Probably a hoax, but mabye not. If it was limited to people who actually were in tournaments only, we wouldn't have to question things like this right now.
Should be a hoax, because there were measures taken to make sure people couldn't vote twice. You needed to provide the correct name to email address, and each combination of name to email address could only be used once.
Besides, I'm pretty sure the intent of the rule by GW wasn't to have them form a single unit, but instead bumbled the rules on having them fire "as if they were a single unit" to try and let them just fire all at the same time. The reason being that the shooting process requires that you select a unit instead of multiple units, so in this case you select 3 or more units instead of a single unit to fire with. The rest of the shooting process occurs as separate units, and so each unit's own special rules are handled separately.
Why are people so angry about this ruling? I'm a tau player and I think it was beyond overpowered until they fixed it.
Heck, I did a quick analysis of the Nova Open results for this year and Tau were above 50% win rate as a whole in the event, only going to 48% that they posted if you ignore the second place list that was 62% tau but labeled as Eldar with Tau allies. The Nova format is also a lot more welcoming to death stars than the ITC which is a big weakness for tau. This was also all before the massive buffs we got in the new codex.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also this person could have easily voted 50 times but then their votes could have just as easily been pruned when they went over it to check if there were duplicate votes. In other words, he can submit 50 votes, but it doesn't mean 49 of those votes won't get deleted without him knowing.
I do believe if you make a new email under a different name that it could potentially go through. The only way I can think of that would prevent that is if they can link their vote to an IP address. Even then just use a different computer with the new email. So it is not outside the possibilities that this happened.
Is 50% win rate really that great? If anything that just means you are in the middle of the pack.
Tautastic wrote: I do believe if you make a new email under a different name that it could potentially go through. The only way I can think of that would prevent that is if they can link their vote to an IP address. Even then just use a different computer with the new email. So it is not outside the possibilities that this happened.
Not so. When you sign up for an ITC event, you give your name and email address, and your score is tracked. As such, simply having a unique email address and name isn't enough, they also have to be an email address and name that matches one that has played in a tournament over the past year.
Tautastic wrote: I do believe if you make a new email under a different name that it could potentially go through. The only way I can think of that would prevent that is if they can link their vote to an IP address. Even then just use a different computer with the new email. So it is not outside the possibilities that this happened.
Is 50% win rate really that great? If anything that just means you are in the middle of the pack.
50% is where every army should be, assuming all variables are equal.
For example, if you like to play MOBAs, if a champion has a win rate of let's say 55% in ranked. He is overpowered.
But don't forget, this was a rules clarification, not a nerf/buff for Tau vote. A lot of people think this is how it is supposed to work.
_ghost_ wrote: If its not a hoax and if this was not regocnized by the itc then this poll is ivalid
Negative. Did reecius himself say this? Do you control itc? It's already been stated how impossible it is? It is a hoax. If a revote happens, guess I'll call on my friends to make sure same results apply.
cant you see that this poll cant be a legit one if it was manipulated with 50 votes?
I see ... you liked the result but pretending it is manipulated then nobody can use. thats all i said.
So no need to call for Reecius. Its also nice that you would like t o manipulate votes in your favor. this speaks for yourself
You really didn't understand my questions? You said if not a hoax the results are invalid. Itc can decide that for themselves, not you. You'd love for this to be a hoax. I'm afraid tau players will jump on this, hug it like a safety blanket, and demand another voting simply cause "but itc, what if it's true? It's our tau, and we want them now!" Get over it. Itc can decide if they believe it or not. If they don't, they can keep this amazing ruling. If they do believe it, they could still decide to keep this amazing ruling as the majority agree with it.
i said that if the vote was succesfully manipulated then its worth nothing.
This is nothing what could be decided by the ITC or anybody else. A Manipulated vote is a piec of gak if you want to use that result to claim " this is what the mass wanted" thats it. and this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of any vote.
So what is your point? i am right in this one. What you are telling me is a total different story. its not my fault that you mess this two things up in your mind. im realy sorry for that.
Tautastic wrote: I do believe if you make a new email under a different name that it could potentially go through. The only way I can think of that would prevent that is if they can link their vote to an IP address. Even then just use a different computer with the new email. So it is not outside the possibilities that this happened.
Not so. When you sign up for an ITC event, you give your name and email address, and your score is tracked. As such, simply having a unique email address and name isn't enough, they also have to be an email address and name that matches one that has played in a tournament over the past year.
That is true if the vote was limited to ranked ITC players but it was open to the public and all you needed was a name and an e-mail. So it is possible since it was opened to the public.
Why is it amazing, it goes against RAW and buff the armies that were already wining tournamentsr un undert he ITC rules.
It would be amazing if it produced a meta shift or something like that. Keeping up the status quo seems more like a safe, normal or easiest thing to do. Nothing to be amazed. Now if an ITC suddenly made SOB or IG the best tournament army, then it would be amazing, maybe even shocking.
i said that if the vote was succesfully manipulated then its worth nothing.
This is nothing what could be decided by the ITC or anybody else. A Manipulated vote is a piec of gak if you want to use that result to claim " this is what the mass wanted" thats it. and this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of any vote.
So what is your point? i am right in this one. What you are telling me is a total different story. its not my fault that you mess this two things up in your mind. im realy sorry for that.
Didn't know you made itc decisions. Dang man, you're pretty important
Tautastic wrote: That is true if the vote was limited to ranked ITC players but it was open to the public and all you needed was a name and an e-mail. So it is possible since it was opened to the public.
That's odd... because when I voted on this, it asked for my ITC rank. I thought it was internal only. Double-checking; Yes, this was an internal-poll only. They did only limit their voting to ranked ITC players;
First of all, a foreword on changes we made to our methodology this go around. For one, we required that voters verify their identity. We did this as we had discovered that in previous polls, some folks had been voting more than once or were asking friends to vote that didn’t participate in the ITC and had no stake in the outcome. So, we adjusted our procedures to eliminate this type of behavior. As a result, we got less votes than last time, but, probably close to the same umber of unique voters. And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet.
- https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/11/29/3rd-quarter-mid-season-itc-update-poll-results/
so you tell me that it would be good if ITC use manipulated votes to back up theri ruling? especialy if the vot was done to back this up? Is this your point of view?
Tautastic wrote: That is true if the vote was limited to ranked ITC players but it was open to the public and all you needed was a name and an e-mail. So it is possible since it was opened to the public.
That's odd... because when I voted on this, it asked for my ITC rank. I thought it was internal only. Double-checking; Yes, this was an internal-poll only. They did only limit their voting to ranked ITC players;
First of all, a foreword on changes we made to our methodology this go around. For one, we required that voters verify their identity. We did this as we had discovered that in previous polls, some folks had been voting more than once or were asking friends to vote that didn’t participate in the ITC and had no stake in the outcome. So, we adjusted our procedures to eliminate this type of behavior. As a result, we got less votes than last time, but, probably close to the same umber of unique voters. And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet.
- https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/11/29/3rd-quarter-mid-season-itc-update-poll-results/
Oh good, then there is no reason for the tau community to hope that they can get their loop holes back. Thank you for this valuable info
Yarium wrote: That's odd... because when I voted on this, it asked for my ITC rank. I thought it was internal only. Double-checking; Yes, this was an internal-poll only. They did only limit their voting to ranked ITC players;
First of all, a foreword on changes we made to our methodology this go around. For one, we required that voters verify their identity. We did this as we had discovered that in previous polls, some folks had been voting more than once or were asking friends to vote that didn’t participate in the ITC and had no stake in the outcome. So, we adjusted our procedures to eliminate this type of behavior. As a result, we got less votes than last time, but, probably close to the same umber of unique voters. And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet. - https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/11/29/3rd-quarter-mid-season-itc-update-poll-results/
Seems pretty clear that the only barrier for voting is the voter's word that they might play in an ITC event some day or that they don't, but still may use the guidelines.
The voting should be done by a panel of experts that do not compete in the tournament; not by a militant army of tau fanboys and butthurt guys that get wrecked by tau.
The very idea of an open vote done by the actual athletes is ludicrous. Of course everyone will vote in their own favor.
Seems pretty clear that the only barrier for voting is the voter's word that they might play in an ITC event some day or that they don't, but still may use the guidelines.
Yeah, I'm not sure how they did that, because like I said you had to provide your ITC rank during the poll, so I'm not sure how "plan on doing so in the near future" factored into that. I'm trusting the ITC that their system was meant to handle abuses like this.
Tautastic wrote: That is true if the vote was limited to ranked ITC players but it was open to the public and all you needed was a name and an e-mail. So it is possible since it was opened to the public.
That's odd... because when I voted on this, it asked for my ITC rank. I thought it was internal only. Double-checking; Yes, this was an internal-poll only. They did only limit their voting to ranked ITC players;
Say what? From the quote provided by you below:
And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet
How do you deduce from this that only those who have participated got to vote? By providing your (imaginary) name and email, no need for rank, you were counted as a voter.
Tautastic wrote: That is true if the vote was limited to ranked ITC players but it was open to the public and all you needed was a name and an e-mail. So it is possible since it was opened to the public.
That's odd... because when I voted on this, it asked for my ITC rank. I thought it was internal only. Double-checking; Yes, this was an internal-poll only. They did only limit their voting to ranked ITC players;
Say what? From the quote provided by you below:
And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet
How do you deduce from this that only those who have participated got to vote? By providing your (imaginary) name and email, no need for rank, you were counted as a voter.
Please don't try and act as if it's even possible that it was fixed
"And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet"
people who dont have participated yet but want to cant have a rank
_ghost_ wrote: "And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet"
people who dont have participated yet but want to cant have a rank
_ghost_ wrote: "And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet"
people who dont have participated yet but want to cant have a rank
Are you guys demanding a revote? I sure hope not
That it potentially was manipulated by someone, yes it is possible. Do I actually care? Nope, I don't have anything invested in this. Do I think this should be a popularity vote? Definitely not.
I hope they review the voting mechanism and eliminate any chance of manipulation in the future because stuff like this potentially invalidates any future votes on anything.
_ghost_ wrote: "And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet"
people who dont have participated yet but want to cant have a rank
Are you guys demanding a revote? I sure hope not
If there's proof that the vote was compromised, then it should be redone. If there's not, then it shouldn't.
Hell, I don't care either way - I still get to play 9 Riptides at 1850 if I want.
_ghost_ wrote: "And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet"
people who dont have participated yet but want to cant have a rank
Are you guys demanding a revote? I sure hope not
If there's proof that the vote was compromised, then it should be redone. If there's not, then it shouldn't.
Hell, I don't care either way - I still get to play 9 Riptides at 1850 if I want.
Off topic, 9 riptides isn't a great tactical choice. On topic, if reecius can't find proof that it did happen, and this guy saying he did it isn't proof, then there is no reason for a revote. Only, and only if, he finds absolute proof, not like meh could be, should it be redone.
So is this what we've come to? Taking an anonymous comment on 4chan as the truth? If 4chan told me the sky was blue, I'd look out my window to double-check.
Crimson Devil wrote:They are hoping to have the vote invalidated by proving Reece is actually Kenyan.
Exalted!
"My name is Prince Reecius. I have a system of Warhammer 40kFAQs and balance changes for you, so long as you send me your banking information."
_ghost_ wrote:"And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet"
people who dont have participated yet but want to cant have a rank
Exactly. Everyone and their brother could have voted, but only the people wiht an ITC number cast the votes that were counted.
Remember, the ITC represents the interests of its members, not the global 40k playerbase.
_ghost_ wrote: "And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet"
people who dont have participated yet but want to cant have a rank
Are you guys demanding a revote? I sure hope not
If there's proof that the vote was compromised, then it should be redone. If there's not, then it shouldn't.
Hell, I don't care either way - I still get to play 9 Riptides at 1850 if I want.
TheNewBlood wrote: So is this what we've come to? Taking an anonymous comment on 4chan as the truth? If 4chan told me the sky was blue, I'd look out my window to double-check.
Crimson Devil wrote:They are hoping to have the vote invalidated by proving Reece is actually Kenyan.
Exalted!
"My name is Prince Reecius. I have a system of Warhammer 40kFAQs and balance changes for you, so long as you send me your banking information."
_ghost_ wrote:"And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet"
people who dont have participated yet but want to cant have a rank
Exactly. Everyone and their brother could have voted, but only the people wiht an ITC number cast the votes that were counted.
Remember, the ITC represents the interests of its members, not the global 40k playerbase.
_ghost_ wrote: "And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet"
people who dont have participated yet but want to cant have a rank
Are you guys demanding a revote? I sure hope not
If there's proof that the vote was compromised, then it should be redone. If there's not, then it shouldn't.
Hell, I don't care either way - I still get to play 9 Riptides at 1850 if I want.
Were we supposed to be under the impression there wouldn't be vote stuffing in the first place? Or perhaps we were supposed to believe it's not possible to combat such blatant practices? Are we supposed to think the total counted votes (somewhere around a paltry thousand) also includes block votes numbering somethting like 50 or 100?
Oh wait, I know, I'm supposed to believe no one would post something like that on an anonymous consequence-free message board with no registry requirements and a culture that promotes trolling unless it was true?
Come on guys, it's just a lazy troll trying to kick up salt.
Pretty much exactly as captain joystick said, a claim on 4chan is worth nothing without proof. I could easily go there and claim I did the same thing in favor of the Tau.
Seems pretty clear that the only barrier for voting is the voter's word that they might play in an ITC event some day or that they don't, but still may use the guidelines.
Yeah, I'm not sure how they did that, because like I said you had to provide your ITC rank during the poll, so I'm not sure how "plan on doing so in the near future" factored into that. I'm trusting the ITC that their system was meant to handle abuses like this.
*Sigh* reecius specifically said in the comments of the poll that ITC ranking was NOT REQUIRED for this vote. the wanted it to merely have more data to so if the vote would be different for ranked people vs non ranked people.
Were we supposed to be under the impression there wouldn't be vote stuffing in the first place? Or perhaps we were supposed to believe it's not possible to combat such blatant practices? Are we supposed to think the total counted votes (somewhere around a paltry thousand) also includes block votes numbering somethting like 50 or 100?
Oh wait, I know, I'm supposed to believe no one would post something like that on an anonymous consequence-free message board with no registry requirements and a culture that promotes trolling unless it was true?
Come on guys, it's just a lazy troll trying to kick up salt.
Maybe. but I have been all over warseer, this site, and bolterandchainsword for the past few weeks and the vast majority of people all agreed on the ruling of CFP. No way were there more than 50% of people disagreeing with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Genuine question: who really thinks rule design by democracy is a good idea?
_ghost_ wrote: The one later used several names... so if the came up in the vote without a matching ITC rank.... its proven...
Negative. Him popping up once only proves he voted once. You need to find and prove he used at least one other name. Him saying he did is not proof
Positive: Several name of that list poping up would mean that eighter he has the data of the votes.. or he entered said names. interesting that you speak of ONE name and i said several nameS. i used plural
_ghost_ wrote: The one later used several names... so if the came up in the vote without a matching ITC rank.... its proven...
Negative. Him popping up once only proves he voted once. You need to find and prove he used at least one other name. Him saying he did is not proof
Positive: Several name of that list poping up would mean that eighter he has the data of the votes.. or he entered said names. interesting that you speak of ONE name and i said several nameS. i used plural
You obviously don't understand English very well. To prove that he voted more than once, you'll have to find multiple names that lead back to his IP address. As I doubt he put George or whatever everytime he voted with a new email address if he even did what he says he did. Therefore. You need to find multiple emails and names all leading back to the same cpu in order to have a case that he possibly voted more then once. You then need to prove that multiple people didn't use that same cup to vote. See how impossible it's getting?
Tautastic wrote: I do believe if you make a new email under a different name that it could potentially go through. The only way I can think of that would prevent that is if they can link their vote to an IP address. Even then just use a different computer with the new email. So it is not outside the possibilities that this happened.
Is 50% win rate really that great? If anything that just means you are in the middle of the pack.
50% is balanced given equal skill, but they had above 55% depending on which factors you considered going all the way up to 60%+. Thats grossly overpowered levels of win rate.
