Results here: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/10/12/itc-2015-season-3rd-quarter-update-poll-results/



Not a ton to vote on this quarter as we’ve had the Summer of Sigmar for most of the past quarter. Going off of the rules submission questionnaire, we got a lot of feedback but covering a very broad spectrum of topics, but there were not many topics that came up frequently. The only persistent issues brought up were those below.

Thank you as always for voting and making the ITC what it is!

Any chance you review cta allies before lvo?

I just voted for this, and what is the point of the last question, as far as I can tell it doesn't effect the big stars ( which I think are at an acceptable level with the current itc changes).

Anyways looking forward to lvo. With bfs this weekend itc season officially starts on the east cost this monday!!! Looking forward to jumping back into the format.

Once again no flying MC and gargantuan "toe in cover" question. Sad days. :(

The FAQ heavily impacts the game.

Great, ITC has already forced me to shelve two of my previous tournament lists with their "rulings" and if the Space Marine "ruling" gets voted in that will be a 3rd list I have to shelve....after getting to use it in 1 event.

I would love to see daemons get reigned in some.

@Krootman

It was the most commonly brought up issue among ITC participants this go around. However, the only way to implement it without creating a new rule for the other books was to apply it only to Marines.

@Niv-Mizzet

No one brought it up in our questionnaire. If you'd like to see a rule addressed, bring it to our attention through the channels we provide. If no one mentions it, we don't address it.

I completely agree on a personal level though, that GCs should not get the toe in cover save.

@Gardeth

Great, our "mission" to ruin your personal "experience" with "40k" is succeeding! Muahahaha!!

I kid, of course. This issue was the most commonly brought up, probably because folks don't like playing against the Super Friends stars in the game. Instead of directing your displeasure at the ITC for doing what the majority of their attendees want, perhaps consider the fact that an army build may not be very fun for most folks to play against. You may disagree of course, which is your prerogative, but please remember we don't pick topics at random but based off of player feedback.

It sucks when your list gets invalidated (my Necron list got invalidated with the last poll, I get it) but compromise is what the ITC is all about. We play the style of game the majority of attendees want to play. Sometimes that means we get things our way, sometimes we don't.

@Dozer

In what way?

I voted based off what I encountered at NOVA and wouldnt want to see at an ITC event. I cant make it to your next LVO because the Navy has my soul at that time, but I definitely hope to make it eventually and to other ITC events as well.

That is a great question !

1) Summoned daemons should not count as objective secured.

2) Limit the number of FMC they can field such as how you have proposed limiting the Stormsurge for Tau.

3) Staff of Tomorrow should not work when Fateweaver is off the table.

These are just three things that immediately come to mind off the top of my head. Maybe providing forms for daemon players to fill out in front of their opponents when rolling for psychic powers, gifts and rewards would help too.

I hope you will take the next part of what I have to say as constructive criticism - I do not like the following rule mods in the ITC faq...

1) Nerf to Invisibility

I remember this year at LVO knowing that there would be Lynxes. Invisibility has its place in the game with ranged D (even with nerfs). It is not only for deathstars.

2) Limiting the number of psychic powers a psyker can cast per turn to their mastery level - this is a super nerf to things like seer council and librarius conclave.

2) Re roll save is reduced to 4+/4++. This basically shuts down Ravenwing which is the best thing to come along for Dark Angel players in almost a decade. We know it is the intention of the development team because of the special rule for Ravenwing.

Now you want to nerf super friends... Reecius there are lots of armies that people say are unfun - that is not necessarily a good basis and you will never make everybody help in this regard. The inclusion of SHW and GC greatly reigns in super friends - just watch the new Long War batrep pitting super friends versus an IK army and you will see.

Im curious why you'd request to limit the number of FMC's Daemons have. (I dont see the correlation between an FMC and a potential squadron of GMC)

Mostly for the same reason why Reecius has suggested nerfing super friends.

Ah, reads clearer now with an obstinate tone than with a productive one.

Flying circus in one of the most unfun armies to play against IMO - most armies do not have a lot of skyfire... sure this could change with the soon to release new Tau codex. It is hard to counter for most armies and typically the FMCs will always get two saves when you are able to wound them. So if we are making decisions bases upon what is unfun to play this is something to consider.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
That is a great question !

1) Summoned daemons should not count as objective secured.

2) Limit the number of FMC they can field such as how you have proposed limiting the Stormsurge for Tau.

3) Staff of Tomorrow should not work when Fateweaver is off the table.

These are just three things that immediately come to mind off the top of my head. Maybe providing forms for daemon players to fill out in front of their opponents when rolling for psychic powers, gifts and rewards would help too.

I hope you will take the next part of what I have to say as constructive criticism - I do not like the following rule mods in the ITC faq...

1) Nerf to Invisibility

I remember this year at LVO knowing that there would be Lynxes. Invisibility has its place in the game with ranged D (even with nerfs). It is not only for deathstars.

2) Limiting the number of psychic powers a psyker can cast per turn to their mastery level - this is a super nerf to things like seer council and librarius conclave.

2) Re roll save is reduced to 4+/4++. This basically shuts down Ravenwing which is the best thing to come along for Dark Angel players in almost a decade. We know it is the intention of the development team because of the special rule for Ravenwing.

Now you want to nerf super friends... Reecius there are lots of armies that people say are unfun - that is not necessarily a good basis and you will never make everybody help in this regard. The inclusion of SHW and GC greatly reigns in super friends - just watch the new Long War batrep pitting super friends versus an IK army and you will see.

Part I

1) Never were ObSec. in the ITC.

2) I don't like arbitrary nerfs. Next thing you know, there's going to be a limit on how many characters can join a unit, how many centurions you can run in a unit, how many flyrants you can take or how many black knights you can take just because these units aren't fun to play against. I don't suggest they go down that road.

3) This request is reasonable.

Part II

1) Allowing full Invisibility just encourages the deathstars and LoW's even more. It is deathstars being potentially hit by d-weapons that keeps them in check. Unrestrict it and we will go back to Deathstar40K and Escalation40K, as evidenced at NOVA and the more recent No Mercy GT (well, NOVA didn't allow LoW's, but you get the picture).

2) Again, unrestricting psychic limitations serve mainly to encourage deathstars. Allowing a deathstar to be able to cast multiple Invisibilities or up to 5 Shrieks only serve to make them more popular. Again, I believe the ITC is trying to move away from the crazy deathstar armies. People are already complaining about them now. Wait til they play against unrestricted deathstars and I guarantee you the ITC will lose a large number of their player-base.

3) I believe you mean 2+/4+ and not 4+/4+. Well, a 2+/4+ is still really, really good. 2+/2+ is just plain broken. Period. That mechanism shouldn't even be in the game. It's bad enough that even 1 unit can have it, but with Ravenwing, you're talking about potentially the entire army with re-rollable 2+'s!

I would like to see an expanded number of poll questions, but I understand that this is merely an update and not an overhaul. Looking forward to additional polls in the future.

I voted to allow experimental rules from Forge World in the game. In the grand sense of things, most of these are not ridiculously overpowered, just somewhat undercosted in a few cases.

Gargantuan creatures should stay a 0-1 limit for armies. Even in the case of the Stormsurge, as I can see multiples of that thing putting out obscene levels of firepower and being incredibly obnoxious in CC.

Super Friends and Battle Brothers shenanigans needs to be toned down. Forcing all loyalist MEQ armies to play by the same rules sounds like a good way to do this.

Super Friends and Battle Brothers shenanigans needs to be toned down. Forcing all loyalist MEQ armies to play by the same rules sounds like a good way to do this.

Actually my biggest issue with the superfriends Battle brothers Vote is that it "Only" hurts the Space marine Codex and its Chapter tactics special rules.. not the other way around. DA/BA/SW and to a lesser extent GK still retain there special rules.

RAW!!!!

That is all.

ITC never did anything to curtail death stars like beastar. Like jy2 said this seems very arbitrary to the casual on observer.

Black Blow Fly is the new Blackmoor.

It won't be that easy. A lot of people are upset.

Well than spend your time planning your anything goes convention instead of harassing everyone on any ITC thread that come up. I suppose if you just have the one drum you have to beat it pretty loudly.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
RAW!!!!

That is all.

Pure RAW is poison to the industry. Now there is a minority who enjoy it, but the life blood of the industry - the more casual players - won't (or they just play it wrong/with houserules). The rules are just as important as the models. If GW were to make bad or ugly models, you can bet their business is going to go down. Don't think it is any different with bad, unbalanced rules. I'd bet you that if it wasn't for the efforts of Frontline and the ITC, the competitive gaming scene would be dying in most of the US. But because of their "house-rules" and promotional efforts, there is actually a mini-renaissance in the competitive gaming scene.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
ITC never did anything to curtail death stars like beastar. Like jy2 said this seems very arbitrary to the casual on observer.

