problem with the way the questions are asked or when a question is on the poll that I am not sure where it came from. Why is the piranha formation nerf again? I believe both Nova and Adepticon are allowing the piranhas to come back.
That's not true adepticon doesn't allow respawning. I thought NoVa ruled against it also but they haven't said anything regarding that formation yet.
This is the adepticon ruling:
Mont’Ka Campaign Supplement
• Models in the Piranha Firestream Wing formation may not leave the table using the Rearm and Refuel special rule the same turn that they arrive from Reserves or Ongoing Reserves.
• The phrase “at full strength” in the Piranha Firestream Wing formation’s Rearm and Refuel special rule refers only to regenerating hull points, removing damage effects, and replenishing drones and seeker missiles. Piranhas that have been destroyed, abandoned due to an Immobilized vehicle damage result, or were never part of the unit to begin with are not added back to the unit when they return to play
CKO wrote: I feel that every player that voted to further nerf the piranha formation dont know the game well enough and I can beat them easily. If you cannot exploit the weakness of this formation your player skill is beneath me. The crazy part is that this formation would be able to beat msu warp spiders easily but you guys voted against it, so the scissors to their paper has been demolished. This entire segment you got to see a side of me I usually do not expose but whatever, deal with it! I do apologize however!
I'm not going to totally divulge what you told me via PM, but if you've only been to 5 or 6 tourneys in the last two years, I can't quite understand how you can claim to be beating tourney-level Piranah-Recycle enough to crow about it. It's only ... 4 months old? More than one opponent using it? Which RTT or GT in the last 4 months?
And "You guys" seems to be about 1714 people (vs the other 914).
Do you have to play the game to know how powerful something is? Its all about unit analysis my friend, I never said I beat it I said I know how to beat it, I know its strengths and weaknesses these are skills all players have.
I also like how I gave you something in a PM and you decide to use it in a negative manner, stuff like that reveals alot about peoples character and others wonder why I come off a certain way!
CKO wrote: Do you have to play the game to know how powerful something is? Its all about unit analysis my friend, I never said I beat it I said I know how to beat it,
So what did you mean by this:
CKO wrote: I feel that every player that voted to further nerf the piranha formation dont know the game well enough and I can beat them easily. If you cannot exploit the weakness of this formation your player skill is beneath me.
Can beat the Piranhas or the players?
CKO wrote: I know its strengths and weaknesses these are skills all players have.
All players *don't* have that.
Theory Hammer is only as good as the player giving it. If PJ, Sisk, B. Perkins, Nanavati, Brandt, Simpson, etc. and those guys tell me Theory Hammer, I'll listen. That Reece guy might know something.
Given that I've played more tourneys than you in the last 6 months (GTs and RTTs)... it leaves me to wonder about how credible your critiques are.
I'm logging 12+ RTTs and 3 or so GTs a year.
CKO wrote: I also like how I gave you something in a PM and you decide to use it in a negative manner, stuff like that reveals alot about peoples character and others wonder why I come off a certain way!
Your tourney attendence is hardly a confidence betraying bit of info. And no where didja say, "Hey, couldya keep this outta the forums?"
And I'm not being negative with the info, just pointing out much tourney experience you have.
Maybe people should ignore my posts entirely (and often do) since I often finish mid-field or near the bottom of GTs. That's all I'm doing if these last couple posts, CKO, wondering just how credible you are and if your advice is based on solid evidence.
If you have now admitted that you haven't played against Piranha Recycle and that your conjecture has you beating it in your mind. Okay. Thanks.
This is why I have more or less given up on posting a lot here. Lots of opinions from a lot of non-attendees who argue as if it's an academic exercise.
Seriously Casey, look at just how different this Dakka poll is from the ITC one and you'll see how out of touch this forum is with the actual tournament scene. Arguing on the net is fine, especially when it lacks real world teeth.
Back on topic:
I think a local guy gets to bring the Chaos Knight. A number of guys are Ghostkeeling up. And my WK has a little more fear for grav guns ... that have the Hunter Relic that Ignores Cover. Oh, neverdmind.
Overall, the local meta won't shift too much. And with BAO months away, things will change altogether before that comes around.
I do like the communal sense agreeing how to play something.
I also like the lack of comment from FLG. Just post the info and let the the 'Net rage.
I placed 5th I also got hammered one round in sportsmanship because the player did not believe a word I said and we constantly had to call a judge. The previous year I was on table 1 vs Alan on day 2 but I was hungover and late and ended up getting last place out of the top tables lol, but its all about fun right!
I thought everyone had theory hammer I guess I have a gift!
At the top tables it doesnt matter at that point its all about skill and match up luck. Do you really think taking piranha foramtion away from the top players is going to prevent them from winning? No its all an illusion to make players feel like they can win this time because of a rule change!
Your not going to win or lose a game because you brought a certain formation when your up against the players that can theory hammer your list before you are deployed.
I would list more touranments I won or placed well in but who cares about that as you have pointed out its all about what have you done for me lately.
Trust me you should not fear the piranha formation, now you dont have to play against it unless your opponent is being fluffy.
I have alot of tourney experience I mean alot just not so much recently but the game hasnt changed much thats why I went and got some tune ups.
I usually dont have a problem with the results, I have a problem with the way the questions are asked or when a question is on the poll that I am not sure where it came from. Why is the piranha formation nerf again? I believe both Nova and Adepticon are allowing the piranhas to come back.
That's not true adepticon doesn't allow respawning. I thought NoVa ruled against it also but they haven't said anything regarding that formation yet.
This is the adepticon ruling:
Mont’Ka Campaign Supplement
• Models in the Piranha Firestream Wing formation may not leave the table using the Rearm and Refuel special rule the same turn that they arrive from Reserves or Ongoing Reserves.
• The phrase “at full strength” in the Piranha Firestream Wing formation’s Rearm and Refuel special rule refers only to regenerating hull points, removing damage effects, and replenishing drones and seeker missiles. Piranhas that have been destroyed, abandoned due to an Immobilized vehicle damage result, or were never part of the unit to begin with are not added back to the unit when they return to play
You won't see NOVA say anything on it, because they're playing it by the rules - neither one of the above nerfs will apply, as neither is a rules question. Same reason they don't say anything regarding nerfed invisibility - there's no need to, they just play it by the rules. Saying there is a rules issues with "return the unit at full strength" is just disingenuous, as it's what the rule has said, verbatim, for a couple years. It is a clear statement to begin with, but to further it GW had a clarif for the original rule. This new rule removed *only* the clarifying statement and left the rest of the text untouched, because the unit size is no longer capped (it used to be a unit size of 5, and it was stated they returned at full strength (eg 5 piranhas)). Somehow, although no words changed, we've decided it was unclear and need to be voted.
Un-nerfed piranha formation -> Takes a relatively weak unit, makes it into a very strong formation
Nerfed to not come/go same turn -> Takes a relatively weak unit, still leaves it a worthwhile formation if it fits the army build
Nerfed to not come/go, remove the ability to return at full strength -> Takes a relatively weak unit, leaves it a relatively mediocre choice. And we all know how frequently tournament lists field mediocre choices. Seen a lot of striking scorpions lately?
CKO wrote: I would list more touranments I won or placed well in but who cares about that as you have pointed out its all about what have you done for me lately.
*snip*
I have alot of tourney experience I mean alot just not so much recently but the game hasnt changed much thats why I went and got some tune ups.
" the game hasn't changed much ", that'd be from 5e to now. Okay, thanks again, CKO.
CKO wrote: I usually dont have a problem with the results, I have a problem with the way the questions are asked or when a question is on the poll that I am not sure where it came from.
I generally agree with this. I'd like to see a more formalized process for adding questions to the list. Supposedly they choose them from the rules questions, and emails that come up most often, but it seems to me based on the degree of pushback to adding the Faction Classification question to previous polls, that it was probably one of the most requested questions from the very beginning of the formalized ITC polling.
What we need is a Reddit-style upvote / downvote for questions we think should be addressed.
We're getting a bit far afield here - please stick to discussing the results of the poll and not individual posters... thanks.
Overwatch - Just because the demographic posting on Dakka isn't the same as that on Frontline doesn't mean something polled here isn't relevant... I would guess there are more casual players participating in the poll here, but isn't that the point in some ways?
