https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/11/29/3rd-quarter-mid-season-itc-update-poll-results/#comments

Well I got to say I am pretty disappointed with the results, but it is what it is. What is the dakka's community thoughts in regard with the results?

I'm a fan of all of this.

Tau doesn't need co-ordinated to be super powerful to be effective, so really they don't miss out on anything. And Orks get to bring a super cheap stompa, which makes it about as good as the current LoW Super-Heavies and GCs. All-in-all, this is a great ruling and should help to fix the problems we've seen with the game as so far.

The Stompa thing is somewhat odd, as that was an issue FW addressed on their facebook page back when they had one, and it was never supposed to be the cheap buy that it was printed as, it was just one of those things that got missed in editing.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Stompa thing is somewhat odd, as that was an issue FW addressed on their facebook page back when they had one, and it was never supposed to be the cheap buy that it was printed as, it was just one of those things that got missed in editing.

At the time this might have been true, but as time goes on we generally see a point reduction in codices, whether direct reductions or potential reductions like Fire Warriors being 5 man instead of 6 base, meaning you can invest less points in mandatory troops if you so desired. It's just one of those things that was ahead of its time, back then it was wrong, but now it's actually not that bad since things have changed.

When that came out, how prominent were formations and detachments anyway? Wasn't it only recently Decurion style formations took off in how powerful they were?

Not what I voted for, but after seeing the Dawnblade Contingent's benefits and how it measured up compared to how powerful I interpreted the Hunter Contingent's benefits to be, I can appreciate people's discomfort towards it.

Definitely boots that detachment out of the running for me, though. I'll be keen to hear how Tau do in the tourney scene with the more conservative ruling.

I'm more annoyed with the Tank Shock ruling, honestly.

Really close voting, but in the end Tau got rightfully nerfed. Orks even got a bone thrown to them. Now they have a decently costed superheavy.

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Stompa thing is somewhat odd, as that was an issue FW addressed on their facebook page back when they had one, and it was never supposed to be the cheap buy that it was printed as, it was just one of those things that got missed in editing.

At the time this might have been true, but as time goes on we generally see a point reduction in codices, whether direct reductions or potential reductions like Fire Warriors being 5 man instead of 6 base, meaning you can invest less points in mandatory troops if you so desired. It's just one of those things that was ahead of its time, back then it was wrong, but now it's actually not that bad since things have changed.

When that came out, how prominent were formations and detachments anyway? Wasn't it only recently Decurion style formations took off in how powerful they were?

I'd still think a 12HP Superheavy for just a hair over a Knight is far too cheap, but it actually was a 5E book (looong before formations & detachments were ever a thing, and years before the current Ork codex). It's pretty clearly a typo, and FW addressed it as such in the past.

I really don't like taking advantage of typos and editing errors to address game balance, that feels very...wrong.

Gotta say, I'm a little disappointed by this round of voting.

The Tank Shock thing I agree with, the other way would just make Tank Shocking way too powerful, and honestly would probably force any army playing a mech list (Guard, SM, etc.) to basically just go cruising speed and flat out the entire time to try and Crunch! as many models a possible before getting stopped. Would've turned tanks into battering rams that maybe shoot guns worse than Orks at times, rather than versatile vehicles that occasionally run people over.

Coordinated Firepower. I understand why people don't like it. I do. But not liking something is not a justifiable reason for nerfing it. CF was strong, but limited. It required 3+ units all shooting at one target to make the most of it. With special rules being shared, it meant that, usually every single Tau unit in range of the target was shooting at it. While that unit was most likely dead, the rest of your army would be able to move around the board and claim objectives uncontested. I'll be honest, I don't believe this vote was due to Tau hate. I think it was due to people being afraid of the meta shifting. The ITC meta currently heavily favors death starts, which CF is pretty clearly designed to hard counter. With CF allowing special rule sharing, the meta was going to swing away from death stars, as Tau would be able to crush them in a turn or two. And people were afraid of that, and didn't want to have to adapt to a new meta and create new lists. So instead of adapting, they voted to nerf the thing that would change the meta. (That is my read on the situation, just opinion, not fact. Feel free to disagree with me).

Not allowing CF benefits to be shared along TLs is the right call. That certainly would push CF into OP territory. Good call was made here.

This one is a bit trickier, but again I feel the right call was made. Darkstrider, much like Sky Rays (in terms of how many you can access), were left out of the Hunter Contingent for a reason; with CF they simply would become auto-take.

And finally, Orks. As much as I want to be happy for you guys getting an affordable SHV, I'm seeing people say that it is clearly a typo and has been ruled as such by FW in the past. If that's the case, that's BS. It's one thing to agree to use the lowered point cost of a unit when you have conflicting points values. It's another thing entirely to take advantage of a typo for your own benefit. That feels very close to cheating to me. I'm glad Orks got a buff, I am. But there has to be a better way of doing it without using typos and editing errors.

Overall, little disappointed. Part of it is certainly me being kinda salty that after several armies get rather powerful bonuses to their "thing" they're known for (Necrons and their survivability, Eldar and their speed, Khorne and their need to see things die, Space Marines and their METAL BAWKSES) Tau get hit with the nerf bat when their "thing" (working together to maximize the effect of their shooting) gets a boost. But the other part of me is sad because this just doesn't seem right from a game balancing standpoint. This was a kneejerk reaction vote, I mean there haven't been any major tournaments since Tau dropped, right? Without seeing how Tau perform in a major GT, how can we really know how powerful they are? Things on paper are always under- and over-estimated by the community, we can't know how good something is until it makes a debut at a GT. In addition, I am afraid of the precedent this might set. I don't wanna see armies get new toys and rules just to see them nerfed because they're new and people haven't figured them out yet. I truly do think this was due to people not wanting to see the meta shift and voting accordingly. I do believe this was a mistake, but I am open to being proven wrong. If, when the next big tournament comes around, Tau dominate the top 5/top 10 spots, I will change my opinion on the matter accordingly. I just wish that this vote had waited until a tournament proved that that would be the case with CF+special rules.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Stompa thing is somewhat odd, as that was an issue FW addressed on their facebook page back when they had one, and it was never supposed to be the cheap buy that it was printed as, it was just one of those things that got missed in editing.

This. That Stompa ruling is just plain stupid. Why is ITC turning a blatant typo, especially a typo that was acknowledged by FW as one, into an official rule? This really takes away a lot of respect I might have had for ITC.

Super happy with the tau nerfs n ork buffs

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Stompa thing is somewhat odd, as that was an issue FW addressed on their facebook page back when they had one, and it was never supposed to be the cheap buy that it was printed as, it was just one of those things that got missed in editing.

At the time this might have been true, but as time goes on we generally see a point reduction in codices, whether direct reductions or potential reductions like Fire Warriors being 5 man instead of 6 base, meaning you can invest less points in mandatory troops if you so desired. It's just one of those things that was ahead of its time, back then it was wrong, but now it's actually not that bad since things have changed.

When that came out, how prominent were formations and detachments anyway? Wasn't it only recently Decurion style formations took off in how powerful they were?

I'd still think a 12HP Superheavy for just a hair over a Knight is far too cheap, but it actually was a 5E book (looong before formations & detachments were ever a thing, and years before the current Ork codex). It's pretty clearly a typo, and FW addressed it as such in the past.

I really don't like taking advantage of typos and editing errors to address game balance, that feels very...wrong.

The thing is the rule for the Buzzgob's Big Mek Stompa is in the Dread Mob PDF file for 6th edition. If it was a typo in the update for 6th then why didn't they just edit the PDF file with the correct price. Its not like the PDF was a published book release. I haven't seen the 5th edition book to know whats printed there but it seems odd that if it was a misprint that they didn't fix it in the update PDF.

Although I'm not, necessarily, opposed to the rulings, some of them do strike me as less "this is badly worded or unclear, and we need conformation" and much more "I want to nerf X".

It's scary how close we were to having killer rhinos.

I hope the ork specific buff sets some precedent of trying to boost other weak armies like pure dark eldar and blood angels while not buffing their allies.

 Vankraken wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Stompa thing is somewhat odd, as that was an issue FW addressed on their facebook page back when they had one, and it was never supposed to be the cheap buy that it was printed as, it was just one of those things that got missed in editing.

At the time this might have been true, but as time goes on we generally see a point reduction in codices, whether direct reductions or potential reductions like Fire Warriors being 5 man instead of 6 base, meaning you can invest less points in mandatory troops if you so desired. It's just one of those things that was ahead of its time, back then it was wrong, but now it's actually not that bad since things have changed.

When that came out, how prominent were formations and detachments anyway? Wasn't it only recently Decurion style formations took off in how powerful they were?

I'd still think a 12HP Superheavy for just a hair over a Knight is far too cheap, but it actually was a 5E book (looong before formations & detachments were ever a thing, and years before the current Ork codex). It's pretty clearly a typo, and FW addressed it as such in the past.

I really don't like taking advantage of typos and editing errors to address game balance, that feels very...wrong.

The thing is the rule for the Buzzgob's Big Mek Stompa is in the Dread Mob PDF file for 6th edition. If it was a typo in the update for 6th then why didn't they just edit the PDF file with the correct price. Its not like the PDF was a published book release. I haven't seen the 5th edition book to know whats printed there but it seems odd that if it was a misprint that they didn't fix it in the update PDF.

Right, thanks for reminding me, that's where the error is. In the original book, it wasn't an option to just swap him like that, it just gave a custom-build Stompa option for Apocalypse games, it was the PDF that introduced that option in question, which was where they swapped away to just using the Apocalypse Big-Mek Stompa instead and borked the cost in their PDF and never fixed it...because ...who knows why, GW in general just does not correct errors or do any sort of Errata at all anymore. Same reason we have Rapier Laser Destroyers that have different AP values depending on which book you're reading (some have AP1, some have AP2...)

That said, the rules in the PDF also state that the option is for "In games of Warhammer 40,000: Apocalypse, or other large scale battles", not just any nilly-willy game.

 Vankraken wrote:
The thing is the rule for the Buzzgob's Big Mek Stompa is in the Dread Mob PDF file for 6th edition. If it was a typo in the update for 6th then why didn't they just edit the PDF file with the correct price. Its not like the PDF was a published book release.

Because GW/FW sucks at updates, and this happened around the time that FW shut down their facebook page, stopped interacting with the community outside of formal events, and stopped publishing FAQs.

I haven't seen the 5th edition book to know whats printed there but it seems odd that if it was a misprint that they didn't fix it in the update PDF.

It worked differently in the book. You got a custom Stompa that started cheap but didn't have any guns yet, and buying upgrades to make it a relevant unit brought its price up to the normal level. The typo happened in the update pdf where someone got confused about exactly which unit the rule was supposed to give him, and ended up with the point cost of the "no guns yet" Stompa but the rules of the similarly-named Stompa in the Escalation book which has all of its weapons already.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Super happy with the tau nerfs n ork buffs

Can't wait to nerf your armies next time a vote comes up! Seeing as by your own accord you voted to nerf Tau simply because you do not like them.

That's a lot of armies to nerf so good luck.

Zero playtesting.

Every nerf for tau got passed lol. I always wondered what the itc was , but after reading reecuis butcher the rules on CFP in the editorial for BOLS , totally not surprised, glad i never used the ITC rules to begin with

Oh dear god that Tau nerf makes no sense. Like i play csm and I don't even use death stars but the Hunter Contingent Dosent even bother me. To Nerf Tau like that is wrong imho. It sounds like ITC wants unkillable Death Stars ran in its tournament

I think if we're relying on a single new, relatively absurdly overcapable ability to put the chops to a single aspect of the metagame, you're just creating one problem to (poorly) solve another.

The ITC has the tools and means to put a stop to deathstars if they really want to, relying on a single special rule from one army to do it is probably a poor choice, so I don't think there's anything wrong with the way they went from that aspect at least.

The ITC also makes stupid rulings ie allowing the vindicator squadrons yet not allowing the Typhon

They also make necessary nerfs, changing things to how gw should of made them. ie: tau

GI_Redshirt wrote:Gotta say, I'm a little disappointed by this round of voting.

The Tank Shock thing I agree with, the other way would just make Tank Shocking way too powerful, and honestly would probably force any army playing a mech list (Guard, SM, etc.) to basically just go cruising speed and flat out the entire time to try and Crunch! as many models a possible before getting stopped. Would've turned tanks into battering rams that maybe shoot guns worse than Orks at times, rather than versatile vehicles that occasionally run people over.

I agree; the last thing we needed was to turn 40k into the tabletop version of Carmageddon. Tank shock is powerful enough as is with the prevalence of Gladius, due to the ability to force models to be removed as casualties. IF you want to make Tank Shock better, give armies more vehicles that are cheap enough to reliably perform it.

Coordinated Firepower. I understand why people don't like it. I do. But not liking something is not a justifiable reason for nerfing it. CF was strong, but limited. It required 3+ units all shooting at one target to make the most of it. With special rules being shared, it meant that, usually every single Tau unit in range of the target was shooting at it. While that unit was most likely dead, the rest of your army would be able to move around the board and claim objectives uncontested.

There was nothing "limited" about being able to have a massive chunk of your army, including the standout units of that faction, fire at one target with +1 BS, Ignores Cover, re-rolls to hit, and Tank Hunter/Monster Hunter. If you have enough Crisis Suits and Riptides, that level of firepower will obliterate any unit in the game, especially though the ITC nerfs to Invisibility and 2+ re-rollable. If your opponent did not present you with a suitable unit, you could just use Multitrackers and Target Locks to split the shooting around.

Tau have lacked a definitive anti-deathstar option for a while. Coordinated Firepower sharing special rules was just overkill. The way the ITC will play it, it will still be powerful, but not a guaranteed kill.

I'll be honest, I don't believe this vote was due to Tau hate. I think it was due to people being afraid of the meta shifting. The ITC meta currently heavily favors death starts, which CF is pretty clearly designed to hard counter. With CF allowing special rule sharing, the meta was going to swing away from death stars, as Tau would be able to crush them in a turn or two. And people were afraid of that, and didn't want to have to adapt to a new meta and create new lists. So instead of adapting, they voted to nerf the thing that would change the meta. (That is my read on the situation, just opinion, not fact. Feel free to disagree with me).

If anything, the ITC is heavily favored against deathstars and toward MSU thanks to their mission design. Reecius has gone on record as saying that he thinks deathstars are bad for the game.

Again, Coordinated Fire is not something the Tau player would use every turn; they can just conduct their normal shooting to counter MSU. Even without sharing special rules, +1 BS and Ignores Cover from the right units will still be able to put a dent in a deathstar. In terms of power, it's gone from a Multi-Megaton Thermonuclear Bomb, capable of wiping out anything, to a tactical nuke, capable of killing the hardest targets while not being an instant means of tabling your opponent.

Not allowing CF benefits to be shared along TLs is the right call. That certainly would push CF into OP territory. Good call was made here.

This one is a bit trickier, but again I feel the right call was made. Darkstrider, much like Sky Rays (in terms of how many you can access), were left out of the Hunter Contingent for a reason; with CF they simply would become auto-take.

And finally, Orks. As much as I want to be happy for you guys getting an affordable SHV, I'm seeing people say that it is clearly a typo and has been ruled as such by FW in the past. If that's the case, that's BS. It's one thing to agree to use the lowered point cost of a unit when you have conflicting points values. It's another thing entirely to take advantage of a typo for your own benefit. That feels very close to cheating to me. I'm glad Orks got a buff, I am. But there has to be a better way of doing it without using typos and editing errors.

Again, the ITC will always act to protect the interests of the MSU playstyle. Giving people the ability to split fire from an anti-deathstar weapon onto anything in the game would be absolutely broken.

I definitely agree on Darstrider. -1 Toughness in a Hunter Contingent would have made Coordinated Fire even more ridiculous.

When an army is as bottom-tier as Orks currently are, they need all the help they can get. The only really obnoxious thing about a Stompa is the ability to make it repair itself, and even that cna be countered. Orks will now at least get one decent superheavy on the field.
Overall, little disappointed. Part of it is certainly me being kinda salty that after several armies get rather powerful bonuses to their "thing" they're known for (Necrons and their survivability, Eldar and their speed, Khorne and their need to see things die, Space Marines and their METAL BAWKSES) Tau get hit with the nerf bat when their "thing" (working together to maximize the effect of their shooting) gets a boost. But the other part of me is sad because this just doesn't seem right from a game balancing standpoint. This was a kneejerk reaction vote, I mean there haven't been any major tournaments since Tau dropped, right? Without seeing how Tau perform in a major GT, how can we really know how powerful they are? Things on paper are always under- and over-estimated by the community, we can't know how good something is until it makes a debut at a GT. In addition, I am afraid of the precedent this might set. I don't wanna see armies get new toys and rules just to see them nerfed because they're new and people haven't figured them out yet. I truly do think this was due to people not wanting to see the meta shift and voting accordingly. I do believe this was a mistake, but I am open to being proven wrong. If, when the next big tournament comes around, Tau dominate the top 5/top 10 spots, I will change my opinion on the matter accordingly. I just wish that this vote had waited until a tournament proved that that would be the case with CF+special rules.

Well looks like the cowards won. Time to vote on eldar, necron decursions, and gladius strike force. After all they are "no fun".

This is some serious bs.

 Orock wrote:
Well looks like the cowards won. Time to vote on eldar, necron decursions, and gladius strike force. After all they are "no fun".

This is some serious bs.

To be fair, I'd be in favor of getting rid of those in a heartbeat.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Well looks like the cowards won. Time to vote on eldar, necron decursions, and gladius strike force. After all they are "no fun".

This is some serious bs.