I was not aware that there was still such a thing as the beaststar.

ITC is willing to make modifications to certain rulesets if the complaint is loud enough. However, in my opinion, I don't think any one army is bad enough to warrant nerfing. Rather, I believe it is some of the game mechanics that need fixing and coincidentally enough, the really broken armies are the ones that abuse the heck out of these game mechanics the most. In short, I am for changing the broken game mechanics because it affects every army that tries to abuse it equally. What I do not stand for is nerfs that specifically target a particular army because that there is anti-favoritism. Why are my very strong units targeted and not yours? You're opening up a can of worms by doing so.

 jy2 wrote:
However, in my opinion, I don't think any one army is bad enough to warrant nerfing.

Funny, I remember you coming to the opposite conclusion in your Tyranid thread's guide to Eldar.

In all seriousness, these changes do affect Eldar heavily, but only in the sense that Eldar have access to all of the most broken mechanics in the game. Eldar are limited by the nerfs to Invisibility, 2+ re-rollable, psychic Mastery Levels, Ranged D and assault D, and stomps and limits to GCs.

Don't get me wrong, these are necessary to keep Eldar from dominating literally every event and the restrictions should stay. But there's plenty more that can be done to tone down some of the other obnoxious mechanics out there, like Super Friends and allies shenanigans.

 jy2 wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
RAW!!!!

That is all.

Pure RAW is poison to the industry. Now there is a minority who enjoy it, but the life blood of the industry - the more casual players - won't (or they just play it wrong/with houserules). The rules are just as important as the models. If GW were to make bad or ugly models, you can bet their business is going to go down. Don't think it is any different with bad, unbalanced rules. I'd bet you that if it wasn't for the efforts of Frontline and the ITC, the competitive gaming scene would be dying in most of the US. But because of their "house-rules" and promotional efforts, there is actually a mini-renaissance in the competitive gaming scene.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
ITC never did anything to curtail death stars like beastar. Like jy2 said this seems very arbitrary to the casual on observer.

I was not aware that there was still such a thing as the beaststar.

ITC is willing to make modifications to certain rulesets if the complaint is loud enough. However, in my opinion, I don't think any one army is bad enough to warrant nerfing. Rather, I believe it is some of the game mechanics that need fixing and coincidentally enough, the really broken armies are the ones that abuse the heck out of these game mechanics the most. In short, I am for changing the broken game mechanics because it affects every army that tries to abuse it equally. What I do not stand for is nerfs that specifically target a particular army because that there is anti-favoritism. Why are my very strong units targeted and not yours? You're opening up a can of worms by doing so.

Hey Jy I should have added a sarcasm emoticon, or orkmoticon. You don't know me that well, I don't advocate pure RAW. I would like some things played closer to RAW but I'm not crazy enough to think the pure game can be played competitively.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
However, in my opinion, I don't think any one army is bad enough to warrant nerfing.

Funny, I remember you coming to the opposite conclusion in your Tyranid thread's guide to Eldar.

In all seriousness, these changes do affect Eldar heavily, but only in the sense that Eldar have access to all of the most broken mechanics in the game. Eldar are limited by the nerfs to Invisibility, 2+ re-rollable, psychic Mastery Levels, Ranged D and assault D, and stomps and limits to GCs.

Don't get me wrong, these are necessary to keep Eldar from dominating literally every event and the restrictions should stay. But there's plenty more that can be done to tone down some of the other obnoxious mechanics out there, like Super Friends and allies shenanigans.

Eldar is strong because they can abuse the heck out of the core mechanics. They are the only army that can spam the D. They also abuse the heck out of re-rollable saves (Fortune + Conceal or Protect) and Invisibility (more psychic dice, casting powers on 3+ with re-rolls). The "nerfs" to their armies aren't actually targeted directly at them, but rather at the mechanics they abuse. However, despite even the nerfs to these basic mechanics, the Eldar are still thriving in tournament play and are still super-strong. They are good enough that they don't need to rely on the crutch of broken mechanics to dominate.

These "modified" rules changes also help to curtail other deathstars. They don't unfairly target Eldar (well, maybe they do in the sense that Eldar is the army that abuses them the most). Rather, they target all armies and all deathstars. Those types of rules changes I can live with. What I don't like is a rules change like this - scatterbikes are too good so let's limit them to 1 scatter laser per 3 bikes (this actually almost happened but thank goodness it got voted down in an ITC poll!).

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

Hey Jy I should have added a sarcasm emoticon, or orkmoticon. You don't know me that well, I don't advocate pure RAW. I would like some things played closer to RAW but I'm not crazy enough to think the pure game can be played competitively.

Cool. No prob.

@reeces
So I'm still trying to figure out what lists the sm change effects.
I mean it doesn't take away wolf star hit and run, and it wont take away fnp from anyone. I guess if you build around scars for hit and run it will take that away...but because gks are not included you could run cent star with gk/ ws and still get hit and run.

Its not a big deal either way, I'm just confused :/

Seriously tho you can't keep dodging my question about cta allies!!!! WE WILL BE HEARD!!!!!!

I would like to share this article I found online for the discussion:

http://www.spikeybits.com/2015/10/are-we-even-playing-40k-at-tournaments-anymore.html

(warning: long post by someone bored at work)

Personally, I voted for the RAW reading as closely as possible for question 1 and 3, and for 2, as a fan of model diversity, I’d like to see more forgeworld units brought into the game. This one specifically has the chance to open more lists that help counter some of the power builds.

Should we strive for pure 40K though? I do not think so. It seems logical to assume that the more power builds there are, the more checks and balances on other power builds will exist. What this doesn’t take into consideration is that some codexes (and therefore players) are a bit out of luck if their chosen army does not meet that standard. Going to a purer 40k does little to nothing to strengthen weak armies, and it seems to more drastically favor the strongest armies. How does a non-nerfed D help Orks? How does it help Sisters? How does it help DE? At least Sisters and DE can ally in stronger armies, but Orks are a bit out of luck there.
Sure, non-nerfed invisibility gives chaos marines more pop, but then it is a wash against superfriends, seer council, and everyone else who already uses invisibility. As pointed out the article linked by Dozerblades, flyrant spam is weak against invisible stars, so un-nerfed invisbility just pushes tyranids down the totem pole without giving them much back, save for maybe the Harridan, but then Grav still hurts a Harridan, and a Harridan will have to land to deal with an invisible star which means its 200 extra points in cost for being a FGMC is negated. I’d wager on a wolfstar taking out a Harridan in CC.

Yep, ITC is not pure 40k, and the Frontline team does make changes that they feel benefits the largest number of would be players, but I think the fact that the ITC allows voting shows more of the community policing itself than an organizer saying: “This is how it will be done by implementing my design philosophy”. Rather than simply state: “Instead of FAQing and changing the game every month or quarter, how about we play the game as it was designed and police the events by using the hobby scores that actually matter?” , ITC at least allows player input so players are actually participating in events that they had a hand in crafting, and to me, that sounds like a better way to approach this. Even if an organizer is changing nothing, allowing unbound, apoc formations, or what have you, what about the blatant rule gaps? Do you just default to the Jervis 4+ whenever it comes up?
I greatly enjoy this game, but a reasoned analysis of the rules shows some holes that do need addressing, and while others are certainly free to think and play differently, I do not find that the roll-off is an elegant mechanic for addressing these problems. This also does not address that if we use pure 40k, we need mysterious objectives and maelstrom cards, and while I’m certainly not against either, it does slow the game down and from a tournament perspective, this makes the logistics of a large (or even smaller RTT) tournament more of a headache for all involved.

And hobby scores are great in theory, but if the purpose of it is to actually allow non-power builds a chance to score higher or even place in a competitive event, then I do not think it is all that effective. Most of the top players that I see either paint quite well or hire talented painters. A super-friends list that is well-painted/converted will negate the advantage that a pure harlequin army that is also well-painted/converted possesses. If by hobby scores we mean composition scores where a tournament rewards non-competitive builds, then how is this closer to pure 40k? Who decides what is too competitive? My Baronial Court is fluffy, and Battle-Company is fluffy, but would these be considered too competitive?

What about sportsmanship? It is an incredibly subjective mechanic, and when you give a player the opportunity to directly impact another player’s score, you open the whole thing to abuse. Even without abuse, if everyone scores everyone else a 4 (or 6 or whatever), then it is a wash to begin with and these scores add little. Not to mention, most top-end players I have met or played against are generally nice enough folk, so they are going to get their soft scores and still will be beat most other players. Again, it is a bit of a wash.

It is admirable goal to take 40k and turn it into a streamlined, competitive system that also allows for a wide range of army diversity, but playing 40k “the way it was designed” does not do that. Pure 40k rewards newer books that have access to specific and poorly designed mechanics like invisibility, numerous allies, and ranged D. It is a flawed rule system, but it is a fun system, and for me, ITC makes it more fun. NOVA and other formats have wonderful perks as well, but I do not see “pure 40k” as being a positive play experience in any kind of competitive setting. Beers and pizza with my boys? Sure. Driving 6 hours to play 6 random people? Not so much.