Over and over again I've seen mention that adjustments are made with the normal / casual player in mind. I'm all for having an expert council make decisions, but barring that, if you're doing a public vote you probably want to consider the full public opinion.
I'm bummed about lower points - I think that could have wide support, and did quite well in the poll. Maybe next time! Another interesting result to me was the emphatic "No!" to increasing the number of detachments, which if you listened to certain subsets might have expected to go the other way.
So in both cases, folks voted to continue as-is, but the points question was much closer - making me think folks might be open to that if current trajectories continue. The results were really interesting, regardless and thanks to Frontline for doing all this work!!
I usually dont have a problem with the results, I have a problem with the way the questions are asked or when a question is on the poll that I am not sure where it came from. Why is the piranha formation nerf again? I believe both Nova and Adepticon are allowing the piranhas to come back.
That's not true adepticon doesn't allow respawning. I thought NoVa ruled against it also but they haven't said anything regarding that formation yet.
This is the adepticon ruling:
Mont’Ka Campaign Supplement
• Models in the Piranha Firestream Wing formation may not leave the table using the Rearm and Refuel special rule the same turn that they arrive from Reserves or Ongoing Reserves.
• The phrase “at full strength” in the Piranha Firestream Wing formation’s Rearm and Refuel special rule refers only to regenerating hull points, removing damage effects, and replenishing drones and seeker missiles. Piranhas that have been destroyed, abandoned due to an Immobilized vehicle damage result, or were never part of the unit to begin with are not added back to the unit when they return to play
You won't see NOVA say anything on it, because they're playing it by the rules - neither one of the above nerfs will apply, as neither is a rules question. Same reason they don't say anything regarding nerfed invisibility - there's no need to, they just play it by the rules. Saying there is a rules issues with "return the unit at full strength" is just disingenuous, as it's what the rule has said, verbatim, for a couple years. It is a clear statement to begin with, but to further it GW had a clarif for the original rule. This new rule removed *only* the clarifying statement and left the rest of the text untouched, because the unit size is no longer capped (it used to be a unit size of 5, and it was stated they returned at full strength (eg 5 piranhas)). Somehow, although no words changed, we've decided it was unclear and need to be voted.
Un-nerfed piranha formation -> Takes a relatively weak unit, makes it into a very strong formation
Nerfed to not come/go same turn -> Takes a relatively weak unit, still leaves it a worthwhile formation if it fits the army build
Nerfed to not come/go, remove the ability to return at full strength -> Takes a relatively weak unit, leaves it a relatively mediocre choice. And we all know how frequently tournament lists field mediocre choices. Seen a lot of striking scorpions lately?
I'm supportive of what ITC has done for the tournament scene, and NOVA is one of the larger ITC-points-earning events. We do things a lil differently with our FAQs and such, and Target is right. If a rule is clear, we generally/usually don't try to change it, with the occasional exception. The game is not more or less balanced with the various ITC changes, just bar-shifted. One could argue it's better with the bar-shift, and certainly LVO is a shining example of a well-run event that people love attending. But Target is right in that's why you aren't likely to hear much about the Piranha formation from NOVA.
Hurts my Wraithknight a bit but most quality events have sufficient LOS blocking terrain. Against strong Grav armies, I tend to keep my WK in reserve anyway unless I get the 4+ Invul save or Shrouding powers and first turn.
A WK with a 2+ Cover save from shrouding (due to being "toe in" Ruins) is pretty ridiculous. Was fun while it lasted =).
OverwatchCNC wrote: This is why I have more or less given up on posting a lot here. Lots of opinions from a lot of non-attendees who argue as if it's an academic exercise.
Seriously Casey, look at just how different this Dakka poll is from the ITC one and you'll see how out of touch this forum is with the actual tournament scene. Arguing on the net is fine, especially when it lacks real world teeth.
I'm starting to believe this is the case.
While I'm sad for my piranhas, I'm happy the Ghostkeel got its snowflake.
Hurts my Wraithknight a bit but most quality events have sufficient LOS blocking terrain.
This actually bring up a point which I think wasn't addressed (or maybe I skimmed over it)
If a GMC is obscured by terrain, I'd give it a cover save. I'd probably treat it as the 25% rule for vehicle. So, if you're playing on a field with lots of LOS blocking terrain, you still may get coversaves.
Does that ITC poll mean "no cover saves ever for GMCs"? because that seems unduly harsh to me. Because if a Wk is hiding on the other side of a gigantic building, and you can only see it through windows, a cover save seems fair.
But having, say, a foot 25% (or less) obscured granting 4+ cover save is absolutely ridiculous, and I'm happy they're addressing that. Hell, I'd prefer it applied to MCs as well.
Kap'n Krump wrote: But having, say, a foot 25% (or less) obscured granting 4+ cover save is absolutely ridiculous, and I'm happy they're addressing that. Hell, I'd prefer it applied to MCs as well.
Seriously guys, this "apply to MCs as well" thing has not been thought out. My bugs get absolutely roasted without cover!
I could see the argument for getting rid of "area terrain" entirely, but if you're giving it to Terminators and Raveners and what-have-you, then Carnifexes need it too!
This is the snowball effect of making changes - if you're not careful you end up having unintended consequences. As pointed out earlier, this GMC nerf is mostly aimed at the Wraightknight, and it makes sense in some ways... but to continue the trend would really, really hurt a lot of fluffy armies if applied to MCs.
I would honestly feel less strongly about it if vehicles and MCs were treated equivalently in the cover save department (and pretty much all other departments, to boot).
I mean, do you really, truly, and honestly feel as if it's fair to claim a 4+ cover save (or 2+ if combined with a venomthrope) on, say, a mawloc if the tippy tip of it's tail is partially inside a ruin?
As it stands at the minute MC > Vehices by a considerable margin.
While it may hurt if it comes to be that MC's can't get the toe in cover save, remember that Vehicles are already having to find 25% and furthermore, don't have an armour save equivalent for their Hull Points.
Kap'n Krump wrote: I would honestly feel less strongly about it if vehicles and MCs were treated equivalently in the cover save department (and pretty much all other departments, to boot).
I mean, do you really, truly, and honestly feel as if it's fair to claim a 4+ cover save (or 2+ if combined with a venomthrope) on, say, a mawloc if the tippy tip of it's tail is partially inside a ruin?
I just view it as a game mechanic - why would it be any different for a Ravener to get this benefit but not a slightly bigger bug?
Frozocrone wrote: As it stands at the minute MC > Vehices by a considerable margin.
While it may hurt if it comes to be that MC's can't get the toe in cover save, remember that Vehicles are already having to find 25% and furthermore, don't have an armour save equivalent for their Hull Points.
Many vehicles are also considerably cheaper than my MCs... you can afford to have a rhino blown apart (and it can pop smoke).
I also run a Dreadnought army, and I'd love them to be more survivable... but just because they're having a hard time competing doesn't mean it makes sense to make it even Harder for an army like nids to compete!
Let's be honest, lots of things are counting as MCs that should be considered vehicles. I think that's the real problem, rather than MCs getting toe-in-cover, which they have for a really long time without breaking the game...
Self Edit: came off as condescending, apologies, so much intention is lost over the internet.
GMC still get a cover saves as if they were a vehicle obscured, so X percentage merits a cover save based off whats giving the save. 4+ for ruins, 5+ other models/area.
Stacks with stealth and shrouded as normal.
Kap'n Krump wrote: I would honestly feel less strongly about it if vehicles and MCs were treated equivalently in the cover save department (and pretty much all other departments, to boot).
I mean, do you really, truly, and honestly feel as if it's fair to claim a 4+ cover save (or 2+ if combined with a venomthrope) on, say, a mawloc if the tippy tip of it's tail is partially inside a ruin?
Yes? this may be hard to realise, but you need to use this thing called... your imagination.
I cant believe people elite so hard that they forget its a goddamn tabletop GAME. its not the olympics
Kap'n Krump wrote: I would honestly feel less strongly about it if vehicles and MCs were treated equivalently in the cover save department (and pretty much all other departments, to boot).
I mean, do you really, truly, and honestly feel as if it's fair to claim a 4+ cover save (or 2+ if combined with a venomthrope) on, say, a mawloc if the tippy tip of it's tail is partially inside a ruin?