To be fair, I'd be in favor of getting rid of those in a heartbeat.

we should
they dont belong in the games current power level.

remove necron decursion entirely, add 100 points to wraithknight costs, 1 in 3 scatter bikers, and remove the gladius bonuses from marines. Simple, and you dont have to buff other armies to match them. and if someone says thats dumb the rules are clear cut, now we have an example of targeted nerfs, so thats fine.

What's most annoying is how this keeps being referred to as "the most conservative reading" or "interpretation" or whatever.

If you voted for the nerfs because you think that's what the rule is, not because you just want to nerf Tau/see the world burn/misclicked, you need to go back to school.


Also, sucks for Tau players in the ITC. Gets somewhat good rules, immediately comped. lulz

I don't think Eldar got nerfed this fast, and if I'm not mistaken they weren't nerfed so hard, either. They can still spam scatbikes can't they? And they still get plenty of D weapons, it's just slightly weaker.

It really just feels like the Tau haters came out in force on this one. This has almost literally nothing to do with any perceived imbalance, it's just a good excuse to stick it to people you don't like because they're having fun wrong.

Eldar were not nerfed. Ranged D in general was nerfed. It affected my custom stompa just as much as their wraithknight. Up till now all the nerfs have been generalized or fixes. Nerfs to 2+ rerollable, a few armies aside from eldar could get that. Such as screamerstar. FMC being unable to be targeted by blasts was good for more than just nids. Invisibility, well anyone that mattered could get that.

This was a cowardly way out for a knee jerk reaction.

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
The ITC also makes stupid rulings ie allowing the vindicator squadrons yet not allowing the Typhon

The vindicater squadron isn't even good

 CrownAxe wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
The ITC also makes stupid rulings ie allowing the vindicator squadrons yet not allowing the Typhon

The vindicater squadron isn't even good

QFT. One crew stunned and its poop. One weapon destroyed and it cannot be used again.

At least we will never have to hear that ridiculous "we can't change codex rules" claim as an excuse for why every blatantly overpowered and anti-fun codex unit and rule has to be included, but blanket FW bans are ok.

 Orock wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
The ITC also makes stupid rulings ie allowing the vindicator squadrons yet not allowing the Typhon

The vindicater squadron isn't even good

QFT. One crew stunned and its poop. One weapon destroyed and it cannot be used again.

Cronus can help with this issue.

LOL .....This is beyond stupid.

So you take an army that pre-buffs was doing extremely poorly at tournaments, in fact it was totally irrelevant. Then you take their new ''decurion'' and nerf it completely out of existence, with 0 playtesting, completely against the RAI and even RAW. Anybody who doesn't play Tau and who plays at ITC events will obviously vote to nerf, it's in their best interest to do so. You can just read the poor posts on dakka about it to see it isn't even majority tournament players that vote, it's primarily casual players. How are these nerfs in any way justified when compared against today's meta?

Why has Tau been so arbitrarily smashed into the ground but not Eldar? or Gladius? Necron decurion? or War Convocation? etc.

ITC is a complete farce. Thank goodness we don't use that rubbish in Europe.

RIP Tau.

Well, in all honesty, this special stompa is nowhere near as powerful as a custom stompa can be for about the same cost.

like the results here but i wish they would do more for cc nits in there errata some of them are just absolute tosh right now

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
LOL .....This is beyond stupid.

So you take an army that pre-buffs was doing extremely poorly at tournaments, in fact it was totally irrelevant. Then you take their new ''decurion'' and nerf it completely out of existence, with 0 playtesting, completely against the RAI and even RAW. Anybody who doesn't play Tau and who plays at ITC events will obviously vote to nerf, it's in their best interest to do so. You can just read the poor posts on dakka about it to see it isn't even majority tournament players that vote, it's primarily casual players. How are these nerfs in any way justified when compared against today's meta?

Why has Tau been so arbitrarily smashed into the ground but not Eldar? or Gladius? Necron decurion? or War Convocation? etc.

ITC is a complete farce. Thank goodness we don't use that rubbish in Europe.

RIP Tau.

Agree, this vote is complete nonsense for Tau players in ITC. Also we have simillar "thing" in Sweden where many players use the ridiculous Comp systems which also voted in a simillar way, restricting gameplay even more.

Hope more players start using more open formats!

 koooaei wrote:
Well, in all honesty, this special stompa is nowhere near as powerful as a custom stompa can be for about the same cost.

Kustom Stompa violates one of their rules governing LoW SHV/GC.

I'm not sure what to make of the poll. On one hand, it clarifies things for ITC players. On the other, it seems some people voted against Tau simply because it was Tau and they didn't like them. I would have liked to have seen tournament results before voting begun on this.

Have to echo Peregrine on the Stompa issue.

 Frozocrone wrote:
On the other, it seems some people voted against Tau simply because it was Tau and they didn't like them.

Pretty much, yeah. People didn't vote with their heads on this one, it was "I don't like Tau and I don't want them to be," and that was that.

Before you read this rant... I totally support the second nerf to Target Lock. You shouldn't be able to share all those special rules onto units that you Target Locked. Onto Coordinated Firepower though..... Such bs, nobody even got a chance to see how it would play in an ITC tourny. Its really not that powerful.. OK I can destroy one unit a turn with this Coordinated Firepower. HOLY gak NERF EVERYTHING TAU ARE ABOUT TO RUIN TOURNYS FOREVER CAUSE THEY CAN KILL 1 UNIT A TURN. I can't believe they would put this up to a community vote. Of course all the deathstar runners are going to vote to nerf this rule. That would have meant that their retardedly cheesy combo could get squashed without hardcore list tailoring.. Such a sad day. GW actually releases some good rules and the community gaks themselves and self-nerfs it? Never again will I support any ITC events.

Wheres the votes on Decurion or Gladius, or wraithknight spam? Why can't we vote to nerf the lists that consistently place first in these events? Whens the last time Tau took first place at a serious Tourny????? Or even top 5 for that matter..

I think a vote on thunderdome was passed recently regarding da and sw sharing rules because they didn't have chapter tactics, alobg with hit and run white scars.

Passed in favour of sharing rules between the imperium. Not sure if this was the vote that had loads of votes that shouldn't have counted but if it was a legitimate poll, my respect for the ITC community will go out the window.

I never liked ITC to begin with but this is just hilariously terrible.

No Competitive 40k player should want to play under ITC when it leaves rules up to mob rule (of people who don't even go to tournaments, not to mind compete to try and win them). The Tau votes prove without a doubt that their system is broken.

ITC is just another boring comp system ruining tournament 40k, please delete.

No one should play 40k in a competitive environment anyway. The game isn't designed or intended to be played that way.

 Psienesis wrote:
No one should play 40k in a competitive environment anyway. The game isn't designed or intended to be played that way.

I'm sorry to say that myself, and I'm sure several others, started and grew up playing the tournament scene. Not the circuit - I don't travel, but I looked at it as a place to go for a couple games on a set day. I didn't vote, I do have a Tau army, and the last game I played with it was in 6th. I agree with darkstrider's analyzer vote, the rule pretty much says this anyway. but I'm a sad panda that my buffmander can't spread the love with target locks - when using Combined Fire (but it is still fine if I deathstar?).

It's not like markerlights helped against invisibile deathstars, due to their ruling that sets bs at 1 and multiple modifiers overriding all changes to bs.

Tons of people enjoy 40k for tournaments. It even has an international ''world cup'' style tournament in the ETC.....
One only has to look at this sites battle reports or army list sections to see tons of people are interested in using their toys to play in tournaments.

For me personally it's the most fun aspect of the hobby, I'm sure lots of others agree. 40k isn't a perfect tournament game but it isn't that bad when all is said and done.

I just don't see how you can arbitrarily comp the game and say it's competitive? If you feel like you MUST comp then why not go through every book and formation and balance them all via extensive playtesting by top level tournament players, that's the only fair way to comp.

All ITC has done is literally arbitrarily smashed Tau back to irrelevancy in the American tournament circuit. It has nothing to do with ''balance'' , it's totally skewed by players own armies as seen by the above vote example, Space marines can share rules but Tau can't (despite the clear RAW and RAI saying otherwise).....

ITC has not touched or has barely touched Ravenwing wolf friends, Gladius, Necrons, Eldar, War Convocation etc but it smashes Tau, how is this fair for American Tau players?

 Frozocrone wrote:
It's not like markerlights helped against invisibile deathstars, due to their ruling that sets bs at 1 and multiple modifiers overriding all changes to bs.

What are you talking about?

They changed the Invisibility Power to be hit at BS1 instead of snapshots.

The Tau errata on GW has since been removed so unless the new codex says they can increase ballistic skill even if it is set at one, then the ITC ruling combined with multiple modifiers stops markerlights working

in Combination with the result of that vote the no longer working markerlights... well Tau will have huge problems against death stars. realy nice, not!

I applaud ITC for trying to fix badly written rules and op ones, ibreally do, but...this seems a bit harsh, we have our own in house faq and as such don't use ITC so this makes no difference to me, but still... Harsh.

 Frozocrone wrote:
They changed the Invisibility Power to be hit at BS1 instead of snapshots.

The Tau errata on GW has since been removed so unless the new codex says they can increase ballistic skill even if it is set at one, then the ITC ruling combined with multiple modifiers stops markerlights working

You seriously think ITC lets people play that way?

On paper, I'm ok with the applied nerfs. I agree the Stompa thing is weird, it's been discussed already in the previous page so I won't add anything to it, I'll just say I wouldn't have done it that way.

The issue now is that, having nerfed Tau cheese, it would be the turn to swing the nerfbat at Decurion, Gladius, Eldar as a whole, etc. It's nice that the community finally seems truly concerned with making changes to GW garbage rules, but if you want to do it right, you can't just nerf a single army and let the rest of the main offenders walk free.

Once we see Necron, Eldar and Marine cheesemongers crying as hard as the Tau ones are now, we'll know it's been done right

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
They changed the Invisibility Power to be hit at BS1 instead of snapshots.

The Tau errata on GW has since been removed so unless the new codex says they can increase ballistic skill even if it is set at one, then the ITC ruling combined with multiple modifiers stops markerlights working

You seriously think ITC lets people play that way?

Reports I've seen alllow increase to bs. But if you're going strictly by their FAQ, then sucks to be Tau.

 Korinov wrote:
On paper, I'm ok with the applied nerfs. I agree the Stompa thing is weird, it's been discussed already in the previous page so I won't add anything to it, I'll just say I wouldn't have done it that way.

The issue now is that, having nerfed Tau cheese, it would be the turn to swing the nerfbat at Decurion, Gladius, Eldar as a whole, etc. It's nice that the community finally seems truly concerned with making changes to GW garbage rules, but if you want to do it right, you can't just nerf a single army and let the rest of the main offenders walk free.

Once we see Necron, Eldar and Marine cheesemongers crying as hard as the Tau ones are now, we'll know it's been done right

Except ITC doesn't do that. Those meta defining armies have been around for months and months and nothing was done. Tau is out a few weeks and gets rekt. Tau didn't even look ''that'' good to be honest. It's not like they got the Eldar book.

Not sure why you think this vote represents Community enlightenment, all it shows me is a sizable chunk of ITC players don't play Tau and don't want to play against Tau.

Only people crying are American Tau players. Nothing cheese mongering about the Hunter Contingent it is the fundamental core of the new book ><.

It's kinda the only reason to even buy the new book, since everything is 100% copy/paste besides the Hunter Contingent and formations (none of which are all that great, except maybe one). The new models had their full rules published in White Dwarf so you don't even need it for that.

Exactly,

Though The OSC is an excellent auxiliary formation, especially in the mirror match up.

I'm guessing people playing with these restrictions might aswell get used to facing one of the following lists.

#1
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD
Heavy Retribution Cadre 2 SS 1 GK
Riptide Wing 3 Riptides

#2
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD
Heavy Retribution Cadre 2 SS 1 GK
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK

 Frozocrone wrote:
It's not like markerlights helped against invisibile deathstars, due to their ruling that sets bs at 1 and multiple modifiers overriding all changes to bs.

wrong. markerlights specifically up your balistic skill even when snapfiring. Its written right in the rules. And its VERY important for tau, seeing as we have no other counter to invis, and aparently nobody wants us to ever either.

 Orock wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
It's not like markerlights helped against invisibile deathstars, due to their ruling that sets bs at 1 and multiple modifiers overriding all changes to bs.

wrong. markerlights specifically up your balistic skill even when snapfiring. Its written right in the rules. And its VERY important for tau, seeing as we have no other counter to invis, and aparently nobody wants us to ever either.

ally a Culexus?
(what else could we bring to counter invis?)

nothing. and allying a IoM unit is bad. thats not a tau unit. and makes no sence from viepoint of fluff

 _ghost_ wrote:
nothing. and allying a IoM unit is bad. that's not a tau unit. and makes no sense from viewpoint of fluff

review some of the older (Harlequin) ally mechanics. they had justifications for them joining any force, and they are still valid today - but I wouldn't mind having something along the lines of Specialists from PP masters. for when I'm not facing psykers.

But whats the point? Sure there exist such things.

Tau dont have battle brothers. so allying such a thing wont be that good. and its not a Tau thing to counter invissible. so allying cant be a answer to the question : what can Tau do against it?"

the solution to ally is a answer to the question. " what can a Tau player put in the army to counter it." wich is totaly different to the first question.

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
LOL .....This is beyond stupid.

So you take an army that pre-buffs was doing extremely poorly at tournaments, in fact it was totally irrelevant. Then you take their new ''decurion'' and nerf it completely out of existence, with 0 playtesting, completely against the RAI and even RAW. Anybody who doesn't play Tau and who plays at ITC events will obviously vote to nerf, it's in their best interest to do so. You can just read the poor posts on dakka about it to see it isn't even majority tournament players that vote, it's primarily casual players. How are these nerfs in any way justified when compared against today's meta?

Why has Tau been so arbitrarily smashed into the ground but not Eldar? or Gladius? Necron decurion? or War Convocation? etc.

ITC is a complete farce. Thank goodness we don't use that rubbish in Europe.

RIP Tau.

This +1. This nerf feels personal and not logical. I wonder how it would have turned out if it was only registered ITC players who voted.

 Orock wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
It's not like markerlights helped against invisibile deathstars, due to their ruling that sets bs at 1 and multiple modifiers overriding all changes to bs.

wrong. markerlights specifically up your balistic skill even when snapfiring. Its written right in the rules. And its VERY important for tau, seeing as we have no other counter to invis, and aparently nobody wants us to ever either.

I didn't mention snapshots for a reason.

Now is that ruling for tau the way we all have to play it now

Only if you play under itc

Reading the ITC results comments makes me sick. Some guy was talking how cheesy we are with the fireblade + firewarrior combos and our supremacy suit (he didn't' know its name). He said he couldn't beat it with the not nerfed version of the rule. Then a commenter points out his math didn't add up on the shots he said were fired at him. Then another poster points out the Supremacy armor is banned in the ITC. So much for the "op" tau build he knows so much about.

That's the real shame. None of them know anything about the rules. They seen Tau got a new codex, some new toys, and they came out to nerf us just because. Your average ITC voter when they opened it up the the public folks. They're knee jerk reactions are coming for you. Well feth the ITC.

I agree. At least playtest before you ban.

So let me get this straight this how my brother must play his tau when he goes and play any one. So his new dex is nerffd and he hasn't had it a month. What bs that a bunch of people can nuff a dex for ever one

Only under ITC. If you've got your own house rules you would use them.

newguy1984 wrote:
So let me get this straight this how my brother must play his tau when he goes and play any one. So his new dex is nerffd and he hasn't had it a month. What bs that a bunch of people can nuff a dex for ever one

Just ignore it and instead go to tournaments with a no-restriction approach. When playing with friends/flgs go for the way it's intended to be played, core rulebook and forgeworld.

Doesn't affect me as we don't play ITC, but I think the votes were fine and I think people should play it as its been voted.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Doesn't affect me as we don't play ITC, but I think the votes were fine and I think people should play it as its been voted.

Guess you don't play in tournaments? Or play Tau?

Thanks for your input lmao.

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Doesn't affect me as we don't play ITC, but I think the votes were fine and I think people should play it as its been voted.

Guess you don't play in tournaments? Or play Tau?

Thanks for your input lmao.

I play Tau AND I plan on going to tournament with them. Im saddened by the rule as it limits our options... But I'll still play, the sky has not fallen.

I just don't see how anybody can say with a straight face that arbitrarily changing RAI and RAW to nerf just one new faction while leaving all the other top tier armies virtually untouched is fair.

You can still take TAU to ITC tournies just like you could with the old codex, and the results are likely to be quite similar.

I don't like Tau. Their meta of playing seemed very non-interactive to me with their gobs of mid strength shooting. They remain my least favorite army to play against.

That being said, I think their CF rule should have been played with all the special rules included first, before getting somewhat nerfed. I voted to allow this (but voted no on allowing the split firing suits to take advantage of it).

It does seem to be a bit of a knee jerk reaction personally.

The broadest reading of CF is IMO pretty obviously wrong, and it is so for reasons that have to do with game design rather than power levels directly.

1. Conceptually speaking, coordinating fire on one target does not confer benefits to people firing at different targets via target locks. This makes no sense. Yes, GW writes strange rules sometimes, but this is not a mere mispricing of a unit or cover stretching up the foot of a GC all the way to its noggin, but the opposite of what the rule is supposed to represent.

2. The massive rules sharing interpretation makes the Tau army orbit around a couple of particular items of wargear, which would be grotesquely underpriced if this rules interpretation is correct. This would be abhorrently poor game design.

Alcibiades wrote:
The broadest reading of CF is IMO pretty obviously wrong, and it is so for reasons that have to do with game design rather than power levels directly.

1. Conceptually speaking, coordinating fire on one target does not confer benefits to people firing at different targets via target locks. This makes no sense. Yes, GW writes strange rules sometimes, but this is not a mere mispricing of a unit or cover stretching up the foot of a GC all the way to its noggin, but the opposite of the what the rule is supposed to represent.