_ghost_ wrote: The one later used several names... so if the came up in the vote without a matching ITC rank.... its proven...
Negative. Him popping up once only proves he voted once. You need to find and prove he used at least one other name. Him saying he did is not proof
Positive: Several name of that list poping up would mean that eighter he has the data of the votes.. or he entered said names. interesting that you speak of ONE name and i said several nameS. i used plural
You obviously don't understand English very well. To prove that he voted more than once, you'll have to find multiple names that lead back to his IP address. As I doubt he put George or whatever everytime he voted with a new email address if he even did what he says he did. Therefore. You need to find multiple emails and names all leading back to the same cpu in order to have a case that he possibly voted more then once. You then need to prove that multiple people didn't use that same cup to vote. See how impossible it's getting?
Oh realy? so tell me how he can call several names out. even if the ones given are made-up ones... how could he guessed them? thats all you need to know. Btw. i understand english much better than i am able to write it. so dont come up with that stuff. ist alwasy a sign of weakness if someone tries to blame the person behind a argument. instead of contering that one. a tactic you use very often.
Keeping in mind that as I ask this, I'm not an ITC member and I have no ITC ranking;
Is it possible to reformulate the poll answers using the ITC rankings as a multiplier of the ITC ranked player's votes? meaning a person's ranking like mine (zero points) would be zero votes and a person with many points would be the same number of votes?
Manchu wrote:Genuine question: who really thinks rule design by democracy is a good idea?
Principal rules design? Awful idea. Secondary rules design? i.e. clarification and FAQs? Pretty good idea, I think. Better than one or two TOs making house rules and pretending their own biases aren't entering the equation. (Genuine answer, BTW.)
Crimson Devil wrote:They are hoping to have the vote invalidated by proving Reece is actually Kenyan.
Fact of the matter is, votes probably won't be taken back and redone. I see it as it could be an attempt from a tau player to create what's happening right now in this thread in an attempt to get a revote hoping for a better outcome for the tau. Due to this, it should be left alone.
Jimsolo wrote: Principal rules design? Awful idea. Secondary rules design? i.e. clarification and FAQs? Pretty good idea, I think. Better than one or two TOs making house rules and pretending their own biases aren't entering the equation. (Genuine answer, BTW.)
Seems secondary design is better left to designers responding to closed/open playtesting rather than gamers voting on the internet. That said, it would have been wise in this case to only count the votes from ITC members, which amounts to closed playtesting, albeit in a backwards way.
Manchu wrote: Genuine question: who really thinks rule design by democracy is a good idea?
Says the guy living in America
Actually, we are a representative democracy. We don't vote on our laws, our representatives do. We rely on them to know what they are doing, and vote for what they believe to be the best choice.
Manchu wrote: Genuine question: who really thinks rule design by democracy is a good idea?
Says the guy living in America
Actually, we are a representative democracy. We don't vote on our laws, our representatives do. We rely on them to know what they are doing, and vote for what they believe to be the best choice.
Sort of true, but there are plenty of laws that we vote on individually as well, although most of those are local laws.
I play Tau and Orks. I decided to take orks to the LVO after the vote. I disagreed with the Tau ruling, but I don't think the hunter contingent was super buffed, as I couldn't seem to make it work well with my models. I have oodles of broadsides, and my lists generally don't benefit from twin linked as a result. FBC already had tank hunter (oldex).
I was surprised the ork option was even on there. I was stoked, I must say though.
The polls are great IMO, but cheating/fraud has always been a concern of mine. This /tg/ guy, if true, is a cheater. If he needs to cheat.... That's his problem. Not my problem. This is the way I play. He cheats to win... well, that's his decision. Everyone knows his victory is hollow. From Lance Armstrong to Tonya Harding. He is TFG.
If true... A re-vote is a must.
I'm playing with toy soldiers. He's playing with his honor.
My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can sperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.
Manchu wrote: Genuine question: who really thinks rule design by democracy is a good idea?
Says the guy living in America
Actually, we are a representative democracy. We don't vote on our laws, our representatives do. We rely on them to know what they are doing, and vote for what they believe to be the best choice.
Sort of true, but there are plenty of laws that we vote on individually as well, although most of those are local laws.
However regardless of us being allowed to vote on local laws, if our state or county does not like the outcome they are subject to changing it.
Not too stretch the analogy too thin here but laws and rules/regulations are different. Laws are generally about what should be done while rules and regs are generally about how what should be done is going to get done. Rules and regs are generally created by committees of experts rather than by democratic vote.
IME games designers are not just gamers with lots of experience. Being good at playing games is not enough to qualify you as a design expert. But the insight of experienced, skillful gamers is tremendously important to designers. That said, it's important for designers to make sure the insight they are using is actually from experienced, skillful gamers rather than just anybody, such as internet trolls.
The question is, how do you get that insight into a useful format? I guess one way is to distill possible designs into options that (a select group of) gamers can vote on.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: However regardless of us being allowed to vote on local laws, if our state or county does not like the outcome they are subject to changing it.
not really. what is our President's job? Enforcing the laws on the books. has he done so? (a Rhetorical question)
If he wants to change the laws, he should have asked the Congress to change the laws that he has problems with, not choosing not to enforce them. They are on the books, his Constitutionally mandated job is to ensure the enforcement of the laws on the books. He should have been impeached the moment he didn't fire Eric Holder for choosing not to enforce any law on the books.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: However regardless of us being allowed to vote on local laws, if our state or county does not like the outcome they are subject to changing it.
not really. what is our President's job? Enforcing the laws on the books. has he done so? (a Rhetorical question)
If he wants to change the laws, he should have asked the Congress to change the laws that he has problems with, not choosing not to enforce them. They are on the books, his Constitutionally mandated job is to ensure the enforcement of the laws on the books. He should have been impeached the moment he didn't fire Eric Holder for choosing not to enforce any law on the books.
I said state and county, not country. I also like how you added rhetorical questions
Co'tor Shas wrote: My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can sperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.
Not only did they NOT test it, but at this exact convenient time he announces the first public poll in their history of the ITC. It's one hell of a coincidence or there is some serious shenanigans going on there. It's not impossible a public vote was held because they gambled and knew the public had a strong chance to vote in favor of nerfing Tau with no idea of the rules. This whole public vote thing was suspicious the second it was announced. I want a separate poll that they hold only for their tournament players and with more stringent security measures taken. If the votes turn out the same I'll accept it, but right now? This whole thing is too suspicious.
Then again this person could be kicking up salt to get a revote. It's hard to say. At this point no matter whats going on something suspicious happened and I think a new vote should be held. A closed one like they used to do.
Co'tor Shas wrote: My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can sperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.
Not only did they NOT test it, but at this exact convenient time he announces the first public poll in their history of the ITC. It's one hell of a coincidence or there is some serious shenanigans going on there. It's not impossible a public vote was held because they gambled and knew the public had a strong chance to vote in favor of nerfing Tau with no idea of the rules. This whole public vote thing was suspicious the second it was announced. I want a separate poll that they hold only for their tournament players and with more stringent security measures taken. If the votes turn out the same I'll accept it, but right now? This whole thing is too suspicious.
Then again this person could be kicking up salt to get a revote. It's hard to say. At this point no matter whats going on something suspicious happened and I think a new vote should be held. A closed one like they used to do.
For future votes sure. These recent ones? Keep how they are. Stop demanding a revote. Deal with it for a few months. Revisit.
Co'tor Shas wrote: My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can sperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.
Not only did they NOT test it, but at this exact convenient time he announces the first public poll in their history of the ITC. It's one hell of a coincidence or there is some serious shenanigans going on there. It's not impossible a public vote was held because they gambled and knew the public had a strong chance to vote in favor of nerfing Tau with no idea of the rules. This whole public vote thing was suspicious the second it was announced. I want a separate poll that they hold only for their tournament players and with more stringent security measures taken. If the votes turn out the same I'll accept it, but right now? This whole thing is too suspicious.
Then again this person could be kicking up salt to get a revote. It's hard to say. At this point no matter whats going on something suspicious happened and I think a new vote should be held. A closed one like they used to do.
They wouldn't even need to do a revote for that. they already have all data of what ITC ranked people voted from this last poll. Id be curious to see what the percentages were from registered voters.
Co'tor Shas wrote: My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can sperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.
Not only did they NOT test it, but at this exact convenient time he announces the first public poll in their history of the ITC. It's one hell of a coincidence or there is some serious shenanigans going on there. It's not impossible a public vote was held because they gambled and knew the public had a strong chance to vote in favor of nerfing Tau with no idea of the rules. This whole public vote thing was suspicious the second it was announced. I want a separate poll that they hold only for their tournament players and with more stringent security measures taken. If the votes turn out the same I'll accept it, but right now? This whole thing is too suspicious.
Then again this person could be kicking up salt to get a revote. It's hard to say. At this point no matter whats going on something suspicious happened and I think a new vote should be held. A closed one like they used to do.
For future votes sure. These recent ones? Keep how they are. Stop demanding a revote. Deal with it for a few months. Revisit.
Uh no. It's too suspicious. I'll meet you half way and say have a revote, but play it like it is currently until they find out what the security flaw is or are ready to make the change over to the second votes rules. Give them some time to cool down, but we definitely need a revote and some actions taken.
Edit
I would be very interested in those percentages as well Notre.
Co'tor Shas wrote: My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can sperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.
Not only did they NOT test it, but at this exact convenient time he announces the first public poll in their history of the ITC. It's one hell of a coincidence or there is some serious shenanigans going on there. It's not impossible a public vote was held because they gambled and knew the public had a strong chance to vote in favor of nerfing Tau with no idea of the rules. This whole public vote thing was suspicious the second it was announced. I want a separate poll that they hold only for their tournament players and with more stringent security measures taken. If the votes turn out the same I'll accept it, but right now? This whole thing is too suspicious.
Then again this person could be kicking up salt to get a revote. It's hard to say. At this point no matter whats going on something suspicious happened and I think a new vote should be held. A closed one like they used to do.
For future votes sure. These recent ones? Keep how they are. Stop demanding a revote. Deal with it for a few months. Revisit.
Uh no. It's too suspicious. I'll meet you half way and say have a revote, but play it like it is currently until they find out what the security flaw is or are ready to make the change over to the second votes rules. Give them some time to cool down, but we definitely need a revote and some actions taken.
Edit
I would be very interested in those percentages as well Notre.
Luckily we don't make those decisions huh? Reece does. I don't see him revoting
Pain4Pleasure wrote: For future votes sure. These recent ones? Keep how they are. Stop demanding a revote. Deal with it for a few months. Revisit.
the problem with that being that people like you would say when it gets revisited, 'they let it stand, why revisit it or change it now.' or as Hillary Clinton said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpQ6X4ojHws
Pain4Pleasure wrote: For future votes sure. These recent ones? Keep how they are. Stop demanding a revote. Deal with it for a few months. Revisit.
the problem with that being that people like you would say when it gets revisited, 'they let it stand, why revisit it or change it now.' or as Hillary Clinton said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpQ6X4ojHws
First off, ew Hillary, second off nah, I wouldn't. Let it be for now. No one is demanding scatter bikes get revisited, only tau players wanting tau cheese
Pain4Pleasure wrote: For future votes sure. These recent ones? Keep how they are. Stop demanding a revote. Deal with it for a few months. Revisit.
the problem with that being that people like you would say when it gets revisited, 'they let it stand, why revisit it or change it now.' or as Hillary Clinton said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpQ6X4ojHws
In the Nova Open? I'd have to look at the full results list and add it up manually, since I don't like how they list Tau as 48% win rate because they counted the 2nd place list that was 62% Tau as an Eldar list. That also makes it a lot harder to figure out exact numbers too, but as far as Tau goes the majority of Tau lists were above 50% individually, the best one being 6-2 in pure lists and 7-1 with 2nd place over all being 62% tau 37% Eldar. The worst pure tau list was 0-5 drop, being the only pure tau list under 50% , the only other list that had Tau and did worse than 50% win rate was allied with CSM and went 3-5, I don't know the breakdown of % tau to % chaos since the list itself wasn't published.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: For future votes sure. These recent ones? Keep how they are. Stop demanding a revote. Deal with it for a few months. Revisit.
the problem with that being that people like you would say when it gets revisited, 'they let it stand, why revisit it or change it now.' or as Hillary Clinton said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpQ6X4ojHws
In the Nova Open? I'd have to look at the full results list and add it up manually, since I don't like how they list Tau as 48% win rate because they counted the 2nd place list that was 62% Tau as an Eldar list. That also makes it a lot harder to figure out exact numbers too, but as far as Tau goes the majority of Tau lists were above 50% individually, the best one being 6-2 in pure lists and 7-1 with 2nd place over all being 62% tau 37% Eldar. The worst pure tau list was 0-5 drop, being the only pure tau list under 50% , the only other list that had Tau and did worse than 50% win rate was allied with CSM and went 3-5, I don't know the breakdown of % tau to % chaos since the list itself wasn't published.
there is only 1 Tau player in the top 20 ITC rankings. Elder, for example, are ranked 2, 3, 9, and 15
In the Nova Open? I'd have to look at the full results list and add it up manually, since I don't like how they list Tau as 48% win rate because they counted the 2nd place list that was 62% Tau as an Eldar list. That also makes it a lot harder to figure out exact numbers too, but as far as Tau goes the majority of Tau lists were above 50% individually, the best one being 6-2 in pure lists and 7-1 with 2nd place over all being 62% tau 37% Eldar. The worst pure tau list was 0-5 drop, being the only pure tau list under 50% , the only other list that had Tau and did worse than 50% win rate was allied with CSM and went 3-5, I don't know the breakdown of % tau to % chaos since the list itself wasn't published.
there is only 1 Tau player in the top 20 ITC rankings. Elder, for example, are ranked 2, 3, 9, and 15
What's the number of Tau players in comparison to Eldar players?
Additionally, remember that Tau just received massive buffs in new units and formations, so the results haven't necessarily adjusted for that and the large majority of them are for the old codex. The LVO will be the first large scale event with the new codex.
Co'tor Shas wrote: My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can sperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.
Not only did they NOT test it, but at this exact convenient time he announces the first public poll in their history of the ITC. It's one hell of a coincidence or there is some serious shenanigans going on there. It's not impossible a public vote was held because they gambled and knew the public had a strong chance to vote in favor of nerfing Tau with no idea of the rules. This whole public vote thing was suspicious the second it was announced. I want a separate poll that they hold only for their tournament players and with more stringent security measures taken. If the votes turn out the same I'll accept it, but right now? This whole thing is too suspicious.
Then again this person could be kicking up salt to get a revote. It's hard to say. At this point no matter whats going on something suspicious happened and I think a new vote should be held. A closed one like they used to do.
For future votes sure. These recent ones? Keep how they are. Stop demanding a revote. Deal with it for a few months. Revisit.
Uh no. It's too suspicious. I'll meet you half way and say have a revote, but play it like it is currently until they find out what the security flaw is or are ready to make the change over to the second votes rules. Give them some time to cool down, but we definitely need a revote and some actions taken.
Edit
I would be very interested in those percentages as well Notre.
Or it could be a Tau player trying to stir up controversy to force a re vote in hopes that the results will be different.
It can go either way.
They don't need to do anything. The vote is fine, there's only a controversy because tau players want there to be.
Co'tor Shas wrote: My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can sperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.
Not only did they NOT test it, but at this exact convenient time he announces the first public poll in their history of the ITC. It's one hell of a coincidence or there is some serious shenanigans going on there. It's not impossible a public vote was held because they gambled and knew the public had a strong chance to vote in favor of nerfing Tau with no idea of the rules. This whole public vote thing was suspicious the second it was announced. I want a separate poll that they hold only for their tournament players and with more stringent security measures taken. If the votes turn out the same I'll accept it, but right now? This whole thing is too suspicious.
Then again this person could be kicking up salt to get a revote. It's hard to say. At this point no matter whats going on something suspicious happened and I think a new vote should be held. A closed one like they used to do.
For future votes sure. These recent ones? Keep how they are. Stop demanding a revote. Deal with it for a few months. Revisit.