Anyway, boredom at works leads to long posts I guess. Just my dos centavos, and I’m sure they’re worth less than that to most.

Well said, lemurking.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I would like to share this article I found online for the discussion:

http://www.spikeybits.com/2015/10/are-we-even-playing-40k-at-tournaments-anymore.html

lol. Rob Baer and SpikeyBits are click bait mongers and contrarians. I can't take anything on that site seriously, let alone the Long War podcast or videos.

To be fair I don't take much on Dakka seriously anymore either.

It is a well written article imo ... but that is just my opinion.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I would like to share this article I found online for the discussion:

http://www.spikeybits.com/2015/10/are-we-even-playing-40k-at-tournaments-anymore.html

lol. Rob Baer and SpikeyBits are click bait mongers and contrarians. I can't take anything on that site seriously, let alone the Long War podcast or videos.

To be fair I don't take much on Dakka seriously anymore either.

I listened to the long war pod cast back to back and they seem to be baiting people into the podcast, Specifically with their titles "Are tournament players ruining the hobby" when they only touched on that for like 10 seconds
And they say the community needs to police themselves, when they admit on the podcast, they play hardcore deathstars.

I am a hardcore deathstar player - you can't really blame people for looking out for their own interests. The banned units and rules changes is really getting crazy now.

To a large degree the community does police itself and that is why we are having this discussion.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I am a hardcore deathstar player - you can't really blame people for looking out for their own interests. The banned units and rules changes is really getting crazy now.

To a large degree the community does police itself and that is why we are having this discussion.

To be honest they dont.
Trust me, If I could, My Vindicare would be manning a Plasma Obliteerator with a Void Sheild Around it.
Why? Cause I hate my opponent and want to make them cry.

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:
Black Blow Fly is the new Blackmoor.

How dare you!

Understand that this is MY opinion, but I feel 'inspired' by lemur's post to offer a different perspective.

Personally, I can't stand the ITC format / rules. I'm constantly finding myself in a position where I am forced to deal with the format if I want to attend any event, and discussions about certain units not being good in competitive events, when they really mean, or only reference ITC events. It's even gotten to the point where I've gone to some stores and all they play is ITC for their normal game nights, which is something that even the Frontline guys don't normally do. I have been working on an ITC list and practicing the missions, mostly because other players have been asking me to practice. Unlike Lemur, the more I play and tweak my list, I find the whole thing less and less enjoyable. This is NOT because the ITC is bad, it's because it clashes with my personal preferences of how I prefer to play 40k.

I fully support the ITC, and what they're doing. I have been providing my feedback in as many of these surveys as possible, because they are getting feedback. They are doing what any event organizer has to do, and that is provide a rule set that meets how the community that attends their events prefers to play 40k. They do a phenomenal job of getting feedback and finding a 'majority' guide of how most players wish 40k would be played. From an event perspective, this is great as it aids in getting more people to attend, even if it's not Pure 40k. While there are elements that are missing, or have been implemented that aren't in the current rules, it meets how the majority of competitive players WISH 40k would be.

Where my frustration comes in, is when the more fanatical players take this format as the best/only way to play 40k, which is something that is becoming more and more common, at least from my perspective. I'm not saying I'm any better, or that I play pure 40k. While I do agree with some of the rulings, I won't force a player to abide by them. This has been true for any of the events. I've run into Adepticon, NOVA, even Feast of Blades Fanatics. I've got nothing against any of these events, but against the players who try to convince everyone else that 40k should be played that way because of XXX reasons.

I'm sure that the players who excel at these events are excellent players, and I would love the opportunity to play against some of them. What I wish is that people would realize or keep in mind at least, is that they are currently the best players within their respective formats, and it's not reflective of the hobby as a whole.

One of the things I don't like if an army comes along they lose to then a new poll is created and sure enough there is a proposed nerf to that specific army. I feel super friends is getting picked on now since it won the recent nova open and invitational while other armies continue to fly under the radar for whatever reason.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
One of the things I don't like if an army comes along they lose to then a new poll is created and sure enough there is a proposed nerf to that specific army. I feel super friends is getting picked on now since it won the recent nova open and invitational while other armies continue to fly under the radar for whatever reason.

I don't think its a 'oh no I lost, nerf it to the ground' reaction.

Its players reacting to rules mechanics abuse creating un-fun play environments.

Some players correctly identified that they can add A + B + C + D abilities together in a super-friends list to create an unstoppable army: a unit which pays static costs for force multipliers. It is too efficient. About the only thing remotely holding it back is that ITC missions heavily favor MSU.
I think that players in general want to feel engaged in the game. This essentially means that stuff needs to die, both yours and your opponents. It also means that player agency should play as big a role as possible, over random chance.

Hence nerfs to deathstars: stacking of buffs like invisiblity, FNP, H+R, 2++/2++ saves makes for units that aren't fun to play against.
Hence nerfs to D-weapons and superheavies: 'whoever rolls the first 6 wins' is a game we can play without $1000 worth of models.

I've thought for a LONG time that Imperium of Man is probably the single best/most broken rule in the game. The sheer number of unintended shenanigans you can pull by being a human is far beyond what any other force can muster. CTA allies, while they break the fluff and immersion, don't actually break the game balance at all. Personally I'd prefer that ALL allies (CTA and BB) get counted as Allies of Convenience so we get a level playing field without Flesh Tearers Taxi Services.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
One of the things I don't like if an army comes along they lose to then a new poll is created and sure enough there is a proposed nerf to that specific army. I feel super friends is getting picked on now since it won the recent nova open and invitational while other armies continue to fly under the radar for whatever reason.

This is the tragedy of the ITC, or any event that has a non pure 40k structure. I kind of feel the same way, but in a broader view of the rules in general. These events reflect that. The majority of competitive players still don't want to change to what the current rules allow. Even non competitive players have this issue, and I struggle with it too. In that light you could also say that the ITC (and similar events) picks on CTA Allies or Unbound lists. You could even reverse it and say it picks on players who feel that FW, LoW, GCs , etc don't belong.

I see other complaints about the events that don't make sense to me until I see that the format tends to support it. Two examples of common complaints. The 'One Toe in Terrain' for a cover save is one example that I saw above. Why are you still playing Area Terrain, or not defining terrain with your opponent pre-game? How does the TO rule when two players don't do this pre game and both disagree? 'Not everyone has access to Skyfire'. Aren't you using Mysterious objectives? Oh, the event missions don't use them/don't use enough objectives to even have a chance of getting a Skyfire Objective. Again, not starting a rules debate here, but it's an observation and my opinion that these things would be less of an issue if players would attend events with these rules included instead of ignored.

Regardless of all that, you're always going to have players who will make lists that will abuse every aspect they can within whatever rules provided. This makes these events no different from pure 40k, or each other. I remember an article on Frontline covering this, that was pretty good because he talked about running those power lists, and running into the same lists. It even mentioned the Grey Knight/Adepticon disaster. As good as it was, I still felt it was a plea to not run those lists to create a fun environment, but as a result, don't expect to win.

I recall one poor Necron player from the Seattle GT that GW ran years ago. Just by chance he had managed to get paired off against an all Drop Pod list every round. This was before the armies were even popular, and there were only 7-8 players. On his 4th round, he was playing against a similar list despite being a different player and it wasn't fun for him. He was able to see a TO and they accommodated him. In a more extreme perspective, I read a recent thread on the Know No Mercy event. The Guy flat out said that he changed his list when he a)Found out he could run 5 Wraithknights and b)Was able to BORROW the models to do it. He didn't even go with the models he owned. How is that fun for the guy who put his own money, time, heart and soul into it. Worse still is that I didn't see one person mention it, so it appears to be more widely accepted.

ANY event has two responsibilities. The first is to create a fun environment. The second is to create one where people will attend. The variety of events means that players can find an event that will mostly cater to their preferences. The success of the Know No Mercy event shows that players will still go, even when the format isn't as restrictive as the ITC.

The Frontline/ITC guys remain a leader in the second point, by constantly adapting their format to find the majority preference of players and involving the community to try to make it as fun for everyone. Unlike other events which are more limited in their scope. This is probably the only reason I'm even bothering with the format at all because it is probably the closest reflection of how most players feel about 40k, despite my own views on it. The other thing that the ITC does well,is that it is inclusive of other formats. There is no requirement for FLGS', who wish to participate, to use the ITC format or rules. I think this is something that 40k players want, so that we have a ranking system, since it works for other games, like MTG.

I've rambled on enough, but thanks to those who read it.

We don't really know that it's how the majority feels - I'm sure a lot will vote because they can take a strong horse out of the race. They aren't necessarily voting with the best interest of the community in mind but what they think is best for them. That is the nature of this type of poll.