2. The massive rules sharing interpretation makes the Tau army orbit around a couple of particular items of wargear, which would be grotesquely underpriced if this rules interpretation is correct. This would be abhorrently poor game design.

Which particular war gear items are you referring to?

 bomtek80 wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
The broadest reading of CF is IMO pretty obviously wrong, and it is so for reasons that have to do with game design rather than power levels directly.

1. Conceptually speaking, coordinating fire on one target does not confer benefits to people firing at different targets via target locks. This makes no sense. Yes, GW writes strange rules sometimes, but this is not a mere mispricing of a unit or cover stretching up the foot of a GC all the way to its noggin, but the opposite of the what the rule is supposed to represent.

2. The massive rules sharing interpretation makes the Tau army orbit around a couple of particular items of wargear, which would be grotesquely underpriced if this rules interpretation is correct. This would be abhorrently poor game design.

Which particular war gear items are you referring to?

Puretide Engram Chip and the ones that confer Ignores Cover and Twin Linked.

All this does is shift the Tau meta list a little for ITC events, nothing more than that. As with anything, if you don't like, don't support it.

For the record, I voted for shared special rules during coordinated fire, including the -1 toughness shenanigan (I also voted for Orks and for Crush). Not because I play Tau (or Orks, or tanks), but because I play RAW.

SJ

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
I just don't see how anybody can say with a straight face that arbitrarily changing RAI and RAW to nerf just one new faction while leaving all the other top tier armies virtually untouched is fair.

You can still take TAU to ITC tournies just like you could with the old codex, and the results are likely to be quite similar.

How about we see how the new Tau fair before claiming the sky is falling? Or do you really think that cheap Stompa is gonna make Orks walk all over the ITC? I really don't think the votes were one-sided, I think they're trying to evenly balance an army that could bring out loads of cheese due to GW's poor rules writing.

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
I just don't see how anybody can say with a straight face that arbitrarily changing RAI and RAW to nerf just one new faction while leaving all the other top tier armies virtually untouched is fair.

You can still take TAU to ITC tournies just like you could with the old codex, and the results are likely to be quite similar.

You... really don't want to open that can of worms that is not changing raw when it's stupid. Lest you like Necron units that are immune to anything but Str D weaponry and removes from play stuff (hint: modifiers change a number into another number, they don't change the original target number into another target number), or Psykers not working when they join a unit.

Apparently, some people here din't bother to click the link or actually read the results. Allow me to amend that.

Gamgee wrote:

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
LOL .....This is beyond stupid.

So you take an army that pre-buffs was doing extremely poorly at tournaments, in fact it was totally irrelevant. Then you take their new ''decurion'' and nerf it completely out of existence, with 0 playtesting, completely against the RAI and even RAW. Anybody who doesn't play Tau and who plays at ITC events will obviously vote to nerf, it's in their best interest to do so. You can just read the poor posts on dakka about it to see it isn't even majority tournament players that vote, it's primarily casual players. How are these nerfs in any way justified when compared against today's meta?

Why has Tau been so arbitrarily smashed into the ground but not Eldar? or Gladius? Necron decurion? or War Convocation? etc.

ITC is a complete farce. Thank goodness we don't use that rubbish in Europe.

RIP Tau.

This +1. This nerf feels personal and not logical. I wonder how it would have turned out if it was only registered ITC players who voted.

Tau were not "totally irrelevant" in tournaments, at least in North America. They were doing about as well as Eldar,placing highly but never taking the win. You could argue at that level that once you reach the top eight player skill is the bigger factor in determining the win.
Second, Tau have neither been "nerfed out of existence" without any playtesting. Tau can still use the CFP special rule, only now the only benefit is to get +1BS and the ability to share Makerlights. It isn't like the codex just dropped yesterday. People have already played against Tau, and the ability to share special rules in CFP was found to be broken beyond belief. When the ITC was playtesting it (yes, they did, the battle reports are online) the only thing that could beat it reliably was assaulting form Deep-Strike, which is a whole new level of broken entirely.

Third, while anyone could vote in the poll, only ITC members could cast votes that actually counted. And did you see how close the margin of victory was? If nine more people had voted against the nerf, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The ITC has done a great job of balancing the game IMO. The nerfs to ranged D, Invisibility, 2+ re-rollable, Stomps, and limits on the number of GCs have affected all of the armies that you listed, especially Eldar. The ovte on Tank Shock prevented Gladius from becoming more overpowered than it already is.

At a tournament level of play, you should expect people to bring the most overpowered things they have available. Oh wait, I forgot that in Europe 50% of all tournament armies apparently are Eldar cheese lists. That would explain a lot.

Gamgee wrote:Reading the ITC results comments makes me sick. Some guy was talking how cheesy we are with the fireblade + firewarrior combos and our supremacy suit (he didn't' know its name). He said he couldn't beat it with the not nerfed version of the rule. Then a commenter points out his math didn't add up on the shots he said were fired at him. Then another poster points out the Supremacy armor is banned in the ITC. So much for the "op" tau build he knows so much about.

That's the real shame. None of them know anything about the rules. They seen Tau got a new codex, some new toys, and they came out to nerf us just because. Your average ITC voter when they opened it up the the public folks. They're knee jerk reactions are coming for you. Well feth the ITC.

If you're expecting internet comments on any article to be intelligent and edifying, you clearly haven't been on the internet very long.

It wasn't that people didn't like that Tau got some new rules and units. It was that one particular special rule was game-breakingly overpowered. The ITC and others played with Tau sharing special rules for CFP and found that it turned the game into a point-and-click adventure for the Tau player, which wasn't very fun for anyone else. In the interest of keeping the game balanced and allowing as many players and armies as possible a chance to compete, CFP had to be nerfed.

Your "screw the ITC" attitude might hold sway now, but you'll have to temper yourself if you wish to play in any local, regional, or major GT west of the Mississippi river. And judging by your past behavior, especially one notorious thread, I'd be wary of calling people out for "knee jerk" reactions.

Disagree

1. Conceptually speaking, coordinating fire on one target does not confer benefits to people firing at different targets via target locks. This makes no sense. Yes, GW writes strange rules sometimes, but this is not a mere mispricing of a unit or cover stretching up the foot of a GC all the way to its noggin, but the opposite of what the rule is supposed to represent.

You take 2+ units, those units are now one unit for the CF shooting and thus get any USR that a unit would normally benefit from. Now since all units have the USR and thus all the models any model with a special rule (Target Lock) may use that to fire at another target. If 3+ units then firing models get +1BS.

2. The massive rules sharing interpretation makes the Tau army orbit around a couple of particular items of wargear, which would be grotesquely underpriced if this rules interpretation is correct. This would be abhorrently poor game design.

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
I just don't see how anybody can say with a straight face that arbitrarily changing RAI and RAW to nerf just one new faction while leaving all the other top tier armies virtually untouched is fair.

You can still take TAU to ITC tournies just like you could with the old codex, and the results are likely to be quite similar.

You... really don't want to open that can of worms that is not changing raw when it's stupid. Lest you like Necron units that are immune to anything but Str D weaponry and removes from play stuff (hint: modifiers change a number into another number, they don't change the original target number into another target number), or Psykers not working when they join a unit.

Also, I heard recently that with RAW, the number of psychic powers each level of mastery conveys is not actually defined as 1:1. It's described only as a "function" which is a math term referring to pretty much any algebraic equation.

so let me get this straight. . .
a buffmander with a unit of suits where each has a target lock can share the benefits conferred by a buffmander's gear but when I use combined fire with that same unit and 2 others the buffs cease to apply?

X078 wrote:
Disagree

1. Conceptually speaking, coordinating fire on one target does not confer benefits to people firing at different targets via target locks. This makes no sense. Yes, GW writes strange rules sometimes, but this is not a mere mispricing of a unit or cover stretching up the foot of a GC all the way to its noggin, but the opposite of what the rule is supposed to represent.

You take 2+ units, those units are now one unit for the CF shooting and thus get any USR that a unit would normally benefit from. Now since all units have the USR and thus all the models any model with a special rule (Target Lock) may use that to fire at another target. If 3+ units then firing models get +1BS.

2. The massive rules sharing interpretation makes the Tau army orbit around a couple of particular items of wargear, which would be grotesquely underpriced if this rules interpretation is correct. This would be abhorrently poor game design.

It makes the buffmander and his wargear highly valuable yes. But it also puts him in a place of being a prioritized target even more so than before, if he dies most of the buff sharing CF tactics die with him. It's a trade off.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Apparently, some people here din't bother to click the link or actually read the results. Allow me to amend that.

Gamgee wrote:

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
LOL .....This is beyond stupid.

So you take an army that pre-buffs was doing extremely poorly at tournaments, in fact it was totally irrelevant. Then you take their new ''decurion'' and nerf it completely out of existence, with 0 playtesting, completely against the RAI and even RAW. Anybody who doesn't play Tau and who plays at ITC events will obviously vote to nerf, it's in their best interest to do so. You can just read the poor posts on dakka about it to see it isn't even majority tournament players that vote, it's primarily casual players. How are these nerfs in any way justified when compared against today's meta?

Why has Tau been so arbitrarily smashed into the ground but not Eldar? or Gladius? Necron decurion? or War Convocation? etc.

ITC is a complete farce. Thank goodness we don't use that rubbish in Europe.

RIP Tau.

This +1. This nerf feels personal and not logical. I wonder how it would have turned out if it was only registered ITC players who voted.

Tau were not "totally irrelevant" in tournaments, at least in North America. They were doing about as well as Eldar,placing highly but never taking the win. You could argue at that level that once you reach the top eight player skill is the bigger factor in determining the win.
Second, Tau have neither been "nerfed out of existence" without any playtesting. Tau can still use the CFP special rule, only now the only benefit is to get +1BS and the ability to share Makerlights. It isn't like the codex just dropped yesterday. People have already played against Tau, and the ability to share special rules in CFP was found to be broken beyond belief. When the ITC was playtesting it (yes, they did, the battle reports are online) the only thing that could beat it reliably was assaulting form Deep-Strike, which is a whole new level of broken entirely.

Third, while anyone could vote in the poll, only ITC members could cast votes that actually counted. And did you see how close the margin of victory was? If nine more people had voted against the nerf, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The ITC has done a great job of balancing the game IMO. The nerfs to ranged D, Invisibility, 2+ re-rollable, Stomps, and limits on the number of GCs have affected all of the armies that you listed, especially Eldar. The ovte on Tank Shock prevented Gladius from becoming more overpowered than it already is.

At a tournament level of play, you should expect people to bring the most overpowered things they have available. Oh wait, I forgot that in Europe 50% of all tournament armies apparently are Eldar cheese lists. That would explain a lot.

Gamgee wrote:Reading the ITC results comments makes me sick. Some guy was talking how cheesy we are with the fireblade + firewarrior combos and our supremacy suit (he didn't' know its name). He said he couldn't beat it with the not nerfed version of the rule. Then a commenter points out his math didn't add up on the shots he said were fired at him. Then another poster points out the Supremacy armor is banned in the ITC. So much for the "op" tau build he knows so much about.

That's the real shame. None of them know anything about the rules. They seen Tau got a new codex, some new toys, and they came out to nerf us just because. Your average ITC voter when they opened it up the the public folks. They're knee jerk reactions are coming for you. Well feth the ITC.

If you're expecting internet comments on any article to be intelligent and edifying, you clearly haven't been on the internet very long.

It wasn't that people didn't like that Tau got some new rules and units. It was that one particular special rule was game-breakingly overpowered. The ITC and others played with Tau sharing special rules for CFP and found that it turned the game into a point-and-click adventure for the Tau player, which wasn't very fun for anyone else. In the interest of keeping the game balanced and allowing as many players and armies as possible a chance to compete, CFP had to be nerfed.

Your "screw the ITC" attitude might hold sway now, but you'll have to temper yourself if you wish to play in any local, regional, or major GT west of the Mississippi river. And judging by your past behavior, especially one notorious thread, I'd be wary of calling people out for "knee jerk" reactions.

Exalted. But hey, the sky is falling

First Aun'Va died, then some random people voted to remove Hunter Contingent from North America. Truly friends, we are in the end times.

Not sure if this question merits a new thread, but is the Gladius really on par with Decurion and other like detachments?

I don't follow the tourney scene much and have never actually played any major formations or detachments so I'm honestly ignorant.

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
First Aun'Va died, then some random people voted to remove Hunter Contingent from North America. Truly friends, we are in the end times.

So one particular formation was reduced in effectiveness from a purely competitive standpoint. So What? Tau still have plenty of options to be competitive from their other formations.

Is Space Pope really dead? If yes, my angry Elf soul might just be happy. Overjoyed, even!

I don't suppose that there is a compendium of the ITC rulings? I looked at the page on frontline and there is nothing there.
edit - never mind found it. for others curious:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NkfW26mcJHaqDKlaZyA3PB-prM0k17-DuTifGv2mOG4/pub

 TheNewBlood wrote:
If you're expecting internet comments on any article to be intelligent and edifying, you clearly haven't been on the internet very long.

Internet comments often aren't much different from random writings on men's room walls. Saw a video on an American humor site about it. It's a little too... crass? to be posted in polite company. Especially since they bleep their curse words on a seemingly random basis.

I like how people complain that Tau got nerfed into the ground over an ambiguously worded rule and its potential to share USR rules. At full potential it could result in every unit "shooting at a target" but you would see a lot of target lock to spread all those USR enhanced shots at a lot of different targets. It effectively would of been buffmander buffing most of the army. Nearly everything having TL, Ignore Cover, Tank/Monster hunter, maybe throw in -1 Toughness with Darkstrider. Instead now you can have your units combine their shooting for increased BS and sharing the markerlights spent. Even this is a buff compared to what Tau had before so Tau are still stronger than before (ignoring every other formation bonus they have which is a lot). Personally I would love to see things like the Fire Blade or Darkstrider benefitting multiple units of Fire Warriors but what it would of ended up being is every single Suit unit using target lock to gain the benefits of combined fire but shooting at other units.

Also don't forget that Tau in the ITC have multiple GMCs with their Stormsurge being taken in a squadron which initial playtests have shown them being incredibly powerful and actually very deadly in CC (potentially 9 stomps is crazy strong). Tau now has the tools to handle the big threats in the meta and the full power Coordinated Fire would of just been oppressive for a lot of MSU armies to deal with.

I don't see how it's a nerf, just a conservative ruling on a rule that even not all tau players agree on.

Though it really only seemed silly once split fire is involved(the most liberal reading).

I just don't understand why they felt the need to nerf CF without any tournament level testing at all. There are so many other super strong things out there, and they just decide before Tau can go to a single major ITC event that they're going to cut their best formation off at the knees.

And I'm sorry but I'm not a fan of making simple majority rules votes a way in which we dictate how this game works at the tournament level. And they worded the question on CF to be how you "wanted" it to be, not how it's actually written. Which is just complete horse ----. of course every player of the other army types "wants" the tau rule to be less powerful. Why in the world wouldn't they?

This should never have gone to a vote without proper testing in the tournament environment for 64+ person tournaments. All this poll is going to do is help cement the list that were already winning by huge margins. Waste of time.

If anyone's curious, I personally voted to allow CF rules to share, and then voted with my heart (against the RAW) for the target lock rules sharing and the ork stompa - not allowing rules to be shared via CF for Target Lock'd shots and to allow the Orks to get their cheap stompa. In both cases the rules don't support them, but I figure what the hell if we're already threatening to take away the strongest rules my army gets, I should at least throw others a bone. And the Ork's deserve any help they can get.

GreyDragoon wrote:
I just don't understand why they felt the need to nerf CF without any tournament level testing at all. There are so many other super strong things out there, and they just decide before Tau can go to a single major ITC event that they're going to cut their best formation off at the knees.

And I'm sorry but I'm not a fan of making simple majority rules votes a way in which we dictate how this game works at the tournament level. And they worded the question on CF to be how you "wanted" it to be, not how it's actually written. Which is just complete horse ----. of course every player of the other army types "wants" the tau rule to be less powerful. Why in the world wouldn't they?

This should never have gone to a vote without proper testing in the tournament environment for 64+ person tournaments. All this poll is going to do is help cement the list that were already winning by huge margins. Waste of time.

If anyone's curious, I personally voted to allow CF rules to share, and then voted with my heart (against the RAW) for the target lock rules sharing and the ork stompa - not allowing rules to be shared via CF for Target Lock'd shots and to allow the Orks to get their cheap stompa. In both cases the rules don't support them, but I figure what the hell if we're already threatening to take away the strongest rules my army gets, I should at least throw others a bone. And the Ork's deserve any help they can get.

Again, isn't this all a bit much? What if Tau go on to still sweep the ITC? They're still fairly powerful with this nerf and I think they can do well. And I think this nerf was needed, before Tau became the new cheese. Now I think they're a still powerful army, but without some of the gamebreaking stuff. Also, I'm sorry you hate democracy?

a lot has been said about the tau changes...so i wont comment about that. what i do want to talk about is the 300 pt big mek stompa. has anyone here ever played with it? was it a decent super heavy walker for its original point cost? is this an auto include in any ork army now? does the itc ruleing for non ork allies prevent orks from takeing another faction as allies and also takeing this cheep stompa?
just some questions i have in my head....might be convinced to host one in the future at a tounament.
also, i just realized what this could mean....the morkanuat now is a superheavy!!!!
let me explain.
the morkanaut with kff is a wopping 280pts, and hardly the most effective walker in the game. while for just 20 pts extra (not includeing the mek buzzgob tax) you get a super hevay walker with better weapons. now i know that a kff and powerfileds arent the same thing, but my thinking is that use your expensive, cool looking, morkanaut as a counts as bigmek stompa! for me its seems like an unatended itc fix to the gmorkanaut. what are your thoughts and opnions? can i reasonably substitue the rules of the bigmek stompa onto my morkanaut model?

 jreilly89 wrote:

GreyDragoon wrote:
I just don't understand why they felt the need to nerf CF without any tournament level testing at all. There are so many other super strong things out there, and they just decide before Tau can go to a single major ITC event that they're going to cut their best formation off at the knees.