Yes? this may be hard to realise, but you need to use this thing called... your imagination.
I cant believe people elite so hard that they forget its a goddamn tabletop GAME. its not the olympics
Having watched plenty of Godzilla movies ad a kid. No one ever had issues targeting him as he stepped over the buildings. He took each and every missile to the face like a champ!!!
Now mothra that boy could jink like no other!!!
Now that GMC's don't get 'toe in cover' I wonder if people would be willing to vote for FMC's in swooping mode don't get it either. They already have the rule change saying they can't be hit by blasts/templates (not what the RAW is), and they have Jink for a 4+ cover if they want it, but I always manage to see swooping FMC's with 2+ cover w/o jinking. The fast movement should have a downside, and right now it doesn't.
gigasnail wrote: Yeaaahhhh, so there's that. This is exactly why I was against this change to begin with.
Did somebody say, Slippery Slope?
Yes it is a slippery slope except the slope has daggers in it! When you give the people the power to change rules when they are not rules designers ITC happens!
Its okay because the people over ITC are just as good if not smarter than game designers who have been doing this since the origins of warhammer which I believe is in the 1980s.
Mulletdude wrote: Now that GMC's don't get 'toe in cover' I wonder if people would be willing to vote for FMC's in swooping mode don't get it either. They already have the rule change saying they can't be hit by blasts/templates (not what the RAW is), and they have Jink for a 4+ cover if they want it, but I always manage to see swooping FMC's with 2+ cover w/o jinking. The fast movement should have a downside, and right now it doesn't.
Jink doesn't stack with ruins cover. If you're talking about the Tyranid Malanthrope/venomthrope combined with ruins cover, however....well Tyranids need at least one nice thing
Let's avoid speculating on the intelligence of the ITC folks, please - and the people behind warhammer certainly aren't the same ones from the 80s (Alas!)
luke1705 wrote: If you're talking about the Tyranid Malanthrope/venomthrope combined with ruins cover, however....well Tyranids need at least one nice thing
Thank you . Armies are supposed to function differently and have different strengths, after all!
Mulletdude wrote: Now that GMC's don't get 'toe in cover' I wonder if people would be willing to vote for FMC's in swooping mode don't get it either. They already have the rule change saying they can't be hit by blasts/templates (not what the RAW is), and they have Jink for a 4+ cover if they want it, but I always manage to see swooping FMC's with 2+ cover w/o jinking. The fast movement should have a downside, and right now it doesn't.
Jink doesn't stack with ruins cover. If you're talking about the Tyranid Malanthrope/venomthrope combined with ruins cover, however....well Tyranids need at least one nice thing
I don't mind that shrouded works with ruins cover. I mind that FMC's that are swooping in ruins with a source of shrouded get a 2+ w/o having to jink, despite being hard to hit and requiring 6's. Same thing with nurgle princes. Swooping, in ruins, 2+ cover w/o needing to jink.
gigasnail wrote: Yeaaahhhh, so there's that. This is exactly why I was against this change to begin with.
Did somebody say, Slippery Slope?
Yes it is a slippery slope except the slope has daggers in it! When you give the people the power to change rules when they are not rules designers this happens!
Its okay because the people over ITC are just as good if not smarter than game designers who have been doing this since the origins of warhammer which I believe is in the 1980s.
That argument MIGHT make sense if GW showed any competency or consistency in writing balanced rules. The mere existence of the Wraithknight, invisibility, or rerollable 2++'s shows that GW hasn't used their time writing rules to gain any particular experience or skill in that job.
Mulletdude wrote: Now that GMC's don't get 'toe in cover' I wonder if people would be willing to vote for FMC's in swooping mode don't get it either. They already have the rule change saying they can't be hit by blasts/templates (not what the RAW is), and they have Jink for a 4+ cover if they want it, but I always manage to see swooping FMC's with 2+ cover w/o jinking. The fast movement should have a downside, and right now it doesn't.
I would agree this makes sense. I play a Tyranids list with a lot of flyers and can't understand why I get cover for toe in when flying around hehe. But.....my bugs need all the help they can get hehe. If bugs were an unbeatable list I could understand the angst so let's please be careful with some of these discussions before another of my lists becomes invalidated hehe. My coven list still cries dust hehe
Mulletdude wrote: Now that GMC's don't get 'toe in cover' I wonder if people would be willing to vote for FMC's in swooping mode don't get it either. They already have the rule change saying they can't be hit by blasts/templates (not what the RAW is), and they have Jink for a 4+ cover if they want it, but I always manage to see swooping FMC's with 2+ cover w/o jinking. The fast movement should have a downside, and right now it doesn't.
I would agree this makes sense. I play a Tyranids list with a lot of flyers and can't understand why I get cover for toe in when flying around hehe. But.....my bugs need all the help they can get hehe. If bugs were an unbeatable list I could understand the angst so let's please be careful with some of these discussions before another of my lists becomes invalidated hehe. My coven list still cries dust hehe
I find it funny that you can come out and say hey dont nerf my army but when I fight for an army that I do not play my reputation is dragged through the mud, you have to love the INTERNET!
gigasnail wrote: Yeaaahhhh, so there's that. This is exactly why I was against this change to begin with.
Did somebody say, Slippery Slope?
Yes it is a slippery slope except the slope has daggers in it! When you give the people the power to change rules when they are not rules designers this happens!
Its okay because the people over ITC are just as good if not smarter than game designers who have been doing this since the origins of warhammer which I believe is in the 1980s.
That argument MIGHT make sense if GW showed any competency or consistency in writing balanced rules. The mere existence of the Wraithknight, invisibility, or rerollable 2++'s shows that GW hasn't used their time writing rules to gain any particular experience or skill in that job.
I think the dumbest example of GW rules writing is the 1+ fnp rule.
GW deliberately says fnp is not a save and then makes a rule that saves can never be improved beyond 2+ but fail to make that same clarification about fnp. Allowing for unkillable characters minus remove from game effects. Nearly every tournament even those who do RAW clarify you can't improve fnp saves beyond 2+... Just because GW is so bad at rules writing.
Mulletdude wrote: Now that GMC's don't get 'toe in cover' I wonder if people would be willing to vote for FMC's in swooping mode don't get it either. They already have the rule change saying they can't be hit by blasts/templates (not what the RAW is), and they have Jink for a 4+ cover if they want it, but I always manage to see swooping FMC's with 2+ cover w/o jinking. The fast movement should have a downside, and right now it doesn't.
Jink doesn't stack with ruins cover. If you're talking about the Tyranid Malanthrope/venomthrope combined with ruins cover, however....well Tyranids need at least one nice thing
I don't mind that shrouded works with ruins cover. I mind that FMC's that are swooping in ruins with a source of shrouded get a 2+ w/o having to jink, despite being hard to hit and requiring 6's. Same thing with nurgle princes. Swooping, in ruins, 2+ cover w/o needing to jink.
The model still exists on the field, regardless of the rules specified for it otherwise. Unless they say that FMC arent actually on the field, then good luck targeting them.
gigasnail wrote: Yeaaahhhh, so there's that. This is exactly why I was against this change to begin with.
Did somebody say, Slippery Slope?
Yes it is a slippery slope except the slope has daggers in it! When you give the people the power to change rules when they are not rules designers this happens!
Its okay because the people over ITC are just as good if not smarter than game designers who have been doing this since the origins of warhammer which I believe is in the 1980s.
That argument MIGHT make sense if GW showed any competency or consistency in writing balanced rules. The mere existence of the Wraithknight, invisibility, or rerollable 2++'s shows that GW hasn't used their time writing rules to gain any particular experience or skill in that job.
I think the dumbest example of GW rules writing is the 1+ fnp rule.
GW deliberately says fnp is not a save and then makes a rule that saves can never be improved beyond 2+ but fail to make that same clarification about fnp. Allowing for unkillable characters minus remove from game effects. Nearly every tournament even those who do RAW clarify you can't improve fnp saves beyond 2+... Just because GW is so bad at rules writing.
Or you can remember that a one is always a fail, unless specifically stated to be otherwise.
Or you can remember that a one is always a fail, unless specifically stated to be otherwise.