Why wasn't anything ever done about armies like Draigowing and nob bikers? Back then the competitive players learned how to beat them on the table.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
We don't really know that it's how the majority feels - I'm sure a lot will vote because they can take a strong horse out of the race. They aren't necessarily voting with the best interest of the community in mind but what they think is best for them. That is the nature of this type of poll.

Why wasn't anything ever done about armies like Draigowing and nob bikers? Back then the competitive players learned how to beat them on the table.

There is always inherent self-interest in a "democracy". That is unavoidable. However, not everyone and not even the majority will always vote in their own self-interest. Oftentimes, people vote for what they feel is right. For example:

1) Scatterbikes. There was a poll to limit scatter lasers to 1 per 3 bikes. Now with Eldar so "hated" and with 9 other armies with something to gain if Eldar scatbikes got nerfed, the result was that they didn't change.

2) D-weapons. Only a handful of armies - namely Eldar - have wide access to D. However, recently, people voted to change D from D2 (on a 2-5) and 2W (on a 6) to D3 and 3W. If people really voted in the own self-interest, shouldn't the majority vote to keep D at D2 + 2?

3) Detachments. The players voted to change from 2 detachments to 3 detachments. Now if people were so concerned about "Superfriends", why add another detachment and thus more combinations for Superfriend builds? One could argue that the mass of voters didn't know what they were getting into by allowing another detachment. But I feel that they made the change not because it was or wasn't in their own self-interest. Rather, the tournament scene was evolving and the voters felt it was time to evolve as well. They voted for what they felt was right, not what they thought would benefit them most.

And FYI, Draigowing was all but dead before the ITC became popular. When the ITC came into being, they had to deal with centstar, not Draigowing or Nob Bikers. That was before their time.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
We don't really know that it's how the majority feels - I'm sure a lot will vote because they can take a strong horse out of the race. They aren't necessarily voting with the best interest of the community in mind but what they think is best for them. That is the nature of this type of poll.

Tell that to all the guys who can't currently run their armies in the ITC format! If the poll passes, regardless of why their voting, wouldn't that be a reflection of how the majority feels about it? I agree that there will be players who will vote so that they won't have to change their army, I even believe that there are a few guys who will even go so far as to take the survey multiple times because they're bitter about it. I can also see a number of people doing the same to allow it. I believe that if this statement is true, then the numbers will reflect it, and the results will be close. It won't be the first time, and it might even come up again as the game progresses. Whatever they end up ruling, the outcome is the same. The slider moves, and the next combo will rise and become apparent in future events and dealt with at that time.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Why wasn't anything ever done about armies like Draigowing and nob bikers?

They obviously feel that these don't need to be addressed, and as far as I've seen, they're not as common/aren't topping out.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Back then the competitive players learned how to beat them on the table.

'Back Then' people didn't have access to forums with army lists telling them what to buy either. There is an aspect of this hobby that is dying if it's not already dead. I personally miss the days when players that took units that fit their playstyle or simply because they liked a unit and tried to make them work. Virtually all of the 'competitive' lists out there don't have any personalization or signature units that reflect the player. They feel sterile, and have no character. They have one purpose, and that is to win. Which makes sense when you put a huge prize pool in events like these to draw these armies out. 'Playing' isn't the main drive, 'Winning' is.

I get that this is an expensive hobby, and players don't want to waste money on units they won't play. I have a collection of Necron Models that I don't normally field, and Im sure Im not the only one. I also see a ton of new players come in with models and they have no idea how those armies play, or why they even got them. They got them because someone else said it's good, w/o ever learning WHY it's good. For that same reason, there aren't many surprises left. It's become even easier to predict what you're likely to face off against when you see your opponent plays 'Taudar' or mixed 'Space Marines', and adjust your list accordingly. When we see any Tau list, no one is surprise when 1-2 Riptides and 2 units of egg basket Broadsides show up. You'll rarely see a Necron army without a Canoptek Harvest. Any army with access to 'Invisibility' will try and take it, etc. Back then, armies were more varied because players used to get a hold of a codex, pick the units they wanted, then LEARN how to use them, creating the varied armies that people really want to see today. Players who do this now are rare.

Also, competitive players used to deal with the current rule set and implement them, not choose to ignore them, or only attend events that fit how they think the game should be played. To be fair, this really died when GW stopped running events and killed the Tournament support system they had, leaving it to the community. Maelstrom is the main thing that comes to mind. Most competitive players that I've seen don't want a true Maelstrom format. I hear it all the time, they don't want to deal with not being able to get objectives, or only drawing 1 achievable objective while their opponent draws 5, etc. They can't stand the thought of losing because their army SHOULD be better, and that they lost because the cards effed em over. I myself am guilty as well. I have a very strong opinion on Forgeworld, and when/where it should be allowed. I usually will refuse games and even certain events because I feel that strongly about it.

EDIT: I would eventually like to see the larger events, like the ITC, splitting their events to accommodate the different playstyles. Running 2 events, 1 as EW, the other as Maelstrom, or even a 3rd as 'Whatever. I feel that this will not only entice more players to come, since their will now be more winners, but it will hopefully show differences in the lists that perform in their respective mission types, rather than having just 1 set of winners. It's just an idea, but I've seen some other places do this, or start to do this.

Those armies were present with lots of crying on Dakka forums and other places like BoLS.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
We don't really know that it's how the majority feels - I'm sure a lot will vote because they can take a strong horse out of the race. They aren't necessarily voting with the best interest of the community in mind but what they think is best for them. That is the nature of this type of poll.

Why wasn't anything ever done about armies like Draigowing and nob bikers? Back then the competitive players learned how to beat them on the table.

Can you provide proof of that assertion?

LOL you're comparing Nob Bikers and Draigowing in 5th to Strength D and Invisibile Stars in 7th? That's not even apples to oranges comparison. That's like comparing Apples to Hotdogs, sure you eat them both but they're not even in the same food category.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Those armies were present with lots of crying on Dakka forums and other places like BoLS.

Crying on the internet means nothing. Reference, this thread or the Spikeybits blog.

'Back Then' people didn't have access to forums with army lists telling them what to buy either. There is an aspect of this hobby that is dying if it's not already dead. I personally miss the days when players that took units that fit their playstyle or simply because they liked a unit and tried to make them work. Virtually all of the 'competitive' lists out there don't have any personalization or signature units that reflect the player. They feel sterile, and have no character. They have one purpose, and that is to win. Which makes sense when you put a huge prize pool in events like these to draw these armies out. 'Playing' isn't the main drive, 'Winning' is.

Here is a post from a Draigowing batrep on Dakka back at the height of their glory:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/394774.page

Here is one for nob bikers:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/235967.page#657734

One of the reasons why Draigowing and Nob Bikers were so deadly back then was because they abused the heck out of Wound Allocation shenanigans. Well, GW corrected that themselves by changing the rules for Wound Allocation in 6th Ed. (back when GW still cared about the rules).

And yeah, competitive players learned to play through it. But in this hobby of ours, competitive players are actually a minority. The majority of the players - the more casual players or the hobbyists - I don't believe they had as much fun playing against these types of armies.

As for why nothing was ever done to them, you're just going to have to ask the TO's of that time. ITC certainly wasn't around back then. It'll be like asking Obama what had he done about Watergate or the Cold War Arms Race. Seriously?

 jy2 wrote:
One of the reasons why Draigowing and Nob Bikers were so deadly back then was because they abused the heck out of Wound Allocation shenanigans. Well, GW corrected that themselves by changing the rules for Wound Allocation in 6th Ed. (back when GW still cared about the rules).

And yeah, competitive players learned to play through it. But in this hobby of ours, competitive players are actually a minority. The majority of the players - the more casual players or the hobbyists - I don't believe they had as much fun playing against these types of armies.

I'm not sure competitive players like playing against invincible units either. Scream star, seer council, wolfstar, etc... are not really fun to play against.

Rynner wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
One of the reasons why Draigowing and Nob Bikers were so deadly back then was because they abused the heck out of Wound Allocation shenanigans. Well, GW corrected that themselves by changing the rules for Wound Allocation in 6th Ed. (back when GW still cared about the rules).

And yeah, competitive players learned to play through it. But in this hobby of ours, competitive players are actually a minority. The majority of the players - the more casual players or the hobbyists - I don't believe they had as much fun playing against these types of armies.

I'm not sure competitive players like playing against invincible units either. Scream star, seer council, wolfstar, etc... are not really fun to play against.

Agreed. I'm a really competitive player and even I thought Invisibility and re-rollable saves were stupid. But of course as a competitive player, you'd play through almost anything even if you didn't like it.

I don't go to tournaments expecting to play against casual army lists .

Why is anyone even afraid of the self-interest here? If someone were to tell me that people did not vote in self-interest, I would tell them the polls were actually useless and should be thrown out.