Uh no. It's too suspicious. I'll meet you half way and say have a revote, but play it like it is currently until they find out what the security flaw is or are ready to make the change over to the second votes rules. Give them some time to cool down, but we definitely need a revote and some actions taken.
Edit
I would be very interested in those percentages as well Notre.
Or it could be a Tau player trying to stir up controversy to force a re vote in hopes that the results will be different.
It can go either way.
They don't need to do anything. The vote is fine, there's only a controversy because tau players want there to be.
The controversy is they put this vote up a month after the codex released (and they picked it for the vote about 2 weeks after the codex release) before it was even able to be tried in a single tournament. As well as Reecius worded the question as "do you want to play it this way" and not "is this how the rule works", which is suspicious considering he has a clear bias on how he wants the rule to work.
Co'tor Shas wrote: My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can sperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.
Not only did they NOT test it, but at this exact convenient time he announces the first public poll in their history of the ITC. It's one hell of a coincidence or there is some serious shenanigans going on there. It's not impossible a public vote was held because they gambled and knew the public had a strong chance to vote in favor of nerfing Tau with no idea of the rules. This whole public vote thing was suspicious the second it was announced. I want a separate poll that they hold only for their tournament players and with more stringent security measures taken. If the votes turn out the same I'll accept it, but right now? This whole thing is too suspicious.
Then again this person could be kicking up salt to get a revote. It's hard to say. At this point no matter whats going on something suspicious happened and I think a new vote should be held. A closed one like they used to do.
For future votes sure. These recent ones? Keep how they are. Stop demanding a revote. Deal with it for a few months. Revisit.
Uh no. It's too suspicious. I'll meet you half way and say have a revote, but play it like it is currently until they find out what the security flaw is or are ready to make the change over to the second votes rules. Give them some time to cool down, but we definitely need a revote and some actions taken.
Edit
I would be very interested in those percentages as well Notre.
Or it could be a Tau player trying to stir up controversy to force a re vote in hopes that the results will be different.
It can go either way.
They don't need to do anything. The vote is fine, there's only a controversy because tau players want there to be.
The controversy is they put this vote up a month after the codex released (and they picked it for the vote about 2 weeks after the codex release) before it was even able to be tried in a single tournament. As well as Reecius worded the question as "do you want to play it this way" and not "is this how the rule works", which is suspicious considering he has a clear bias on how he wants the rule to work.
Co'tor Shas wrote: My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can seperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.
Wouldn't that have made it a balance poll then?
I thought it was a rules clarification. I can't view the poll anymore.
Does anyone have the exact question saved somewhere?
If it was for clarification, then it needed to happen before a single tournament is played..otherwise it is a disagreement waiting to happen depending on the judge. Which is what the ITC is supposed to prevent.
It looks pretty obvious that the 50 vote guy was trolling.
To be serious, 40K never was a very good tournament ruleset, it has only got worse in the last two editions, and people probably ought not to put too much faith in it, especially if the rules are going to be subject to change by anonymous public email voting.
As a couple of people have mentioned earlier, it's only a game of toy soldiers.
Co'tor Shas wrote: My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can seperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.
Wouldn't that have made it a balance poll then?
I thought it was a rules clarification. I can't view the poll anymore.
Does anyone have the exact question saved somewhere?
If it was for clarification, then it needed to happen before a single tournament is played..otherwise it is a disagreement waiting to happen depending on the judge. Which is what the ITC is supposed to prevent.
Question 2: How do you wish to play the Tau Coordinated Firepower rule in regards to contributing Tau units sharing special rules?
Naw wrote: I am sorry for you guys if you don't get it. Here is an example:
Q: Shall we nerf IoM?
IoM votes NO
Q: Shall we nerf Eldar?
IoM votes YES
There you go, have fun.
Except y'know, The eldar nerf votes didnt go through.
But have fun in your fantasy land. Must be fun there.
In my fantasy land only the dictator has voting rights. Voting anything based on popularity is a slippery slope. I really am sorry for you if you don't see that.
And FYI, the flag next to my name should tell you that I really am not moved by anything ITC decides.
Naw wrote: I am sorry for you guys if you don't get it. Here is an example:
Q: Shall we nerf IoM?
IoM votes NO
Q: Shall we nerf Eldar?
IoM votes YES
There you go, have fun.
Except y'know, The eldar nerf votes didnt go through.
But have fun in your fantasy land. Must be fun there.
In my fantasy land only the dictator has voting rights. Voting anything based on popularity is a slippery slope. I really am sorry for you if you don't see that.
And FYI, the flag next to my name should tell you that I really am not moved by anything ITC decides.
Naw wrote: I am sorry for you guys if you don't get it. Here is an example:
Q: Shall we nerf IoM?
IoM votes NO
Q: Shall we nerf Eldar?
IoM votes YES
There you go, have fun.
Except y'know, The eldar nerf votes didnt go through.
But have fun in your fantasy land. Must be fun there.
In my fantasy land only the dictator has voting rights. Voting anything based on popularity is a slippery slope. I really am sorry for you if you don't see that.
And FYI, the flag next to my name should tell you that I really am not moved by anything ITC decides.
Then stop complaining and trying to change it.
Can you please stop trolling and point out where I have wanted to have a revote? On the other hand I can copy your comment where you admitted wanting to nerf an army just because you had issues with some of the Tau players.
Also in case you have forgotten what the topic is I happen to agree with it.
Co'tor Shas wrote: My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can seperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.
Wouldn't that have made it a balance poll then?
I thought it was a rules clarification. I can't view the poll anymore.
Does anyone have the exact question saved somewhere?
If it was for clarification, then it needed to happen before a single tournament is played..otherwise it is a disagreement waiting to happen depending on the judge. Which is what the ITC is supposed to prevent.
it was NOT a rules clarification. The poll question was specifically worded "how do you wish to play....", NOT "is this how the rule works". It was basically the equivalent to the scatter bike poll
Game design is not a democracy. Voting on nerfs/buffs/changes will almost always end up with people voting to their favourites to at least some degree. If ITC wants to be serious, just sit down, have a pass at every single unit and re-jig them as they see fit, then open it up for testing prior to accepting it in tournaments (or just using their tournaments as the test bed to get data, with fair warning to all players, of course).
_ghost_ wrote: The one later used several names... so if the came up in the vote without a matching ITC rank.... its proven...
Negative. Him popping up once only proves he voted once. You need to find and prove he used at least one other name. Him saying he did is not proof
Positive: Several name of that list poping up would mean that eighter he has the data of the votes.. or he entered said names. interesting that you speak of ONE name and i said several nameS. i used plural
You obviously don't understand English very well. To prove that he voted more than once, you'll have to find multiple names that lead back to his IP address. As I doubt he put George or whatever everytime he voted with a new email address if he even did what he says he did. Therefore. You need to find multiple emails and names all leading back to the same cpu in order to have a case that he possibly voted more then once. You then need to prove that multiple people didn't use that same cup to vote. See how impossible it's getting?
This sounds VERY suspicious, ESPECIALLY when taken into context with this.
_ghost_ wrote: If its not a hoax and if this was not regocnized by the itc then this poll is ivalid
Negative. Did reecius himself say this? Do you control itc? It's already been stated how impossible it is? It is a hoax. If a revote happens, guess I'll call on my friends to make sure same results apply.
Tautastic wrote: That is true if the vote was limited to ranked ITC players but it was open to the public and all you needed was a name and an e-mail. So it is possible since it was opened to the public.
That's odd... because when I voted on this, it asked for my ITC rank. I thought it was internal only. Double-checking; Yes, this was an internal-poll only. They did only limit their voting to ranked ITC players;
Say what? From the quote provided by you below:
And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet
How do you deduce from this that only those who have participated got to vote? By providing your (imaginary) name and email, no need for rank, you were counted as a voter.
Please don't try and act as if it's even possible that it was fixed
What "friends" are you talking about pain? Mabye Mister Lister?
_ghost_ wrote: The one later used several names... so if the came up in the vote without a matching ITC rank.... its proven...
Negative. Him popping up once only proves he voted once. You need to find and prove he used at least one other name. Him saying he did is not proof
Positive: Several name of that list poping up would mean that eighter he has the data of the votes.. or he entered said names. interesting that you speak of ONE name and i said several nameS. i used plural
You obviously don't understand English very well. To prove that he voted more than once, you'll have to find multiple names that lead back to his IP address. As I doubt he put George or whatever everytime he voted with a new email address if he even did what he says he did. Therefore. You need to find multiple emails and names all leading back to the same cpu in order to have a case that he possibly voted more then once. You then need to prove that multiple people didn't use that same cup to vote. See how impossible it's getting?
This sounds VERY suspicious, ESPECIALLY when taken into context with this.
_ghost_ wrote: If its not a hoax and if this was not regocnized by the itc then this poll is ivalid
Negative. Did reecius himself say this? Do you control itc? It's already been stated how impossible it is? It is a hoax. If a revote happens, guess I'll call on my friends to make sure same results apply.
Tautastic wrote: That is true if the vote was limited to ranked ITC players but it was open to the public and all you needed was a name and an e-mail. So it is possible since it was opened to the public.
That's odd... because when I voted on this, it asked for my ITC rank. I thought it was internal only. Double-checking; Yes, this was an internal-poll only. They did only limit their voting to ranked ITC players;
Say what? From the quote provided by you below:
And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet
How do you deduce from this that only those who have participated got to vote? By providing your (imaginary) name and email, no need for rank, you were counted as a voter.
Please don't try and act as if it's even possible that it was fixed
What "friends" are you talking about pain? Mabye Mister Lister?
Pain4Pleasure wrote: How can you be an inter Sherlock when that isn't me? Also, when did I mention anything about a friend?
And yes. This is a hoax, probably by a tau player to attempt another vote
Edit: ah I see. Yes, since the tau community is attemting to force a revote, I would a revote of the revote if in favor of tau
If a revote happens, guess I'll call on my friends to make sure same results apply.
Are you saying someone hacked your account and wrote that? Are you going back on what you wrote in this thread? I have never seen someone more angry at tau, and whoever wrote that on 4chan said confession time. That tells me its a person who cant contain the excitement of what he has done. And you couldnt BE more excited for this ruling. Then you claim that its a tau supporter trying to get a revote. If it is why worry about it? They can just send out a letter to every email that voted asking for a confirmation on their vote. That would only be bad for a hoax if they dident bother to write down their original emails, or used fake ones that would get a "message not recieved". If they get 30 or 40 "message not recieved" or similar lack of responses from one specific camp of voters, then we know something is up.
doktor_g wrote: @Pain: How do you know it's a hoax? Just conjecture? Logic? Elucidate please... Respectfully please. I mean no harm. Just curious.
How do you know it's not? Also no harm. In all honesty, the itc has been doing polls for awhile. They are a well respected organization that creates faqs and lays their reputation on the line. Reece is a good guy who does a lot for the 40k community. I do not see him allowing such a slip up. Furthermore, I see this guy on 4chan or whatever as a troll. Either tau hater troll, or tau troll that wants to stir controversy for a revote. Best course of action? Ignore him and keep the results as is. Come back to them at a later date, after eldar has been brought back into light first.
Edit: orock did you not see my edit? I take nothing back. I am very happy for this ruling. And I would try n get all my 40k buddies to vote. THATS not cheating.
I want a revote of their top players. feth the public. Don't let them in. When I have some guarantee its a closed vote of their top whatever players they want I'll be content. Even if it turns out the exact same. As it was the public vote has called into question its validity.
redthirst wrote:
Can't play Riptide Wing in the ITC?
You can, but you only get one duplicate formation/detachment. Tau only get to bring six Riptides at 1850 points!
Gamgee wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote: My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can sperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.
Not only did they NOT test it, but at this exact convenient time he announces the first public poll in their history of the ITC. It's one hell of a coincidence or there is some serious shenanigans going on there. It's not impossible a public vote was held because they gambled and knew the public had a strong chance to vote in favor of nerfing Tau with no idea of the rules. This whole public vote thing was suspicious the second it was announced. I want a separate poll that they hold only for their tournament players and with more stringent security measures taken. If the votes turn out the same I'll accept it, but right now? This whole thing is too suspicious.
Then again this person could be kicking up salt to get a revote. It's hard to say. At this point no matter whats going on something suspicious happened and I think a new vote should be held. A closed one like they used to do.
This was not the first public poll in the history of the ITC. There have been previous quarterly updates, as well as the public vote on nerfing Scarbikers (which failed by five votes).
I'd prefer a public poll to Reecius simply unilaterally deciding how to play CFP. I'd be willing to bet there would be a lot ore complaints in that case.
One month is more than enough time for people to digest the new Tau and realize how overpowered CFP could be. You don't have to hold a tournament to know how absolutely broken Tau sharing special rules with CFP would be. It would just lead to more spamming of even more broken mechanics and combos, which is not in the best interest of the game.
Technically, only tournament players could cast actual votes in the poll. You needed to supply an ITC number linked to one name and email address, and the only way to get one of those is to attend an ITC event. Unless the poster in the 4chan thread managed to clone himself and attend multiple ITC events under different names in the months before the Tau vote with the foreknowledge of exactly how powerful Tau would be, Occam's Razor dictates that there is no vote-rigging or conspiracy to stuff the vote.
Martel732 wrote:The eldar players are enjoying their popcorn. I reallg can't take itc seriosly until scatbikes and wk are both banned or points adjusted.
Under ITC rules, Eldar can only take one Wraithknight. Scatbikers are overpowered, sure, but there are plenty of other overpowered things that are also allowed in the ITC. Case in point: hexaflyrants.
Blacksails wrote:Game design is not a democracy. Voting on nerfs/buffs/changes will almost always end up with people voting to their favourites to at least some degree. If ITC wants to be serious, just sit down, have a pass at every single unit and re-jig them as they see fit, then open it up for testing prior to accepting it in tournaments (or just using their tournaments as the test bed to get data, with fair warning to all players, of course).
Game design isn't, but balancing and FAQing the game can be.
Again, the margin of passing the measure to nerf CFP passed by only eight votes. There was a definite split in how the community wanted this, which is why we're still having this conversation.
The ITC could sit down and rebalance the entire game, but at that point you might as well just design a whole new game system.
The new year will bring new tournaments, and the BAO and LOV follow ITC rules. I'm sure that we'll get another update poll based on new releases and the takeaways from those tournaments.
Co'tor Shas wrote: My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can sperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.
Not only did they NOT test it, but at this exact convenient time he announces the first public poll in their history of the ITC. It's one hell of a coincidence or there is some serious shenanigans going on there. It's not impossible a public vote was held because they gambled and knew the public had a strong chance to vote in favor of nerfing Tau with no idea of the rules. This whole public vote thing was suspicious the second it was announced. I want a separate poll that they hold only for their tournament players and with more stringent security measures taken. If the votes turn out the same I'll accept it, but right now? This whole thing is too suspicious.
Then again this person could be kicking up salt to get a revote. It's hard to say. At this point no matter whats going on something suspicious happened and I think a new vote should be held. A closed one like they used to do.
This was not the first public poll in the history of the ITC. There have been previous quarterly updates, as well as the public vote on nerfing Scarbikers (which failed by five votes).
I'd prefer a public poll to Reecius simply unilaterally deciding how to play CFP. I'd be willing to bet there would be a lot ore complaints in that case.
One month is more than enough time for people to digest the new Tau and realize how overpowered CFP could be. You don't have to hold a tournament to know how absolutely broken Tau sharing special rules with CFP would be. It would just lead to more spamming of even more broken mechanics and combos, which is not in the best interest of the game.
Technically, only tournament players could cast actual votes in the poll. You needed to supply an ITC number linked to one name and email address, and the only way to get one of those is to attend an ITC event. Unless the poster in the 4chan thread managed to clone himself and attend multiple ITC events under different names in the months before the Tau vote with the foreknowledge of exactly how powerful Tau would be, Occam's Razor dictates that there is no vote-rigging or conspiracy to stuff the vote. .
This is 100% incorrect. Reecius specifically said, multiple times in the comment section of the poll that EVERYONE could vote and it would count. The ITC rankings was just to collect more data.
