I would like to say that I love the idea of letting the players vote to determine the rules for tournaments but, the system is flawed. My main issue or the thing that I see as a flaw with the current system is that frontline gaming is the one that puts up the polls, at the same time frontline gaming write articles which influences the voters prior to the poll example this article.
Clearly the writer believes the rule should be interpreted one way, and there is nothing wrong with that regardless of how you feel about the rule. The problem comes in that it is a form of campaigning that the opposite side does not have access to. It is the equivalent of allowing one party to have advertisement while the other has no commercials, signs, or ads. I give the writer credit that he does a good job of conveying both sides of the arguement but when there are statements like, "Reading #1 of the rule breaks other game rules". The article goes from informative to persuasive.
So when it comes to voting you have a website that puts up the polls while at the same time write articles that persuade the voter. There is a reason why party supporters must stay a certain distance away from the place where voters are voting and with the ITC System this is not the case. When I look at the results 5 votes for the tank shock ruling 27 votes for the coordinated fire ruling without what I feel is unfair campaigning and advertisement these polls could have easily been different.
So how do you fix the flaw? Let people vote before articles are written at the same place that they vote and especially you Reecius. I like you and what you have done for the gaming community is to be applauded but to make the process truly flawless which I know is your intent you must recognize your influence on the voter. LOL, imagine if you will that you are Obama if Obama comes out and says free pancakes there are people that will automatically say yes and automatically say no because its Obama. Now imagine if you are George Washington who was universally liked by the entire community just like you are and he said free pancakes, what would happen? You now carry that burden, you can easily influence players because of your position. I know you would like to think that you are one of us but your not you have created a system that dictates what we can and cannot play. I would like for you to think about that for a second your articles literally can influence what I can bring to a tournament.
Let the players vote first than write your articles. Let the players play in tournaments with the rules to decide if its to powerful if it is there can always be another poll, it can be revisited it is a democratic process after all. Keep up the good work, I hope I do not come off as a jerk or anything I am just trying to help.
I am kinda torn on the ITC voting thing. On one hand I can appreciate what they are trying to do but on the other hand they are reaching a limited group. In the long run that group determines rules for events all over the country where people were not even aware there was voting. I was pretty disappointed in the Tau voting. It was close but was (what I feel) was a bad decision based on a rule that (again I feel) was clear but might end up being over powering to their overpowered stuff. I see armies like marines that can cross over rules to make extreme combos that never get a second look and just scratch my head.
Fishboy wrote: I am kinda torn on the ITC voting thing. On one hand I can appreciate what they are trying to do but on the other hand they are reaching a limited group. In the long run that group determines rules for events all over the country where people were not even aware there was voting. I was pretty disappointed in the Tau voting. It was close but was (what I feel) was a bad decision based on a rule that (again I feel) was clear but might end up being over powering to their overpowered stuff. I see armies like marines that can cross over rules to make extreme combos that never get a second look and just scratch my head.
But if people choose not to vote that's their problem not Frontlines, surely 'serious' tourney players should be aware of the ITC and how it all works,
Frontline have a heavy social media presence and do tend to post to Dakka and other forums so lack of knowledge isn't really an excuse
However there is only so much Reece and Co can do, if players spread the word more people will vote which will help address the perceived 'small clique' issue
Most tourney organizers that use ITC don't really advertise it until their event. I did not pay any attention to ITC voting in the past because it did not affect the events I played in. Now the ATC is using ITC and several regional events are as well so now I am paying attention to the voting. I think it is up to the event organizers to advertise when voting is going on or if they are planning on using ITC so they will pay attention. Most people won't vote until it affects them. I do still feel the voting is lopsided but then again I don't play marine.
They have an opinion but they left it up to the people to decide. Did their opinion influence some people? Sure they did. But as members of the community as well as the vote-counters, what are they supposed to do? Pretend that they have no opinion? I'm really ok with them being up-front about it, especially since they play many more games of 40k than any of us likely do. So to hear an educated opinion from some of the most competitive players in the country is really perfectly fine. At the end of the day, people should still vote to their conscience.
The idea that people should vote and then know the FLG stance is not a bad one; however what about people who have not played against those models/do not understand the implications of their vote? You might say that those people should not vote, but they are ITC players nonetheless and are entitled to their opinion on the matter, so educating those who have not had playlets experience is a good thing, I would argue. It's not on the player to have extensive experience against each of these armies when each vote comes up. On that front, I think it's good that there are editorials published to help people understand more (for example, about tank shock).
luke1705 wrote: They have an opinion but they left it up to the people to decide. Did their opinion influence some people? Sure they did.