People are just looking for trouble on this forum
Except that isn't in the rules. A roll of 1 is a fail on saves... and FNP is explicitly not a save.
"FNP saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks...."
They call it one, and the rule for saves says any save you take is a fail on a one.
Seriously GW directly states it's not an armour save. And the only rule preventing 1+ save in the brb is for armour saves only pg3. This is why every tourney organizer has this rule changed so you can't exploit it.
In case you missed it here is the crappy GW rules writing.
"“A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+. ”
Or you can remember that a one is always a fail, unless specifically stated to be otherwise.
People are just looking for trouble on this forum
Except that isn't in the rules. A roll of 1 is a fail on saves... and FNP is explicitly not a save.
"FNP saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks...."
They call it one, and the rule for saves says any save you take is a fail on a one.
Seriously GW directly states it's not an armour save. And the only rule preventing 1+ save in the brb is for armour saves only pg3. This is why every tourney organizer has this rule changed so you can't exploit it.
In case you missed it here is the crappy GW rules writing.
"“A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+. ”
There is also a rule that saves in general always fail on a 1 (you know because cover and invul saves are a thing too)
Or you can remember that a one is always a fail, unless specifically stated to be otherwise.
People are just looking for trouble on this forum
Except that isn't in the rules. A roll of 1 is a fail on saves... and FNP is explicitly not a save.
"FNP saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks...."
They call it one, and the rule for saves says any save you take is a fail on a one.
Seriously GW directly states it's not an armour save. And the only rule preventing 1+ save in the brb is for armour saves only pg3. This is why every tourney organizer has this rule changed so you can't exploit it.
In case you missed it here is the crappy GW rules writing.
"“A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+. ”
There is also a rule that saves in general always fail on a 1 (you know because cover and invul saves are a thing too)
No that rule is called maximum save and it specifically calls out armour invul and cover.
“However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. ”
Just to be clear because I don't want to keep going in circles. Fnp specifically calls out it is not a saving throw in its usr.
“When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw and so can be used against attacks that state that ‘no saves of any kind are allowed”
You ca t have it both ways..... This is why every tournament every single one of them literally changes the rules to fix GW horrid rules writing.
I like that there were two totally different responses to my saying "Slippery Slope" and both giga and CKO got it wrong.
It is indeed a slippery slope to change rules, but not to the insane ends CKO has been attempting to take it. By the way CKO, I googled your name in relation to 40k and you've got a very interesting career
Ugh that first question alone.
Restricting armies by detachment and at the same time counting decurion like detachments as one might be the most top tier list protective measure to take.
What is the worst that can happen if you allow it, a playable inquisition or harlequin force ?
Jup would you like to allow more detachments = Would you like to keep giving decurion detachment armies an unfair advantage above INQ, Dark eldar and Harlequins.
Necrons can spam the gak out of anything they want and still be in 1 detachment while Inq's and Harlies are having a hard time just fielding 1850 points in 3 detachments ( that are not even close to a decurion in size or power but still count as 1)
Decurion -> Everuting that you can put into it is in the decurion. So if you crammed 100 formations into it it is still only 1 detachment. and you can still use 2 other detachments
armies who don't have these monsters detachments don't have this advantage.
Swampist, I think you're responding to something that is the opposite of what oldzoggy is saying. My understanding of his point is:
1. The poll results ended up not increasing the detachment limit, leaving it at 3 (instead of 4 or unlimited).
2. Therefore, armies with access to a Decurion (a group of multiple formations / etc which counts as a single detachment) can in effect field more options than armies without access to one.
3. His argument is that the detachment limit should be increased, or Decurions should not count as a single detachment if keeping the detachment limit at three.
I hope that makes things clearer . Not really sure what I think - I definitely don't want the detachment limit increased so if anything, counting a Decurion as more than one detachment (perhaps count it as two) would be my preferred solution if this really proved to be a problem.
The real thing that should have a low limit is the number of factions that you can include in your army. Not the number of detachment.
Right now allowing 4 or more detachment also allows you to use 4 or more different codex to make up your army. Basically it's super-friends time ultimate edition : crazy interactions all over the board, etc... That is something a lot of people don't like.
However allowing 4 or more detachment but keeping a maximum of 3 factions like it is right now is very different. It allows a lot more variety without power-creeping (at least a LOT less than allowing 4+ codex in your army).
Plus it makes little sense to restrict the number of detachment you can play when *some* armies can have detachment of detachments (= decurions) that somehow count as 1.
Personnaly I like it with 3 factions like it is right now.
But whatever our favorite number is, the point is that the limit on the number of factions you can play is way more important than the limit on the number of detachment we can play.
And I really think the ITC guys should assess those 2 points separately.
Hey guys, sorry I have not been able to swing by earlier to address some of these issues and concerns brought up, but just been too busy. Finally getting into a normal routine, again.
So just for full disclosure, I didn't read this entire thread, or even most of it, but I will address what I think are some of the main concerns.
Also, please do not PM on Dakka, I would turn it off if I could, I can barely keep up with my personal email, and I currently have 75 unread PMs on Dakka, I just don't have time to read them. Sorry if you have tried to reach out to me here and heard nothing back, not trying to be rude, but I have to focus on the work email for any type of official correspondence.
We do our best to communicate that that is how you reach us but obviously we can't reach everyone. That is the main way we determine how important a topic is to the ITC community.
We try to answer all of the questions we get via email but it sometimes just isn't possible. For example, we had roughly 600 rules questions in there prior to the LVO. The volume is pretty nuts.
When we address rules issues we aren't always trying to determine what a rule says. I think that is a big part of the confusion with folks. The rules for 40k are not written for anything even remotely close to tournament play, they're written for a casual, cinematic gaming experience. We have found that trying to play the game RAW leads to absurd experiences.
For example, if you really play RAW, the literal "most important rule" in the game according to GW is to resolve a rules dispute with the toss of a D6. If you reject that rule (and of course, in tournament play you must) then you have rejected what RAW tells us is the most important rule in the game. You undermine any pretext to basing every other judgement on a strict RAW reading.
Another example is setting up a game, if you choose to use points, or forgo Unbound, etc, you are diverting from RAW. I use silly examples purposefully as it shows that a strict RAW reading of 40k is unplayable in an organized setting.
Therefore, we all choose to change some of the rules in the game and it comes down to which ones we choose and to what degree. That is where the conflict comes in as we all disagree on where to draw that line in the sand.
The ITC isn't mean to dictate to players how to do that, it is meant as a starting point to help facilitate organized play, and to grow the community. A lot of folks may get upset about this or that rules interpretation but seem to forget the first rule of the ITC: you can choose to change any of it to suit your local community.
You like most of the format but dislike a certain rule call? Play it the way you like, we don't care. You can still participate in the ITC, but play the game the way you like to. A lot of our largest circuit events diverge from the ITC policy in minor to major ways and we could honestly care less, lol, it's about having fun.
Our philosophy as TOs here at FLG, and the way we choose to run our events is to go with a mix of what we feel is RAW and RAI with the support of community driven decisions. We want those participating to have a voice in important rules interpretations. We feel personally, and have found that most gamers prefer to play what they feel a rule means, not always what it says specifically. They in general also want a fair game as opposed to a maximum power game. Again, that can be interpreted many ways, and can cause conflict as not everyone sees those issues the same way, which is why we vote instead of dictating.
We do verify the poll data to ensure that no one is ballet stuffing. I won't go into the ultra specifics of how we do that because someone smarter than me may see a way to circumvent our protective measures, but the data is verified. As for ITC member emails, yes, TOs collect that data for us to both verify your score and to go into the ITC email database. But, we also gather data for that purpose from other sources, too. We didn't add a open question to the poll this year for player feedback because to be blunt, we wouldn't even be able to read thousands of comments. It would have been a bit of a hollow gesture.
We strive for transparency with everything associated with the ITC but communication is challenging. Prior to the LVO we had some rules calls we had to make for the event and so we made interim rules calls among our judging staff. I am restructuring the FAQ to reflect interim rules calls so that everyone can more clearly understand what stage a rules call is at. But for the event, we voted among judges as to how to make a call and some of the calls were made at the event itself as with the incredible complexity of this game, you simply cannot prepare for everything.