I GENUINELY HOPE the majority voted in self-interest. The whole point here was for Reece to find out what the majority of those who cared enough to vote did or did not want to play with and against. Would you rather they vote NOT in self-interest and urge him to legalize things they don't enjoy? Is that what you're arguing - that players should play things they don't have fun playing? Why are people so opposed to a tournament basing its rulings around the desires of its customers?

BBF and others - the majority of those who are passionate about attending tournaments enough to vote in polls that directly impact how the very tournaments they wish to attend are played ... have voted in this way. Even if you think Reece spins up his voting base with his posts before he goes with the votes (which I've seen accused or inferred), so what? If the result is most of his attendees feel like they get a tournament that is what they want, great!

Arguing that there's a silent majority in complete opposition to this is about as impactful on a logical thinker as saying there might be aliens with cloaking devices spying on us right now. WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE THERE AREN'T!

Pfft.

My issue is this. For ATC, I taught our teams Tau player how to systematically dismantle any type of Daemon list. From Screamerstar to FMC fly circus to everything in between. This resulted in our once VERY one-sided games becoming more 50/50 with the victor being decided by the scenario OR if Grimoire or invisibility failed. He only fought one daemon army but utterly demolished it. That being said, without using Invisibility and Grimoire shenanigans, I would have almost 0% chance against a well built Tau list and many flavors of lists with overwhelming firepower. So it feels like I have systematically had my tools to play a competitive Demon list pulled away whilst the lists I need them against get away Scott free, or even worse, become more prevalent as other things they suffered against (multiple super heavies, etc) are removed from the field. I don't build tournament lists to be fun to play against, I build them to be challanging to play and have the ability to win. I personally work to be fun to play against but my opponent can love me and hate my army. So after shelving my daemons I decided to play it safe and play a Imperial list and after using it in 1 event, it looks like it might get taken from me as well. All I can say is that ITC is very close to doing something that all of GWs screwups and erratas and unbalanced codecies of old hasnt managed in over 20 years of me playing 40k, getting me to give up on the competitive 40k scene. I can't afford to keep building, customizing and painting list after list only to have an internet popularity contest to invalidate my hard work.

 jy2 wrote:
One of the reasons why Draigowing and Nob Bikers were so deadly back then was because they abused the heck out of Wound Allocation shenanigans. Well, GW corrected that themselves by changing the rules for Wound Allocation in 6th Ed. (back when GW still cared about the rules).

And yeah, competitive players learned to play through it. But in this hobby of ours, competitive players are actually a minority. The majority of the players - the more casual players or the hobbyists - I don't believe they had as much fun playing against these types of armies.

As for why nothing was ever done to them, you're just going to have to ask the TO's of that time. ITC certainly wasn't around back then. It'll be like asking Obama what had he done about Watergate or the Cold War Arms Race. Seriously?

what this man said..and of course wound shenanigans back then was "cheese" but the end result was you still hurt things, and eventually they died, it just allowed players to keep models on the table a little longer then the units fold like wet towels if they all get down to 1 wound because you remove whole models for each wound the unit takes at that point, so it just bought you some inflated efficiency for the first turn or two- which in 40k then was a big deal since the early game decided a lot of the game.

Currently without house rules, which is what the ITC faq is- you would have frequent armies where models don't die, pretty much ever. re-rollable 2+, and if you get it on a bunch of units that are flying...forget about it. Of course a lot of players want to play this death star game, so they have an increased hatred of the D- which G-Dubs probably put in to end the d-stars, because that's not how G-Dubs plays, that's how tournament players play. The D is not a big deal if you build armies like how g-dub does, its a big deal when you build armies like a tournament player does with a super deathstar that has a ton of points in a small area, and requires certain key models to work, if they get removed their is a non linear cliff free fall in how the death star performs, which is bad for a death star player. Honestly I think its balanced in removing deathstars but thats my opinion, and I usually play MSU with few expensive characters so the D has little impact to me. You killed a few models out of one of my units that I have 4-6 copies of? You get the special weapon and the sgt? ill be okay.

Honestly though as some others have pointed out the ITC faq reaches beyond the tournament scene. In my casual games on the east coast, everyone played ITC rules and 1850 pts most of the time- because they wanted to practice things for tournaments. In my casual games now on the west coast, same thing. Guess what FAQs they want to play by? ITC. The hobby stores I played at, guess what pts and faq they play with on games night? if you guessed 1850 and ITC you got it right son. There's things I do not like about the ITC faq, like how FMC are immune to blasts and templates, which is a rules addition and not a FAQ- I pretty much keep my harpy/crone shelved and my voidraven, not that it gets much use- never runs with the blast weapons- because my metas always see a lot of FMC, and even with skyfire I can't shoot them under ITC rules- even though according to the rulebook I can. This also led me to pretty much remove most blast weapons from my armies unless they are barrage, I have a few templates for ignores cover, but the blasts cya!

That one nitpick aside, I would rather play with the ITC rules in many cases then go straight rulebook 40k.

MVBrandt wrote:
Why is anyone even afraid of the self-interest here? If someone were to tell me that people did not vote in self-interest, I would tell them the polls were actually useless and should be thrown out.

I GENUINELY HOPE the majority voted in self-interest. The whole point here was for Reece to find out what the majority of those who cared enough to vote did or did not want to play with and against. Would you rather they vote NOT in self-interest and urge him to legalize things they don't enjoy? Is that what you're arguing - that players should play things they don't have fun playing? Why are people so opposed to a tournament basing its rulings around the desires of its customers?

.

To play devil's advocate here, I would hope that people do not vote for self interest, but for the good of the game.

For long term health of the 40k community sometimes you have to do what is right no matter what the majority thinks, otherwise you end up with the tyranny of the majority.

So if most people play space marines, and they get every bonus and cheesy combo, and xenos or anything that ends up being able to harm space marines ending up getting crippled by every vote, then that will be very bad for 40k and the tournement scene.

 Blackmoor wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Why is anyone even afraid of the self-interest here? If someone were to tell me that people did not vote in self-interest, I would tell them the polls were actually useless and should be thrown out.

I GENUINELY HOPE the majority voted in self-interest. The whole point here was for Reece to find out what the majority of those who cared enough to vote did or did not want to play with and against. Would you rather they vote NOT in self-interest and urge him to legalize things they don't enjoy? Is that what you're arguing - that players should play things they don't have fun playing? Why are people so opposed to a tournament basing its rulings around the desires of its customers?

.

To play devil's advocate here, I would hope that people do not vote for self interest, but for the good of the game.

For long term health of the 40k community sometimes you have to do what is right no matter what the majority thinks, otherwise you end up with the tyranny of the majority.

So if most people play space marines, and they get every bonus and cheesy combo, and xenos or anything that ends up being able to harm space marines ending up getting crippled by every vote, then that will be very bad for 40k and the tournement scene.

Stop making sense! This is the INTERNET!

 Blackmoor wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Why is anyone even afraid of the self-interest here? If someone were to tell me that people did not vote in self-interest, I would tell them the polls were actually useless and should be thrown out.

I GENUINELY HOPE the majority voted in self-interest. The whole point here was for Reece to find out what the majority of those who cared enough to vote did or did not want to play with and against. Would you rather they vote NOT in self-interest and urge him to legalize things they don't enjoy? Is that what you're arguing - that players should play things they don't have fun playing? Why are people so opposed to a tournament basing its rulings around the desires of its customers?

.

To play devil's advocate here, I would hope that people do not vote for self interest, but for the good of the game.

For long term health of the 40k community sometimes you have to do what is right no matter what the majority thinks, otherwise you end up with the tyranny of the majority.

So if most people play space marines, and they get every bonus and cheesy combo, and xenos or anything that ends up being able to harm space marines ending up getting crippled by every vote, then that will be very bad for 40k and the tournement scene.

Most people don't play Space Marines; the largest minority probably does, but that does not a majority make ... they are simply the largest voting bloc (and even then, that is subdivided pretty substantially, as someone who plays gladius is going to vote against super TWC deathstars). Come to think of it, the majority faction argument is broadly silly to even try to make ... because even among smaller factions like Eldar, there are people who would rather see Jetstars succeed (for example), and other Eldar players who would want it to not be a thing. Arguing that Space Marine players would always vote in favor of a powerful combo that happened to be Faction: Space Marines is pointless. It is also pointless to say that a SM player who votes against a Space Marine power build is doing so for the good of the community; unless they play that particular build, they are just as self-interested toward denouncing it as any Xenos player is. Furthermore, someone could even play a power build because they feel forced to, and would rather see it banned then feel the need to match the arms race by fielding it themselves. People voting in their best interests does NOT mean voting for the army they currently play or for their faction, in any logical carry-through. Ipso facto, if Reece put in some question that would be super detrimental to the community in the first place if it went the wrong way, it would require at least a meaningful % of non-marine players voting in favor of marines and/or against themselves in order to pass. The follow-up would be that if people always voted against any one race's "super" build component or issue, because it always was in their best interest to reduce t he potency of any risked opponent, it would have the best impact at getting rid of "bullcrud" from the game, b/c any one given faction is always outnumbered by all the others.