And I'm sorry but I'm not a fan of making simple majority rules votes a way in which we dictate how this game works at the tournament level. And they worded the question on CF to be how you "wanted" it to be, not how it's actually written. Which is just complete horse ----. of course every player of the other army types "wants" the tau rule to be less powerful. Why in the world wouldn't they?

This should never have gone to a vote without proper testing in the tournament environment for 64+ person tournaments. All this poll is going to do is help cement the list that were already winning by huge margins. Waste of time.

If anyone's curious, I personally voted to allow CF rules to share, and then voted with my heart (against the RAW) for the target lock rules sharing and the ork stompa - not allowing rules to be shared via CF for Target Lock'd shots and to allow the Orks to get their cheap stompa. In both cases the rules don't support them, but I figure what the hell if we're already threatening to take away the strongest rules my army gets, I should at least throw others a bone. And the Ork's deserve any help they can get.

Again, isn't this all a bit much? What if Tau go on to still sweep the ITC? They're still fairly powerful with this nerf and I think they can do well. And I think this nerf was needed, before Tau became the new cheese. Now I think they're a still powerful army, but without some of the gamebreaking stuff. Also, I'm sorry you hate democracy?

Except they haven't had a chance to see if this actually could sweep the ITC. And it's super unlikely anything will change for Tau this season with this removed unless the FS related book adds another fantastic Formation. Which thankfully if this is any guide we'll just lose again to another crappy community vote.

As for do I hate democracy? Well in fact - Yes I hate simple majority rules rule making. Especially in a game like this when everyone is essentially a minority. With this many races split up, of course any one race gets something great the other will vote against it if the intent is circuit based competitive play. So in this context, yes simple majority rules votes are complete horse ----.

After having a bit of time to think and let the salt wash away, I agree with what a lot of people are saying here and what I said earlier. This vote happened way too fast. Tau dropped less than a month ago, and already we voted on whether or not to nerf it? How? I could understand if a major tournament had happened and Tau had dominated it, I could see a vote being necessary. But we haven't had time to properly play test an unnerfed version of CF yet. How something looks on paper and how it actually works on the table are two very different things. In just a few weeks the community is expected to have played with CF enough on the table, figured out the best combos with it, figured out how easily it is broken, and figured out the counters to it to make an accurate and informed vote on whether or not to nerf it? Impossible. People can argue 'what if Tau had completely overtaken ITC?', but that's just it, you're asking a 'what if' question. You don't know. I don't know. No one knows how Tau with unnerfed CF would have done in ITC. They could have dominated, or they could have had no change at all in their standings. We don't know, and now we'll never know.

And again, I am really worried about the precedent this sets. Is voting on whether or not to nerf the new thing, the new army, the new Decurion, whatever, before any real playtesting can be done gonna become a standard thing, or at least more common thing, in ITC? I don't know, but I can see that as a path available to us. Its one thing to vote to nerf an army after it has been proven to dominate tournaments after an update, or to nerf an army that is already the best in the game when it gets unneeded buffs. It's another to nerf an army what, 2 weeks after it comes out before any real playtesting can be done.

One thing I am VERY interested in is how the other major tournament rulings (ETC, NOVA, Adepticon, etc.) will rule on CF, and if they rule it differently than ITC, how Tau rank in both. What happens if, after significant playtesting and some time has passed, unnerfed CF proves to not really improve Tau power in any meaningful way? What happens if Tau in ETC or NOVA (for example) with unnerfed CF (if they rule it that way) are placing the same as in ITC in the standings? Would ITC consider doing another vote to bring CF back up? How would the playerbase react?

As I have said before, if Tau prove to be truly meta breaking and conquer the top standings in ITC even with the nerf, I will change my opinion, but until that happens, I'm gonna say this was a mistake.

I just read through the ITC doc, and with the new rulings, Tau are fine. The Stormsurge is the big winner as it is immune to Tank Shock.

SJ

Can we please stop saying this is a nerf. This is a rules interpretation on a listed rule that isn't very clear with no correct answer. The wraithknight being criminally underpriced is unfortunate but its clear as day the cost and rules for it are intended. The Coordinated Firepower rule is not and doesn't describe clearly how rules interact with it (such as buffmander) so the ruling is to determine which way its going to be played. Same for the Tank Shock rules with its semi ambiguous mechanics due to wording. A decision needed to me made on it because its a major rule in the Hunter Contingent and each event would require a judge to make a ruling on it at the event. Not knowing ahead of time on how your Hunter Contingent would play until the day of would make it really frustrating for Tau players trying to make their battleplan.

Now if GW came out with an official FAQ saying how Coordinated Firepower interacts with Buffmander, Darkstrider, a Fire Blade, or anything else then the ITC ruling would most likely be changed to whatever GW FAQed it to. Again I don't think its the ITCs aim to nerf or buff individual codexes but to try to clarify rules and at most tone down broken game mechanics.

 Vankraken wrote:
Can we please stop saying this is a nerf. This is a rules interpretation on a listed rule that isn't very clear with no correct answer. The wraithknight being criminally underpriced is unfortunate but its clear as day the cost and rules for it are intended. The Coordinated Firepower rule is not and doesn't describe clearly how rules interact with it (such as buffmander) so the ruling is to determine which way its going to be played. Same for the Tank Shock rules with its semi ambiguous mechanics due to wording. A decision needed to me made on it because its a major rule in the Hunter Contingent and each event would require a judge to make a ruling on it at the event. Not knowing ahead of time on how your Hunter Contingent would play until the day of would make it really frustrating for Tau players trying to make their battleplan.

Now if GW came out with an official FAQ saying how Coordinated Firepower interacts with Buffmander, Darkstrider, a Fire Blade, or anything else then the ITC ruling would most likely be changed to whatever GW FAQed it to. Again I don't think its the ITCs aim to nerf or buff individual codexes but to try to clarify rules and at most tone down broken game mechanics.

I don't know, it's pretty clear. They act as if they are one big unit. Thus anything the effects units effects all of the "unit". It's not complicated. Powerful? Yes. OP? Possibly. Unclear? Not at all.

So yes, it is a nerf. That's why it was written "How do you wish to play the Tau Coordinated Firepower rule in regards to contributing Tau units sharing special rules?" not "How does the Tau Coordinated Firepower rule work in regards to contributing Tau units sharing special rules?"

I love how the angry people are still viewing it as a nerf. As if it's been settled that the rule covers USRs/Wargear carrying over when using CF.

I don't want this comment to turn this into a rules debate. I've read the threads on various boards, and there is a really good amount of bullying going on that treats all units participating in CF as a single entity for ALL purposes. I don't understand why it's so difficult for people to sit back and say there are 2 ways the RAW can go? We all agree that it is poorly worded, and we've all accepted that it is just one possible outcome. It is not the only interpretation on the RAW.

What this result shows me is 2 things.
1) Not everyone thinks that USRs/Wargear carryover. It doesn't matter if they voted because they interpret the RAW differently, or if they feel that it shouldn't be played that way. I find it difficult to believe that the rule was voted down because ALL players agree that the USRs are shared and THEN voted against it. I'm glad there are a good number of people are like me, and voted because the RAW doesn't allow the rules to transfer over.

2) Just like ANY rule or army, it's still up to the player to abuse the rule. This is vote is pretty close to how my various Tau friends feel. Some won't use it because the rule doesn't allow them to. Others are adamant that they can and/or should. All but two still think that their army is just fine, and will still do well. Only 1 thinks that the rule should be allowed, but he'll never use it that way. Which is pretty much what I'm seeing here.

Either way, I'm glad of this outcome because regardless of my views on it, I no longer have an uphill battle when it comes to explaining to players why I won't play against it, or allow it in my events. I'm not the only one who feels that it's just stupid to think that USRs/Wargear carryover with no permission to do so. If they're butt hurt about it they won't show, which is a win for me. Just like those who won't go to the ITC because of this is a win for them.

 Vankraken wrote:
Can we please stop saying this is a nerf. This is a rules interpretation on a listed rule that isn't very clear with no correct answer. The wraithknight being criminally underpriced is unfortunate but its clear as day the cost and rules for it are intended. The Coordinated Firepower rule is not and doesn't describe clearly how rules interact with it (such as buffmander) so the ruling is to determine which way its going to be played. Same for the Tank Shock rules with its semi ambiguous mechanics due to wording. A decision needed to me made on it because its a major rule in the Hunter Contingent and each event would require a judge to make a ruling on it at the event. Not knowing ahead of time on how your Hunter Contingent would play until the day of would make it really frustrating for Tau players trying to make their battleplan.

Now if GW came out with an official FAQ saying how Coordinated Firepower interacts with Buffmander, Darkstrider, a Fire Blade, or anything else then the ITC ruling would most likely be changed to whatever GW FAQed it to. Again I don't think its the ITCs aim to nerf or buff individual codexes but to try to clarify rules and at most tone down broken game mechanics.

Of course this is a nerf. What in the world are you talking about?

And remember, this poll only asked people what they want. It did not ask people to actually vote based on how the rule actually worked. It was worded in a crummy biased fashion, and its result was a completely foregone conclusion based on the wording.

Again, this never should have come up to a vote this early. It should have been played with IN tournaments, with various ITC-linked GTs playing it, and then we would have known if it was something that needed changing for the good of the game. If this sort of bs mob rule voting had happened back when knights came out we'd never have seen IKs hit the table. Of course a few GTs in everyone realized it actually wasn't a big deal, and we moved on. Now we never get a chance to see if this is the case with the new Tau.

Can we please stop saying this is a nerf. This is a rules interpretation on a listed rule that isn't very clear with no correct answer.

But then how will whiny, entitled tau players complain about how persecuted they ate?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
Can we please stop saying this is a nerf. This is a rules interpretation on a listed rule that isn't very clear with no correct answer. The wraithknight being criminally underpriced is unfortunate but its clear as day the cost and rules for it are intended. The Coordinated Firepower rule is not and doesn't describe clearly how rules interact with it (such as buffmander) so the ruling is to determine which way its going to be played. Same for the Tank Shock rules with its semi ambiguous mechanics due to wording. A decision needed to me made on it because its a major rule in the Hunter Contingent and each event would require a judge to make a ruling on it at the event. Not knowing ahead of time on how your Hunter Contingent would play until the day of would make it really frustrating for Tau players trying to make their battleplan.

Now if GW came out with an official FAQ saying how Coordinated Firepower interacts with Buffmander, Darkstrider, a Fire Blade, or anything else then the ITC ruling would most likely be changed to whatever GW FAQed it to. Again I don't think its the ITCs aim to nerf or buff individual codexes but to try to clarify rules and at most tone down broken game mechanics.

I don't know, it's pretty clear. They act as if they are one big unit. Thus anything the effects units effects all of the "unit". It's not complicated. Powerful? Yes. OP? Possibly. Unclear? Not at all.

So yes, it is a nerf. That's why it was written "How do you wish to play the Tau Coordinated Firepower rule in regards to contributing Tau units sharing special rules?" not "How does the Tau Coordinated Firepower rule work in regards to contributing Tau units sharing special rules?"

The way its written it states to resolve their shots as if there where one unit, it doesn't clearly state if the models acts as being one unit or if your just resolving the shooting rolls like you would a mixed unit and that a set of markerlights can benefit all those shots. Buffmander benefits models in his unit but the rule doesn't state if the models join together as a single unit. It also states the units must shoot the same target so would target lock invalidate that requirement and prevent the Coordinated Firepower from working? These are how the rules are unclear and up to interpretation. Also there are questions about how Independent Characters can't join units that contain Vehicles and Monstorus Creatures so if they can join together to share rules then would it prevent an Independent Character from joining a Hammerhead or Riptide's shooting? Again unclear rules because GW made rules but don't fully explain the details of how it works.

 Vankraken wrote:
Can we please stop saying this is a nerf. This is a rules interpretation on a listed rule that isn't very clear with no correct answer.

It is no such thing. There is no ambiguity about it RAW: all shots are resolved as a single unit, so buffs apply to all units, and unit-wide buffs apply to the whole unit even if some models shoot at a different target. The problem is not that something was uncertain here, it's that people wanted it to be ambiguous because they didn't like how powerful the ability was as-printed. If you want to argue that it's too powerful and needed to be nerfed then that's a valid argument to make, but don't try to pretend that your blatant nerf is somehow resolving a rules debate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vankraken wrote:
It also states the units must shoot the same target so would target lock invalidate that requirement and prevent the Coordinated Firepower from working?

No, because the unit is still shooting at the original target even if some models within the unit split their fire.

Also there are questions about how Independent Characters can't join units that contain Vehicles and Monstorus Creatures so if they can join together to share rules then would it prevent an Independent Character from joining a Hammerhead or Riptide's shooting?

Of course not. The shooting is resolved as if the models are a single unit, they do not actually join. And even if they did count as joining it would simply be a case of a specific rule taking priority over a general one. ICs can not join vehicle units, unless a rule says "this IC joins a vehicle unit".

It's their comp and they can do whatever they want.

I still find it hilarius that superfriends/thunderdome is a thing and this gets vetoed.

Other than that - on a technical level - I don't think that the whole 'everybody votes' was a well thought out approach since knee-jerk reactions and bandwagoning would be abundant.

Still, I don't play anywhere where the ITC comp is enforced and either way I wouldn't use a HC, so...

geargutz wrote:
a lot has been said about the tau changes...so i wont comment about that. what i do want to talk about is the 300 pt big mek stompa. has anyone here ever played with it?

I have...

was it a decent super heavy walker for its original point cost?

It's okay. The biggest benefit is really it's staying power (stuff it with meks!) and it's fearless bubble.

That's it.

Don't count on Ork shootings...

is this an auto include in any ork army now?

Not really.

does the itc ruleing for non ork allies prevent orks from takeing another faction as allies and also takeing this cheep stompa?

Looks like you can... as long as there's a valid LoW slot in the detachment.

just some questions i have in my head....might be convinced to host one in the future at a tounament.

ITC rules is pretty well crafted. Give it a shot!

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
Can we please stop saying this is a nerf. This is a rules interpretation on a listed rule that isn't very clear with no correct answer.

It is no such thing. There is no ambiguity about it RAW: all shots are resolved as a single unit, so buffs apply to all units, and unit-wide buffs apply to the whole unit even if some models shoot at a different target. The problem is not that something was uncertain here, it's that people wanted it to be ambiguous because they didn't like how powerful the ability was as-printed. If you want to argue that it's too powerful and needed to be nerfed then that's a valid argument to make, but don't try to pretend that your blatant nerf is somehow resolving a rules debate.

A. It says the shots are resolved as if it was a single unit but it doesn't state if the models count as being a single unit for the purposes of special rules sharing. In order for buffmander to share his benefits then the models need to be in the same unit as him. Again the question is are the models counted as being combined into a single unit or is the shots just being resolved together but the units are still separated. B. I voted to have the coordinated firepower to share its benefits because I believe its what its intent is but what I'm pointing out its unclear rules. Don't assume I have some agenda to nerf Tau or to be unfair to others.

 Vankraken wrote:
In order for buffmander to share his benefits then the models need to be in the same unit as him.

And they are counted as being a single unit for purposes of resolving the shots. Re-rolling dice or ignoring cover is part of resolving the shots, so the "am I in the same unit" question will be asked and answered with a "yes".

What you really need to ask here is why the buffmander doesn't apply when markerlights very clearly do. Markerlights also buff a single unit's shooting, so unless the additional units are all temporarily merged into one super-unit to resolve their shots only one unit should be able to get the benefits of spending each markerlight token. This is very clearly a case of two rules working the same way, but getting different interpretations because of power level concerns.

 Gamgee wrote:

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
LOL .....This is beyond stupid.

So you take an army that pre-buffs was doing extremely poorly at tournaments, in fact it was totally irrelevant. Then you take their new ''decurion'' and nerf it completely out of existence, with 0 playtesting, completely against the RAI and even RAW. Anybody who doesn't play Tau and who plays at ITC events will obviously vote to nerf, it's in their best interest to do so. You can just read the poor posts on dakka about it to see it isn't even majority tournament players that vote, it's primarily casual players. How are these nerfs in any way justified when compared against today's meta?

Why has Tau been so arbitrarily smashed into the ground but not Eldar? or Gladius? Necron decurion? or War Convocation? etc.

ITC is a complete farce. Thank goodness we don't use that rubbish in Europe.

RIP Tau.

This +1. This nerf feels personal and not logical. I wonder how it would have turned out if it was only registered ITC players who voted.

It was only registered ITC players who voted

 Thud wrote:
What's most annoying is how this keeps being referred to as "the most conservative reading" or "interpretation" or whatever.

If you voted for the nerfs because you think that's what the rule is, not because you just want to nerf Tau/see the world burn/misclicked, you need to go back to school.


Also, sucks for Tau players in the ITC. Gets somewhat good rules, immediately comped. lulz

Well put! I'm delighted we don't play by ITC's rules. Sorry for the Tau players who thought they would be tournament viable again, better reroll as Eldar.

I hope any Tau players that are going to LVO demand their money back. If I wasent sure they have some clause about "the rules may change at anytime" in their tournament sign ups, I would almost claim bait and switch for anyone signing up earlier to play one way and getting forced to do another.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
LOL .....This is beyond stupid.