That is the point I am trying to make they influence the voters. Perhaps they influence 30 votes than the cordinate fire ruling would be different. It gets even worse lets say they influence only 6 votes than the tank shock ruling would be different.
luke1705 wrote: But as members of the community as well as the vote-counters, what are they supposed to do? Pretend that they have no opinion?
Recognize their opinion because they are the vote counters influence voters more than the average joe. Imagine if you will that your going to your voting district and the person that is responsible for checking identification is telling every voter to vote one way prior to their vote. Not only do they tell you how to vote but they have well written articles explaining why you should vote one way. How many people change their vote because of this, because it only takes 6!
luke1705 wrote: I'm really ok with them being up-front about it, especially since they play many more games of 40k than any of us likely do. So to hear an educated opinion from some of the most competitive players in the country is really perfectly fine. At the end of the day, people should still vote to their conscience.
I agree, but when the volunteer at the voting district is telling the swing voters to vote one way and handing out pamplets prior to the vote those individuals are more likely to vote a certain way.
luke1705 wrote: The idea that people should vote and then know the FLG stance is not a bad one;
It would make it fair, because at the moment you have flyers and supporters at the voting district.
luke1705 wrote: however what about people who have not played against those models/do not understand the implications of their vote?
Those are the voters who are being influenced, and we dont know how many of them there are. If they are voting on something they know nothing about than they will just go by what Reecius says, if there is no articles prior to the vote they will have to research it themselves or go to dakka or the other sites.
luke1705 wrote: You might say that those people should not vote, but they are ITC players nonetheless and are entitled to their opinion on the matter, so educating those who have not had playlets experience is a good thing, I would argue. It's not on the player to have extensive experience against each of these armies when each vote comes up. On that front, I think it's good that there are editorials published to help people understand more (for example, about tank shock).
Educating and persuading is two seperate things and those articles are educational but they usually have a conclusion that is persuasive. How many voters read Reecius articles and just go by whatever he says? Is it 30 maybe its only 6 either way its enough to change the outcome.
In retrospect, the way that Reecius and the ITC carried out the vote on the new Tau rulings was flawed. To an outside observer, you could argue that Reecius was arguing for a particular (and not RAW) interpretation of the Coordinated Firepower rule, and then asking people to support his position by voting for it in the survey. Suffice it to say, there were a lot of people both on DakkaDakka and the community as a whole that were unhappy with the way the voting was handled, as well as other perceived problems with the ITC and their willingness to outright change the rules so they could better balance their version of the game.
There was also the question of speed. With both the Eldar and Tau codexes, the ITC reacted pretty quickly i.e. within the month of release and before any major tournaments. There were (and still are) plenty of people of people who would rather have waited until major tournaments had been held to see if these armies were was unbalanced as everyone was saying. Personally, I have never agreed with this argument. Anyone with a pair of working eyes and enough grey matter in their head to comprehend the rules could see that the Eldar Craftworlds codex was broken upon launch and Coordinated Firepower made Tau stupidly overpowered. When those codexes dropped, people were desperate for the ITC to do something, anything about the power creep of these books unbalancing the game. I feel it was better that something was done quickly that could be amended or reversed later than allow a huge negative perception of certain armies to build up in the community (which still persists with Eldar).
The ITC wields outsize influence on the community due to major tournaments adopting their ruleset or being run by Frontline Gaming. Plenty of smaller groups and scenes use their rules as the basis for their own tournament play. As a result, what the ITC rules is legal and not ends up affecting a lot more than the regular tournament-going players But there's one small detail people overlook when considering the ITC rules: they themselves have given free permission for people to modify their rules as they see fit. Don't like something? If you're a TO or Envent Organizer, feel free to change it if you think it would improve the situation for your tournament. I know something much like this is going down for the Midwest Conquest GT.
I do have plenty of disagreements with how the ITC has rules, and feel they do not go far enough in some areas in terms of balancing the game, but I also feel that their rules are a huge improvement over the core rulebook as well as other systems of balancing 7th edition 40k, and I'll continue to play in events that follow the ITC ruleset.
According to their latest video, they're considering hitting the tau again with a nerf bat to limit the usefulness of the Pirahna formation that drops off drones and leaves the table edge afterwards.
warboss wrote: According to their latest video, they're considering hitting the tau again with a nerf bat to limit the usefulness of the Pirahna formation that drops off drones and leaves the table edge afterwards.
warboss wrote: According to their latest video, they're considering hitting the tau again with a nerf bat to limit the usefulness of the Pirahna formation that drops off drones and leaves the table edge afterwards.
The ITC is trying to save WH40K, even if it gets the AoS treatment in the future. Personally I wish they would pick a new game and ram it down our throats, but they (FLG) have a VESTED interest in selling GW product. So the ITC needs to make the rules as fair as possible for all parties so people keep playing = keep buying. Granted they do inform about all kinds of other games, but rarely do you see a VBR on it.
warboss wrote: According to their latest video, they're considering hitting the tau again with a nerf bat to limit the usefulness of the Pirahna formation that drops off drones and leaves the table edge afterwards.