NEW INFO! From reecius himself.. A tau player made the tau questions for this poll... So no more can the tau players QQ about the wording. It was your own brothers doing
doktor_g wrote: @Pain: How do you know it's a hoax? Just conjecture? Logic? Elucidate please... Respectfully please. I mean no harm. Just curious.
How do you know it's not? Also no harm. In all honesty, the itc has been doing polls for awhile. They are a well respected organization that creates faqs and lays their reputation on the line. Reece is a good guy who does a lot for the 40k community. I do not see him allowing such a slip up. Furthermore, I see this guy on 4chan or whatever as a troll. Either tau hater troll, or tau troll that wants to stir controversy for a revote. Best course of action? Ignore him and keep the results as is. Come back to them at a later date, after eldar has been brought back into light first.
Edit: orock did you not see my edit? I take nothing back. I am very happy for this ruling. And I would try n get all my 40k buddies to vote. THATS not cheating.
Except reece came right out and said the reason they were thinking of making this vote private, was because in the past there was tampering. And at the time I disagreed, because it makes more sense for everyone who it would effect, from the store level all the way up, to have a fair vote. But if they really dont even do basics like check for fake email accounts, and refuse to do so, then mabye they shouldnt change things at all. Its WAY to easy to rig.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pain4Pleasure wrote: NEW INFO! From reecius himself.. A tau player made the tau questions for this poll... So no more can the tau players QQ about the wording. It was your own brothers doing
Again you are deflecting VERY hard. That has nothing to do with vote rigging. Why are you trying to deflect the thread to anything that has nothing to do with vote rigging. Its about what may have happened in a vote. Not about how the rules were written to be voted on.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: NEW INFO! From reecius himself.. A tau player made the tau questions for this poll... So no more can the tau players QQ about the wording. It was your own brothers doing
Good to know anybody who plays tau is part of the secret society.
And, as shocking as this might seem, some players may actually want to nerf the OP parts of their armies. I, for example, would like to nerf riptides. That's the thing. I don't think people would mind as much if it was directly communicated that this was a balance vote, instead of pretending it is a rules one. I'm fine with fixing balence issues. Now, I don't think popular vote is the way to do that, but that's another matter entirely.
notredameguy10 wrote:No you can take 9 riptide in one riptide wing lol (3x3)
Didn't know that. Thanks for the information.
notredameguy10 wrote:This is 100% incorrect. Reecius specifically said, multiple times in the comment section of the poll that EVERYONE could vote and it would count. The ITC rankings was just to collect more data.
And how much do you want to bet that the "data" the ITC were collecting from the people with ITC numbers were the votes that would actually decide the poll?
Orock wrote:
Except reece came right out and said the reason they were thinking of making this vote private, was because in the past there was tampering. And at the time I disagreed, because it makes more sense for everyone who it would effect, from the store level all the way up, to have a fair vote. But if they really dont even do basics like check for fake email accounts, and refuse to do so, then mabye they shouldnt change things at all. Its WAY to easy to rig.
The way that the ITC got around the vote-tempering issues was to link the votes that mattered to the ITC numbers. Sure, you could have a fake email account, but unless you hacked the ITC's database the email doesn't matter, only the ITC number.
notredameguy10 wrote:No you can take 9 riptide in one riptide wing lol (3x3)
Didn't know that. Thanks for the information.
notredameguy10 wrote:This is 100% incorrect. Reecius specifically said, multiple times in the comment section of the poll that EVERYONE could vote and it would count. The ITC rankings was just to collect more data.
And how much do you want to bet that the "data" the ITC were collecting from the people with ITC numbers were the votes that would actually decide the poll?
Orock wrote:
Except reece came right out and said the reason they were thinking of making this vote private, was because in the past there was tampering. And at the time I disagreed, because it makes more sense for everyone who it would effect, from the store level all the way up, to have a fair vote. But if they really dont even do basics like check for fake email accounts, and refuse to do so, then mabye they shouldnt change things at all. Its WAY to easy to rig.
The way that the ITC got around the vote-tempering issues was to link the votes that mattered to the ITC numbers. Sure, you could have a fake email account, but unless you hacked the ITC's database the email doesn't matter, only the ITC number.
Again, EVERY SINGLE PERSON COULD VOTE. you did not need an ITC number to vote. The linked the vote to your IP address. If you tried to go back into the poll it said "You have already participated in this..."
@Pain: Ok. That's what I thought. I don't know if it's a hoax, but it could be for sure. I figured that's what you are saying. "Who could say?" I think maybe only a web geek working for FLG could say for sure. Just a bummer that the specter of cheating / fraud was raised. I just want to scream "This is why we can't have nice things!"
The tau vote, as I said didn't affect me, although it's my second largest army. Just so much tax in that contingent. The ork vote upsets me. Because I asked for it and wanted some buff for the Boyz. Now it feels tainted.
Only 925 votes were given to the first question. The CF (2nd) got 947 votes, the other 2 Tau Q's were 944 and 942. Two Stompa questions had 944 and 941 respectively.
Why not vote for all questions? Would be interesting to see just the ITC registered votes.
notredameguy10 wrote:No you can take 9 riptide in one riptide wing lol (3x3)
Didn't know that. Thanks for the information.
notredameguy10 wrote:This is 100% incorrect. Reecius specifically said, multiple times in the comment section of the poll that EVERYONE could vote and it would count. The ITC rankings was just to collect more data.
And how much do you want to bet that the "data" the ITC were collecting from the people with ITC numbers were the votes that would actually decide the poll?
Orock wrote:
Except reece came right out and said the reason they were thinking of making this vote private, was because in the past there was tampering. And at the time I disagreed, because it makes more sense for everyone who it would effect, from the store level all the way up, to have a fair vote. But if they really dont even do basics like check for fake email accounts, and refuse to do so, then mabye they shouldnt change things at all. Its WAY to easy to rig.
The way that the ITC got around the vote-tempering issues was to link the votes that mattered to the ITC numbers. Sure, you could have a fake email account, but unless you hacked the ITC's database the email doesn't matter, only the ITC number.
Read it again, anyone who had an email could vote. It says NOTHING about having to be in an itc event with a record. What you are suggesting is that they "told" everyone their vote would count, but in the end threw all the non tournament players votes away like trash. And if they DID lie like that, then nobody should use their system, because that is a scummy thing to do. So which is it?
notredameguy10 wrote:No you can take 9 riptide in one riptide wing lol (3x3)
Didn't know that. Thanks for the information.
notredameguy10 wrote:This is 100% incorrect. Reecius specifically said, multiple times in the comment section of the poll that EVERYONE could vote and it would count. The ITC rankings was just to collect more data.
And how much do you want to bet that the "data" the ITC were collecting from the people with ITC numbers were the votes that would actually decide the poll?
Orock wrote:
Except reece came right out and said the reason they were thinking of making this vote private, was because in the past there was tampering. And at the time I disagreed, because it makes more sense for everyone who it would effect, from the store level all the way up, to have a fair vote. But if they really dont even do basics like check for fake email accounts, and refuse to do so, then mabye they shouldnt change things at all. Its WAY to easy to rig.
The way that the ITC got around the vote-tempering issues was to link the votes that mattered to the ITC numbers. Sure, you could have a fake email account, but unless you hacked the ITC's database the email doesn't matter, only the ITC number.
Again, EVERY SINGLE PERSON COULD VOTE. you did not need an ITC number to vote. The linked the vote to your IP address. If you tried to go back into the poll it said "You have already participated in this..."
you do know there are programs where you can change your IP address on a whim, right? And people that do this kind of things hide behind proxies all the time.
doktor_g wrote: @notredam. Thanks for clarification on the not voting twice thing. That's reassuring actually.
'
I was hinting at the fact that you can change your IP address in about 5 seconds over and over again if you really wanted to. And i am 100% sure there are people who did that
notredameguy10 wrote:Again, EVERY SINGLE PERSON COULD VOTE. you did not need an ITC number to vote. The linked the vote to your IP address. If you tried to go back into the poll it said "You have already participated in this..."
That's a standard polling program response that's designed to prevent people from taking the poll multiple times.
While ITC numbers were optional, all the available evidence (especially the small poll tally) points to the voting being linked to the ITC number.
Orock wrote:Read it again, anyone who had an email could vote. It says NOTHING about having to be in an itc event with a record. What you are suggesting is that they "told" everyone their vote would count, but in the end threw all the non tournament players votes away like trash. And if they DID lie like that, then nobody should use their system, because that is a scummy thing to do. So which is it?
It was made clear at the beginning that there were measure taken to prevent people from voting more than once. Why should the poll organizer give away the poll security measures? The ITC number field was a dead giveaway anyway.
Orock wrote:you do know there are programs where you can change your IP address on a whim, right? And people that do this kind of things hide behind proxies all the time.
Sure, you can change your IP address on a whim. Can you point me to programs that can change your ITC number? Because all evidence points to that as the poll security measure.
Naw wrote:Only 925 votes were given to the first question. The CF (2nd) got 947 votes, the other 2 Tau Q's were 944 and 942. Two Stompa questions had 944 and 941 respectively.
Why not vote for all questions? Would be interesting to see just the ITC registered votes.
You don't find it more than a little interesting that out of the potentially thousands of people who were made aware of the poll and voted, less than a thousand votes were actually tallied?
notredameguy10 wrote:Again, EVERY SINGLE PERSON COULD VOTE. you did not need an ITC number to vote. The linked the vote to your IP address. If you tried to go back into the poll it said "You have already participated in this..."
That's a standard polling program response that's designed to prevent people from taking the poll multiple times.
While ITC numbers were optional, all the available evidence (especially the small poll tally) points to the voting being linked to the ITC number.
Orock wrote:Read it again, anyone who had an email could vote. It says NOTHING about having to be in an itc event with a record. What you are suggesting is that they "told" everyone their vote would count, but in the end threw all the non tournament players votes away like trash. And if they DID lie like that, then nobody should use their system, because that is a scummy thing to do. So which is it?
It was made clear at the beginning that there were measure taken to prevent people from voting more than once. Why should the poll organizer give away the poll security measures? The ITC number field was a dead giveaway anyway.
Orock wrote:you do know there are programs where you can change your IP address on a whim, right? And people that do this kind of things hide behind proxies all the time.
Sure, you can change your IP address on a whim. Can you point me to programs that can change your ITC number? Because all evidence points to that as the poll security measure.
Naw wrote:Only 925 votes were given to the first question. The CF (2nd) got 947 votes, the other 2 Tau Q's were 944 and 942. Two Stompa questions had 944 and 941 respectively.
Why not vote for all questions? Would be interesting to see just the ITC registered votes.
You don't find it more than a little interesting that out of the potentially thousands of people who were made aware of the poll and voted, less than a thousand votes were actually tallied?
Again, you are just making stuff up on the fly. Compare the number of votes in this to all past polls and they are THE SAME. that means all votes counted lol. Stop making stuff up
aka past votes had about 1000 entries and anyone could vote. this had about 1000 entries lol. do the math.
Game design isn't, but balancing and FAQing the game can be.
Again, the margin of passing the measure to nerf CFP passed by only eight votes. There was a definite split in how the community wanted this, which is why we're still having this conversation.
The ITC could sit down and rebalance the entire game, but at that point you might as well just design a whole new game system.
The new year will bring new tournaments, and the BAO and LOV follow ITC rules. I'm sure that we'll get another update poll based on new releases and the takeaways from those tournaments.
Well, of course balancing 40k entirely would be a larger task than just starting from scratch, but a home brew game is much less likely to receive a following than a 'Revised 40k' from a well known group of people.
That aside, I maintain that the whole process isn't a democracy, in that the popular vote should not decide what gets buffed and nerfed. People should feel free to post their thoughts and feedback as much as they want in a useful and thought out manner, but ultimately, whoever is heading the project and has access to all the data should be making the final call in an (ideally) unbiased manner. There's a reason no game uses a vote system to action certain buffs/nerfs, but instead uses polls and forums to gauge general thoughts and get a number of potential fixes.
notredameguy10 wrote:Again, EVERY SINGLE PERSON COULD VOTE. you did not need an ITC number to vote. The linked the vote to your IP address. If you tried to go back into the poll it said "You have already participated in this..."
That's a standard polling program response that's designed to prevent people from taking the poll multiple times.
While ITC numbers were optional, all the available evidence (especially the small poll tally) points to the voting being linked to the ITC number.
Orock wrote:Read it again, anyone who had an email could vote. It says NOTHING about having to be in an itc event with a record. What you are suggesting is that they "told" everyone their vote would count, but in the end threw all the non tournament players votes away like trash. And if they DID lie like that, then nobody should use their system, because that is a scummy thing to do. So which is it?
It was made clear at the beginning that there were measure taken to prevent people from voting more than once. Why should the poll organizer give away the poll security measures? The ITC number field was a dead giveaway anyway.
Orock wrote:you do know there are programs where you can change your IP address on a whim, right? And people that do this kind of things hide behind proxies all the time.
Sure, you can change your IP address on a whim. Can you point me to programs that can change your ITC number? Because all evidence points to that as the poll security measure.
Naw wrote:Only 925 votes were given to the first question. The CF (2nd) got 947 votes, the other 2 Tau Q's were 944 and 942. Two Stompa questions had 944 and 941 respectively.
Why not vote for all questions? Would be interesting to see just the ITC registered votes.
You don't find it more than a little interesting that out of the potentially thousands of people who were made aware of the poll and voted, less than a thousand votes were actually tallied?
Good then. Our area can stop using their system. Id rather use a broken set of rules than a bunch of liars system. If they arent counting the "unwashed non tournament attending masses" votes, then I dont need to support them either.
While ITC numbers were optional, all the available evidence (especially the small poll tally) points to the voting being linked to the ITC number.
I saw complaints that people did not know a vote was taking place, although someone pointed out that at least in Dakka there was a six page thread.
I'll take your explanation with a grain of salt until it is verified by a more official voice.
I have already proved he is just making crap up. All past ITC polls have had ~1000 votes and had no ITC numbers. This one had about 1000 votes as well.
Also, Reecius said, multiple times, ALL VOTES WILL COUNT AND NO ITC NUMBER IS NEEDED
You're 100% positive someone cared that much to change their IP address lots of times to vote? Wishful thinking, but unlikely. I could say someone who was to tau did the same, hince the 5 vote difference. So if it were the other way with results, and I was contesting it, would you be angry?
notredameguy10 wrote:Again, EVERY SINGLE PERSON COULD VOTE. you did not need an ITC number to vote. The linked the vote to your IP address. If you tried to go back into the poll it said "You have already participated in this..."
That's a standard polling program response that's designed to prevent people from taking the poll multiple times.
While ITC numbers were optional, all the available evidence (especially the small poll tally) points to the voting being linked to the ITC number.
Orock wrote:Read it again, anyone who had an email could vote. It says NOTHING about having to be in an itc event with a record. What you are suggesting is that they "told" everyone their vote would count, but in the end threw all the non tournament players votes away like trash. And if they DID lie like that, then nobody should use their system, because that is a scummy thing to do. So which is it?
It was made clear at the beginning that there were measure taken to prevent people from voting more than once. Why should the poll organizer give away the poll security measures? The ITC number field was a dead giveaway anyway.
Orock wrote:you do know there are programs where you can change your IP address on a whim, right? And people that do this kind of things hide behind proxies all the time.
Sure, you can change your IP address on a whim. Can you point me to programs that can change your ITC number? Because all evidence points to that as the poll security measure.
Naw wrote:Only 925 votes were given to the first question. The CF (2nd) got 947 votes, the other 2 Tau Q's were 944 and 942. Two Stompa questions had 944 and 941 respectively.
Why not vote for all questions? Would be interesting to see just the ITC registered votes.
You don't find it more than a little interesting that out of the potentially thousands of people who were made aware of the poll and voted, less than a thousand votes were actually tallied?
So when Reece wrote "So, we adjusted our procedures to eliminate this type of behavior. As a result, we got less votes than last time, but, probably close to the same umber of unique voters." he didn't actually mean it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pain4Pleasure wrote: You're 100% positive someone cared that much to change their IP address lots of times to vote? Wishful thinking, but unlikely. I could say someone who was to tau did the same, hince the 5 vote difference. So if it were the other way with results, and I was contesting it, would you be angry?