So I don't think we disagree, in reality, regardless of any hypotheticals. People voting for the situation they most want to play against will always be in the best interests of the game as a whole.

 Blackmoor wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Why is anyone even afraid of the self-interest here? If someone were to tell me that people did not vote in self-interest, I would tell them the polls were actually useless and should be thrown out.

I GENUINELY HOPE the majority voted in self-interest. The whole point here was for Reece to find out what the majority of those who cared enough to vote did or did not want to play with and against. Would you rather they vote NOT in self-interest and urge him to legalize things they don't enjoy? Is that what you're arguing - that players should play things they don't have fun playing? Why are people so opposed to a tournament basing its rulings around the desires of its customers?

.

To play devil's advocate here, I would hope that people do not vote for self interest, but for the good of the game.

For long term health of the 40k community sometimes you have to do what is right no matter what the majority thinks, otherwise you end up with the tyranny of the majority.

So if most people play space marines, and they get every bonus and cheesy combo, and xenos or anything that ends up being able to harm space marines ending up getting crippled by every vote, then that will be very bad for 40k and the tournement scene.

How is that not self interest? If i don't want tyranny of the majority or a very bad 40k scene then I call that self interest. just so happen my self interest and the common interest are the same.

 Blackmoor wrote:


To play devil's advocate here, I would hope that people do not vote for self interest, but for the good of the game.

For long term health of the 40k community sometimes you have to do what is right no matter what the majority thinks, otherwise you end up with the tyranny of the majority.

So if most people play space marines, and they get every bonus and cheesy combo, and xenos or anything that ends up being able to harm space marines ending up getting crippled by every vote, then that will be very bad for 40k and the tournement scene.

This. So much this.

The reality is that invisibility and rerollable +2 saves are bad for the game. They do not foster a healthy competitive scene, and they do not foster a streamlined casual scene. The only individuals who gain from such mechanics in their "pure" form are those who abuse those mechanics, which is not a long list. If there are enough people who want that type of game and shun the ITC, then they will form their own scene, and if so, godspeed to them in their task. It's not for me, but I'm ok with that.

It seems to me that many of the blog postings and podcasts that I've seen that heavily criticize ITC do so out of a desire to disparage a competing product rather than creating a superior product. ITC isn't perfect, but then it is the best fit for me that I've found, and judging by its growing popularity, I'm certainly not alone in this. If others want to create an alternative, then go for it, but until these alternatives demonstrate that they create more enjoyable play experiences for all involved in the most equitable way, then I think ITC will rule the day. Seeing as their events continue to grow, this suggests then that more and more people find it a workable and enjoyable format. The proof is in the pudding, so they say.

If anyone loses an army build, I'm sorry to hear it. I had that happen to me with other formats, and it sucks, but then I accept that I am under no obligation to play in those events. Granted, ITC is definitely the most popular here in the West Coast, so if you hate it, it is harder to avoid, but if there are truly enough like-minded individuals, then there is ample room to plan other events and offer other FAQS/formats. Best of luck with that, quite sincerely.

(Woooo! under 1,000 words!)

lemurking23 wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:


To play devil's advocate here, I would hope that people do not vote for self interest, but for the good of the game.

For long term health of the 40k community sometimes you have to do what is right no matter what the majority thinks, otherwise you end up with the tyranny of the majority.

So if most people play space marines, and they get every bonus and cheesy combo, and xenos or anything that ends up being able to harm space marines ending up getting crippled by every vote, then that will be very bad for 40k and the tournement scene.

This. So much this.

The reality is that invisibility and rerollable +2 saves are bad for the game. They do not foster a healthy competitive scene, and they do not foster a streamlined casual scene. The only individuals who gain from such mechanics in their "pure" form are those who abuse those mechanics, which is not a long list. If there are enough people who want that type of game and shun the ITC, then they will form their own scene, and if so, godspeed to them in their task. It's not for me, but I'm ok with that.

It seems to me that many of the blog postings and podcasts that I've seen that heavily criticize ITC do so out of a desire to disparage a competing product rather than creating a superior product. ITC isn't perfect, but then it is the best fit for me that I've found, and judging by its growing popularity, I'm certainly not alone in this. If others want to create an alternative, then go for it, but until these alternatives demonstrate that they create more enjoyable play experiences for all involved in the most equitable way, then I think ITC will rule the day. Seeing as their events continue to grow, this suggests then that more and more people find it a workable and enjoyable format. The proof is in the pudding, so they say.

If anyone loses an army build, I'm sorry to hear it. I had that happen to me with other formats, and it sucks, but then I accept that I am under no obligation to play in those events. Granted, ITC is definitely the most popular here in the West Coast, so if you hate it, it is harder to avoid, but if there are truly enough like-minded individuals, then there is ample room to plan other events and offer other FAQS/formats. Best of luck with that, quite sincerely.

(Woooo! under 1,000 words!)

Spikey Bits/Longwar much?

Hey guys, sorry I haven't been more involved in this conversation. Per usual, haven't had time. We need our intern back!!! Haha, can't wait till he graduates so we can hire him on full time. Anyway.

Some great ideas and commentary brought up here. Jy2, Lemurking, Akar, and everyone else, thanks for sharing such thoughtful feedback, very much appreciated.

Some of this we go over every time, but that's OK, I will repost our POV.

We do not "pick on" things or armies. We don't. You can see it that way, which is fine, but we simply do not. We do at times target specific things that are not conducive to organized play in our opinions, when backed by community support. Sometimes that impacts specific armies more than others, or pertains only to one faction, but the notion that we do so because we dislike a certain faction or something is beyond silly.

For one, we sell these models as our livelihood, lol. I want every model in the range to sell very well. When we make the choice to consider not allowing something that could impact our bottom line, we literally consider taking money out of our own pockets to do so. We consider this route ONLY when we feel strongly that it is for the better in the larger picture.

For two, we want people to participate and come to events. To be biased against people that play these armies would run counter to that and hurt our business and make out events less fun and exciting.

For three, we want variety at events. To pick on an army eliminates variety.

For all three of the above reasons and countless more, we'd have to be inexcusably stupid to try and intentionally undermine a faction because we don't like it. We'd not be in business if we operated that way and no one would give a fart about the ITC.

Another point: we don't strictly pick the topics to be voted on. They come about as a result of player feedback. This current bugaboo with super friends space marines didn't happen BECAUSE of NOVA Open, it may have been influenced by it, but to say X caused Y is being very myopic.

When a large number of people bring up a topic (from all over the world at this point), it's not because of something one person did. It represents a trend in the feelings of the community that something is inherently unfair or not what a rule should mean. Time after time, we see ITC community members voting with what they think a rule means, not what it always says.

Lastly, saying folks vote strictly in their own favor is just flat out wrong. We have the data to prove this.

Follow my very simple logic here.

You believe ITC members vote in their own self-interest.
Premise: ITC Voters vote in their own self-interest to make their own faction stronger or by making opposing factions weaker when give the opportunity.
No faction has a majority of players in the ITC (over 51% of players).
In order to pass a vote, you need a majority vote (51% off votes in favor).
Hypothetical conclusion: Therefore, anytime a vote to increase a faction in power is proposed, it will fail.

Reality: Almost every vote to increase a faction in power has PASSED. Every time one of these votes passes, it further debunks the above argument as it shows a majority of players not only vote to help their fellow factions if they feel it is the right thing to do, but repeatedly vote to help their neighbor factions.
Therefore, the ONLY conclusion you can draw is that ITC voters in fact do not always vote in their own self interest and that further, do not even do so frequently.

You cannot fault that logic. That is why I say, emphatically, that ITC voters do not vote to screw their neighbor. This is FACTUAL, not just my opinion.

Do some people vote to boost their faction and hurt other factions every time? Yes, probably a small percentage.

Do some people vote to boost their faction and hurt other factions some of the time? Yup, probably a larger group than the last.

Do most of the people vote with what they think is right, regardless of their own faction? Yes, clearly this is the largest group for the reasons listed above, backed by the data we have.

You can interpret the data however you choose, but the inference that is probably closest to accurate is that when something gets voted to be nerfed, it is because of the very simple reason that a majority of players think the game is better off with the rule in question toned down. Not because they don't like the faction(s) associated with it, the people that play the faction or whatever. They quite simply enjoy the game more, with certain things altered a bit. When they think something should be better to boost up the guy or girl next to them, they vote that way.