So you take an army that pre-buffs was doing extremely poorly at tournaments, in fact it was totally irrelevant. Then you take their new ''decurion'' and nerf it completely out of existence, with 0 playtesting, completely against the RAI and even RAW. Anybody who doesn't play Tau and who plays at ITC events will obviously vote to nerf, it's in their best interest to do so. You can just read the poor posts on dakka about it to see it isn't even majority tournament players that vote, it's primarily casual players. How are these nerfs in any way justified when compared against today's meta?

Why has Tau been so arbitrarily smashed into the ground but not Eldar? or Gladius? Necron decurion? or War Convocation? etc.

ITC is a complete farce. Thank goodness we don't use that rubbish in Europe.

RIP Tau.

This +1. This nerf feels personal and not logical. I wonder how it would have turned out if it was only registered ITC players who voted.

It was only registered ITC players who voted

They allowed non-ITC players to vote as well, they had originally announced you had to prove you were part of their tournaments to vote but later changed it.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
LOL .....This is beyond stupid.

So you take an army that pre-buffs was doing extremely poorly at tournaments, in fact it was totally irrelevant. Then you take their new ''decurion'' and nerf it completely out of existence, with 0 playtesting, completely against the RAI and even RAW. Anybody who doesn't play Tau and who plays at ITC events will obviously vote to nerf, it's in their best interest to do so. You can just read the poor posts on dakka about it to see it isn't even majority tournament players that vote, it's primarily casual players. How are these nerfs in any way justified when compared against today's meta?

Why has Tau been so arbitrarily smashed into the ground but not Eldar? or Gladius? Necron decurion? or War Convocation? etc.

ITC is a complete farce. Thank goodness we don't use that rubbish in Europe.

RIP Tau.

This +1. This nerf feels personal and not logical. I wonder how it would have turned out if it was only registered ITC players who voted.

It was only registered ITC players who voted

They allowed non-ITC players to vote as well, they had originally announced you had to prove you were part of their tournaments to vote but later changed it.

Did they change that in the middle of the vote because when I voted I had to verify my ITC participation

 Vankraken wrote:

A. It says the shots are resolved as if it was a single unit but it doesn't state if the models count as being a single unit for the purposes of special rules sharing. In order for buffmander to share his benefits then the models need to be in the same unit as him. Again the question is are the models counted as being combined into a single unit or is the shots just being resolved together but the units are still separated.

A Wrong. It says all units are treated as one single unit while their shots are resolved. And this makes then URS shareable. its as simple as is can be. Its a simple Pattern: all units count as one unit . So remembering that units are made up of models its clear; every model is treated as beeing in the same unit. This also explains why there are no extra mentions of USR sharing in the rule. its not nessecary.

Markerlight on the other side have to be explained. They are used before shots are resolved. look it up when they have to be used. right after selecting a target imediatly before shooting. so at this time every unit participating in CF is a single unit. so thats why markerlight are written out there.

So regarding Balancing. i can understand if Target Lock and CF is not allowed at the same time. ( even f this would be RAW.) but the way this vote was written and how it turned out is a shame. Without this rule sharing CF does not realy enhance the ability to kill Deathstars. so what if i dont want to buy Mont'ka ? only with my codex i have not that many options to work against death stars and the only Good Rule of my detachment is nerfed into meaningless. this just feels personal. especialy if i commpare it to Ad Mech.. SM.. or Neks. ....

 CrownAxe wrote:

Did they change that in the middle of the vote because when I voted I had to verify my ITC participation

I believe they did, they left the section where you could prove participation but it was not a mandatory field, I voted first day and they did not require it then. They found some other ways to prevent multiple votes from a single person so they rescinded the requirement.

I feel bad for the people who really don't like this ruling, I personally agree with it, but it's never fun to have your army nerfed.

 Peregrine wrote:

What you really need to ask here is why the buffmander doesn't apply when markerlights very clearly do. Markerlights also buff a single unit's shooting, so unless the additional units are all temporarily merged into one super-unit to resolve their shots only one unit should be able to get the benefits of spending each markerlight token. This is very clearly a case of two rules working the same way, but getting different interpretations because of power level concerns.

Markerlights says all models firing at the target get the benefit and when a unit fires at it you can choose to use the markerlights. As coordinated firepower adds the shooting from other units into the shooting attack it still meats the critera of how markerlights work which is different than a unit sharing USRs and Buffmander buffs. Buffmander requires them to be in the same unit. Markerlights benefit models shooting at the target and it is the counters on the target that is giving the benefit. Because Coordinated Firepower is resolving all the shooting from multiple units as if it was one unit's shooting then the markerlights being consumed would benefit every model shooting at it because its happening at the same time and being resolved together. Again the rules do not clearly state if the units count as a single unit for purposes of rules sharing (tankhunter for example). Markerlights do not require all the shots to come from a single unit but they all must happen at the same time or else the markerlight counters spend on one shooting attack are spent and unavailable to benefit the next shooting attack. If you read the rules for markerlights then its clear they operate somewhat differently than C&C node, USRs, and Multispec Sensor.

 _ghost_ wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:

A. It says the shots are resolved as if it was a single unit but it doesn't state if the models count as being a single unit for the purposes of special rules sharing. In order for buffmander to share his benefits then the models need to be in the same unit as him. Again the question is are the models counted as being combined into a single unit or is the shots just being resolved together but the units are still separated.

A Wrong. It says all units are treated as one single unit while their shots are resolved. And this makes then URS shareable. its as simple as is can be. Its a simple Pattern: all units count as one unit . So remembering that units are made up of models its clear; every model is treated as beeing in the same unit.

"Resolving their shots as if they were a single unit". That is RAW and what you wrote is a different because that would leave no ambiguity. What is RAW does leave ambiguity because it doesn't say that the units are combined but that the shots being combined to be resolved as if its from a single unit (which allows markerlights to benefit multiple units shoot at it at the same time). Again I have said this a bunch but I voted in favor of combining special rules but I know the rules are unclear on the matter. That is why its up for a vote because its an interpretation.

Well I am surprised the Hunter Contingent got the bat. RAW seemed fairly clear to me or at least HIWPI.

I am pretty thankful Orks got a buff. We need anything we can get.

I think that writing things like "Reece" nerfed this or "ITC" buffed that, is not helpful and not honest.

These were VOTES on how one particular tourney circuit will play controversial rules. Your vote would've counted the same as Reece or Frankie or mine. They aren't hard and fast rules. GW is all about "house rules" and agreements prior to games.

@Vandraken

These units must...resolving their shots as if they were a singel unit."

There is no ambiguity. sorry. but who is resolging the shots? the shots itself? i dont think so. the shots are not combined. look at it. "resolving" belongs to "these units" thats simply english. anything else is ... well....

If they were counted as the same unit, wouldn't they be out of coherency?

I'm not good with rules though...

Nah, coherency only matters during the movement phase, and the cease to be treated as a single unit after they shoot.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Nah, coherency only matters during the movement phase, and the cease to be treated as a single unit after they shoot.

So if a single unit were taken out of coherency during their own shooting phase, say by a bad blast scatter from a friendly vehicle, they'd still be able to shoot?

I can't check my rulebooks - they've been in boxes since June.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Nah, coherency only matters during the movement phase, and the cease to be treated as a single unit after they shoot.

So if a single unit were taken out of coherency during their own shooting phase, say by a bad blast scatter from a friendly vehicle, they'd still be able to shoot?

I can't check my rulebooks - they've been in boxes since June.

In the movement phase you must try to restore coherency. In the shooting phase, if you Run, it must be to restore coherency.

Even then, by the time all the models are one big unit, the time to declare running (or even targets) is passed.

I'll continue following the rules and ignoring the farce that is ITC and every other "organization" who pretends they can dictate how people play.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Nah, coherency only matters during the movement phase, and the cease to be treated as a single unit after they shoot.

So if a single unit were taken out of coherency during their own shooting phase, say by a bad blast scatter from a friendly vehicle, they'd still be able to shoot?

I can't check my rulebooks - they've been in boxes since June.

In the movement phase you must try to restore coherency. In the shooting phase, if you Run, it must be to restore coherency.

Even then, by the time all the models are one big unit, the time to declare running (or even targets) is passed.

Gotcha, thanks. : D

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I'll continue following the rules and ignoring the farce that is ITC and every other "organization" who pretends they can dictate how people play.

If you don't play in a store/tournament that mandates using the ITC rules by all means don't follow them as there is nothing saying you have to. Since GW doesn't FAQ anymore play it however your group decides to and the way you have fun. As far as ITC tournaments and stores that use there rules go it is not a farce those are the rules for the tournaments and organizations that use ITC rulings, but if your group doesn't then just ignore the ITC rulings and forget they exist. Nobody is telling you that it is how you have to play the game.

As an example my friends and I have decided rather than using the ITC invisibility we just wont use it at all and if you roll it you just re-roll in our group we are happy with that, I am going to a tournament soon and there I will have to use the ITC version of the rules as that is what the tournament has decided to go with, if I don't like that I can accept it or just not go to the tournament. .

So I guess since we are treating them all as different units.... That somehow share marker lights, if one of them is forced to snap shoot at a ghost keel, the others are not. Wait let me guess, tau can KEEP the negative parts of shooting.

I would be fine with giving them snapfire only on the models that are forced to snap shoot, seems only fair.

 doktor_g wrote:
Your vote would've counted the same as Reece or Frankie or mine.

This is incorrect. Because MY vote did not have a public backing behind it. My vote did not have me spewing my personal bias toward a fan base who follows me on multiple media formats. They stated very clearly actually IMPLORING people to vote the way they did for what THEY considered "balance".

So no, my vote did not count the same. And it shows. Even if they swayed just 10 people.

I honestly feel as if the coordinated firepower rule, RAW, should allow special rules to be shared.

However, in competitive environments, like ITC ones are used for, that would be game-breaking. I'm no tau expert, but I don't think it would be hard to win with an entire army of split-firing, -1T, twin-linked, ignore cover, monster hunter, tank hunter, storm of fire, fire blades rule, etc, etc. Someone out there would come up with the most broken ultra combo and kill anything and everything instantly.

And besides. Even disallowing special rules to affect coordinated firepower, the tau codex, rules, and formations are still FANTASTIC.

So, I voted to keep the game, you know, a game. Not just a Tau auto-win simulator.

I play orks, and I'd love to see them better, but I honestly voted against buzzgob's big mek stompa. For one, the rule says it's only for apoc or 'other large scale games', of which I don't feel 1850 - 2000 point games qualify.

For another, it's pretty damned cheap to get like a 800 point unit for like 350. Even with things like wraithknights and all the free stuff SM and AM can get, I just don't feel as if it's fair.

But was it an auto win simulator? How many events in the US did tau win, before the ITC commity changed their rules.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I'll continue following the rules and ignoring the farce that is ITC and every other "organization" who pretends they can dictate how people play.

Then you're ok with GW alone dictating how you play.

Well it is their game. We pay for models and game materials to play their game. And for that we should be getting models we like and rules that are enjoyable.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I'll continue following the rules and ignoring the farce that is ITC and every other "organization" who pretends they can dictate how people play.

they're not telling *you* or anyone else how to play, they're telling people who want to attend their events how *they* are going to play things. It's not like the Reecius is going to show up at your FLGS and berate you for playing things differently...

I find it weird people are complaining about Tau not being good anymore, considering the old Tau got second place at the Nova open, which is far more friendly to Deathstars than the ITC.

http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2nd-Brett-Perkins-NovaOpen-2015.pdf

I'm a Tau player too, so it's not like I'm trying to nerf an army I don't play.

That's one army out of many. People used the same logic at one point when one dude brought Rubric Marines and yet you still haven't seen them do anything noteworthy afterwards.

Not saying Tau are bad, but consistency is key.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's one army out of many. People used the same logic at one point when one dude brought Rubric Marines and yet you still haven't seen them do anything noteworthy afterwards.

Not saying Tau are bad, but consistency is key.

The new Stormsurge is a massive boost for the Tau and being able to take up to 3 in a single unit is incredibly powerful. That's a ruling the ITC made that greatly benefitted the Tau in their format when only Knight armies could take more than 1 Super Heavy/GMC.

Ok, here's the leaderboard for that event: http://app.torrentoffire.com/#/tournament/NOVA-Open-2015/1/leaderboard

Tau finishes:

2nd (Tau-Dar): 7-1
34th (Tau-Tau): 6-2
51st (Tau-Tau) 5-3
87th (Tau) 4-4
151st (Tau-CSM) 3-5
160th (Tau) 0-5 drop

Except for the one person, the Tau players in the entire event were all in the positive, with the only other person with a record below even was allied with CSM.

Yes, it's one event, but it's one of the largest events, and Tau did 25-20 in record, that's accounting the player who didn't even play all their games, and even if they lost all of their unplayed games Tau would still be positive. If we drop the one statistically abnormal result Tau went 25-15, which is a win rate of 62% which is insane at that level of play.


Edit: And remember, this is pre-buffs, like all the formations, the Ghostkeel, the Stormsurge, and whatever else.

 Korinov wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I'll continue following the rules and ignoring the farce that is ITC and every other "organization" who pretends they can dictate how people play.

Then you're ok with GW alone dictating how you play.

Of course. They created the game. If I didn't want to play their game, I wouldn't be playing their game.

Why does that not make sense to you?

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Korinov wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I'll continue following the rules and ignoring the farce that is ITC and every other "organization" who pretends they can dictate how people play.

Then you're ok with GW alone dictating how you play.

Of course. They created the game. If I didn't want to play their game, I wouldn't be playing their game.

Why does that not make sense to you?

Do you by chance play any video games?

 Vankraken wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's one army out of many. People used the same logic at one point when one dude brought Rubric Marines and yet you still haven't seen them do anything noteworthy afterwards.

Not saying Tau are bad, but consistency is key.

The new Stormsurge is a massive boost for the Tau and being able to take up to 3 in a single unit is incredibly powerful. That's a ruling the ITC made that greatly benefitted the Tau in their format when only Knight armies could take more than 1 Super Heavy/GMC.

For now. Personally as a tau player I would have seen a nerf to 0-1 of these much more likely, and probably more balanced.

 Tinkrr wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Korinov wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I'll continue following the rules and ignoring the farce that is ITC and every other "organization" who pretends they can dictate how people play.

Then you're ok with GW alone dictating how you play.

Of course. They created the game. If I didn't want to play their game, I wouldn't be playing their game.

Why does that not make sense to you?

Do you by chance play any video games?

Some multiplayer video games prohibit the use of mods.

Like Final Fantasy 14. : D

If they catch you using so much as a DPS meter, you're toast.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Korinov wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I'll continue following the rules and ignoring the farce that is ITC and every other "organization" who pretends they can dictate how people play.

Then you're ok with GW alone dictating how you play.

Of course. They created the game. If I didn't want to play their game, I wouldn't be playing their game.

Why does that not make sense to you?

Do you by chance play any video games?

Some multiplayer video games prohibit the use of mods.

Like Final Fantasy 14. : D

If they catch you using so much as a DPS meter, you're toast.

And some games are completely based off of mods, like any Moba, CS, TF, and many more

 Tinkrr wrote:
And some games are completely based off of mods, like any Moba, CS, TF, and many more

True.

However, there are people who insist on using actual 40k models, because without the 40k models, it's not actually 40k to them.

There could exist the opinion that without the actual 40k rules, it's not actually 40k to them, it's some other game.

And I'm surprised you didn't mention Garry's Mod.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
And some games are completely based off of mods, like any Moba, CS, TF, and many more

True.

However, there are people who insist on using actual 40k models, because without the 40k models, it's not actually 40k to them.

There could exist the opinion that without the actual 40k rules, it's not actually 40k to them, it's some other game.

And I'm surprised you didn't mention Garry's Mod.

Then why be against playing another game? Doesn't it give you more bang for your buck if you can play two games with your 40k investment instead of one? Every purchase of 40k, comes with a free ITC thrown in


And I'm not sure how legit this is, but: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ff-xiv-mod-support-in-the-works-could-get-xv-cross/1100-6425730/

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
And some games are completely based off of mods, like any Moba, CS, TF, and many more

True.

However, there are people who insist on using actual 40k models, because without the 40k models, it's not actually 40k to them.

There could exist the opinion that without the actual 40k rules, it's not actually 40k to them, it's some other game.

And I'm surprised you didn't mention Garry's Mod.

Then why be against playing another game? Doesn't it give you more bang for your buck if you can play two games with your 40k investment instead of one? Every purchase of 40k, comes with a free ITC thrown in


And I'm not sure how legit this is, but: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ff-xiv-mod-support-in-the-works-could-get-xv-cross/1100-6425730/

Maybe they want to play 40k, and not some other game.

Also, neat.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
And some games are completely based off of mods, like any Moba, CS, TF, and many more

True.

However, there are people who insist on using actual 40k models, because without the 40k models, it's not actually 40k to them.

There could exist the opinion that without the actual 40k rules, it's not actually 40k to them, it's some other game.

And I'm surprised you didn't mention Garry's Mod.

Then why be against playing another game? Doesn't it give you more bang for your buck if you can play two games with your 40k investment instead of one? Every purchase of 40k, comes with a free ITC thrown in


And I'm not sure how legit this is, but: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ff-xiv-mod-support-in-the-works-could-get-xv-cross/1100-6425730/

Maybe they want to play 40k, and not some other game.

Also, neat.

That's their choice, all good games have multiple formats for diverse play. It's when they start calling one a farce or whatever is that I take a problem with it, especially when that "farce" can only dictate how players play because it's popular in the community via grassroots means.

 Tinkrr wrote:
Ok, here's the leaderboard for that event: http://app.torrentoffire.com/#/tournament/NOVA-Open-2015/1/leaderboard

Tau finishes:

2nd (Tau-Dar): 7-1
34th (Tau-Tau): 6-2
51st (Tau-Tau) 5-3
87th (Tau) 4-4
151st (Tau-CSM) 3-5
160th (Tau) 0-5 drop

Except for the one person, the Tau players in the entire event were all in the positive, with the only other person with a record below even was allied with CSM.