So, hopefully that answers some questions and/or concerns. Thanks to everyone that participated, last year was crazy for the ITC, we grew like mad! 800% increase in events, 400% increase in players, it lead to the largest 40k championships event ever at the LVO, we saw ITC events in a ton of new countries even, it was very cool.
We do listen to feedback and value the critiques. The ITC is not about telling everyone how to read every rule or what have you, it is a tool set to help grow the community, and one that is free to be modified as the individuals using it see fit. We're working on a free app to run ITC tournaments, we offer discounted terrain and F.A.T. Mats to TOs, offer free marketing to help promote their events, etc. We're using it as a tool to make going to events a little more exciting with rankings and prizes and to grow the hobby we all love enough to spend time arguing about it online, haha.
Reecius wrote: Prior to the LVO we had some rules calls we had to make for the event and so we made interim rules calls among our judging staff. I am restructuring the FAQ to reflect interim rules calls so that everyone can more clearly understand what stage a rules call is at.
Ah, that is a great idea!
That whole post is great, there is just one thing I wanted to point out - some of the things that got the most people animated were not really a question between RAI and RAW, but rather "how folks want to play it" to adjust the power level of something. It also seems like this question comes up most frequently (to me, at least) on new releases, since those are the things people haven't really played with yet.
I'd love to see that kind of question reserved for things that really need adjusting - toe-in-cover for GMC could be that, for instance, whereas something like the Ghostkeel ruling (which was only for the event and addressed in the vote right after, so no real harm done) wasn't. I have no problem going with RAI where the reading isn't clear... but adjusting the power level of things I would hope to be reserved for cases where after some play it's clear that it needs addressing.
Thanks for your hard work on the ITC, Reecius - it's definitely appreciated!
JohnHwangDD wrote: It'd be even better if armies had to be selected from a maximum of 2 Codices.
I had a similar thought. I think that would help out a lot. Maybe even allow armies that use a single codex four formations. That would help my Coven and since Eldar have their decurian style so it would not hurt them or change many list there that I can think of.
CKO I don't understand your comment to me. I stood up for the Tau too....not just my army. I am however currently building a tau army.
The GMC change is unfortunate, as is the cry for FMC and regular MC losing cover saves in area terrain as well. Most people don't really understand half of the 20? factions this game has. The implications in people's head are always only on the big nasty lists they just played against.
Reecius wrote: We strive for transparency with everything associated with the ITC but communication is challenging. Prior to the LVO we had some rules calls we had to make for the event and so we made interim rules calls among our judging staff. I am restructuring the FAQ to reflect interim rules calls so that everyone can more clearly understand what stage a rules call is at. But for the event, we voted among judges as to how to make a call and some of the calls were made at the event itself as with the incredible complexity of this game, you simply cannot prepare for everything.
After reading Reecius post I understand their mentality towards rules and changes that are made and the pill is not as hard to swallow. Yes, there are going to be things I disagree with but who cares about that now that I understand the process I can live with the changes a lot easier. Thanks for clearing it up I hope that you can understand why I put a lot of effort and energy into creating threads and discussing the topic because I don't think players realize how important their votes are. I was on the Tau complain train because it appeared that the judging staff decisions were all against Tau at that particular event. Anyways keep up the good work and I hope that the ITC will grow another 400% and this time I might win the entire thing!
Fishboy I was using you as an example, if I had said that I know at least one person would have jumped all over me!
mugginns wrote: The GMC change is unfortunate, as is the cry for FMC and regular MC losing cover saves in area terrain as well. Most people don't really understand half of the 20? factions this game has. The implications in people's head are always only on the big nasty lists they just played against.
There is currently a policy that instead of fixing specific problem units, game mechanics are tweaked to compensate for them.
In this case, in an effort to bring the Wraithknight's abilities slightly closer to its points cost, GMC's take a nerf. That hurts Stormsurges (Though not much, because they generally rock the 4++ invul), Gargantuan Squiggoths, and Heirodules. Squiggoths and Heirodules in particular are collateral damage of the change because they are obscenely overcosted when compared to the wraithknight, or even the Stormsurge, however, a nerf to them is largely irreverent, because they are overcosted and thus don't show up in Tournament meta. I think many people understand this, and are OK with it.
One of the obvious flaws to this approach is that it drastically reduces list diversity. It diversifies the codexes that show up at top tables, but it drastically reduces the builds that those codexes can play competitively. I would rather they more directly address the glaringly problematic units directly without consequence for other units that aren't a problem, but I am still in the minority for now.
mugginns wrote: The GMC change is unfortunate, as is the cry for FMC and regular MC losing cover saves in area terrain as well. Most people don't really understand half of the 20? factions this game has. The implications in people's head are always only on the big nasty lists they just played against.
There is currently a policy that instead of fixing specific problem units, game mechanics are tweaked to compensate for them.
In this case, in an effort to bring the Wraithknight's abilities slightly closer to its points cost, GMC's take a nerf. That hurts Stormsurges (Though not much, because they generally rock the 4++ invul), Gargantuan Squiggoths, and Heirodules. Squiggoths and Heirodules in particular are collateral damage of the change because they are obscenely overcosted when compared to the wraithknight, or even the Stormsurge, however, a nerf to them is largely irreverent, because they are overcosted and thus don't show up in Tournament meta. I think many people understand this, and are OK with it.
One of the obvious flaws to this approach is that it drastically reduces list diversity. It diversifies the codexes that show up at top tables, but it drastically reduces the builds that those codexes can play competitively. I would rather they more directly address the glaringly problematic units directly without consequence for other units that aren't a problem, but I am still in the minority for now.
The issue with targeted nerfs is that they are harder for people to remember. Say there were 20 units that needed fixing, now you are asking players to remember rules changes to 20 units many of which they may never play. When you do this it becomes much more likely that someone misplays the rules. Say the player fielding the unit forgets the change during play, his opponent may not even know it existed in the first place. It is much easier for players to remember broad game rule changes than specific ones as they will come up more often and apply to more units. I understand the desire to not hurt things that are already not up to the power curve, but on the same token those already were not seeing much play. I also agree it probably impacts diversity a bit, though not a ton as bad units getting worse does not really impact how often they show up on the table.
tag8833 wrote: a nerf to them is largely irreverent, because they are overcosted and thus don't show up in Tournament meta. I think many people understand this, and are OK with it.
I don't agree. Just because something is not used much now does not mean it can be made even worse with house rules. Especially when said house rules cause people to start talking about changing more rules for more unit types.
mugginns wrote: The GMC change is unfortunate, as is the cry for FMC and regular MC losing cover saves in area terrain as well. Most people don't really understand half of the 20? factions this game has. The implications in people's head are always only on the big nasty lists they just played against.
There is currently a policy that instead of fixing specific problem units, game mechanics are tweaked to compensate for them.
In this case, in an effort to bring the Wraithknight's abilities slightly closer to its points cost, GMC's take a nerf. That hurts Stormsurges (Though not much, because they generally rock the 4++ invul), Gargantuan Squiggoths, and Heirodules. Squiggoths and Heirodules in particular are collateral damage of the change because they are obscenely overcosted when compared to the wraithknight, or even the Stormsurge, however, a nerf to them is largely irreverent, because they are overcosted and thus don't show up in Tournament meta. I think many people understand this, and are OK with it.
One of the obvious flaws to this approach is that it drastically reduces list diversity. It diversifies the codexes that show up at top tables, but it drastically reduces the builds that those codexes can play competitively. I would rather they more directly address the glaringly problematic units directly without consequence for other units that aren't a problem, but I am still in the minority for now.
I voted against GMCs gaining Cover Saves because quite frankly, that mechanic is stupid for GMCs. I'm fine with MCs gaining cover that way, but GMCs are just too large. Let em run on a 25% obscured rule like other large units (vehicles).
As much as I love my dreadnoughts and would like to see them playable, that would be doing a bit too much "kingmaker" with the rules, I think! Although maybe you were joking
RiTides wrote: As much as I love my dreadnoughts and would like to see them playable, that would be doing a bit too much "kingmaker" with the rules, I think! Although maybe you were joking
I was mostly serious. The ability for dreads to take cover saves by being in terrain would go a long way to increasing how long they survive. They will still be susceptible to one-shot-kills, as they're still vehicles, but they would get a save which is what I miss the most about running them.