I can't take you seriously anymore. What is this 5 vote difference with a Tau vote?
Pain4Pleasure wrote: You're 100% positive someone cared that much to change their IP address lots of times to vote? Wishful thinking, but unlikely. I could say someone who was to tau did the same, hince the 5 vote difference. So if it were the other way with results, and I was contesting it, would you be angry?
I would say the same. The vote needs to come with an email confirmation to the alleged address to be clicked on for a "did you vote in this poll". I am going to convince my friends until its proven one way or another we need to suspend itc rulings, or mabye look for another system. If it IS ballot stuffing, this is clownshoes and we can find better.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: NEW INFO! From reecius himself.. A tau player made the tau questions for this poll... So no more can the tau players QQ about the wording. It was your own brothers doing
Good to know anybody who plays tau is part of the secret society.
And, as shocking as this might seem, some players may actually want to nerf the OP parts of their armies. I, for example, would like to nerf riptides. That's the thing. I don't think people would mind as much if it was directly communicated that this was a balance vote, instead of pretending it is a rules one. I'm fine with fixing balence issues. Now, I don't think popular vote is the way to do that, but that's another matter entirely.
From a non-40K player, it really is surprising how....viciously partisan this is, with bad faith being assumed on all sides. Maybe it's because of the size of 40K armies, that most people are unlikely to play more than one faction, and far more attached to "defending" their own?
Pain4Pleasure wrote: NEW INFO! From reecius himself.. A tau player made the tau questions for this poll... So no more can the tau players QQ about the wording. It was your own brothers doing
Good to know anybody who plays tau is part of the secret society.
And, as shocking as this might seem, some players may actually want to nerf the OP parts of their armies. I, for example, would like to nerf riptides. That's the thing. I don't think people would mind as much if it was directly communicated that this was a balance vote, instead of pretending it is a rules one. I'm fine with fixing balence issues. Now, I don't think popular vote is the way to do that, but that's another matter entirely.
From a non-40K player, it really is surprising how....viciously partisan this is, with bad faith being assumed on all sides. Maybe it's because of the size of 40K armies, that most people are unlikely to play more than one faction, and far more attached to "defending" their own?
I am a 40k player, but I'm right there with you. This is an incredible amount of butthurtedness coming off a post that appeared on 4Chan.
I sent a polite email to the ITC with this. If everyone wants them to speak up I encourage you to send polite emails to them. Don't send wild accusations one way or the other. That's not going to improve anyone's mood.
Jimsolo wrote: Principal rules design? Awful idea. Secondary rules design? i.e. clarification and FAQs? Pretty good idea, I think. Better than one or two TOs making house rules and pretending their own biases aren't entering the equation. (Genuine answer, BTW.)
Seems secondary design is better left to designers responding to closed/open playtesting rather than gamers voting on the internet. That said, it would have been wise in this case to only count the votes from ITC members, which amounts to closed playtesting, albeit in a backwards way.
I'll give you that, but that's like saying cold fusion is a better power source than fossil fuels, lol. GW refuses to administer over their own game, especially for competitive purposes. The best solution is not on the table, so now we must seek second best.
Blacksails wrote:Well, of course balancing 40k entirely would be a larger task than just starting from scratch, but a home brew game is much less likely to receive a following than a 'Revised 40k' from a well known group of people.
That aside, I maintain that the whole process isn't a democracy, in that the popular vote should not decide what gets buffed and nerfed. People should feel free to post their thoughts and feedback as much as they want in a useful and thought out manner, but ultimately, whoever is heading the project and has access to all the data should be making the final call in an (ideally) unbiased manner. There's a reason no game uses a vote system to action certain buffs/nerfs, but instead uses polls and forums to gauge general thoughts and get a number of potential fixes.
But again, Reecius prior to the vote made clear his personal opinions about the CFP rule. While it's pretty clear he was misinterpreting it RAW, his intent behind the reading was clear, and was mirrored in the poll questions. As I've said before, if Reecius just announced that he had decided to nerf Tau CFP, there would be a lot more complaining than if there had been an organized vote.
As GW does not support tournaments anymore, it is up to the gaming groups themselves to decide how they want to play. The ITC and its players have narrowly decided that within the context of their house rules system the game would be more balanced if Tau CFP did not share special rules.
notredameguy10 wrote:
I have already proved he is just making crap up. All past ITC polls have had ~1000 votes and had no ITC numbers. This one had about 1000 votes as well.
Also, Reecius said, multiple times, ALL VOTES WILL COUNT AND NO ITC NUMBER IS NEEDED
No prior ITC update had been done outside of their quarterly schedule, not had any been publicized to the extent this previous one was. If anything, the consistency of the voting numbers adds to the poll's legitimacy, as it proves that aroudn the same number of ITC players are voting in every poll.
Blacksails wrote:Well, of course balancing 40k entirely would be a larger task than just starting from scratch, but a home brew game is much less likely to receive a following than a 'Revised 40k' from a well known group of people.
That aside, I maintain that the whole process isn't a democracy, in that the popular vote should not decide what gets buffed and nerfed. People should feel free to post their thoughts and feedback as much as they want in a useful and thought out manner, but ultimately, whoever is heading the project and has access to all the data should be making the final call in an (ideally) unbiased manner. There's a reason no game uses a vote system to action certain buffs/nerfs, but instead uses polls and forums to gauge general thoughts and get a number of potential fixes.
But again, Reecius prior to the vote made clear his personal opinions about the CFP rule. While it's pretty clear he was misinterpreting it RAW, his intent behind the reading was clear, and was mirrored in the poll questions. As I've said before, if Reecius just announced that he had decided to nerf Tau CFP, there would be a lot more complaining than if there had been an organized vote.
As GW does not support tournaments anymore, it is up to the gaming groups themselves to decide how they want to play. The ITC and its players have narrowly decided that within the context of their house rules system the game would be more balanced if Tau CFP did not share special rules.
notredameguy10 wrote:
I have already proved he is just making crap up. All past ITC polls have had ~1000 votes and had no ITC numbers. This one had about 1000 votes as well.
Also, Reecius said, multiple times, ALL VOTES WILL COUNT AND NO ITC NUMBER IS NEEDED
No prior ITC update had been done outside of their quarterly schedule, not had any been publicized to the extent this previous one was. If anything, the consistency of the voting numbers adds to the poll's legitimacy, as it proves that aroudn the same number of ITC players are voting in every poll.
What are you talking about? The previous polls did not require people to input an ITC number...
And of course they voted it down. It would be amazing against deathstars and MC/GC. There are very few tau players in relation to all other armies, so logically people would vote against it to help their own self interests. aka make sure their armies don't get hurt by it
But again, Reecius prior to the vote made clear his personal opinions about the CFP rule. While it's pretty clear he was misinterpreting it RAW, his intent behind the reading was clear, and was mirrored in the poll questions. As I've said before, if Reecius just announced that he had decided to nerf Tau CFP, there would be a lot more complaining than if there had been an organized vote.
As GW does not support tournaments anymore, it is up to the gaming groups themselves to decide how they want to play. The ITC and its players have narrowly decided that within the context of their house rules system the game would be more balanced if Tau CFP did not share special rules.
My point is that a vote to decide on the course of action is not good for a game. When you factor in every little bias, misinformation, and general partisanship or spite, you'll always end up with a result that is less optimal than a small team that filters a large amount of feedback and tests the potential fixes to see which one comes the closest to creating a fair match for all involved.
If Reecius had just picked the option outright and announced what he was going to do, any and all rage/upset feelings/cheering would be directed at the person who made the decision, and no one else. Now, we have this nonsense of rigging, finger pointing, partisanship, ignorance, and a number of other factors of people all bitching and moaning at eachother and the ITC for several reasons rather than just one contentious ruling. Plus, if the ITC were to redact or change their ruling after a vote, it basically nullifies the whole process anyways, and they'd have been better off just deciding themselves so they can change it later and not seem like they're going against some majority of vote casting players.
A game really really shouldn't be a democracy for any sort of design choice. You need a small number of experts who's goal is to remain as unbiased and knowledgeable as possible, who work with a larger group of lesser experts or specialized experts, who help filter a larger number of opinions and forum feedback from all sources in order to come up with the best plan possible.
Voting on it sounds like a cool idea until you get nonsense like this.
But hey, I'm sure we can all agree we wouldn't even be here if GW could write themselves out of a paper bag.
Dozer Blades wrote: I just talked to a good friend who is somewhat of an IT expert and he said this is basically something impossible to do... plus 4chan - really ?
Not much of an IT expert then i guess. It is EXTREMELY easy to change your IP address. it takes like 5 seconds if you use VPN/Proxies
Dozer Blades wrote: I just talked to a good friend who is somewhat of an IT expert and he said this is basically something impossible to do... plus 4chan - really ?
Not much of an IT expert then i guess. It is EXTREMELY easy to change your IP address. it takes like 5 seconds if you use VPN/Proxies
This is true and its easy to make new emails for them.
Has the point that people who voted for whichever part of this vote, could also have used multiple accounts, been brought up?
As that's also possibly a thing, that may or may not be provable.
I mean, I created several accounts using the various computers I came across on the Tuesday of last week, to vote on these things...... or something. Viva La Tau revolucion!!!
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Has the point that people who voted for whichever part of this vote, could also have used multiple accounts, been brought up?
As that's also possibly a thing, that may or may not be provable.
I mean, I created several accounts using the various computers I came across on the Tuesday of last week, to vote on these things...... or something. Viva La Tau revolucion!!!
See I can make unsubstantiated claims too.
They are not unsubstantiated. We were talking about it because people have been posting they voted 50 times against Tau. Thats what brought this discussion up.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Has the point that people who voted for whichever part of this vote, could also have used multiple accounts, been brought up?
As that's also possibly a thing, that may or may not be provable.
I mean, I created several accounts using the various computers I came across on the Tuesday of last week, to vote on these things...... or something. Viva La Tau revolucion!!!
See I can make unsubstantiated claims too.
I brought it up. They stated tau players hath to much pride to do so
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Has the point that people who voted for whichever part of this vote, could also have used multiple accounts, been brought up?
As that's also possibly a thing, that may or may not be provable.
I mean, I created several accounts using the various computers I came across on the Tuesday of last week, to vote on these things...... or something. Viva La Tau revolucion!!!
See I can make unsubstantiated claims too.
They are not unsubstantiated. We were talking about it because people have been posting they voted 50 times against Tau. Thats what brought this discussion up.
By "people" we mean "one person on 4chan who claims to have made over 50 accounts to vote against Tau".
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Has the point that people who voted for whichever part of this vote, could also have used multiple accounts, been brought up?
As that's also possibly a thing, that may or may not be provable.
I mean, I created several accounts using the various computers I came across on the Tuesday of last week, to vote on these things...... or something. Viva La Tau revolucion!!!
See I can make unsubstantiated claims too.
They are not unsubstantiated. We were talking about it because people have been posting they voted 50 times against Tau. Thats what brought this discussion up.
By "people" we mean "one person on 4chan who claims to have made over 50 accounts to vote against Tau".
Aye, that darn tau supported did his multi account vote 6 to few times!
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Has the point that people who voted for whichever part of this vote, could also have used multiple accounts, been brought up?
As that's also possibly a thing, that may or may not be provable.
I mean, I created several accounts using the various computers I came across on the Tuesday of last week, to vote on these things...... or something. Viva La Tau revolucion!!!
See I can make unsubstantiated claims too.
They are not unsubstantiated. We were talking about it because people have been posting they voted 50 times against Tau. Thats what brought this discussion up.
By "people" we mean "one person on 4chan who claims to have made over 50 accounts to vote against Tau".
Aye, to quote the OP "Probably a hoax, but maybe not."
And my point was, why can't Tau players also have created 50 accounts each to sway the voting in their favour? If it's so plausible to believe that a Tau hater did it.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Has the point that people who voted for whichever part of this vote, could also have used multiple accounts, been brought up?
As that's also possibly a thing, that may or may not be provable.
I mean, I created several accounts using the various computers I came across on the Tuesday of last week, to vote on these things...... or something. Viva La Tau revolucion!!!
See I can make unsubstantiated claims too.
They are not unsubstantiated. We were talking about it because people have been posting they voted 50 times against Tau. Thats what brought this discussion up.
By "people" we mean "one person on 4chan who claims to have made over 50 accounts to vote against Tau".
Aye, to quote the OP "Probably a hoax, but maybe not."
And my point was, why can't Tau players also have created 50 accounts each to sway the voting in their favour?
They could have, probably did, but they don't wanna discuss that cause they didn't win anyway. And if they had won, and someone had accused others of that, they'd be ticked saying we were just trying to get a revote, like what's happening now. Weird huh
Psienesis wrote: I am a 40k player, but I'm right there with you. This is an incredible amount of butthurtedness coming off a post that appeared on 4Chan.
I bet the 4Chan poster (who is undoubtedly a Tau player making gak up to try and push for a revote) is LOLing away merrily.
I think the solution is very simple:
- If you don't like the ITC format and rulings, DON'T PAY and DON'T PLAY.
Simple as that.
As an IG/CSM player, watching these butthurt Tau players making all these QQ threads over how their army got nerfed so bad is kinda annoying.
Don't like your "nerfed" Tau, go play "count as" Guard. Your Crisis Suits can count as Armored Sentinels, and we'll allow the big ones to count as CSM Dreadnoughts, Defilers & Dinobots. Rock on!
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Has the point that people who voted for whichever part of this vote, could also have used multiple accounts, been brought up?
As that's also possibly a thing, that may or may not be provable.
I mean, I created several accounts using the various computers I came across on the Tuesday of last week, to vote on these things...... or something. Viva La Tau revolucion!!!
See I can make unsubstantiated claims too.
I brought it up. They stated tau players hath to much pride to do so
You are so delusional. First you lump a group of people together like they are all some kind of hive mind clones. Then you go on to spout hate and rhetoric about this group of people as bad as north Korea makes America out to be. There are plenty of people who play tau that have other armies, how do you label them? Part time scum? Every post you make is so full of anti tau propoganda I am legitimately concerned for your local " friend" who plays them. If you keep the hate speech out of your posts, you will find people will take you seriously instead of sounding like a Saturday morning cartoon villain.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Has the point that people who voted for whichever part of this vote, could also have used multiple accounts, been brought up?
As that's also possibly a thing, that may or may not be provable.
I mean, I created several accounts using the various computers I came across on the Tuesday of last week, to vote on these things...... or something. Viva La Tau revolucion!!!
See I can make unsubstantiated claims too.
I brought it up. They stated tau players hath to much pride to do so
You are so delusional. First you lump a group of people together like they are all some kind of hive mind clones. Then you go on to spout hate and rhetoric about this group of people as bad as north Korea makes America out to be. There are plenty of people who play tau that have other armies, how do you label them? Part time scum? Every post you make is so full of anti tau propoganda I am legitimately concerned for your local " friend" who plays them. If you keep the hate speech out of your posts, you will find people will take you seriously instead of sounding like a Saturday morning cartoon villain.
Really could care less what you think of me. How will it ever affect my life? I simply can't stand the attitude most tau players have. And Ryan plays just fine, doesn't always agree with our rules interpretations of his codex, but makes due
In the Nova Open? I'd have to look at the full results list and add it up manually, since I don't like how they list Tau as 48% win rate because they counted the 2nd place list that was 62% Tau as an Eldar list. That also makes it a lot harder to figure out exact numbers too, but as far as Tau goes the majority of Tau lists were above 50% individually, the best one being 6-2 in pure lists and 7-1 with 2nd place over all being 62% tau 37% Eldar. The worst pure tau list was 0-5 drop, being the only pure tau list under 50% , the only other list that had Tau and did worse than 50% win rate was allied with CSM and went 3-5, I don't know the breakdown of % tau to % chaos since the list itself wasn't published.
there is only 1 Tau player in the top 20 ITC rankings. Elder, for example, are ranked 2, 3, 9, and 15
I'm sure you missed my other post inquiring more on this, but there are 117 Tau players and 324 Eldar players, it makes sense there would be more Eldar than Tau in the top 20 as such.