Yes, it's one event, but it's one of the largest events, and Tau did 25-20 in record, that's accounting the player who didn't even play all their games, and even if they lost all of their unplayed games Tau would still be positive. If we drop the one statistically abnormal result Tau went 25-15, which is a win rate of 62% which is insane at that level of play.


Edit: And remember, this is pre-buffs, like all the formations, the Ghostkeel, the Stormsurge, and whatever else.

Um. Why don't you just go to their analysis of the event? Tau had a 48% win rate. Lower than CSM.

http://www.torrentoffire.com/7287/nova-2015-recap wrote:Also, for the first time in three years, Tau came in with a losing record, and were actually outperformed by Chaos Space Marines.

 Mulletdude wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
Ok, here's the leaderboard for that event: http://app.torrentoffire.com/#/tournament/NOVA-Open-2015/1/leaderboard

Tau finishes:

2nd (Tau-Dar): 7-1
34th (Tau-Tau): 6-2
51st (Tau-Tau) 5-3
87th (Tau) 4-4
151st (Tau-CSM) 3-5
160th (Tau) 0-5 drop

Except for the one person, the Tau players in the entire event were all in the positive, with the only other person with a record below even was allied with CSM.

Yes, it's one event, but it's one of the largest events, and Tau did 25-20 in record, that's accounting the player who didn't even play all their games, and even if they lost all of their unplayed games Tau would still be positive. If we drop the one statistically abnormal result Tau went 25-15, which is a win rate of 62% which is insane at that level of play.


Edit: And remember, this is pre-buffs, like all the formations, the Ghostkeel, the Stormsurge, and whatever else.

Um. Why don't you just go to their analysis of the event? Tau had a 48% win rate. Lower than CSM.

http://www.torrentoffire.com/7287/nova-2015-recap wrote:Also, for the first time in three years, Tau came in with a losing record, and were actually outperformed by Chaos Space Marines.

Two things that are missing from your analysis:

1. I doubt anyone was taking mono CSM to that event. CSM scored highly because they were taken as allies for Daemons.

2. NOVA Open was not an ITC event. 2+ re-rollable was left untouched, and Tau (and most other armies) don't have a good answer to that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm copying Reecius's response to Orock in another thread in this post, because it bears repeating:

 Reecius wrote:
I understand your frustration, Orock, truly. I understand why you can feel like this is unfair, or what have you.

And yes, you are correct. We DID word the question to indicate how players want to play the rule, not what they think it actually says. What is clearly RAW to you is not so clear to other players. When I first read the rule, RAW was clearly the conservative reading. I actually laughed the first time someone suggested they shared every rule of every model contributing to the coordinated firepower attack because it seemed so far fetched to me. You can go back and watch my reaction, it was live on air.

But, a lot of other people read it the other way and I was forced to acknowledge that hey, my reading of the rule was not necessarily the right reading of the rule. I asked 4 of my friends, whom I consider to be 40k experts, what they thought the rule said, they each gave me a different answer! Lol, it is about as clear as mud.

So, the only conclusion I could draw was that we had to simply let everyone choose how they wanted to play it. We presented the questions in a way to allow for a wide range of possible outcomes, from most powerful to least and everything in between, and the result we got was the will of the ITC community.

I am very sorry to hear you disagree with it. Seriously. I know how frustrating that can be. I have had to change several of my own armies as a result of that occurrence. But, the alternative is chaos, where every tournament has a different format and different rules. Compromise is the nature of the beast when it comes to a standardized format. We all have to concede on certain points.

It is still very, very powerful. And, you have a plethora of new tools with Mont'Ka. Tau can still absolutely compete. And do other factions have weird, or powerful rules? Yes, they do. We do out best to try and provide a fun, level playing field for the 40k community to come together and play this game without arguing for an hour about 20 different rules interpretations every game. The ONLY way to do that, is to make tough calls on contentious issues. When that happens, some folks agree, some don't. Some folks are happy, some are pissed, as you are now.

The wheel will turn around your way though, bear that in mind. The nerf to the 2+ reroll save arguably benefits Tau the most. Tau also got units of Stormsruges. Tau also got all of their experimental Suits. You've gotten a LOT from the ITC as a Tau player, try to remember that and not just focus on what you feel has been taken away from you.

Anyway, again, sorry you are mad. We hate it when that happens, but that is simply the nature of the game. Hopefully when you have had a chance to cool down you will realize you can still have a great time playing your army.

People calling it a targeted nerf need to remember that it didn't make it onto a vote because of its power. It made it onto a vote because you could get 10 different people in a room and ask them how it works, and not only would they would all answer differently, but most would claim their interpretation was correct by RAW with no margin of error.

We never had the issue of 10 different people thinking the wraithknight costs 10 different price points. Therefore: no vote on it. It's that simple.
(Although tbh I wouldn't be opposed to the almighty WK taking a hit with the bat.)

What people are not realizing is that the Hunter Contingent was restrictive. You paid tax for troops that you didn't really want. Now that the only reason to play the Hunter Contingent in ITC is not there, people will look elsewhere, such as these:

X078 wrote:
I'm guessing people playing with these restrictions might aswell get used to facing one of the following lists.

#1
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD
Heavy Retribution Cadre 2 SS 1 GK
Riptide Wing 3 Riptides

#2
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD
Heavy Retribution Cadre 2 SS 1 GK
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK

I also expect to see the Piranha factory in use, to support the big suits.

Ah well, I'm sure that will also be nerfed as who cares of the rules when you can vote whatever you feel like.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
People calling it a targeted nerf need to remember that it didn't make it onto a vote because of its power. It made it onto a vote because you could get 10 different people in a room and ask them how it works, and not only would they would all answer differently, but most would claim their interpretation was correct by RAW with no margin of error.

We never had the issue of 10 different people thinking the wraithknight costs 10 different price points. Therefore: no vote on it. It's that simple.
(Although tbh I wouldn't be opposed to the almighty WK taking a hit with the bat.)

Sorry that is literally no interpretation of the rule. Anyone who says there is is just trying to nit pick and try to find anyway of nerfing it.

"shoot as if one unit"
its pretty simple lol

Thats it. In different discussions online and offline most of the people who argued how ambigous this iscame up with some balancing issues and how OP this rule is. Everybody did that.

Thats what it makes me feeling that this was never realy a debate how clear the rule is written.

Regarding the vote. Well it was to early, the wording of the questions were weak and so on.

I just dont see why there was the given option to vote for : Rule sharing but not with TL.

Of cours someone could argue that this was possible but how? everyone who fearded rulesharing AND Targetlock allowed hat do choose the restricting alternative just to be sure to do the best preventing USR sharing with TL.

 _ghost_ wrote:
Thats it. In different discussions online and offline most of the people who argued how ambigous this iscame up with some balancing issues and how OP this rule is. Everybody did that.

Thats what it makes me feeling that this was never realy a debate how clear the rule is written.

Regarding the vote. Well it was to early, the wording of the questions were weak and so on.

I just dont see why there was the given option to vote for : Rule sharing but not with TL.

Of cours someone could argue that this was possible but how? everyone who fearded rulesharing AND Targetlock allowed hat do choose the restricting alternative just to be sure to do the best preventing USR sharing with TL.

Personally, I chose not to vote because I'm not experienced enough (despite playing 40k off and on for around 14 years now) to know what the right interpretation is. I also don't have access to any of my rulebooks, and don't even have the current Tau Codex to look up the actual rule's text.

But I can easily imagine interpretation difficulties. I once ran into a player in real life who thought he was doing me a lenient favor by letting me use a Space Marine Sergeant with a Power Fist in 3e. I tried feebly to explain the subtle but meaningful difference between, "Only models in Terminator Armor can purchase items marked with a *" and "Models in Terminator Armor may only purchase items marked with a *" and was very glad to avoid that whole thing when he said he'd let me use it anyways.

The difference being that with the first, unless the model has Terminator armor, they can't purchase those items. With the second, models in Terminator Armor can purchase those items, but not any other items, and it has no bearing at all on models that are not in Terminator Armor.

Further issues this vote creates for anyone using the ITC rules:

Commander with Drone Controller (Special Rule) Coordinating fire with a separate unit of drones that uses Commanders BS, will not work per ITC rules.

X078 wrote:
Further issues this vote creates for anyone using the ITC rules:

Commander with Drone Controller (Special Rule) Coordinating fire with a unit of drones does not work per ITC rules.

Buffmander in a unit of Crisis with Target Locks (Special Rule) firing as one of several units in Coordinated Fire cannot even use their own "native" buffs with Target Locks at another target.

Actually any 2+ units using ITC CF cannot benefit from Target Locks (Special Rule) in anyway.

This is good news.

X078 wrote:
Further issues this vote creates for anyone using the ITC rules:

Commander with Drone Controller (Special Rule) Coordinating fire with a unit of drones does not work per ITC rules.

Buffmander in a unit of Crisis with Target Locks (Special Rule) firing as one of several units in Coordinated Fire cannot even use their own "native" buffs with Target Locks at another target.

Actually any 2+ units using ITC CF cannot benefit from Target Locks (Special Rule) in anyway.

The first and third are correct, but the second isn't (if i am understanding you correctly)

A squad of of crisis with buffmander has always been able to use target locks and still use the buffmanders rules. with the ITC ruling they will not get the +1BS using a target lock and shooting a different target then their unit.

A squad of of crisis with buffmander has always been able to use target locks and still use the buffmanders rules. with the ITC ruling they will not get the +1BS using a target lock and shooting a different target then their unit.

No actually the vote specifically points out that Special Rules are only shared if you fire at the CF Target. So if you participate in CF with your buffmander + crisis unit then his abilities will not be usable by his native unit models with Target Locks if they fire at something else, since you are part of CF.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/coordinated-firepower-and-split-fire.png

X078 wrote:

A squad of of crisis with buffmander has always been able to use target locks and still use the buffmanders rules. with the ITC ruling they will not get the +1BS using a target lock and shooting a different target then their unit.

No actually the vote specifically points out that Special Rules are only shared if you fire at the CF Target. So if you participate in CF with your buffmander + crisis unit then his abilities will not be usable by his native unit models with Target Locks if they fire at something else, since you are part of CF.

Oh yeah i guess if they are part of CFP yeah.

I thought you meant just normally in a unit lol

notredameguy10 wrote:

X078 wrote:

A squad of of crisis with buffmander has always been able to use target locks and still use the buffmanders rules. with the ITC ruling they will not get the +1BS using a target lock and shooting a different target then their unit.

No actually the vote specifically points out that Special Rules are only shared if you fire at the CF Target. So if you participate in CF with your buffmander + crisis unit then his abilities will not be usable by his native unit models with Target Locks if they fire at something else, since you are part of CF.

Sorry not true at all lol. I have played Tau since 3rd edition and that is how it always works and the ITC vote does NOT change that.

Changes everything. No one should play tau any other way

X078 wrote:

A squad of of crisis with buffmander has always been able to use target locks and still use the buffmanders rules. with the ITC ruling they will not get the +1BS using a target lock and shooting a different target then their unit.

No actually the vote specifically points out that Special Rules are only shared if you fire at the CF Target. So if you participate in CF with your buffmander + crisis unit then his abilities will not be usable by his native unit models with Target Locks if they fire at something else, since you are part of CF.

That is taken out of context. That question was specifically there to further clarify the previous question. i.e. if the vote allowed sharing of special rules, THEN how would target lock work. The intention of that question was to allow for different possibilities if rule sharing was allowed.

That is taken out of context. That question was specifically there to further clarify the previous question. i.e. if the vote allowed sharing of special rules, THEN how would target lock work. The intention of that question was to allow for different possibilities if rule sharing was allowed.

So by Special Rules they only mean the Marker Lights and +1BS?
Maybe the questions themselves had more information to go by that clarified that.

Almost 25% support. To be honest am suprised about it considering there are more non tau players then tau players, and no one who plays tau in a tournament would vote pro other faction.

So by Special Rules they only mean the Marker Lights and +1BS?
Maybe the questions themselves had more information to go by that clarified that.

As we can see, not all special rules are special rules for the voters. There's just no excuse here other than wanting to nerf something in fear of your own army losing some advantage.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
People calling it a targeted nerf need to remember that it didn't make it onto a vote because of its power. It made it onto a vote because you could get 10 different people in a room and ask them how it works, and not only would they would all answer differently, but most would claim their interpretation was correct by RAW with no margin of error.

We never had the issue of 10 different people thinking the wraithknight costs 10 different price points. Therefore: no vote on it. It's that simple.
(Although tbh I wouldn't be opposed to the almighty WK taking a hit with the bat.)

Sorry that is literally no interpretation of the rule. Anyone who says there is is just trying to nit pick and try to find anyway of nerfing it.

"shoot as if one unit"
its pretty simple lol

Does the rule actually say "shoot as if one unit", or does it say to "resolve the shooting attack as if they were one unit"? If it's so easy to understand, why do you have to change the wording?

'...resolving their shots as if they were a single unit - this includes the use of markerlight abilities...

notredameguy10 wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
People calling it a targeted nerf need to remember that it didn't make it onto a vote because of its power. It made it onto a vote because you could get 10 different people in a room and ask them how it works, and not only would they would all answer differently, but most would claim their interpretation was correct by RAW with no margin of error.

We never had the issue of 10 different people thinking the wraithknight costs 10 different price points. Therefore: no vote on it. It's that simple.
(Although tbh I wouldn't be opposed to the almighty WK taking a hit with the bat.)

Sorry that is literally no interpretation of the rule. Anyone who says there is is just trying to nit pick and try to find anyway of nerfing it.

"shoot as if one unit"
its pretty simple lol

Apparently it isn't as simple and clear as you think it is. Otherwise it wouldn't have come up as a vote.

 niv-mizzet wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
People calling it a targeted nerf need to remember that it didn't make it onto a vote because of its power. It made it onto a vote because you could get 10 different people in a room and ask them how it works, and not only would they would all answer differently, but most would claim their interpretation was correct by RAW with no margin of error.

We never had the issue of 10 different people thinking the wraithknight costs 10 different price points. Therefore: no vote on it. It's that simple.
(Although tbh I wouldn't be opposed to the almighty WK taking a hit with the bat.)

Sorry that is literally no interpretation of the rule. Anyone who says there is is just trying to nit pick and try to find anyway of nerfing it.

"shoot as if one unit"
its pretty simple lol

Apparently it isn't as simple and clear as you think it is. Otherwise it wouldn't have come up as a vote.

To him and naw, their tau shortly being places as OP was a gift from the GW gods. The fact that we all are forcing them to use the actual ruling shows their anger in being knocked down to the appropriate power level, instead of living in loop hole city

 niv-mizzet wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
People calling it a targeted nerf need to remember that it didn't make it onto a vote because of its power. It made it onto a vote because you could get 10 different people in a room and ask them how it works, and not only would they would all answer differently, but most would claim their interpretation was correct by RAW with no margin of error.

We never had the issue of 10 different people thinking the wraithknight costs 10 different price points. Therefore: no vote on it. It's that simple.
(Although tbh I wouldn't be opposed to the almighty WK taking a hit with the bat.)

Sorry that is literally no interpretation of the rule. Anyone who says there is is just trying to nit pick and try to find anyway of nerfing it.

"shoot as if one unit"
its pretty simple lol

Apparently it isn't as simple and clear as you think it is. Otherwise it wouldn't have come up as a vote.

It came to a vote for the exact same reason scatter-bikes came up, not unclear rules, but a preceived OPness. You can even see this in the wording. It was not "how does this work" is was "how do you wish to play". This was "is X powerful enough for us to nerf it?" Now that's not a bad thing, in fact I'd posit it as a good thing, but I would have liked a more measured response, as to the knee-jerk reaction we got. We have no idea is this would have been as powerful as people believe. If it turned out to be massively OP sweeping through tournaments, then yes, nerf it, but time was required to know the appropriate response.

Naw wrote:
What people are not realizing is that the Hunter Contingent was restrictive. You paid tax for troops that you didn't really want. Now that the only reason to play the Hunter Contingent in ITC is not there, people will look elsewhere, such as these:

X078 wrote:
I'm guessing people playing with these restrictions might aswell get used to facing one of the following lists.

#1
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD
Heavy Retribution Cadre 2 SS 1 GK
Riptide Wing 3 Riptides

#2
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD
Heavy Retribution Cadre 2 SS 1 GK
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK

I also expect to see the Piranha factory in use, to support the big suits.

Ah well, I'm sure that will also be nerfed as who cares of the rules when you can vote whatever you feel like.

You won't see those lists because ITC prevents taking more than one GMC that's not in the same squad. The Heavy Retaliation Cadre splits the Stormsurge's into two different squads.

DirtyDeeds wrote:

Naw wrote:
What people are not realizing is that the Hunter Contingent was restrictive. You paid tax for troops that you didn't really want. Now that the only reason to play the Hunter Contingent in ITC is not there, people will look elsewhere, such as these:

X078 wrote:
I'm guessing people playing with these restrictions might aswell get used to facing one of the following lists.

#1
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD
Heavy Retribution Cadre 2 SS 1 GK
Riptide Wing 3 Riptides

#2
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD
Heavy Retribution Cadre 2 SS 1 GK
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK

I also expect to see the Piranha factory in use, to support the big suits.

Ah well, I'm sure that will also be nerfed as who cares of the rules when you can vote whatever you feel like.

You won't see those lists because ITC prevents taking more than one GMC that's not in the same squad. The Heavy Retaliation Cadre splits the Stormsurge's into two different squads.