Yeah, we're going to restructure the entire FAQ into modules so that folks can see what are clarifications, rules changes and temporary judgements. Although, lol, I am SURE there will be endless arguments about what are clarifications and rules changes as often RAW is so unclear, but, the goal of it will be break the ITC FAQ up into chunks so that folks can use the parts of it they want or don't want, easily.
That way you can have an ITC Hardcore event (or whatever the heck you'd want to call it) that doesn't use any of the rules changes for those that prefer the rules that way, you could.
Or, you could have a Full ITC event for a community that likes the changes, you can.
We've found a majority of folks like to play with slightly toned down rules as it is more enjoyable to a larger portion of the 40k community. I cannot tell you how many first time tournament goers we had at the LVO this year, it was awesome! So many people that were intimidated to go to 40k tournament came out because they were comfortable with the ITC format and saw how fun it could be to travel to a 40k tournament. That is mission success for us! That is what we want to see happen.
But, there are folks who want the most hardcore competitive experience they can get because that is their nature and is totally cool, and may want to not use some of the rules changes we implement. No big deal, we're going to make it easy for people to do that with the ITC, but not have to rewrite the entire FAQ and then update it constantly (which is a HUGE pain in the ass, let me tell you).
Like I said, we don't give a rip how folks play, we just want to make it easy for people to go out and run an event by helping tackle the crazy aspects of dealing with the mountains of rules issues and missions in 40k, helping promote the event, draw in traveling players to get their ITC points, and offering cheaper ways to get terrain and mats to make the event look good (which is also a nice boost for our business, too!). We want it to be inclusive and appealing to a broad audience.
We actively try to encourage players to go to other tournaments, whether they use the ITC format or not. I mean, it's awesome when folks like the ITC format and use it "out of the box" so to speak, and it makes it easier for traveling players to know what to expect, but it isn't a requirement and we understand different groups will want subtle changes to reflect their preferred play style, which is 100% fine by us. Variety is fun, too.
We really just want to see organized play 40k grow and thrive. We're working on a narrative version of the ITC too, that operates like the old global 40k campaigns GW used to run! That will be bad ass when we get it going, I am very excited for that because it will bring in the truly casual players into the overall organized play experience, which is awesome.
And thanks for the kind words! I know the ITC can cause controversy with some folks who may not agree with every aspect of it but it is working which is fun! We will continue to fine tune as we go to more accurately represent what folks want.
@Muggins
The GMC toe in cover rules change came about as a result of a HUGE amount of feedback from ITC participants asking for it for a long time. We were a bit resistant to it at first but people kept asking in large numbers so we knew it was an important topic. As a player, I totally agree with it, personally for what it's worth. I think it is silly that a giant monster standing on something gets a save when an iKnight (or whatever) does not.
We've found that most players do not approach the rules literally as some do. They prefer what feels makes sense as opposed to a literal reading. YMMV, of course, but that is the trend we've seen with these rules. I honestly feel it is less targeted at the Wraithknight (although for some players I am sure it was) but more about a rule making sense to them.
@CKO
No problem, happy to help clarify. And the critical feedback is really appreciated, we do pay attention (even if we can't always join the conversation) as we are trying to give people what they want, it;s just hard sometimes as folks don't all want the same thing! haha
We'd love to have you participate in the ITC if you choose to, and good luck winning it all. We will have an even bigger award for the winner of it this year!
@tag8833
Yes, you have it. We try to apply any changes evenly to all parties to make it more fair, but that is hard to do as I am sure you can imagine.
@JohnHwangDD
That was not targeted at Eldar, Eldar just get impacted by it most as they have the most access to D. We've found that players really don't like the 6 result on ranged D, it is seen as having too much of an impact on the game and being too random.
mugginns wrote: The GMC change is unfortunate, as is the cry for FMC and regular MC losing cover saves in area terrain as well. Most people don't really understand half of the 20? factions this game has. The implications in people's head are always only on the big nasty lists they just played against.
Most people do understand, and hence the Vote shows were the majority went on the matter, to de-value anyone who didn't see it your way doesn't lend much credence to your position either.
Accept it was a vote, and the fact is in some cases in life our views are not shared with the majority, and hence by default the view falls into the minority.
That was not targeted at Eldar, Eldar just get impacted by it most as they have the most access to D. We've found that players really don't like the 6 result on ranged D, it is seen as having too much of an impact on the game and being too random.
If that's the case, you should change a Penetrating 6 to doing d3 Hull Points.
good luck convincing a TO or gaming group to use the ITC FAQs, except for this one little bit you don't personally agree with regardless of how clear it is the opposite of the rule as written. that's...not going to happen.
@reece, no, I was talking about changing Vehicle Destroyed to -d3 hull points instead of automatically destroying the vehicle, as a systematic nerf to anti-vehicle shooting
JohnHwangDD wrote: @reece, no, I was talking about changing Vehicle Destroyed to -d3 hull points instead of automatically destroying the vehicle, as a systematic nerf to anti-vehicle shooting
|That.... wouldn't really do anything. Tanks are getting glanced to death by str 6\Grav\Gauss spam in most competitive games, not exploded.
Yeah, we're going to restructure the entire FAQ into modules so that folks can see what are clarifications, rules changes and temporary judgements. Although, lol, I am SURE there will be endless arguments about what are clarifications and rules changes as often RAW is so unclear, but, the goal of it will be break the ITC FAQ up into chunks so that folks can use the parts of it they want or don't want, easily.
That is so great!! Cheers for taking the feedback on that from here and elsewhere, will make it so much more versatile and easy to use and modify. Really appreciate this improvement!
@Reece Has your group ever polled or discussed polling limiting the number of factions that can be pulled into a list? I think a big hit to this game is that Imperial armies can pick and choose whatever they want just by adding "white scars" to a librarius conclave to get hunters eye, then taking Inquisition for Coteaz or an anti psyker, then gladius to get everything else they want. Coven get hurt by the limit of formations/CAD (this was just voted on) and need to rely on multiple formations to make a true coven competitive. Yeah...they could go with Eldar but the. They would have to shower afterwards heh.
My point is an attempt to limit the power builds and super friend style lists by limiting the number of factions you can pull from to two.
Reecius wrote: But, there are folks who want the most hardcore competitive experience they can get because that is their nature and is totally cool, and may want to not use some of the rules changes we implement. No big deal, we're going to make it easy for people to do that with the ITC, but not have to rewrite the entire FAQ and then update it constantly (which is a HUGE pain in the ass, let me tell you).
Like I said, we don't give a rip how folks play, ...
We actively try to encourage players to go to other tournaments, whether they use the ITC format or not. I mean, ... we understand different groups will want subtle changes to reflect their preferred play style, which is 100% fine by us. Variety is fun, too.
This. For all the negative that goes the ITC's way, it saddens me that people still forget this aspect, and then post trash on the Net about Reece's aledged hate for tau/crons/SM etc.
Frankie is not gonna show up in your garage, point the Finger of Accusation, and charge that you are a 40k Heretic for sharing MSS and C&CN tau toys with all firing units. And then beat you with a dread-sock.
I know for a fact that Reece only has a hate for good beer.
Srsly, I am hoping that most players get their flgs to run RTTs monthly, use the ITC faq for some events and then change up for uber cut-throat events with harshest/over powerful rule interpretations:
Crunch! Tankshock
Full piranha recycle
Shared mss and c&cn by all units
2+ 2+ rerolls
Full Invisibility
Full Stomp, including Flipped Etc.
... and then soften up the next month with fluffy missions, Higlander lists, full ITC faq, and 3e missions (This is Heavy!).
Plug - Game Empire Pasadena does all this and I am happy to advocate for the FLG crew, GE Pasadena, and what Reece has stated above, which might well be FLG's Mission Statment.
...
But if Mariana told me had to play a certain way, I don't know as I could disobey.
Fishboy wrote: @Reece Has your group ever polled or discussed polling limiting the number of factions that can be pulled into a list? I think a big hit to this game is that Imperial armies can pick and choose whatever they want just by adding "white scars" to a librarius conclave to get hunters eye, then taking Inquisition for Coteaz or an anti psyker, then gladius to get everything else they want. Coven get hurt by the limit of formations/CAD (this was just voted on) and need to rely on multiple formations to make a true coven competitive. Yeah...they could go with Eldar but the. They would have to shower afterwards heh.