Searched what armies the top 20 people played and I got the following:
Spoiler:
1.) Demons, Eldar, Orks
2.) Agents of Imperium, Tyranids
3.) Dark Angels, Space Marines, Space Wolves
4.) Space Wolves
5.) CSM, Demons, Eldar
6.) Eldar
7.) Imp Guard
8.) Orks
9.) Agents if Imperium, Eldar
10.) Eldar, Gk, Tyranids.
11.) Eldar
12.) Necrons
13.) Dark Angels
14.) Agents of Imperium, Tau
15.) CSM, Necrons, Tau
16.) CSM 17.) Dark Eldar
18.) Eldar. Space Marines
19.) Eldar, Space Marines
20.) Eldar
Now, you'll notice Eldar appears a lot, but, there are some interesting things I noticed, for example the first place player who has Eldar listed has only played one event as Eldar, with the rest being an even split between Orks and Deamons. The same thing with the 9th place player who has played one event with Eldar and significantly more with AoI. So there is a trend of a lot of good players trying out Eldar at least once, but It's a rather diverse list, and Tau appears twice, and remember, the majority of this is pre-massive buffs from formations and new units alone.
Edit: Just for the sake of keeping things in 10s, the 10th place player played 7 games with GK, 4 games with Nids, and 1 game with Eldar also... I didn't look at the 11-20 people.
I'm sure you missed my other post inquiring more on this, but there are 117 Tau players and 324 Eldar players
Surely the very fact that there are almost 3 times as many Eldar players as Tau players demonstrates the fatal flaw in a 'democratic' ruling system?
As others have pointed out, the fact that CFP has been denied but Scatbikes were allowed to remain clearly shows how this system is irrevocably broken, at least if its intention is to strive for objective balance. Armies that happen to enjoy a larger player base will retain their broken units and rules, whilst armies that aren't as lucky will have to hope the 'will of the people' blows in their favour.
As for those who believe this is a hoax, I agree it easily could be. But, the person who made the claim in the 4chan thread provided a few of the aliases they used when they allegedly voted multiple times, so surely it is simply a matter of the ITC people looking up the list of voters and matching the aliases to voters in said list? Then maybe we could finally put this to bed. From memory, they stated that most of the names sounded normal, but also included:
I'm sure you missed my other post inquiring more on this, but there are 117 Tau players and 324 Eldar players
Surely the very fact that there are almost 3 times as many Eldar players as Tau players demonstrates the fatal flaw in a 'democratic' ruling system?
As others have pointed out, the fact that CFP has been denied but Scatbikes were allowed to remain clearly shows how this system is irrevocably broken, at least if its intention is to strive for objective balance. Armies that happen to enjoy a larger player base will retain their broken units and rules, whilst armies that aren't as lucky will have to hope the 'will of the people' blows in their favour.
As for those who believe this is a hoax, I agree it easily could be. But, the person who made the claim in the 4chan thread provided 5-6 of the aliases they used when they allegedly voted multiple times, so surely it is simply a matter of the ITC people looking up the list of voters and matching the aliases to voters in said list? Then maybe we could finally put this to bed.
Yes and no. There are three times as many Eldar players, but how many of those Eldar players aren't actually Eldar players, but have played Eldar once? Quite a few it seems as the 1st, 9th, and 10th place over all players all played Eldar, but for only one event while playing other armies far more frequently. That would suggest a lot of people, especially stronger players due to their ability to play multiple armies, have tried but not stuck with Eldar, so their numbers are far more inflated as a whole.
As for your claim of player bias dictating army power level, well that's not exactly true, since people don't always vote only for their best interest. For example, Orks have only 77 players listed, but gained a massive buff in this vote, despite being less than a 4th of what Eldar players hold. More so, I'm a Tau player and had I had the opportunity, I would have voted to make CFP only share Markerlights and give the +1BS, nothing else. In fact, if you look at my post history, you can see that I've always supported that version of it. Not everyone votes for what's only good for them :/.
I'm sure you missed my other post inquiring more on this, but there are 117 Tau players and 324 Eldar players
Surely the very fact that there are almost 3 times as many Eldar players as Tau players demonstrates the fatal flaw in a 'democratic' ruling system?
As others have pointed out, the fact that CFP has been denied but Scatbikes were allowed to remain clearly shows how this system is irrevocably broken, at least if its intention is to strive for objective balance. Armies that happen to enjoy a larger player base will retain their broken units and rules, whilst armies that aren't as lucky will have to hope the 'will of the people' blows in their favour.
As for those who believe this is a hoax, I agree it easily could be. But, the person who made the claim in the 4chan thread provided 5-6 of the aliases they used when they allegedly voted multiple times, so surely it is simply a matter of the ITC people looking up the list of voters and matching the aliases to voters in said list? Then maybe we could finally put this to bed.
Yes and no. There are three times as many Eldar players, but how many of those Eldar players aren't actually Eldar players, but have played Eldar once? Quite a few it seems as the 1st, 9th, and 10th place over all players all played Eldar, but for only one event while playing other armies far more frequently. That would suggest a lot of people, especially stronger players due to their ability to play multiple armies, have tried but not stuck with Eldar, so their numbers are far more inflated as a whole.
As for your claim of player bias dictating army power level, well that's not exactly true, since people don't always vote only for their best interest. For example, Orks have only 77 players listed, but gained a massive buff in this vote, despite being less than a 4th of what Eldar players hold. More so, I'm a Tau player and had I had the opportunity, I would have voted to make CFP only share Markerlights and give the +1BS, nothing else. In fact, if you look at my post history, you can see that I've always supported that version of it. Not everyone votes for what's only good for them :/.
And it's admirable that you did so, voting against what was arguably in your own self-interest for the option you think is the fairest. But unfortunately we cannot use a system that relies on the decency of the community in this manner, because for every 1 player like you who can separate their personal interests from the game's best interests, there's probably 20 who don't.
The Ork example is somewhat of an outlier, however it can be explained by the fact that Orks are largely seen as one of the least competitive armies currently, so most people who voted for them to retain the kustom stompa probably thought "They'll still be weak even if they get this, so why not throw them a bone since GW screwed them." I think that if they were at the level of Space Marines/Eldar/Necrons, the vote would've gone in exactly the opposite direction, because as you point out Ork players don't have a large enough presence to swing the vote in their favour.
Basically, (and I include myself in this description) the wider 40k-playing community cannot be trusted to vote on game balance issues, any forum thread arguing over rules disputes that affect the relative power of armies demonstrates this time and again. The best we can do is use panels of experts who create and run tournament events, know the rules back to front, and have no personal stake in any tournament they organise, to decide each ruling on a case-by-case basis.
Let's put it this way, you claim that most people are biased and the reason Scatt Bikes stay unnerfed is because Eldar have 3x the popularity of Tau when looking at all players who played the army at least once. However, you're missing one critical thing in this claim, the number of total players is 1655, which means the number of players not playing Eldar is over 4 times that of those playing Eldar, and that's way before we adjust for players who played Eldar once but can't really be considered as having Eldar as a secondary army, yet less a primary one. So if as you said people voted only in their self interest, and even if all the Eldar players voted and only half entire community voted, Eldar would still be nerfed and so would every other army at every vote.
The other problem you run into is that if there is far more people that vote in self interest, as opposed to what they believe is right, the vote of 485 against and 460 for when it comes to the CFP ruling doesn't make any sense as there are only 117 Tau players as recorded in their leader board, some of which clearly voted against, which simply wouldn't add up in any real way because it would suggest those people who vote only in self interest are a small fraction of those who vote for the greater good (get it, eh, eh?)... If you are also to believe that this person voted 50 times against CFP alone, not saying you do or don't, it even further strengthens the vast majority voting against self interest when looking at the raw numbers.
Your hypothesis can't work due to simple fundamentals.
Tinkrr wrote: I think you're making too many assumptions.
Let's put it this way, you claim that most people are biased and the reason Scatt Bikes stay unnerfed is because Eldar have 3x the popularity of Tau when looking at all players who played the army at least once. However, you're missing one critical thing in this claim, the number of total players is 1655, which means the number of players not playing Eldar is over 4 times that of those playing Eldar, and that's way before we adjust for players who played Eldar once but can't really be considered as having Eldar as a secondary army, yet less a primary one. So if as you said people voted only in their self interest, and even if all the Eldar players voted and only half entire community voted, Eldar would still be nerfed and so would every other army at every vote.
The other problem you run into is that if there is far more people that vote in self interest, as opposed to what they believe is right, the vote of 485 against and 460 for when it comes to the CFP ruling doesn't make any sense as there are only 117 Tau players as recorded in their leader board, some of which clearly voted against, which simply wouldn't add up in any real way because it would suggest those people who vote only in self interest are a small fraction of those who vote for the greater good (get it, eh, eh?)... If you are also to believe that this person voted 50 times against CFP alone, not saying you do or don't, it even further strengthens the vast majority voting against self interest when looking at the raw numbers.
Your hypothesis can't work due to simple fundamentals.
In the same way as someone who receives poor customer service is FAR more likely to complain vocally and loudly than someone who receives stellar customer service is to praise a company, people will only tend to vote for decisions that they believe will directly affect them. The overall number of players is irrelevant, because many of them wouldn't care. Eldar players would care though, in the same way as deathstar players would care, and it is my contention that the number of Eldar/deathstar players who do want to swing the vote their way outweigh the people who are only vaguely interested but vote anyway.
Your second point doesn't hold water because (as established earlier) the number of voters was not contained only to those registered as ITC players. Anyone could vote. This means that the close-run numbers can be explained by a large amount of players rushing to vote against the Tau (and getting all their friends to help them) whilst the Tau players rush to vote in their own interests and get as many of their friends as possible to vote in the same manner. But even here we see the flaw - people would vote (and influence their friends to do so) based on what they personally want to happen, not because they think it's in the best interests of the game.
But this is really only tangentially related to the main point; even if you think people generally wouldn't vote in their own self-interest (which I believe they would, people are essentially selfish after all), there's a whole range of reasons why a public voting system is a terrible idea to achieve game balance.
Off the top of my head, there's plenty of evidence to show that the general 40k-playing community does not have the requisite breadth and depth of rules understanding I would consider necessary to provide an influential opinion. Once again, I include myself in this description.
To use an example - imagine if Dakka produced its own FAQ, based entirely on the results of debates in the YMDC forum. People consistently misread or forget rules, misinterpret plain language, or bring their own personal biases and grievances into what should be an objective assessment of Rules As Written. To use the 'results' (when there are any, a lot of the time it just ends inconclusively) of these debates would not achieve game balance in the slightest.
I admire your faith in your fellow players though, I just don't hold the same view.
Really could care less what you think of me. How will it ever affect my life? I simply can't stand the attitude most tau players have. And Ryan plays just fine, doesn't always agree with our rules interpretations of his codex, but makes due
The attitude of most tau players?
Holy sweeping generalizations Batman!
To be quite honest, your attitude is the one that comes off exceptionally poor when I read through the comments. Just maybe your annectdotal experiences aren't a great sample size?
In the same way as someone who receives poor customer service is FAR more likely to complain vocally and loudly than someone who receives stellar customer service is to praise a company, people will only tend to vote for decisions that they believe will directly affect them. The overall number of players is irrelevant, because many of them wouldn't care. Eldar players would care though, in the same way as deathstar players would care, and it is my contention that the number of Eldar/deathstar players who do want to swing the vote their way outweigh the people who are only vaguely interested but vote anyway.
Your second point doesn't hold water because (as established earlier) the number of voters was not contained only to those registered as ITC players. Anyone could vote. This means that the close-run numbers can be explained by a large amount of players rushing to vote against the Tau (and getting all their friends to help them) whilst the Tau players rush to vote in their own interests and get as many of their friends as possible to vote in the same manner. But even here we see the flaw - people would vote (and influence their friends to do so) based on what they personally want to happen, not because they think it's in the best interests of the game.
But this is really only tangentially related to the main point; even if you think people generally wouldn't vote in their own self-interest (which I believe they would, people are essentially selfish after all), there's a whole range of reasons why a public voting system is a terrible idea to achieve game balance.
Off the top of my head, there's plenty of evidence to show that the general 40k-playing community does not have the requisite breadth and depth of rules understanding I would consider necessary to provide an influential opinion. Once again, I include myself in this description.
To use an example - imagine if Dakka produced its own FAQ, based entirely on the results of debates in the YMDC forum. People consistently misread or forget rules, misinterpret plain language, or bring their own personal biases and grievances into what should be an objective assessment of Rules As Written. To use the 'results' (when there are any, a lot of the time it just ends inconclusively) of these debates would not achieve game balance in the slightest.
I admire your faith in your fellow players though, I just don't hold the same view.
I don't hold faith in the majority of my fellow players' ability to determine what is broken. Fortunately, most of them don't post on DakkaDakka.
If we are saying that all the votes were purely out of self-interest, then we would have seen an overwhelming majority in favor of nerfing Tau for the initial question, as Tau make up a minority of the overall playerbase. However, that wasn't the case. The measure to nerf CFP passed by only eight votes. Clearly there were other factors at work deciding people's opinions on the measure.
You might say that the ITC is dominated by Eldar and deathstar players. But as Tinkrr's analysis bears out, while Eldar might be over-represented in the ITC, the majority of people at ITC events do not play Eldar as either a primary or secondary army. As to the question of deathstars, I have a concrete answer for you: ITC is a terrible environment for deathstars. The mission design, incorporating modified maelstrom-style objectives into the standard games, and the scoring those objectives at the end of the player turn means that MSU is very much alive and dominant. The nerfs to 2+ re-rollable and Invisibility have made deathstars vulnerable to actually being killed, and with the exception of Thunderdome most do not have the speed and board presence to claim all the objectives on the board.
I think what we saw with the ITC vote on Coordinated Firepower was a reaction in a way to the Eldar release. There was a huge uptick in the number of Eldar armies at tournaments in the wake of their new codex, mostly composed of what we now know as the Standard Eldar Tournament Cheese List: Ranged D, Wraithknights, and Scatbikers. Unfortunately, the ITC is hard on that too. The limit to one Wraithknight, 2+ re-rollable and Invisibility nerfs, and the defanging of ranged D meant that Eldar became armies of Scatbikers. While those are ludicroursly undercosted and incredibly mobile, they are surprisingly fragile in a tournament envrionment. As such, Eldar have yet to win a single major GT-level tournament under ITC rules since their new codex released.
But it wasn't the winning power of Eldar that upset people. What made the majority of players unhappy was the blatant overpowered brokenness of certain units in the Eldar codex. People saw lots of players jumping on the Eldar bandwagon to get what was though to be an easy win with an army that basically played itself. Very few people had fun playing against the new flavor-of-the-month Eldar cheese, and attitudes soured on the blatant power creep post-Necron armies had received. I remember those days on DakkaDakka, and it was not a fun time to be a space elf player in any of the eight concurrently active hate threads on the forums. Now with this new poll, people voted against Tau due to perceiving them to be overpowered like Eldar and not wanting Tau to become the new flavor-of-the-month.
What I'm trying to say is this: Tau players, don't be like Eldar. Sure, you can blame Eldar for all your problems like everyone else does, but that doesn't mean you should act like certain Eldar players (see my signature). Most Eldar players learned to self-limit or accept their nerfs gracefully. Accept that the majority of people don't play your army and would prefer to have fun while playing against you. Accept that what the ITC has done, for better or worse, has made the game more balanced for everyone else.
Dozer Blades wrote: I just talked to a good friend who is somewhat of an IT expert and he said this is basically something impossible to do... plus 4chan - really ?
Somewhat of an expert?? Ask him to get a new job if he thinks this is basically something impossible to do. I'll also let all email spammers to know that what they are doing really is impossible.
Dozer Blades wrote: I should have added he meant the normal internet user. This is just another crackpot conspiracy theory.
hundreds of thousands of people use VPN on a daily basis....
Did you know 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot?
Despite that he's a dirty, filthy, cheesy Tau player, he's literally correct that at least 200,000 people across the entire earth use VPNs every day for various reasons, primarily remote IT work. Actually, the global number can likely be counted by millions.