Thank goodness for that. The more I learn about the itc the happier I am with their rules and regulations

so. . .
If markerlight sharing is fine by ITC. . .
allow me to fire my markerlights first, and hopefully get 9 markerlights on the coordinated fire target - which I can use coordinated fire to increase the likelihood of doing so. . .
'hey, we can share markerlight abilities but not the buffmander? that is cool, take all these resolved at BS10 & Ignores Cover!'

I was looking through the ITC ruleset:
The Shooting Phase
"If a unit elects to Run and/or Turbo-boost, then all models in the unit must forgo their shooting to do so. It is perfectly fine for some models in a unit to Run while others Turbo-boost."
I guess that 'Zephyr's Grace' and 'Ambushes and Feints' don't work?

You won't see those lists because ITC prevents taking more than one GMC that's not in the same squad. The Heavy Retaliation Cadre splits the Stormsurge's into two different squads.

Thank goodness for that. The more I learn about the itc the happier I am with their rules and regulations

Lets me fix that for you:

#1
Tau CAD 1 Commander, 2 troops, 1 unit of 2 Stormsurges
Riptide Wing 3 Riptides
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD

#2
Tau CAD 1 Commander, 2 troops, 1 unit of 2 Stormsurges
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD

#3
Tau Hunter Contingent 1 Commander, 3 troops, 1 Elite, 1 Fast Attack, 1 Heavy Support, 1 Lord of War Unit of 2 Stormsurges
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD

#4
FSE CAD 1 Ethereal, 2 Crisis, 1 unit of 2 Stormsurges
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD
Piranha FireStream 5 Piranhas
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK


There, ITC Approved, have fun...

X078 wrote:

You won't see those lists because ITC prevents taking more than one GMC that's not in the same squad. The Heavy Retaliation Cadre splits the Stormsurge's into two different squads.

Thank goodness for that. The more I learn about the itc the happier I am with their rules and regulations

Lets me fix that for you:

#1
Tau CAD 1 Commander, 2 troops, 1 unit of 2 Stormsurges
Riptide Wing 3 Riptides
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD

#2
Tau CAD 1 Commander, 2 troops, 1 unit of 2 Stormsurges
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD

#3
Tau Hunter Contingent 1 Commander, 3 troops, 1 Elite, 1 Fast Attack, 1 Heavy Support, 1 Lord of War Unit of 2 Stormsurges
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD


There, ITC Approved, have fun...

luckily this isn't hard to deal with since those benefits are all gone

luckily this isn't hard to deal with since those benefits are all gone

Benefits won't matter anyway, depending on how you tailor the lists you can blanket the enemy in marker lights, everything will be some combination of BS 5/6, ignore cover, hitting rear armour, D-Strenght.

X078 wrote:

You won't see those lists because ITC prevents taking more than one GMC that's not in the same squad. The Heavy Retaliation Cadre splits the Stormsurge's into two different squads.

Thank goodness for that. The more I learn about the itc the happier I am with their rules and regulations

Lets me fix that for you:

#1
Tau CAD 1 Commander, 2 troops, 1 unit of 2 Stormsurges
Riptide Wing 3 Riptides
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD

#2
Tau CAD 1 Commander, 2 troops, 1 unit of 2 Stormsurges
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD

#3
Tau Hunter Contingent 1 Commander, 3 troops, 1 Elite, 1 Fast Attack, 1 Heavy Support, 1 Lord of War Unit of 2 Stormsurges
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD

#4
FSE CAD 1 Ethereal, 2 Crisis, 1 unit of 2 Stormsurges
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD
Piranha FireStream 5 Piranhas
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK


There, ITC Approved, have fun...

Then you start running into point issues, I was able to make an 1850 list with a min CAD (Mark'O and two squads of Strikers) with a Riptide Wing and two Stormsurges.... That was it...

X078 wrote:Further issues this vote creates for anyone using the ITC rules:

Commander with Drone Controller (Special Rule) Coordinating fire with a unit of drones does not work per ITC rules.

Buffmander in a unit of Crisis with Target Locks (Special Rule) firing as one of several units in Coordinated Fire cannot even use their own "native" buffs with Target Locks at another target.

Actually any 2+ units using ITC CF cannot benefit from Target Locks (Special Rule) in anyway.

You are incorrect on all three counts. The ITC vote was on playing CFP as sharing special rules when using Coordinated Firepower. As such, All of those examples still provide the benefits of their associated special rules to thier attached units, but not every unit that makes a CFP shooting attack under ITC rules.

X078 wrote:

You won't see those lists because ITC prevents taking more than one GMC that's not in the same squad. The Heavy Retaliation Cadre splits the Stormsurge's into two different squads.

Thank goodness for that. The more I learn about the itc the happier I am with their rules and regulations

Lets me fix that for you:

#1
Tau CAD 1 Commander, 2 troops, 1 unit of 2 Stormsurges
Riptide Wing 3 Riptides
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD

#2
Tau CAD 1 Commander, 2 troops, 1 unit of 2 Stormsurges
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD

#3
Tau Hunter Contingent 1 Commander, 3 troops, 1 Elite, 1 Fast Attack, 1 Heavy Support, 1 Lord of War Unit of 2 Stormsurges
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD

#4
FSE CAD 1 Ethereal, 2 Crisis, 1 unit of 2 Stormsurges
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD
Piranha FireStream 5 Piranhas
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK


There, ITC Approved, have fun...

Two problems with this list:

1. Good luck fitting all of that into 1850 points

2. The list still isn't ITC legal, as you are only allowed one duplicate formation. Doesn't matter what source is comes from either; you cannot take more than two of one formation, and you may only have one of every other formation.

X078 wrote:

luckily this isn't hard to deal with since those benefits are all gone

Benefits won't matter anyway, depending on how you tailor the lists you can blanket the enemy in marker lights, everything will be some combination of BS 5/6, ignore cover, hitting rear armour, D-Strenght.

Hitting rear armor is specific to the Optimized Stealth Cadre. The buffs that were in question came from the Command and Control Node, Multi-Spectrum Sensor Suite, and Puretide Engram Neurochip. These allows the unit the bearer was with to Ignore Cover, Twin Link, and Monster/Tank Hunter.

But honestly, I have not had a hard time utilizing a Hunter Contingent without sharing buffs. My Mark'O averages 5 Markerlights per turn which means that three units can Ignore Cover and become BS7 or BS9, which is all you'll need to drop that hardcore unit. The only thing I see us having problems with is Invisibility...

Doesn't every army?

Blasts still work though in the ITC

 Frozocrone wrote:
Doesn't every army?

Blasts still work though in the ITC

I understand that, I just wanted to impress the notion that Twin-Linked weapons help immensely while shooting at an Invisible unit.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
People calling it a targeted nerf need to remember that it didn't make it onto a vote because of its power. It made it onto a vote because you could get 10 different people in a room and ask them how it works, and not only would they would all answer differently, but most would claim their interpretation was correct by RAW with no margin of error.

We never had the issue of 10 different people thinking the wraithknight costs 10 different price points. Therefore: no vote on it. It's that simple.
(Although tbh I wouldn't be opposed to the almighty WK taking a hit with the bat.)

Sorry that is literally no interpretation of the rule. Anyone who says there is is just trying to nit pick and try to find anyway of nerfing it.

"shoot as if one unit"
its pretty simple lol

Apparently it isn't as simple and clear as you think it is. Otherwise it wouldn't have come up as a vote.

To him and naw, their tau shortly being places as OP was a gift from the GW gods. The fact that we all are forcing them to use the actual ruling shows their anger in being knocked down to the appropriate power level, instead of living in loop hole city

There is no loop hole anywhere except in your mind. And FYI I have BA / SM and Eldar.

To be fair the rule sharing (Without target lock sharing) make it possible to field a reasonable fluffy tau list and face for example a reasonably fluffy decurion list. It benefits smaller units and vehicles waaaay more than GMCs and MCs.

The only special rules that could be shared, really, were monster and tankhunter. Is that really that much different from the new mont'ka formation? And sure the buffmander got a pretty serious boost. But he's pretty freaking expensive and, ya know, you could kill or assault him. Or maybe stop building deathstar- or MC only lists.

I dont play ITC so w/e. But seriously how is overkilling a single unit once a turn for as long as a commander lives more broken than blanket 4+++ all the time. I just dont get it. Meanwhile me and my mate are having a blast he doesnt feel bad for fielding decurion and I finally get to field other stuff than triptides and not get tabled.

Well I doubt that anyone who spend money on a deathstar or MC using list would also think what ever, if tau worked RAW.

Makumba wrote:
Well I doubt that anyone who spend money on a deathstar or MC using list would also think what ever, if tau worked RAW.

Incorrect. Some of us just want to play RAW, regardless of any perceived inbalance.

SJ

Makumba wrote:
Well I doubt that anyone who spend money on a deathstar or MC using list would also think what ever, if tau worked RAW.

It is definitely easier to ban something than adapt to it

Makumba wrote:
Well I doubt that anyone who spend money on a deathstar or MC using list would also think what ever, if tau worked RAW.

What kind of pay to win argument is that. Stop building stupid one trick pony cheeselists.

This ruling didnt make sense in a tournament setup because all the rule wouldve done was change the meta. It doenst make sense from a fluffy perspective because the rule actually benefitted a fluffy list most.

If Tau win a big tournie soon it'll be just like everyone else by abusing big unkillable GMCs with big guns. So gj on making the game less interesting for everyone

Lets me fix that for you:

#1
Tau CAD 1 Commander, 2 troops, 1 unit of 2 Stormsurges
Riptide Wing 3 Riptides
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD

#2
Tau CAD 1 Commander, 2 troops, 1 unit of 2 Stormsurges
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD

#3
Tau Hunter Contingent 1 Commander, 3 troops, 1 Elite, 1 Fast Attack, 1 Heavy Support, 1 Lord of War Unit of 2 Stormsurges
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD

#4
FSE CAD 1 Ethereal, 2 Crisis, 1 unit of 2 Stormsurges
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD
Piranha FireStream 5 Piranhas
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK


There, ITC Approved, have fun...

Two problems with this list:

1. Good luck fitting all of that into 1850 points

2. The list still isn't ITC legal, as you are only allowed one duplicate formation. Doesn't matter what source is comes from either; you cannot take more than two of one formation, and you may only have one of every other formation.

1. Yeah it is tight on the points but I am just showing that is is possible, not that they are optimal lists.

2. As far as I know in ITC you can use 3 sources and only 2 can be duplicates. Using Hunter Contingent with auxiliaries counts as 1 with 2 to spare.

X078 wrote:
The wording used was that sharing of Special Rules are not allowed in CF when when firing at the same target, Drone Controller and Target Locks etc are all Special Rules thus affected. Unless there is more info somewhere that have missed. So the Commander with DC and another unit of Drones can outside of ITC join for CF thus becoming 1 unit even if they seperated and thus allowing the DC to work with the drones using the commanders BS.

...So we can't agree on what the ITC ruling affects?

X078 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

X078 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
That's if you get first turn. Honestly, you could tell me one counter n I tell you another. This won't get anywhere. Also, list tailor? Really? Spoken like a true fish

Yeah, list tailor in the sense that you optimize your lists, not that you write them specifically for one adversary lol

It's hard for me, personally, to justify building a take-all-comers list when I know for a fact that there will never be a plethora of enemy vehicles to target.

One of the problems that comes with playing games at home with a single opponent who uses my models.

Yeah, still the OSC is pretty versatile. Works on its own without much support and quite good against flyers also. Can always exchange it for Crisis units or more Riptides etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:

X078 wrote:
The wording used was that sharing of Special Rules are not allowed in CF when when firing at the same target, Drone Controller and Target Locks etc are all Special Rules thus affected. Unless there is more info somewhere that have missed. So the Commander with DC and another unit of Drones can outside of ITC join for CF thus becoming 1 unit even if they seperated and thus allowing the DC to work with the drones using the commanders BS.

...So we can't agree on what the ITC ruling affects?

If there is more info regarding this vote it would be nice to read. So far what I have seen only mentions that Special Rules are not shared amongst units when combining for CF, but I could be wrong.

The ruling regarding target locks and CFP had nothing to do with affecting the original squads rules. They obviously get their special rules even if they use target locks, like they always have been able to. That ruling/question was in regards to if the first rule got past (rules are shared amongst multiple units), THEN would Target Locks in those additional squads who got the rules added to their unit work.

The ruling regarding target locks and CFP had nothing to do with affecting the original squads rules. They obviously get their special rules even if they use target locks, like they always have been able to. That ruling/question was in regards to if the first rule got past (rules are shared amongst multiple units), THEN would Target Locks in those additional squads who got the rules added to their unit work.

OK got it, that just leaves the drone controller issue then.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Makumba wrote:
Well I doubt that anyone who spend money on a deathstar or MC using list would also think what ever, if tau worked RAW.

Incorrect. Some of us just want to play RAW, regardless of any perceived inbalance.

SJ

This rule is ambiguous the way it was worded so RAW doesn't really mean anything here.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Makumba wrote:
Well I doubt that anyone who spend money on a deathstar or MC using list would also think what ever, if tau worked RAW.

Incorrect. Some of us just want to play RAW, regardless of any perceived inbalance.

SJ

This rule is ambiguous the way it was worded so RAW doesn't really mean anything here.

You get a lot of tau players thinking it's clear as day. They'll argue it to their death bed. Just as in the beginning they attempted to argue that the stormsurge could anchor on a tidewall, and the tidewall move, and it still fire twice. All I've seen since release from the tau community are two things. Attempted loop holes, and crying when said loop holes are denied

If have read so many "facts" that would make CF in the USR sharing version unplayable or would break the game itself. up to now there was never a valid point. ( balancing is NEVER a RAW argument btw)
on the other side there are people who treat shots as units themself and so on.

on top of this there are tha many " Yeah Tau deserved that nerf" post. Wich is realy funny caus we had a RAW diskusion right? or wait... this was not a diskussion about RAw is was more abaut fear and such things nd that myth called ballancing.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Makumba wrote:
Well I doubt that anyone who spend money on a deathstar or MC using list would also think what ever, if tau worked RAW.

Incorrect. Some of us just want to play RAW, regardless of any perceived inbalance.

SJ

This rule is ambiguous the way it was worded so RAW doesn't really mean anything here.

You get a lot of tau players thinking it's clear as day. They'll argue it to their death bed. Just as in the beginning they attempted to argue that the stormsurge could anchor on a tidewall, and the tidewall move, and it still fire twice. All I've seen since release from the tau community are two things. Attempted loop holes, and crying when said loop holes are denied

I once met a guy in 3e who thought it was clear as day that my Tactical Sergeant with a Power Fist was breaking the rules because he thought only models with Terminator Armor could take Power Fists.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Makumba wrote:
Well I doubt that anyone who spend money on a deathstar or MC using list would also think what ever, if tau worked RAW.

Incorrect. Some of us just want to play RAW, regardless of any perceived inbalance.

SJ

This rule is ambiguous the way it was worded so RAW doesn't really mean anything here.

Its not ambiguous at all when you take into account how shooting currently works in 7th, specifically shooting weapon groups. The addition of the Marklight clause makes sense to with special rules sharing, as normally a unit cannot benefit from its own Markerlights, yet Coordinatied Fire means they can. Limiting the sharing of special rules is a rules charge fir preceived balance, not a clarification.

SJ

X078 wrote:

1. Yeah it is tight on the points but I am just showing that is is possible, not that they are optimal lists.

2. As far as I know in ITC you can use 3 sources and only 2 can be duplicates. Using Hunter Contingent with auxiliaries counts as 1 with 2 to spare.

The sources that you have used are Tau Empire and the Farsight Campaign book. Even across sources, you may not have more than one duplicate formation.

_ghost_ wrote:If have read so many "facts" that would make CF in the USR sharing version unplayable or would break the game itself. up to now there was never a valid point. ( balancing is NEVER a RAW argument btw)
on the other side there are people who treat shots as units themself and so on.

on top of this there are tha many " Yeah Tau deserved that nerf" post. Wich is realy funny caus we had a RAW diskusion right? or wait... this was not a diskussion about RAw is was more abaut fear and such things nd that myth called ballancing.

Again, the RAW may not be ambiguous, but that doesn't make CFP sharing special rules any less broken. People were rightly afraid of how stupidly overpowered Tau could be if this was allowed to stand.

A game with a decent ruleset should be balanced. As 40k is not balanced RAW, it must be artificially introduced into the game via house rules and TO rulings/FAQs. The ITC in my opinion has created the most balanced ruleset so far for taming 7th edition 40k.

But more to the point, I knew for a fact how it worked. But my opponent also knew for a fact how it worked. Yet I was unable to convince him. He left the game room that day still thinking that my model was against the rules. He was similarly unable to convince me. I left the game room that day still thinking my model was totally fine.

Didn't you just peruse the rules and it would have been settled?

Anyways that is similar to the the issue with Tau and the Coordinated Fire rule. People start adding their own personal assumptions in to how it is written. "Resolving shots as if one unit" is pretty clear unless US folks got some weird interpretation of "as if". In all honesty GW could have just left that part of the sentence out if they intended for the units to fire on their own. E.g. "These units resolve their shots together - including the use of Marker Lights". But now, RAW there is now ambiguity.

Does Fire Team work with CF under the ITC rules set?

If it doesn't it makes Coldstar really useless during most of the game. As drone controller clearly is ruled out, but "Fire Team" is not a USR.

X078 wrote:

But more to the point, I knew for a fact how it worked. But my opponent also knew for a fact how it worked. Yet I was unable to convince him. He left the game room that day still thinking that my model was against the rules. He was similarly unable to convince me. I left the game room that day still thinking my model was totally fine.

Didn't you just peruse the rules and it would have been settled?

Anyways that is similar to the the issue with Tau and the Coordinated Fire rule. People start adding their own personal assumptions in to how it is written. "Resolving shots as if one unit" is pretty clear unless US folks got some weird interpretation of "as if". In all honesty GW could have just left that part of the sentence out if they intended for the units to fire on their own. E.g. "These units resolve their shots together - including the use of Marker Lights". But now, RAW there is now ambiguity.