My point is an attempt to limit the power builds and super friend style lists by limiting the number of factions you can pull from to two.
Another way to address deathstars is to fix Battle Brothers. If I recall, 2 years ago there was a vote before LVO that had some question related to that.
The biggest way ITC has dealth with deathstars is the nerf to Invis, rerollable 2+ saves, and with missions that favor MSU (And specifically highly mobile, null deploying MSU).
Centstars, and Wolfstars are still a viable build in the ITC, as are a number of SHV / GC units which are essentially one model deathstars.
Games might be more fun if Battle Brothers were fixed, or if Hit and Run and Ignores cover took a bit of a nerf, but I think Reece, and the other ITC bigwigs are relatively happy with the state of deathstars in the ITC. If anything, the current bogeyman is Warp Spiders / Jetbike Eldar MSU, which is so much more well suited to winning these particular missions than other armies due to the objective placement rules.
JohnHwangDD wrote: @reece, no, I was talking about changing Vehicle Destroyed to -d3 hull points instead of automatically destroying the vehicle, as a systematic nerf to anti-vehicle shooting
That.... wouldn't really do anything. Tanks are getting glanced to death by str 6\Grav\Gauss spam in most competitive games, not exploded.
It's the principle of the thing. The effect is wildly disproportionate, so it's effectively a single-army nerf.
Oh, come on. They are still undercosted by 130 - 200 points. Even without a Toe in Cover save. They will still be in basically all Eldar lists. The change was on the margins, and not nearly significant enough to actually bring them into line with other units, and is to some degree offset by the changes to the missions where Wraithknights no longer give up Maelstrom Points.
A Skathach Wraithknight still puts out more ignore cover shooting than any other unit in the history of 40K, and completely invalidates most Dark Eldar, IG, and Ork lists.
Here is a little challenge for you. The Skathach Wraithknight costs 315 points. Build me a 315 point unit from any non-eldar codex that kills it.
Fishboy wrote: @Reece Has your group ever polled or discussed polling limiting the number of factions that can be pulled into a list? I think a big hit to this game is that Imperial armies can pick and choose whatever they want just by adding "white scars" to a librarius conclave to get hunters eye, then taking Inquisition for Coteaz or an anti psyker, then gladius to get everything else they want. Coven get hurt by the limit of formations/CAD (this was just voted on) and need to rely on multiple formations to make a true coven competitive. Yeah...they could go with Eldar but the. They would have to shower afterwards heh.
My point is an attempt to limit the power builds and super friend style lists by limiting the number of factions you can pull from to two.
Another way to address deathstars is to fix Battle Brothers. If I recall, 2 years ago there was a vote before LVO that had some question related to that.
The biggest way ITC has dealth with deathstars is the nerf to Invis, rerollable 2+ saves, and with missions that favor MSU (And specifically highly mobile, null deploying MSU).
Centstars, and Wolfstars are still a viable build in the ITC, as are a number of SHV / GC units which are essentially one model deathstars.
Games might be more fun if Battle Brothers were fixed, or if Hit and Run and Ignores cover took a bit of a nerf, but I think Reece, and the other ITC bigwigs are relatively happy with the state of deathstars in the ITC. If anything, the current bogeyman is Warp Spiders / Jetbike Eldar MSU, which is so much more well suited to winning these particular missions than other armies due to the objective placement rules.
I don't think the warp spiders are the do all beat all honestly but that just may be local meta. At least I can kill warp spiders. Where I struggle and have the least amount of fun is when I Am playing these cobbled Imperial list that combine every special rule in the book and are un-kill able. I read the list that was posted in the ITC battle report this week and see exactly what is wrong with tournament play right now. I don't see how a game is "tactical" when you are bringing list like that. Yes it is a lot of points sunk into one unit but all the combos make them super hard to kill for non Death Star armies and hard to counter. That is when it becomes non fun for me. I don't mind a hard game but impossible odds make the game pointless imo.
It would be fun to see dreads on top tables again and not just there for fun
God, yes. I do not at all advocate for the following since creating whole new stat lines is not a good idea, but I just sit and imagine how cool Dreads would be with the following conversion:
HP= Wounds, maybe throw in an extra so they are all at 4 like a Carnifex.
Toughness = half (round down) of Front Armor.
Armor save = blanket 3+.
Keep weapon options, points, etc all the same. Convert to full MC rules, no longer a vehicle.
Boom, they were go.
Again, don't advocate for such a change on principle, but it would be a fun experiment to see how a dread army did with those changes.
lemurking23 wrote: It would be fun to see dreads on top tables again and not just there for fun
God, yes. I do not at all advocate for the following since creating whole new stat lines is not a good idea, but I just sit and imagine how cool Dreads would be with the following conversion:
HP= Wounds, maybe throw in an extra so they are all at 4 like a Carnifex.
Toughness = half (round down) of Front Armor.
Armor save = blanket 3+.
Keep weapon options, points, etc all the same. Convert to full MC rules, no longer a vehicle.
Boom, they were go.
Again, don't advocate for such a change on principle, but it would be a fun experiment to see how a dread army did with those changes.
Anecdotal :
At a Highlander tourney I filled in points with a Wraith Lord, which is nearly what you have ... *non* proposed.
He was not so effective in all three games. The WLord and dreads would need an Invuln or FNP. Something. But that does lead us away from the main discussion, and the silliness that is rewriting stats. So I'll let it die there.
I'm with you though. Owning models (my dreadnaughts) that stay in the box for years is a sad thing.
Here is a little challenge for you. The Skathach Wraithknight costs 315 points. Build me a 315 point unit from any non-eldar codex that kills it.
That's not how the math of the game works.
1. Build me a 240 point that can kill 6 necron wraiths. There are tons of example like that.
Sure: 1 Hive Tyrant with Wings, 2 TL Devourers, and for the heck of it Desiccator Larva. I could probably design 3 dozen units that can handle Necron Wraiths. I think every codex in 40K would probably be able to do that. That is why Necron Wraiths aren't as problematic as something like a Skathach Wraithknight. They are really, really, really good, incredibly points efficient. The Skathach Wraithknight. is on a whole other level. It is faster, killyer, and more durable on a point for point basis compared to Necron Wraiths. Drinkgasoline was arguing that the Wraithknight was no longer viable in the ITC. I was making a point that he was wrong.
ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote: 2. If every units was capable of killing 100%+ of its' point in one turn people would be tabling each other after 1 shooting/assault phase.
That isn't the issue here. The issue is the Skathach Wraithknight. rocking the double Hellstorm is quasi unbeatable for several entire codexes. Its ignore cover damage output is unlike anything else the game has ever seen, it comes with the durability of a Wraithknight, and adds to it more mobility, and the ability to get out of close combat.
Yes it took a nerf from the changes to cover, but it is still undercosted in a way that nothing else in the game can begin to match, and so unless we wise up, and FAQ it, or Ban the double hellstorm variant, it will be in the Competitive Meta for the foreseeable future, and regularly finding a place on top tables.
Here is a little challenge for you. The Skathach Wraithknight costs 315 points. Build me a 315 point unit from any non-eldar codex that kills it.
That's not how the math of the game works.
1. Build me a 240 point that can kill 6 necron wraiths. There are tons of example like that.
Poor example. A WS Command Squad with Stormshields and Gravguns runs roughshod through Wraiths for a similar pricepoint, even without IC support. Grav in general crushes them. Trust me, from experience.
2. If every units was capable of killing 100%+ of its' point in one turn people would be tabling each other after 1 shooting/assault phase.
That's not the point. It isn't that everyone is always going to have a point-efficient counter on the table for everything that exists - that'd be impossible. That's why meta-breakers come around, a list that shows up and no one has the tools to deal with.
The point is that everyone knows and expects to have to fight Wraithknights when they go to a tournament, but many books just physically don't have a point-efficient counter to deal with them even if you specifically plan for facing one in every game. And then even if you do make a super expensive counter unit, it suddenly becomes worthless against other targets.
If every army had a ~300 point tool for dealing with WKs, no one would complain about them because you'd just put it in there and have it. But most armies don't, and don't want to have to make a topheavy "anti-WK" army just to compete.