What I take away from this experience with community driven policy for the ITC is very positive and uplifting. Despite the vocal minority of folks online that can be ultra negative about certain things, the reality is that we are luck to be a part of a largely benevolent community that regulates themselves towards what they perceive to be a ruleset that provides a fun and fair play experience for as many people as possible.

Oh, and on a final note, for those folks saying; "Why isn't topic X,Y,Z on the poll?" that is because no one brought it up through our feedback questionnaire...including you! Haha, be sure to use the channels we provide to offer feedback, please, otherwise we can't tell if a topic is pertinent or not. Much like I tell my GF often, I can't read minds, you all have to talk to us for us to know what is important to you

 Reecius wrote:
Follow my very simple logic here.

You believe ITC members vote in their own self-interest.
Premise: ITC Voters vote in their own self-interest to make their own faction stronger or by making opposing factions weaker when give the opportunity.
No faction has a majority of players in the ITC (over 51% of players).
In order to pass a vote, you need a majority vote (51% off votes in favor).
Hypothetical conclusion: Therefore, anytime a vote to increase a faction in power is proposed, it will fail.

Reality: Almost every vote to increase a faction in power has PASSED. Every time one of these votes passes, it further debunks the above argument as it shows a majority of players not only vote to help their fellow factions if they feel it is the right thing to do, but repeatedly vote to help their neighbor factions.
Therefore, the ONLY conclusion you can draw is that ITC voters in fact do not always vote in their own self interest and that further, do not even do so frequently.

I think that might be characterizing it a bit too black and white - there is some input to support the conclusion (votes to buff a faction often pass) but I think the full conclusion being drawn from it is too broad.

Personally speaking, I would vote to buff a faction if I thought it was underpowered, or was a mechanic that needed fixing, etc. And similarly speaking the opposite, if something was overpowered or out of whack, and needed nerfing, I would vote to do so.

But just because I vote that way does not mean I'm not voting in my self interest... I'm partially willing to buff a faction or unit because it's already weak / isn't a threat. And if something is a threat, by human nature I'm likely to want it toned down!

Might also be a case of just seeing things in a different way - the way you are thinking of "self interest", I think isn't the same way MVBrandt was using the same term last page. Part of my self interest is having a good time... which means I might want to up the power curve of an underpowered faction or unit (I might play it someday, as well!) and lower the power curve of a monster one... so it might just be the way the terms are being used. Either way, appreciate the thorough writeup

The thing with chapter tactic stacking and super friends seems to come out of left field or is a direct results of NOVA. I cannot remember the last GT they won nor anyone ever claiming on the Internet that it is over the top. The lack of SHW and GMC gave it a huge boost as these are its natural counters.

@RiTides

I actually did specify what I defined self-Interest as

All good, though. Like I said, interpret it how you will, and I'd be full of it if I said I understood what each individual's motivation was for how they voted. But in general terms we see a movement towards benevolence. People tend to vote against their own self-interest (as defined here) time after time. I think that is cool, and something to be applauded.

@Dozer

You probably feel that way due to your perspective as someone that is primarily a tournament gamer. The results of a big tournament like NOVA are on your mind. You look at those results, you see this poll question, "connect the dots" as they appear to you and then jump to a conclusion. It happens all of the time. I can't tell you how many times I have been accused of "hating" a specific faction because that is obviously the only possible reason we would do X,Y,Z when in reality that person is having an emotional reaction to something they do not like and then projecting reasons onto us that have no basis in reality. We don't get mad, because we've seen it multiple times now, but the reality is that a sample group of people in the ITC are influenced by an infinite number of factors: their local meta, personal experience with the game, time of day, what they ate for breakfast, what they read on the internet, if they got in a fight with their GF that day, etc. Rarely does one thing have that big of an impact. You perceive it that way because it is a big deal to you, but I assure you that a large percentage of the folks voting couldn't even tell you what faction won the NOVA open, or the LVO. That is no put down, just the truth, everyone voting has their own ideas about what is important in 40k or not, how the game should be played, etc. All we can do really, is look at overall trends, and move with it. Guessing as to the motivations of all those people will be nothing more than a guess.

Reecius = Abaddon
ITC = 13th Black Crusade

Truly dark times are upon us all!

 Reecius wrote:


@Dozer

You probably feel that way due to your perspective as someone that is primarily a tournament gamer. The results of a big tournament like NOVA are on your mind. You look at those results, you see this poll question, "connect the dots" as they appear to you and then jump to a conclusion. It happens all of the time. I can't tell you how many times I have been accused of "hating" a specific faction because that is obviously the only possible reason we would do X,Y,Z when in reality that person is having an emotional reaction to something they do not like and then projecting reasons onto us that have no basis in reality. We don't get mad, because we've seen it multiple times now, but the reality is that a sample group of people in the ITC are influenced by an infinite number of factors: their local meta, personal experience with the game, time of day, what they ate for breakfast, what they read on the internet, if they got in a fight with their GF that day, etc. Rarely does one thing have that big of an impact. You perceive it that way because it is a big deal to you, but I assure you that a large percentage of the folks voting couldn't even tell you what faction won the NOVA open, or the LVO. That is no put down, just the truth, everyone voting has their own ideas about what is important in 40k or not, how the game should be played, etc. All we can do really, is look at overall trends, and move with it. Guessing as to the motivations of all those people will be nothing more than a guess.

This is your way of telling me what you will take away from me and why I should be okay with it...

 RiTides wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
Follow my very simple logic here.

You believe ITC members vote in their own self-interest.
Premise: ITC Voters vote in their own self-interest to make their own faction stronger or by making opposing factions weaker when give the opportunity.
No faction has a majority of players in the ITC (over 51% of players).
In order to pass a vote, you need a majority vote (51% off votes in favor).
Hypothetical conclusion: Therefore, anytime a vote to increase a faction in power is proposed, it will fail.

Reality: Almost every vote to increase a faction in power has PASSED. Every time one of these votes passes, it further debunks the above argument as it shows a majority of players not only vote to help their fellow factions if they feel it is the right thing to do, but repeatedly vote to help their neighbor factions.
Therefore, the ONLY conclusion you can draw is that ITC voters in fact do not always vote in their own self interest and that further, do not even do so frequently.

I think that might be characterizing it a bit too black and white - there is some input to support the conclusion (votes to buff a faction often pass) but I think the full conclusion being drawn from it is too broad.

Personally speaking, I would vote to buff a faction if I thought it was underpowered, or was a mechanic that needed fixing, etc. And similarly speaking the opposite, if something was overpowered or out of whack, and needed nerfing, I would vote to do so.

But just because I vote that way does not mean I'm not voting in my self interest... I'm partially willing to buff a faction or unit because it's already weak / isn't a threat. And if something is a threat, by human nature I'm likely to want it toned down!

Might also be a case of just seeing things in a different way - the way you are thinking of "self interest", I think isn't the same way MVBrandt was using the same term last page. Part of my self interest is having a good time... which means I might want to up the power curve of an underpowered faction or unit (I might play it someday, as well!) and lower the power curve of a monster one... so it might just be the way the terms are being used. Either way, appreciate the thorough writeup

Even if what you describe are people's motivation which I don't believe this is hardly an issue because what you just stated means the majority of people vote to balance the game and to have fun playing a variety of armies which is the point of the itc.

If everyone voted to buff underpowered units and nerf overpowered units the itc would be the most balanced ruleset ever. However I don't believe you are right nor do I think Reece is correct.? the truth is people vote for many reasons some self interest, some for balance, some how the believe the game should be played, some because they are sadomasochistic RAW rule lovers, some how they think rules should be played (rai). In the end it sorta evens out to a balanced ruleset.

Personally I believe a lot of people vote on how they believe it is fun to play with an influence on what's balanced. I believe this because many people who vote in the itc tend to have a negative opinion on GC and Superheavies and want to limit thier exposure to the game yet they sympathize with other players and don't want to completely neuter them. I say this as most feedback and questions seems to center on these units and how they interact to the game in some way. But beyond a handful of GC/SH most of them are not worth the point cost.

I personally try to vote less restrictive however I wish I could change my vote since I voted not to allow the experimental but I don't really think it's bad. Hopefully it passes regardless. I think when I voted I had flashbacks of playing the r'varna when it was first released and how utterly broken it was before they amended it.

Fair points, gungo! This last one seems to be a bit of an oxymoron, though - Do you mean, it isn't that bad now (since you mention facing something you considered "utterly broken" before!)

gungo wrote:
I personally try to vote less restrictive however I wish I could change my vote since I voted not to allow the experimental but I don't really think it's bad. Hopefully it passes regardless. I think when I voted I had flashbacks of playing the r'varna when it was first released and how utterly broken it was before they amended it.

I believe I voted against Experimental... just the name seems pretty clear. I can't think of anytime I'd expect to use something called that in an official (non-testing) capacity.

I'm glad FW acceptance has gotten so broad (Malanthrope definitely helps out my nids!) but if you were going to draw the line anywhere, it seems like their marking rules Experimental would be it!