First, war gamers? Really? Like we specialize in wargaming, and have no other skills or talents or knowledge outside wargaming that COULD let someone do this?
Second, what about cheaters? If the person is trying to cheat the system, they probably know how. Its kind of silly to put this out of the weelhouse of regular wargamers, because it seems like all you need to do is make up fake email accounts. Personally I have 2, one for real things and work, and one for things when I sign up will be spam. its a 2 minute sign up.
Know what I love? Verified voting systems, with a much higher chance of legitimacy. I voted, and recieved no email confirmation or anything. Anyone could have done this.
I can guarantee people have double voted in the past. It's going to happen no matter what it's for, be it a wargame or otherwise. To think everyone that plays warhammer is saintly and wouldn't stoop to nerf another race they don't play and possibly hate...... is kind of amusing.
And I voted, but not on the ork part as I didn't understand how it was a real question.
I actually learned a lot about the tank shock question, that one I spent a while deciding how I thought it should be done. It was similar for the Ork vote, I had no idea they could get a stompa that cheap. I did still take my time and borrow a Tau codex before voting on the Tau one as well, but I knew a little more about that one going into it.
I can't believe people are getting so worked up about this. I have it from an inside source that the outcome of nerfing tau was already predetermined and that the public voting was just to troll the community. What i appreciate most about this knowledge is that it's so outrageous it will never be believed. Meanwhile everyone is up in arms about one troll poster on 4-chan.
Personally, I think they should have been allowed to keep the special rules across the CF but make a specific exception for target lock rules.
Anyway, even without all the rules sharing just being able to increase everyone's BS by +1 and utilizing maker lights is still a strong rule in and of itself.
The Tau community should take a breather, realize their forces improved very much with the "new" dex drop and get back to rolling dice.
Dozer Blades wrote: Forgeworld has publicaly stated the points are wrong for that stompa - lobbyists for duh boyz were able to capitalize... which speaks for itself.
The thing that I don't understand about that is that if you want to make an uncompetitive choice in a weak faction more viable, you don't need to bother with a fig leaf of "An official publication said this, once, for a short period of time." Why not just lower the points cost? Likewise, why fool around with the Wraithknight instead of just raising the points cost?
Dozer Blades wrote: Forgeworld has publicaly stated the points are wrong for that stompa - lobbyists for duh boyz were able to capitalize... which speaks for itself.
The thing that I don't understand about that is that if you want to make an uncompetitive choice in a weak faction more viable, you don't need to bother with a fig leaf of "An official publication said this, once, for a short period of time." Why not just lower the points cost? Likewise, why fool around with the Wraithknight instead of just raising the points cost?
Short period of time?
Hasn't that Buzzgob stompa been available at that point cost for over a year? I don't play Orks so I don't know exactly, but it it may be significantly over a year.
It's more official at this point than anything in the Space Marine codex. If Forgeworld wanted to errata it, I'm sure someone there has a computer and has mastered the art of typing
Dozer Blades wrote: Forgeworld has publicaly stated the points are wrong for that stompa - lobbyists for duh boyz were able to capitalize... which speaks for itself.
The thing that I don't understand about that is that if you want to make an uncompetitive choice in a weak faction more viable, you don't need to bother with a fig leaf of "An official publication said this, once, for a short period of time." Why not just lower the points cost? Likewise, why fool around with the Wraithknight instead of just raising the points cost?
Short period of time?
Hasn't that Buzzgob stompa been available at that point cost for over a year? I don't play Orks so I don't know exactly, but it it may be significantly over a year.
It's more official at this point than anything in the Space Marine codex. If Forgeworld wanted to errata it, I'm sure someone there has a computer and has mastered the art of typing
But alas, I'm sure GW has these skills as well and you. Can see where we are on that...
Yeah that is a huge problem, but unless the companies do the required errata we really have to take the rules as they are(in terms of official).
I'll never forget the day the Heldrake FAQ came out giving it 360 firing arc and measured from the base. I've given up on trying to figure out what they want the rules to be.
PaladinDanse wrote: Probably a hoax, but mabye not. If it was limited to people who actually were in tournaments only, we wouldn't have to question things like this right now.
Its precisely what I keep telling people: The vote doesnt even require a supermajority, and a 50/50 split ids worth making a call on? Hell with that. Let the players and TO's work it out until the ITC can pose three different readings we can agree on, including the original. As it is your oppoents who outnumber you are telling ITC hoiw they want your army to run against them! 50% is their call to action? No. Get 75% to agree and its legit.
PaladinDanse wrote: Probably a hoax, but mabye not. If it was limited to people who actually were in tournaments only, we wouldn't have to question things like this right now.
Its precisely what I keep telling people: The vote doesnt even require a supermajority, and a 50/50 split ids worth making a call on? Hell with that. Let the players and TO's work it out until the ITC can pose three different readings we can agree on, including the original. As it is your oppoents who outnumber you are telling ITC hoiw they want your army to run against them! 50% is their call to action? No. Get 75% to agree and its legit.
But the vote was also meant as a rules interpretation so that players wouldn't have to waste that much time arguing with each other and TOs about the special rule.
Honestly, if you guys are limiting yourself to the Hunter Contingent then you don't really know the full power of Tau.
I guess I could say if you only play gladius strike force or sky hammer for marines you don't know marines. Or if you just run decursion necromancer you don't know your army. Or if you only run war convocation you don't know the full power of admech. This is false. I know the power of tau, and so did those nerfing them. It's still the most powerful and rewarding bonuses. It also let a wide variety of units contribute meaningfully. ZERO of the other power tau builds you see mentioned run fire warriors. In the hunter contingent, they were pure gold. I guess you can get used to seeing drones, 16 piranha, and three riptides every game then. Wait we already had three riptides every game. I guess nobody wants change.
Orock wrote: I guess I could say if you only play gladius strike force or sky hammer for marines you don't know marines. Or if you just run decursion necromancer you don't know your army. Or if you only run war convocation you don't know the full power of admech. This is false. I know the power of tau, and so did those nerfing them. It's still the most powerful and rewarding bonuses. It also let a wide variety of units contribute meaningfully. ZERO of the other power tau builds you see mentioned run fire warriors. In the hunter contingent, they were pure gold. I guess you can get used to seeing drones, 16 piranha, and three riptides every game then. Wait we already had three riptides every game. I guess nobody wants change.
You realize the Hunter Contingent is still really good, right? It still does a great job of shoring up the weakness to deathstars, especially because the ITC has already nerfed deathstars with the nerfs to 2+ Rerollable saves and Invisibility, and The Optimized Stealth Cadre is still the scariest thing the Tau have for many armies, because almost no vehicle has back armor good enough to survive all that melta. Food for thought.
It is starting to really get annoying and offensive how people say "tau will be fine they still have XXX" please stop using that as one of the reasons to justify the result! Let's all be honest, the ITC vote was not a rule clarification but was a "how you would want to play against it" vote for the sake of "balance". There are other OP formations/combos that actually has tournament results to back it up. The rules for those formations are quite clear RAW but since the CF vote was clearly not a rule clarification vote, when are we voting on those and phrase it "how would we like to play against XXX" for the sake of "balance".
Tautastic wrote: It is starting to really get annoying and offensive how people say "tau will be fine they still have XXX" please stop using that as one of the reasons to justify the result! Let's all be honest, the ITC vote was not a rule clarification but was a "how you would want to play against it" vote for the sake of "balance". There are other OP formations/combos that actually has tournament results to back it up. The rules for those formations are quite clear RAW but since the CF vote was clearly not a rule clarification vote, when are we voting on those and phrase it "how would we like to play against XXX" for the sake of "balance".
...Offensive? Lol Wut? How is telling you that your army is viable offensive? Fine, the vote wasnt a rules clarification, Ill concede that. Doesn't change the fact that tau will still be perfectly viable, especially in the ITC which doesnt play purely maelstrom and nerfs Invisibility and 2+ rerollable saves, the teo strongest things a powerful deathstar can have.
Tautastic wrote: It is starting to really get annoying and offensive how people say "tau will be fine they still have XXX" please stop using that as one of the reasons to justify the result! Let's all be honest, the ITC vote was not a rule clarification but was a "how you would want to play against it" vote for the sake of "balance". There are other OP formations/combos that actually has tournament results to back it up. The rules for those formations are quite clear RAW but since the CF vote was clearly not a rule clarification vote, when are we voting on those and phrase it "how would we like to play against XXX" for the sake of "balance".
...Offensive? Lol Wut? How is telling you that your army is viable offensive? Fine, the vote wasnt a rules clarification, Ill concede that. Doesn't change the fact that tau will still be perfectly viable, especially in the ITC which doesnt play purely maelstrom and nerfs Invisibility and 2+ rerollable saves, the teo strongest things a powerful deathstar can have.
That isn't the point. The point is there was a knee-jerk reaction to nerf 1 specific army before a single tournament was completed and that if it were a space marine army, it would never have been nerfed due to popular voting.
It's offensive because you are telling someone who had one of their legs chopped off "buck up, buttercup. You can still lead a full and fulfilling life. Just not AS full anymore. Particularly if you enjoyed soccer".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Know what else is "viable"? Marines without free transports, wraiths without 4+ reanimation protocols, eldar without every jetbike having a scatter laser, marines without super pinning and turn one deep strike assault.....
I agree with the gist of it Orock, about how it was an obvious targeted nerf and hilariously unfair when all the other power armies you listed are virtually untouched despite being equally problematic, but I wouldn't compare the ITC nerf to chopping off a leg. It barely counts as a paper cut, if anything.
Make no mistake, Tau are very much still a power army as good as the rest of them, all this means is that the Hunter Contingent probably isn't the best way to run them; but we don't really need it anyway. What pisses me off about the nerf is just the obvious fact that this was less about game balance and more about just sticking it to people for playing Tau, because "Feth Tau, get rekt, lol."
Even though I technically have to agree with the result, I know we got there for the wrong reasons, and that if these people had an opportunity they would have gone much farther than CFP just because they don't want to see our army on the table at all.
Sidstyler wrote: I agree with the gist of it Orock, about how it was an obvious targeted nerf and hilariously unfair when all the other power armies you listed are virtually untouched despite being equally problematic, but I wouldn't compare the ITC nerf to chopping off a leg. It barely counts as a paper cut, if anything.
Make no mistake, Tau are very much still a power army as good as the rest of them, all this means is that the Hunter Contingent probably isn't the best way to run them; but we don't really need it anyway. What pisses me off about the nerf is just the obvious fact that this was less about game balance and more about just sticking it to people for playing Tau, because "Feth Tau, get rekt, lol."
Even though I technically have to agree with the result, I know we got there for the wrong reasons, and that if these people had an opportunity they would have gone much farther than CFP just because they don't want to see our army on the table at all.
A short list of armies that are seriously nerfed by ITC changes to 2+ re-rollable, Invisibility, and Ranged D:
Eldar
Centstars
Daemons
Dark Angels
Eldar Freakshows
Thunderdome
And that's just off the top of my head. Counting all the deathstar armies that are at a disadvantage from ITC missions, there's plenty of armies out there that have been nerfed and aren't Tau.
You can accuse people of voting to nerf Tau because they hate the dumb blue fish people and don't want to have to see them at tournaments. By the same token, I can accuse Tau fanboys of wanting to keep their army at the codex's written level of overpowered and broken just because other things in the game happen to be overpowered and broken. We can't dispute the fact that plenty of people probably voted in bad faith. However, if there was any bad faith, it was on both sides. Therefore, the poll evens out.
There are still plenty of hilarious ways for Tau to compete in an ITC environment (see nine Riptides at 1850 points). All the ITC did was depower one particularly broken ability to keep some resemblance of balance in their house rules.
Your Nerf assumptions are incorrect. All of those changes are universal rule changes that affect anyone who could benefit from them equally. 2+/2+? Screamer star wasent the only list that could get there. Invisible? About 10 dead as units could do it. D weapons? Eldar do not have a monopoly, especially if you include forgeworld. This was a specific targeted Nerf and a joke one considering the other things out there that are so much worse. That it was done by popular vote because the rules lawyring failed to convince anyone it worked different, especially after the bias spewed by the very host of the survey condemning it as the end to fair 40k as we know it was even worse. Where was the popular fan following for the other side of the coin. Nowhere. It died the death of all minority issues. And I hope the goodwill and reputation it cost them comes back to them.
Some armies have a wide toolkit that extends to many different armies, and the collective nerfs of those different abilities result in balance. Other armies have a more unique package that requires more specific nerfs and changes in order to be balanced.
In either case, both are valid, and simply because one army might fall into the former, instead of the ladder, does not necessarily mean it was affected any less than the one who does fall into the ladder.
Sidstyler wrote: I agree with the gist of it Orock, about how it was an obvious targeted nerf and hilariously unfair when all the other power armies you listed are virtually untouched despite being equally problematic, but I wouldn't compare the ITC nerf to chopping off a leg. It barely counts as a paper cut, if anything.
Make no mistake, Tau are very much still a power army as good as the rest of them, all this means is that the Hunter Contingent probably isn't the best way to run them; but we don't really need it anyway. What pisses me off about the nerf is just the obvious fact that this was less about game balance and more about just sticking it to people for playing Tau, because "Feth Tau, get rekt, lol."
Even though I technically have to agree with the result, I know we got there for the wrong reasons, and that if these people had an opportunity they would have gone much farther than CFP just because they don't want to see our army on the table at all.
A short list of armies that are seriously nerfed by ITC changes to 2+ re-rollable, Invisibility, and Ranged D:
Eldar
Centstars
Daemons
Dark Angels
Eldar Freakshows
Thunderdome
And that's just off the top of my head. Counting all the deathstar armies that are at a disadvantage from ITC missions, there's plenty of armies out there that have been nerfed and aren't Tau.
You can accuse people of voting to nerf Tau because they hate the dumb blue fish people and don't want to have to see them at tournaments. By the same token, I can accuse Tau fanboys of wanting to keep their army at the codex's written level of overpowered and broken just because other things in the game happen to be overpowered and broken. We can't dispute the fact that plenty of people probably voted in bad faith. However, if there was any bad faith, it was on both sides. Therefore, the poll evens out.
There are still plenty of hilarious ways for Tau to compete in an ITC environment (see nine Riptides at 1850 points). All the ITC did was depower one particularly broken ability to keep some resemblance of balance in their house rules.
No lol, the poll does NOT "evens out". Considering Tau players probably make up about 5% of total players (i know there is no way to actually calculate that, but tis a rough guesstimate). That means even if every single Tau player voted completely biased (which was not the case). There was much higher than 5% of that 95% who voted to nerf Tau just so there own armies wouldn't be hurt by them.
It's not like ITC is going to change the vote so maybe the best thing to do is move along. Tau still are going to be very powerful regardless what people say. I think it's possible you can do an army thst is mostly monstrous creatures and gargantuan which is really cool and should be competitive.
Orock wrote:Your Nerf assumptions are incorrect. All of those changes are universal rule changes that affect anyone who could benefit from them equally. 2+/2+? Screamer star wasent the only list that could get there. Invisible? About 10 dead as units could do it. D weapons? Eldar do not have a monopoly, especially if you include forgeworld. This was a specific targeted Nerf and a joke one considering the other things out there that are so much worse. That it was done by popular vote because the rules lawyring failed to convince anyone it worked different, especially after the bias spewed by the very host of the survey condemning it as the end to fair 40k as we know it was even worse. Where was the popular fan following for the other side of the coin. Nowhere. It died the death of all minority issues. And I hope the goodwill and reputation it cost them comes back to them.
Not everyone has equal access to 2+ re-rollable, Invisibility, or ranged D. Considering that Eldar can pull off all three, this amounts to a substantial nerf for Eldar.
The argument that CFP sharing special rules is fine because other things are equally broken doesn't hold up. When everything is broken, it just translates to a game of rock-paper-scissors on who can abuse the most broken mechanics. Sure, with CFP sharing special rules, Tau would only be as broken as Centstar. That still makes Tau an auto-win against the majority of armies out there. Adding one more thing to the list of broken things is a game is not a good way to balance the game; instead, the broken units and mechanics should be toned down.