I can't tell you how many times I've made a TAC list and sadly thought about how a WK would make it cry because it doesn't really have the tools to deal with an insanely cheap GC on top of an Eldar army (or specifically, for Adepticon, 2 WKs).
Yeah, we're going to restructure the entire FAQ into modules so that folks can see what are clarifications, rules changes and temporary judgements. Although, lol, I am SURE there will be endless arguments about what are clarifications and rules changes as often RAW is so unclear, but, the goal of it will be break the ITC FAQ up into chunks so that folks can use the parts of it they want or don't want, easily.
That is so great!! Cheers for taking the feedback on that from here and elsewhere, will make it so much more versatile and easy to use and modify. Really appreciate this improvement!
Oh, come on. They are still undercosted by 130 - 200 points. Even without a Toe in Cover save. They will still be in basically all Eldar lists. The change was on the margins, and not nearly significant enough to actually bring them into line with other units, and is to some degree offset by the changes to the missions where Wraithknights no longer give up Maelstrom Points.
A Skathach Wraithknight still puts out more ignore cover shooting than any other unit in the history of 40K, and completely invalidates most Dark Eldar, IG, and Ork lists.
Here is a little challenge for you. The Skathach Wraithknight costs 315 points. Build me a 315 point unit from any non-eldar codex that kills it.
3 Ultramarines centurions with lvl 1 librarian with auspex = 310pts
I reckon this will have a bigger impact than you think, a huge amount of the WK's survivability was due to it basically always having a 4++ ruins against shooting. Now it's pretty soft, especially to all grav
Oh, come on. They are still undercosted by 130 - 200 points. Even without a Toe in Cover save. They will still be in basically all Eldar lists. The change was on the margins, and not nearly significant enough to actually bring them into line with other units, and is to some degree offset by the changes to the missions where Wraithknights no longer give up Maelstrom Points.
A Skathach Wraithknight still puts out more ignore cover shooting than any other unit in the history of 40K, and completely invalidates most Dark Eldar, IG, and Ork lists.
Here is a little challenge for you. The Skathach Wraithknight costs 315 points. Build me a 315 point unit from any non-eldar codex that kills it.
3 Ultramarines centurions with lvl 1 librarian with auspex = 310pts
I reckon this will have a bigger impact than you think, a huge amount of the WK's survivability was due to it basically always having a 4++ ruins against shooting. Now it's pretty soft, especially to all grav
Lets see. If the Centurions shoot 1st: 10 Hits, 8.88 wounds, 5.92 after FNP. So if the Centurions go 1st, and are in range, then yes they might kill a Wraith Knight. If they fail the Wrathknight will move 18", Kill 1 Centurion, and then be in range for a roughly 6" charge with fleet, after which it will eat the cents.
If the Wraith Knight goes 1st or the Centurions are out of range: 2.59 wounds to the Centurions. That is 1 dead. Now the Cents shoot back: 3.9 wounds. Now the Wraithknight eats them.
I would say that is a failure, because it requires that the Wraith Knight player put it into range, and let the Cents get 1st shot. They could always go 1st, and jump the Wraithknight into reserves, or Go 2nd, and not deploy it. It is possible that the Cents could pull it off, unlikely, but possible. Your best case scenario is still pretty iffy. Also, show me how to build that list from the Dark Eldar codex. Maybe the Ork Codex? Tyranids? Astra Militarum?
I would say that the WK is still incredibly undercosted, and super viable in competitive play. Certainly more Viable than Grav Centurions.
Oh, come on. They are still undercosted by 130 - 200 points. Even without a Toe in Cover save. They will still be in basically all Eldar lists. The change was on the margins, and not nearly significant enough to actually bring them into line with other units, and is to some degree offset by the changes to the missions where Wraithknights no longer give up Maelstrom Points.
A Skathach Wraithknight still puts out more ignore cover shooting than any other unit in the history of 40K, and completely invalidates most Dark Eldar, IG, and Ork lists.
Here is a little challenge for you. The Skathach Wraithknight costs 315 points. Build me a 315 point unit from any non-eldar codex that kills it.
3 Ultramarines centurions with lvl 1 librarian with auspex = 310pts
I reckon this will have a bigger impact than you think, a huge amount of the WK's survivability was due to it basically always having a 4++ ruins against shooting. Now it's pretty soft, especially to all grav
Lets see. If the Centurions shoot 1st: 10 Hits, 8.88 wounds, 5.92 after FNP. So if the Centurions go 1st, and are in range, then yes they might kill a Wraith Knight. If they fail the Wrathknight will move 18", Kill 1 Centurion, and then be in range for a roughly 6" charge with fleet, after which it will eat the cents.
If the Wraith Knight goes 1st or the Centurions are out of range: 2.59 wounds to the Centurions. That is 1 dead. Now the Cents shoot back: 3.9 wounds. Now the Wraithknight eats them.
I would say that is a failure, because it requires that the Wraith Knight player put it into range, and let the Cents get 1st shot. They could always go 1st, and jump the Wraithknight into reserves, or Go 2nd, and not deploy it. It is possible that the Cents could pull it off, unlikely, but possible. Your best case scenario is still pretty iffy. Also, show me how to build that list from the Dark Eldar codex. Maybe the Ork Codex? Tyranids? Astra Militarum?
I would say that the WK is still incredibly undercosted, and super viable in competitive play. Certainly more Viable than Grav Centurions.
To be fair your example is also after the cover nerf with cover saves the centurions doesn't have a chance.
Drinkgasoline wrote: 3 Ultramarines centurions with lvl 1 librarian with auspex = 310pts
I reckon this will have a bigger impact than you think, a huge amount of the WK's survivability was due to it basically always having a 4++ ruins against shooting. Now it's pretty soft, especially to all grav
Ok, ok, ok, let me make sure I got this right we are comparing the grav-centurions in a drop pod to the best unit in the game the wraithknight!
First off, their are 4 phases of the game lets compare:
Movement:Wraithknight
Psychic:Neither
Shooting:very close but lets pretend its not and say centurions
Assault:Wraithknight
In the movement phase one can move 12 inches, over units, and has move through cover if they try to deploy away from it you can get there in a minimum of 2 turns, the other unit has slow and purpseful, enough said right?
We are going to assume that the hellstorm templates on a model that can move 12 inches is not as good as 15 grav-shots, so we are going to give shooting to the centurions.
Now, in the assault phase the wraithknight walks through everything! Mass infantry dies to the stomps, Imperial Knights die to the i 5 str 10 or most of the time str D attacks, same goes for monstrous creatures so in the assault phase its not even close!
No lets talk about the things that you cant theory hammer. If you have a wraithknight center of board after their first turn it is literally a threat to everything in your opponents army. Can centurions drop pod in and threaten everything in your opponents army?
Why is this a conversation, the wraithknight is the best unit in the game hands down, does that mean we should vote on banning it I think not but the hellstorm template one I must say if it was a vote I would say no as it is already King of the Hill does it really need hellstorm templates? I don't even know the stats for the gun what is the stats for the template is it one or two templates?
Just because the wraithknight can be killed by a unit that cost the same as it doesn't diminish its dominance. Grav-guns is the most powerful weapon Imperials have and it doesnt get the job done all the time, what about non - imperials? This unit is an auto win button vs certain builds and the arguement that grav-centurions can kill it means very little to tyranid or ork players!
What is the new hellstorm template that the King can get?
On another note I placed 5th in my first ITC event, I believe I could have done better but I wasnt as sharp on my rules as I should have been due to my hiatas and my opponent thought I was slow playing so instead of getting close to max points first round I agreed to only get half. When I talked to the guy after the game I understood his point of view alot better he had driven 4 hours to get to the tournament so I would be frustrated to if I thought someone was not prepared and slow playing although I believe I was in complete control of the game with him having less than 20 models left on the field 10 of them being dark eldar warriors, I digress. I learned alot though I learned that I need to play the game more and be better prepared! I still think I did good for someone who has not played his IG in a year and half though!
. No signals or poll results. 
Cool, lets watch their twitch so we can get the results! 
and thanks to Frontline for doing all this work!!
so if anything, counting a Decurion as more than one detachment (perhaps count it as two) would be my preferred solution if this really proved to be a problem.