FW can really juice up a game...

I think the question for the experimental rules should have been:

"Allow experimental rules that are 6 months or older" instead of just allow experimental rules. Forgeworld tends to make the changes they are going to make in that time or it's in print. But since it was just Experimental rules I said no.

That'd be a nice compromise Hulk (maybe something to consider if the vote is close?). If something keeps that label for a half year, it's probably just waiting for the book to be published...

Poll results in the first post!

@Whitedragon

Can I be Solar Macharius instead?

@Gungo

Yeah, everyone votes for their own reasons, but the results are pretty telling. It tends towards altruism.

Very close call on that first one - honestly not sure which way I voted (I had intended to vote to limit super friends! But not sure if I got it right in the end since I'm not a marine player). I think it might not have been worded quite as clearly as the others.

Thank you very much for posting the results Reecius!

While I am somewhat disappointed in the results, I am glad that the ITC did this in a semi-democratic nature.

While I am disappointed that the chapter tactics were not changed to be more consistent, I don't think this will make Super Friends/Thunderdome broken in the ITC format. ITC nerfs the biggest things that make Thunderdome powerful, namely 2+ re-rollable and Invisibility.

I was hoping that the ITC would be more cautions about the Stormsurge in units of three, as the Tau codex has yet to be released. But from what we have seen so far, the unit's rules are balanced. For its cost I don't think that allowing three would be too overpowered.

I am glad that the ITC has allowed more Forge World into the game. Certain factions depend on it, and this will also encourage more variety in list-building. I am glad that the ITC has always been open to Forge World, and this only continues that trend.

While not everything went as I voted, I don't think that these changes are for the worse. If problems come up, they can be sorted out in the next round of voting at year's end.

Heh, every way I voted went the other way. I must be out of touch.

I'm sure this has been addressed but why in the Emperor's name is Buzzgobs stompa +830 rather than +300. 3 stormsurges. 3 imperial knights and stompas are still overpriced by 430 points.

Buzzgob stompa = 830 points

While:

2x Wraithknights = 790

Or

Wraithknight + 5 Scatter Bike Squads = 800 points

Or

2x Imperial Paladins = 750

Is the Stompa this powerful? Please Reece, Frankie or other (royal overlords)... give us buzzgob for +300. Please

Can we make it so immobalized drop pods cannot control or contest objectives. Its sickening watching 11 marine drip pods land near objectives with 2 5 man squads and say"OK now blow 30 objective secured units off the board or you lose."

Let's start a Wish List of things that will never happen here....

 jy2 wrote:
Let's start a Wish List of things that will never happen here....

I lol'd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orock wrote:
Can we make it so immobalized drop pods cannot control or contest objectives. Its sickening watching 11 marine drip pods land near objectives with 2 5 man squads and say"OK now blow 30 objective secured units off the board or you lose."

Oh, and then we can make it so all dedicated transports aren't obsec any more because I don't want to have to blow up all those rhinos/razorbacks.

Or we can just make the minimum number of changes necessary to make things fun and go with that. You'll note the poll results were about ADDING things to the game in two cases and only one that would remove something (and it was voted down).

I am excited that experimental rules are in! I took a Kytan to a tourney last month and felt like a jackass when someone told me it wasn't ITC legal.

et al:

At the Sacramento Know No Mercy GT, thats the way it was. 40k book rules. Buzzgob and his stompa was 400pts RAW (as it is in battle-scribe as well). No limit on LoW. Normal invis. 2++ rerollable. I thought it was awesome.

And if there is one friggin faction that needs an ITC RAW buff its the boyz. So yeah give em 3 stormsuurges 3 riptides in every slot but hamstring orks. Friggin racists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Find his FAQ here:
http://tinyurl.com/KNMGT-FAQ

Buzzgrob is not hamstring at all it's a badly worded entry and even forgeworld has clarified several times you need to pay for the big Mek Stompa as well.

Stompas are just overpriced even taking a kustom stompa and its reduced price it's still overpriced. The Ork codex is due for an upgrade soon as well as IA8. I can only presume IA8 is waiting for the Ork codex release before its reissue. And with a 12 book Orc miniseries due next year I expect next year to be the year of the Ork in 30/40k.

 doktor_g wrote:
And if there is one friggin faction that needs an ITC RAW buff its the boyz. So yeah give em 3 stormsuurges 3 riptides in every slot but hamstring orks. Friggin racists.

Lol wut?

Someone needs to take a step back.

I'm glad superfriends are here to stay, and that GW will sell 3x more Stormsurge kits in America than they otherwise would have.

I would've actually preferred not to have experimental rules allowed, since it adds a whole new list-checking hurdle for TO's where you have to make sure that the guy bringing the new hotness has the actual model AND the rules pdf AND the correct up to date version of the rules pdf. Lists aren't very thoroughly checked even at major GTs these days anyways (ain't nobody got time fo' dat!) and allowing experimental FW not found in a book puts additional onus on the players and TO's to do their due diligence in prepping for an event. Still, the new chaos knights are cool and I'll be glad to see them on the tabletop finally. I guess I've learned an important lesson: never underestimate the number of Tau players with an axe to grind.

At the storm surges current price point without additional upgrades and the fact all the fw large robots will also be available I doubt we will see many 3x Stormsurge lists.

Right now the current crop of experimental seem ok however another r'varna can pop up, but I guess we will deal wth that if it happens just like the wraithknights. The good thing is forgeworld is still 0-1 unique units in most cases.

gungo wrote:
Right now the current crop of experimental seem ok however another r'varna can pop up, but I guess we will deal wth that if it happens just like the wraithknights. The good thing is forgeworld is still 0-1 unique units in most cases.

The R'Varna is my biggest specific concern, simply because it's had multiple iterations of experimental rules and there's often nothing but the honor system stopping people from using the initial version with AP3 out the wazoo. Someone even got the okay to run it at BSB this year which is just

@pretre. Thems jokes baby. Xenos... racists.... get it?

 Loch wrote:
I'm glad superfriends are here to stay, and that GW will sell 3x more Stormsurge kits in America than they otherwise would have.

LOL. I so agree Though I dunno how good 3x Stormsurge will actually be (I suspect it's just too expensive for 1850 games), it's makes it a good excuse to buy 3 of them!

 Loch wrote:
I would've actually preferred not to have experimental rules allowed, since it adds a whole new list-checking hurdle for TO's where you have to make sure that the guy bringing the new hotness has the actual model AND the rules pdf AND the correct up to date version of the rules pdf. Lists aren't very thoroughly checked even at major GTs these days anyways (ain't nobody got time fo' dat!) and allowing experimental FW not found in a book puts additional onus on the players and TO's to do their due diligence in prepping for an event. Still, the new chaos knights are cool and I'll be glad to see them on the tabletop finally. I guess I've learned an important lesson: never underestimate the number of Tau players with an axe to grind.

Most of the experimental rules models aren't all that game-breakingly awesome, so I don't mind -- especially since some seem to have been stuck in the experimental stage forever. In our group, we play with all the experimental rules, though there's only really one guy that fields more than the occasional unit here and there.

So, you can still field 2 CADs with 6 Flyrants?

 Johnnytorrance wrote:
So, you can still field 2 CADs with 6 Flyrants?

Duplicate formations/detachments allow six Flyrants. Considering it's the only unit keeping Tyranids at top tables, I personally don't have a problem with this.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Johnnytorrance wrote:
So, you can still field 2 CADs with 6 Flyrants?

Duplicate formations/detachments allow six Flyrants. Considering it's the only unit keeping Tyranids at top tables, I personally don't have a problem with this.

+1

Basically the best build the Nids have and nothing terribly broken. In Nova missions they basically have to pick end-game mission choices because the need to land to score. Im not sure how they will perform in ITC missions with Maelstrom style missions. If they need to land then they become vulnerable.

zedsdead wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Johnnytorrance wrote:
So, you can still field 2 CADs with 6 Flyrants?

Duplicate formations/detachments allow six Flyrants. Considering it's the only unit keeping Tyranids at top tables, I personally don't have a problem with this.

+1

Basically the best build the Nids have and nothing terribly broken. In Nova missions they basically have to pick end-game mission choices because the need to land to score. Im not sure how they will perform in ITC missions with Maelstrom style missions. If they need to land then they become vulnerable.

As in the core rulebook, FMCs must Glide in order to claim objectives in ITC-format missions. However, it should be noted that in ITC missions, Maelstrom objectives are scored at the end of the game turn, not player turn.

Forget super friends, alpha striking ITC approved Grimoire'd Chaos Knight here I come!

 The Internet is for Khorn wrote:
Forget super friends, alpha striking ITC approved Grimoire'd Chaos Knight here I come!

Can we say....Banishment?

invisible alpha striking ITC approved Grimoire'd Chaos Knight here I come !!!