Reecius may have overplayed his hand when he put out that article before the poll, but consider this: what do you think would have happened if that poll question just came out of nowhere? I'd be willing to be a lot of people would just skip it as they didn't understand the intent behind the potential ruling. What people wanted was for the ITC to do something about the new Tau, and that article ended up laying out Reecius's idea for doing so. Being able to vote on the plan would have been a lot better than Reecius just arbitrarily ruling on the issue; I would have made the ITC look worse than if they allowed for member input.
notredameguy10 wrote:No lol, the poll does NOT "evens out". Considering Tau players probably make up about 5% of total players (i know there is no way to actually calculate that, but tis a rough guesstimate). That means even if every single Tau player voted completely biased (which was not the case). There was much higher than 5% of that 95% who voted to nerf Tau just so there own armies wouldn't be hurt by them.
Considering the measure only passed by eight votes, the poll very nearly did even out.
Around where I play, people are having the opposite reaction: they're glad that the ITC stepped in to tone down the latest instance of broken power creep in the game.
PaladinDanse wrote: Probably a hoax, but mabye not. If it was limited to people who actually were in tournaments only, we wouldn't have to question things like this right now.
Its precisely what I keep telling people: The vote doesnt even require a supermajority, and a 50/50 split ids worth making a call on? Hell with that. Let the players and TO's work it out until the ITC can pose three different readings we can agree on, including the original. As it is your oppoents who outnumber you are telling ITC hoiw they want your army to run against them! 50% is their call to action? No. Get 75% to agree and its legit.
But the vote was also meant as a rules interpretation so that players wouldn't have to waste that much time arguing with each other and TOs about the special rule.
Honestly, if you guys are limiting yourself to the Hunter Contingent then you don't really know the full power of Tau.
That isn't the issue. Like at all. Whether people "should" do this or "should" use that is irrelevant. The question is, "Should the ITC even be handing down a ruling yet with that margin?"
That isn't the issue. Like at all. Whether people "should" do this or "should" use that is irrelevant. The question is, "Should the ITC even be handing down a ruling yet with that margin?"
the answer is an emphatic no.
The ITC are made up of people, therefore if whether people "should" do something is irrelevant, then the question "Should the ITC even be handing down a ruling yet with that margin?" is also irrelevant. Q.E.D.
If I recall correctly, the measure to nerf Eldar Windriders to one heavy weapon per three jetbikes failed by five votes. Is that an acceptable margin for play, or should the ITC have revoted until at least two-thirds of everyone who had participated in an ITC event had voted in favor of one or the other? The reason Eldar Windriders failed is because there are plenty of other models in the game that are just as undercosted for what they bring to the table (see Riptides). The ITC nerfs all the mechanics that Eldar can exploit and restricts people to one Wraithknight. While Codex: Scatbikers does put out a ludicrous amount of firepower, most tournament-level armies can kill them. The same cannot be said for killing an entire Tau army.
It feels at this point the people are just desperately grasping at straws in order to try to find a reason to invalidate the ITC's decision.
That isn't the issue. Like at all. Whether people "should" do this or "should" use that is irrelevant. The question is, "Should the ITC even be handing down a ruling yet with that margin?"
the answer is an emphatic no.
The ITC are made up of people, therefore if whether people "should" do something is irrelevant, then the question "Should the ITC even be handing down a ruling yet with that margin?" is also irrelevant. Q.E.D.
If I recall correctly, the measure to nerf Eldar Windriders to one heavy weapon per three jetbikes failed by five votes. Is that an acceptable margin for play, or should the ITC have revoted until at least two-thirds of everyone who had participated in an ITC event had voted in favor of one or the other? The reason Eldar Windriders failed is because there are plenty of other models in the game that are just as undercosted for what they bring to the table (see Riptides). The ITC nerfs all the mechanics that Eldar can exploit and restricts people to one Wraithknight. While Codex: Scatbikers does put out a ludicrous amount of firepower, most tournament-level armies can kill them. The same cannot be said for killing an entire Tau army.
It feels at this point the people are just desperately grasping at straws in order to try to find a reason to invalidate the ITC's decision.
and if six people hadn't forgotten to vote, then what? It loses by one vote? The ones who had a cold that day who could have turned it? They needed to do another vote on this to get a more definitive majoirty.
Oh and by the way i dont actually care about he ruling itself. I cared about the margin being used as a "mandate from the people". It isnt as if T.O.'s can't make decisions on the things ITC doesn't YET have a definitive public opinion on . 50.01%? gimme a break.
That isn't the issue. Like at all. Whether people "should" do this or "should" use that is irrelevant. The question is, "Should the ITC even be handing down a ruling yet with that margin?"
the answer is an emphatic no.
The ITC are made up of people, therefore if whether people "should" do something is irrelevant, then the question "Should the ITC even be handing down a ruling yet with that margin?" is also irrelevant. Q.E.D.
If I recall correctly, the measure to nerf Eldar Windriders to one heavy weapon per three jetbikes failed by five votes. Is that an acceptable margin for play, or should the ITC have revoted until at least two-thirds of everyone who had participated in an ITC event had voted in favor of one or the other? The reason Eldar Windriders failed is because there are plenty of other models in the game that are just as undercosted for what they bring to the table (see Riptides). The ITC nerfs all the mechanics that Eldar can exploit and restricts people to one Wraithknight. While Codex: Scatbikers does put out a ludicrous amount of firepower, most tournament-level armies can kill them. The same cannot be said for killing an entire Tau army.
It feels at this point the people are just desperately grasping at straws in order to try to find a reason to invalidate the ITC's decision.
First off, its not an "entire tau army" lol. Kill the buffmander (which isn't that hard) and bam, there you go.
Secondly, Eldar have the second highest player base other than space marines (maybe even higher if you separate chapters), and thus very likely win a popular vote. Tau not so much.
Oh and by the way i dont actually care about he ruling itself. I cared about the margin being used as a "mandate from the people". It isnt as if T.O.'s can't make decisions on the things ITC doesn't YET have a definitive public opinion on . 50.01%? gimme a break.
So how many votes does your side have to lose by before you accept it? 10? 100? 1000? 10,000? You lost by a handful of votes. That's how voting works. The only people going on about a mandate are the ones that enjoy spinning you up over losing the vote. If you don't like it avoid ITC events, organize a Tau boycott of LVO, you have options. But invalidating the vote isn't one of them. There is no Supreme Court to appeal to. And I don't think Reece would be inclined to reconsider given a couple of you are in the process of burning all your bridges with him.
I'm pretty confident that we didn't have this level of uproar when people decided that having ICs assault with the Skyhammer Formation from Deep Strike wasn't going to be allowed, and that wasn't even a vote. Seems like there's literally an analogous example of something similar happening to Space Marines and yet no outrage.
Simple, if it was an Imperial Army with this ability they would not have been nerfed nearly as bad as the Tau have been. Why i don't usually play in tournaments and why my FLGS has not and probably will ever adopt their format.
gmaleron wrote: Simple, if it was an Imperial Army with this ability they would not have been nerfed nearly as bad as the Tau have been. Why i don't usually play in tournaments and why my FLGS has not and probably will ever adopt their format.
If only there were some sort of similar example that applied to Space Marines and someone had mentioned it recently. Say, in the post right above yours.
It's completely different though, independent characters can't join the formation and get a formations special rules, it says so under formations. I'm not trying to talk gak on ICC however it's been a common complaint for a little while from what I've been hearing is that xenos armies tend to get screwed more than Imperial.
gmaleron wrote: It's completely different though, independent characters can't join the formation and get a formations special rules, it says so under formations.
Which isn't how the combo works, but there's enough stuff in YMDC for people curious. It's pretty much exactly the same situation: people disagree on how to read a rule and the least powerful interpretation gets used, but there aren't (or, well, weren't) multiple threads in the general forum by disgruntled Space Marine players whining about how unfair it was.
How is it whining if its making a valid point? You can knock off trying to put a negative spin on it just because Tau players are unhappy for the level of nerfing they have received compared to Space Marines. It can easily be said it was Imperial "whining" that caused some of these over the top reactions to happen. Just a pattern that I've unfortunately continued to hear that Imperials don't nearly suffer from the nerf bat as bad as xenos forces have.
notredameguy10 wrote:First off, its not an "entire tau army" lol. Kill the buffmander (which isn't that hard) and bam, there you go.
Secondly, Eldar have the second highest player base other than space marines (maybe even higher if you separate chapters), and thus very likely win a popular vote. Tau not so much.
How many armies out there can kill a T5 2+ armour 5+ Feel No Pain multi-wound model, that will in all likelihood have a 2+ Look Out Sir! wound redistribution and some kind of cover save? It's doable for plenty, sure, but only if you end up going first. If Tau go first, they just CFP away the units that can kill the buffmander. That's game.
gmaleron wrote:How is it whining if its making a valid point? You can knock off trying to put a negative spin on it just because Tau players are unhappy for the level of nerfing they have received compared to Space Marines. It can easily be said it was Imperial "whining" that caused some of these over the top reactions to happen. Just a pattern that I've unfortunately continued to hear that Imperials don't nearly suffer from the nerf bat as bad as xenos forces have.
The three-source limit and no CTA Allies in ITC takes away the worst shenanigans that Space Marines can pull off with allies, as does the limit on duplicate formations/detachments. Nerfing Invisibility and 2+ re-rollable makes Centstar a lot more vulnerable. The ITC rules do in fact tone down the worst that Space marines can pull off.
In much the same way, it wasn't that the Tau codex had all its formations removed and all its units made significantly more expensive. One special rule was changed to make it more balanced for everyone else to play against Tau.
Consider this: maybe people were "whining" because GW introduced yet another game-breakingly overpowered ability into the game, and there were plenty of Tau players gloating about how they would take full use of it. For the sake of everyone else having a fun and somewhat balanced game, CFP had to be nerfed.
notredameguy10 wrote:First off, its not an "entire tau army" lol. Kill the buffmander (which isn't that hard) and bam, there you go.
Secondly, Eldar have the second highest player base other than space marines (maybe even higher if you separate chapters), and thus very likely win a popular vote. Tau not so much.
How many armies out there can kill a T5 2+ armour 5+ Feel No Pain multi-wound model, that will in all likelihood have a 2+ Look Out Sir! wound redistribution and some kind of cover save? It's doable for plenty, sure, but only if you end up going first. If Tau go first, they just CFP away the units that can kill the buffmander. That's game.
gmaleron wrote:How is it whining if its making a valid point? You can knock off trying to put a negative spin on it just because Tau players are unhappy for the level of nerfing they have received compared to Space Marines. It can easily be said it was Imperial "whining" that caused some of these over the top reactions to happen. Just a pattern that I've unfortunately continued to hear that Imperials don't nearly suffer from the nerf bat as bad as xenos forces have.
The three-source limit and no CTA Allies in ITC takes away the worst shenanigans that Space Marines can pull off with allies, as does the limit on duplicate formations/detachments. Nerfing Invisibility and 2+ re-rollable makes Centstar a lot more vulnerable. The ITC rules do in fact tone down the worst that Space marines can pull off.
In much the same way, it wasn't that the Tau codex had all its formations removed and all its units made significantly more expensive. One special rule was changed to make it more balanced for everyone else to play against Tau.
Consider this: maybe people were "whining" because GW introduced yet another game-breakingly overpowered ability into the game, and there were plenty of Tau players gloating about how they would take full use of it. For the sake of everyone else having a fun and somewhat balanced game, CFP had to be nerfed.
And that MAY be the case. But just because you say it is OP doesn't mean it is. The fact is frontlinegaming wanted CFP nerfed from the minute they read it, before a single game was played. The rule was put up for vote 2 weeks after the codex was released and the vote was 4 weeks after release. Not a single tournament was conducted. and the 2 games ITC tried CFP at full strength Tau lost both games
notredameguy10 wrote:First off, its not an "entire tau army" lol. Kill the buffmander (which isn't that hard) and bam, there you go.
Secondly, Eldar have the second highest player base other than space marines (maybe even higher if you separate chapters), and thus very likely win a popular vote. Tau not so much.
How many armies out there can kill a T5 2+ armour 5+ Feel No Pain multi-wound model, that will in all likelihood have a 2+ Look Out Sir! wound redistribution and some kind of cover save? It's doable for plenty, sure, but only if you end up going first. If Tau go first, they just CFP away the units that can kill the buffmander. That's game.
gmaleron wrote:How is it whining if its making a valid point? You can knock off trying to put a negative spin on it just because Tau players are unhappy for the level of nerfing they have received compared to Space Marines. It can easily be said it was Imperial "whining" that caused some of these over the top reactions to happen. Just a pattern that I've unfortunately continued to hear that Imperials don't nearly suffer from the nerf bat as bad as xenos forces have.
The three-source limit and no CTA Allies in ITC takes away the worst shenanigans that Space Marines can pull off with allies, as does the limit on duplicate formations/detachments. Nerfing Invisibility and 2+ re-rollable makes Centstar a lot more vulnerable. The ITC rules do in fact tone down the worst that Space marines can pull off.
In much the same way, it wasn't that the Tau codex had all its formations removed and all its units made significantly more expensive. One special rule was changed to make it more balanced for everyone else to play against Tau.
Consider this: maybe people were "whining" because GW introduced yet another game-breakingly overpowered ability into the game, and there were plenty of Tau players gloating about how they would take full use of it. For the sake of everyone else having a fun and somewhat balanced game, CFP had to be nerfed.
And that MAY be the case. But just because you say it is OP doesn't mean it is. The fact is frontlinegaming wanted CFP nerfed from the minute they read it, before a single game was played. The rule was put up for vote 2 weeks after the codex was released and the vote was 4 weeks after release. Not a single tournament was conducted. and the 2 games ITC tried CFP at full strength Tau lost both games
That's not enough information to base a conclusion. Tau will be fine and when our player base gets to test different builds out I guarantee we'll see a better representation of Tau forces in the top tournaments.
PaladinDanse wrote: Probably a hoax, but mabye not. If it was limited to people who actually were in tournaments only, we wouldn't have to question things like this right now.
Its precisely what I keep telling people: The vote doesnt even require a supermajority, and a 50/50 split ids worth making a call on? Hell with that. Let the players and TO's work it out until the ITC can pose three different readings we can agree on, including the original. As it is your oppoents who outnumber you are telling ITC hoiw they want your army to run against them! 50% is their call to action? No. Get 75% to agree and its legit.
But the vote was also meant as a rules interpretation so that players wouldn't have to waste that much time arguing with each other and TOs about the special rule.
Honestly, if you guys are limiting yourself to the Hunter Contingent then you don't really know the full power of Tau.
That isn't the issue. Like at all. Whether people "should" do this or "should" use that is irrelevant. The question is, "Should the ITC even be handing down a ruling yet with that margin?"
the answer is an emphatic no.
If the vote is that close, it probably means it will come up for a re-vote the next time around, and by then people will have a more informed view of it because there will have been plenty of events played with it in one form, such that it can be noted whether it needs a change or not without the confusion of some events using one version or the other.
Remember, none of these votes are permanent, and the percent of majority shouldn't matter, since even if you do it as you desire, you'll still have to use one of the rulings in events and the ITC will probably use the majority version for their own large events which will set the president regardless. So you really don't change anything by not making an official statement as your suggesting.
Oh and by the way i dont actually care about he ruling itself. I cared about the margin being used as a "mandate from the people". It isnt as if T.O.'s can't make decisions on the things ITC doesn't YET have a definitive public opinion on . 50.01%? gimme a break.
So how many votes does your side have to lose by before you accept it? 10? 100? 1000? 10,000? You lost by a handful of votes. That's how voting works. The only people going on about a mandate are the ones that enjoy spinning you up over losing the vote. If you don't like it avoid ITC events, organize a Tau boycott of LVO, you have options. But invalidating the vote isn't one of them. There is no Supreme Court to appeal to. And I don't think Reece would be inclined to reconsider given a couple of you are in the process of burning all your bridges with him.
I didnt lose the vote. What are you talking about?