I opened the book and showed him what it said. He thought it proved his point.

Judging by his accent, there may have been a grammar issue between how English places words in a sentence and how French places words in a sentence. My french is pretty bad, certainly worse than his English (but the Codex was mine and in English). The difference between how I interpreted it and how he interpreted it was seriously a matter of just moving two words to after the words "models in Terminator armor" instead of before.

The sources that you have used are Tau Empire and the Farsight Campaign book. Even across sources, you may not have more than one duplicate formation.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-season-40k-tournament-format/

The Tau CAD is 1 detachment then plus 2 formations so should be valid.
The FSE one is wrong per ITC yeah, change the CAD for FSE Dawnblade Contingent using Hunter Cadre and it should work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thejughead wrote:
Does Fire Team work with CF under the ITC rules set?

If it doesn't it makes Coldstar really useless during most of the game. As drone controller clearly is ruled out, but "Fire Team" is not a USR.

Fire Team, don't know really. Depends on if the ITC vote view the CF units as 1 unit or not.
And as for the Coldstar its probably the same as with Fire Team, depends if one unit or not.

So yeah all in all we can see that RAW makes it clear that they are one unit since otherwise those two rules above would not work.

And I should add that Drone Controller Coldstar with Target Lock is also my favorite loadout

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Again, the RAW may not be ambiguous, but that doesn't make CFP sharing special rules any less broken. People were rightly afraid of how stupidly overpowered Tau could be if this was allowed to stand.

Which is my point, this was not a rules vote, this was a nerf vote.
Was it necessary? Perhaps. We didn't know yet, considering it's only been a thing for a couple weeks and have seen no tournament results. That's my bugbear in this whole thing, the knee-jerk reaction instead of a more measured response. I may not have actually buffed tau that much, we don't know yet.

Just went to a tournament with the new ITC ruleset. It was a somewhat small tournament but out of the 16 people there, 5 brought Tau!

Anyways, it was Round #2 and the 2 Tau players were playing against each other (on Table #1). They were also the 2 top players at that point. It was Paul McKelvey, the ITC #1 Tau player, playing against Jeremy Vesseire aka The French Overlord.

They then proceeded to knock each other out of the championship with a draw, thus allowing a Daemon player to win it all.

 jy2 wrote:
Just went to a tournament with the new ITC ruleset. It was a somewhat small tournament but out of the 16 people there, 5 brought Tau!

Anyways, it was Round #2 and the 2 Tau players were playing against each other (on Table #1). They were also the 2 top players at that point. It was Paul McKelvey, the ITC #1 Tau player, playing against Jeremy Vesseire aka The French Overlord.

They then proceeded to knock each other out with a draw, thus allowing a Daemon player to win it all.

Nice, any feedback on how playing ITC Tau vs RAW Tau was? And what lists did they use?

 jy2 wrote:
Just went to a tournament with the new ITC ruleset. It was a somewhat small tournament but out of the 16 people there, 5 brought Tau!

Anyways, it was Round #2 and the 2 Tau players were playing against each other (on Table #1). They were also the 2 top players at that point. It was Paul McKelvey, the ITC #1 Tau player, playing against Jeremy Vesseire aka The French Overlord.

They then proceeded to knock each other out of the championship with a draw, thus allowing a Daemon player to win it all.

That is pretty funny, I am nowhere near the caliber of player they are, but my friends and I have done that to each other before at a tournament and it was pretty funny.


i would also love to see more details from the game like the mission info and the lists used.

 TheNewBlood wrote:


Again, the RAW may not be ambiguous, but that doesn't make CFP sharing special rules any less broken. People were rightly afraid of how stupidly overpowered Tau could be if this was allowed to stand.

Thats the point!

its simply wrong to act as if we are dabating RAW wen the only purpose is to do balancing via hous rules. I totaly agree that this could be to strong. and that it should maybe limited. but its gives such a bad taste when someone tries to justify it by telling me the rule itself is ambigous. this is exactly what happened. It was a wild mix of wrong or irelevant rule quoting , balancing issues and last but not least fear mongering. without proper game testing.

The ITC vote results underscore that popularity and fairness are two different things.

The ITC want well-attended events so their solution is to let the mob vote for "how they want to play." The ITC events will be well-attended as a result and maximum revenue generated.

The alternative of letting the Tau play the Hunter Contingent according to RAW would have scared a number of players from attending ITC events. The mob has not had a chance to play against the Hunter Contingent but boy are they scared of it.


The problem with doing things the mob vote way though is that it will cause certain unfair (yet popular) things to happen.

1) The majority instills unfair buffs to promote it's own interests. The Imperium of Man benefits from several buffs that go against the rules in the BRB.

2) The majority instills unfair nerfs against powerful minorities to weaken their interests. The Tau received an unfair nerfing that went against RAW and before any reasonable amount of testing had been done.

3) Weak minorities can get unfair buffs due to the 'underdog effect' so long as they don't threaten majority interests. The Orks were given a completely unfair buff in this ITC vote but it's okay and popular since they are weak underdogs and mascots for 40k.


The alternative to doing things the mob vote way is to elect or nominate a panel of impartial experts (with ideally very little or nothing at stake in any particular faction) who will instill rulings according to RAW/RAI and buff or nerf against RAW/RAI conservatively and only when it proves necessary to balance the game. This method will generate a fairer set of rules than the 'mob vote' method, but sales of tickets at large events will be affected negatively, since some of the fair rulings by this expert panel will undoubtedly sometimes be unpopular to the majority.

I think the ITC ruleset should be recognized for what it is. It's a consensual ruleset that heavily favors popularity over fairness and seeks to maximize attendance at large events by catering to the masses at the expense of minorities.
Since the ITC is unfair at it's core, I won't be using it unless I am prepping for or attending an ITC event. It is simply not a fair standard. Mob voting and methods of maximizing attendance have no place in generating a fair set of rules and a standard set of house rules for playing 40k.

X078 wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
Just went to a tournament with the new ITC ruleset. It was a somewhat small tournament but out of the 16 people there, 5 brought Tau!

Anyways, it was Round #2 and the 2 Tau players were playing against each other (on Table #1). They were also the 2 top players at that point. It was Paul McKelvey, the ITC #1 Tau player, playing against Jeremy Vesseire aka The French Overlord.

They then proceeded to knock each other out with a draw, thus allowing a Daemon player to win it all.

Nice, any feedback on how playing ITC Tau vs RAW Tau was? And what lists did they use?

Both are top, top players and neither ran any Stormsurges. While I don't know what exactly they were running, Paul was running MSU and Jeremy brought several Ghostkeels (I am assuming the Hunter Cadre + 2 OSC's).

I've played against both before and both are very, very good. If they hadn't knocked each other out, Tau would have won the tournament even with the nerfed intepretation of the CF rules. Honestly, I don't know what effect the ITC's FAQ of the CF had on their games, but both are smart enough to adjust to the changes.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
Just went to a tournament with the new ITC ruleset. It was a somewhat small tournament but out of the 16 people there, 5 brought Tau!

Anyways, it was Round #2 and the 2 Tau players were playing against each other (on Table #1). They were also the 2 top players at that point. It was Paul McKelvey, the ITC #1 Tau player, playing against Jeremy Vesseire aka The French Overlord.

They then proceeded to knock each other out of the championship with a draw, thus allowing a Daemon player to win it all.

That is pretty funny, I am nowhere near the caliber of player they are, but my friends and I have done that to each other before at a tournament and it was pretty funny.


i would also love to see more details from the game like the mission info and the lists used.

Apparently it was a very tightly contested game that ended that went over the time limit to T5. However, had they stopped before time was called, I think Jeremy would have won. But Paul manage to tie it up on T5.

Can't give you any other specifics on the game though. I was too busy with my own game.

Well thanks for the info, sounds like it would have been a very interesting game to watch.

X078 wrote:

But more to the point, I knew for a fact how it worked. But my opponent also knew for a fact how it worked. Yet I was unable to convince him. He left the game room that day still thinking that my model was against the rules. He was similarly unable to convince me. I left the game room that day still thinking my model was totally fine.

Didn't you just peruse the rules and it would have been settled?

Anyways that is similar to the the issue with Tau and the Coordinated Fire rule. People start adding their own personal assumptions in to how it is written. "Resolving shots as if one unit" is pretty clear unless US folks got some weird interpretation of "as if". In all honesty GW could have just left that part of the sentence out if they intended for the units to fire on their own. E.g. "These units resolve their shots together - including the use of Marker Lights". But now, RAW there is now ambiguity.

"As if" is more of a "similar to" rather than "exactly the same". In fact, in the past GW has ruled that way on several other rules. For example, counter attack granted +1A "as if" the unit was charging, but they faqd it to clarify the "as if" did not mean "exactly the same as" having charged, and thus counter attack did not trigger rage, furious charge, etc. Hence the statements of ambiguity.

For all the Tau players, I think we have made it perfectly clear that we are upset/disappointed regarding with the ITC vote/results. Now I believe, we should start moving on and start thinking of new possible tactics/army lists if were participating under an ITC event. We are starting to sound very whinny, at least from my perspective. Don't get me wrong, I am still upset and disappointed about the results but nothing I say now on the internet will change the results. So I suggest we should let it play out, see if TAU is still just in the middle of the pack regarding tournament settings then start submitting submission forms to frontline gaming to possibly un-nerfing CF. Hope you guys/gals don't take this the wrong way.

 Mulletdude wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
Ok, here's the leaderboard for that event: http://app.torrentoffire.com/#/tournament/NOVA-Open-2015/1/leaderboard

Tau finishes:

2nd (Tau-Dar): 7-1
34th (Tau-Tau): 6-2
51st (Tau-Tau) 5-3
87th (Tau) 4-4
151st (Tau-CSM) 3-5
160th (Tau) 0-5 drop

Except for the one person, the Tau players in the entire event were all in the positive, with the only other person with a record below even was allied with CSM.

Yes, it's one event, but it's one of the largest events, and Tau did 25-20 in record, that's accounting the player who didn't even play all their games, and even if they lost all of their unplayed games Tau would still be positive. If we drop the one statistically abnormal result Tau went 25-15, which is a win rate of 62% which is insane at that level of play.


Edit: And remember, this is pre-buffs, like all the formations, the Ghostkeel, the Stormsurge, and whatever else.

Um. Why don't you just go to their analysis of the event? Tau had a 48% win rate. Lower than CSM.

http://www.torrentoffire.com/7287/nova-2015-recap wrote:Also, for the first time in three years, Tau came in with a losing record, and were actually outperformed by Chaos Space Marines.

Where are they getting these numbers? The results they posted don't indicate this at all because I used every single player that was listed as playing Tau in my quick analysis. The total number of games played by all Tau players listed as Tau in that event is 45, the amount of games won is 25 to 20, even if you include the 0-5 guy, which is above 50%, and even if you give him 3 extra losses for the games he didn't play because of dropping from the event, it's still above 50%


Actually wait, I know what they did, the second place guy at 7-1 is listed as Eldar, not Tau, so they counted it as (25-7)/(45-8) which gives you the 48%. However, that's a really weird way of counting it, since his list is 62% Tau at 1151 points, to the 699 points of Eldar he brought giving him 37% Edlar but still being listed as Eldar.

So yes, Tau has a losing record if you leave in the 0-5-drop guy and then remove the 7-1 list that was majority Tau, which is basically cooking the books :/.

Edit: And if you drop the 7-1 list and the 0-5 list, your Tau statistic once again becomes above 50% at 56%.

How are the lovely Sororitas doing in this contentious event?

 Pouncey wrote:
How are the lovely Sororitas doing in this contentious event?

Two results, on at 5-3 and one at 3-5 (52nd and 65th respectively), So all and all 50%.

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
How are the lovely Sororitas doing in this contentious event?

Two results, on at 5-3 and one at 3-5 (52nd and 65th respectively), So all and all 50%.

Yay! Not getting horribly crushed constantly! : D

But isn't that a departure from the fluff? Sororitas are supposed to get slaughtered horribly but end up succeeding at their main objective anyways, like if they're after a holy relic in enemy territory then they go in with a thousand-strong force and come out with less than a squad, but having claimed their target successfully.

Unless... Does the victory conditions just count casualties? Or if they succeed at the mission, is it still counted as a win despite, say, 95% casualties?

 Pouncey wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
How are the lovely Sororitas doing in this contentious event?

Two results, on at 5-3 and one at 3-5 (52nd and 65th respectively), So all and all 50%.

Yay! Not getting horribly crushed constantly! : D

But isn't that a departure from the fluff? Sororitas are supposed to get slaughtered horribly but end up succeeding at their main objective anyways, like if they're after a holy relic in enemy territory then they go in with a thousand-strong force and come out with less than a squad, but having claimed their target successfully.

Unless... Does the victory conditions just count casualties? Or if they succeed at the mission, is it still counted as a win despite, say, 95% casualties?

It's a mix of things really, and every tournament does that mix differently, here's a link to the Nova mission objectives (Primary, secondary, and tertiary), it starts at the bottom of page 5 and ends on page 12:

http://www.novaopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015-40K-GT-Invitational-July-31-Primer.pdf

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
How are the lovely Sororitas doing in this contentious event?

Two results, on at 5-3 and one at 3-5 (52nd and 65th respectively), So all and all 50%.

Yay! Not getting horribly crushed constantly! : D

But isn't that a departure from the fluff? Sororitas are supposed to get slaughtered horribly but end up succeeding at their main objective anyways, like if they're after a holy relic in enemy territory then they go in with a thousand-strong force and come out with less than a squad, but having claimed their target successfully.

Unless... Does the victory conditions just count casualties? Or if they succeed at the mission, is it still counted as a win despite, say, 95% casualties?

It's a mix of things really, and every tournament does that mix differently, here's a link to the Nova mission objectives (Primary, secondary, and tertiary), it starts at the bottom of page 5 and ends on page 12:

http://www.novaopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015-40K-GT-Invitational-July-31-Primer.pdf

I think they had a typo...

They've got a part describing the tie-breaker method that I think is supposed to say that units at or below half their original starting strength are worth half their point cost in points. But they left out the word half entirely, and the way it's written, so long as a unit didn't have a net gain of models, wounds or hull points, their opponent gets half their point cost...

Ties are broken through Points Destroyed (the points value destroyed of an opponent’s army; units
brought to or below their original starting # of models, wounds or hull points - depending on unit type -
are worth half their point cost; units completely destroyed are worth all their point cost).

I wonder if anyone even noticed or if everyone just skimmed that part since it's pretty universal that half or below is worth half points.

Then I got to the missions. Lotsa words there... Lots... and lot of words...

Sisters of battle aren't bad at all. Certainly not in the top 3, and a decent amount of their codex isn't great, but they can still compete with many codexes quite well.

Akiasura wrote:
Sisters of battle aren't bad at all. Certainly not in the top 3, and a decent amount of their codex isn't great, but they can still compete with many codexes quite well.

Yay! Plus without plastics, they have the advantage of surprise, because due to their prohibitive costs, most players don't get to play against them often.

That certainly doesn't hurt, though in tournaments I'd expect most players to at least be passingly aware of their dangerous units.

A quick read through their dex shows the better units and combos.

Akiasura wrote:
That certainly doesn't hurt, though in tournaments I'd expect most players to at least be passingly aware of their dangerous units.

A quick read through their dex shows the better units and combos.

And a quick read is all it takes, because there isn't much to read.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
How are the lovely Sororitas doing in this contentious event?

Two results, on at 5-3 and one at 3-5 (52nd and 65th respectively), So all and all 50%.

Yay! Not getting horribly crushed constantly! : D

But isn't that a departure from the fluff? Sororitas are supposed to get slaughtered horribly but end up succeeding at their main objective anyways, like if they're after a holy relic in enemy territory then they go in with a thousand-strong force and come out with less than a squad, but having claimed their target successfully.

Unless... Does the victory conditions just count casualties? Or if they succeed at the mission, is it still counted as a win despite, say, 95% casualties?

It's a mix of things really, and every tournament does that mix differently, here's a link to the Nova mission objectives (Primary, secondary, and tertiary), it starts at the bottom of page 5 and ends on page 12:

http://www.novaopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015-40K-GT-Invitational-July-31-Primer.pdf

I think they had a typo...

They've got a part describing the tie-breaker method that I think is supposed to say that units at or below half their original starting strength are worth half their point cost in points. But they left out the word half entirely, and the way it's written, so long as a unit didn't have a net gain of models, wounds or hull points, their opponent gets half their point cost...

Ties are broken through Points Destroyed (the points value destroyed of an opponent’s army; units
brought to or below their original starting # of models, wounds or hull points - depending on unit type -
are worth half their point cost; units completely destroyed are worth all their point cost).

I wonder if anyone even noticed or if everyone just skimmed that part since it's pretty universal that half or below is worth half points.

Then I got to the missions. Lotsa words there... Lots... and lot of words...

Events have judges so if something like that comes up a judge can make a ruling or clarify confusion, but yea, it's just a silly typo.

It's basically a different mission each round, which is good as it keeps things different and makes a player experience preform under various conditions and tactical requirements. Tournaments have a bad reputation around here, but honestly, if tournaments are formatted correctly there will always be something for everyone and casual players get the most reward. That's not to say every tournament rewards casual players the most, but the majority of tournaments will be skewed to them, while the majority of spectator tournaments are skewed towards the top X% of the community.

Akiasura wrote:
Sisters of battle aren't bad at all. Certainly not in the top 3, and a decent amount of their codex isn't great, but they can still compete with many codexes quite well.

I hear the biggest issue they have is they're too specialised in terms of weapon options, being mostly melta or flamer, but they have some very valid strengths and a special character that's very potent.