That formation is sooooo good. I can definitely see why it is under consideration to be changed. You're talking about 20-30 free drones a turn!
warboss wrote: According to their latest video, they're considering hitting the tau again with a nerf bat to limit the usefulness of the Pirahna formation that drops off drones and leaves the table edge afterwards.
Because non-scoring, non-denial drones are op?
I think you may be under-estimating the effectiveness of fast, free bodies who make for excellent screening units and who can can throw out 40-60 twin-linked S5 shots a turn! That's a lot of fricking shots, and that isn't even counting the rest of the shooting from the "regular" Tau army.
warboss wrote: According to their latest video, they're considering hitting the tau again with a nerf bat to limit the usefulness of the Pirahna formation that drops off drones and leaves the table edge afterwards.
warboss wrote: According to their latest video, they're considering hitting the tau again with a nerf bat to limit the usefulness of the Pirahna formation that drops off drones and leaves the table edge afterwards.
Because non-scoring, non-denial drones are op?
They can still deny objectives
They cannot - its in their rules that they can never score or deny.
warboss wrote: According to their latest video, they're considering hitting the tau again with a nerf bat to limit the usefulness of the Pirahna formation that drops off drones and leaves the table edge afterwards.
That formation is sooooo good. I can definitely see why it is under consideration to be changed. You're talking about 20-30 free drones a turn!
Of course - but first it should be played for a while to see if it's creating a drastic imbalancing on the tournament scene, then assessed as to whether it should be changed.
"That formation is soooo good." can be said for a ton of things:
-Gladius - entire army obsec and 600-700 points of a variety free stuff from the start of turn 1, that is also all obsec
-Decurion - your entire army gets significantly harder to kill
-Aspect host - already amazing arguably underpriced units get more free buffs
-Librarius conclave having dudes tanking perils, sharing powers, and everyone casting on a 2+
Or a bunch of special rules:
-Rerollable jink saves at 2+ just for being ravenwing
-and on and on and on
Just become something is good doesn't mean it needs to be nerfed - you're talking widely ridiculed units (piranhas) that no one beyond a handful of people took, and as one of those people, were generally laughed at/questioned/looked at in disbelief for doing so. I'm not saying they don't have uses, or that with that formation they won't be really good - I'm just saying the benchmark for rules changes needs to be a bit higher, with a bit more burden of proof, to see if it functionally damages the metagame. How long did we let invis and 2++ stick around before they got changed? There was a lot of testing, deliberation, and it was done because of how unbalancing they can be. That same level of care should be taken, or even more, when impacting one particular codex versus core-rulebook/mechanics.
warboss wrote: According to their latest video, they're considering hitting the tau again with a nerf bat to limit the usefulness of the Pirahna formation that drops off drones and leaves the table edge afterwards.
Only for the LVO because attendees want a ruling on it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Haldir wrote: Gentlemen , how can we even debate how broken or ridiculously some of these rules are? At least ITC makes an effort to make the game playable.
Well its either that or finally admit this game is beyond jumped shark stupid.
warboss wrote: According to their latest video, they're considering hitting the tau again with a nerf bat to limit the usefulness of the Pirahna formation that drops off drones and leaves the table edge afterwards.
Because non-scoring, non-denial drones are op?
They can still deny objectives
They cannot - its in their rules that they can never score or deny.
Actually, in their rules, it only says that they are non-scoring.
However, in the BRB, it says that only scoring units can deny.
warboss wrote: According to their latest video, they're considering hitting the tau again with a nerf bat to limit the usefulness of the Pirahna formation that drops off drones and leaves the table edge afterwards.
That formation is sooooo good. I can definitely see why it is under consideration to be changed. You're talking about 20-30 free drones a turn!
Of course - but first it should be played for a while to see if it's creating a drastic imbalancing on the tournament scene, then assessed as to whether it should be changed.
"That formation is soooo good." can be said for a ton of things:
-Gladius - entire army obsec and 600-700 points of a variety free stuff from the start of turn 1, that is also all obsec
-Decurion - your entire army gets significantly harder to kill
-Aspect host - already amazing arguably underpriced units get more free buffs
-Librarius conclave having dudes tanking perils, sharing powers, and everyone casting on a 2+
Or a bunch of special rules:
-Rerollable jink saves at 2+ just for being ravenwing
-and on and on and on
Just become something is good doesn't mean it needs to be nerfed - you're talking widely ridiculed units (piranhas) that no one beyond a handful of people took, and as one of those people, were generally laughed at/questioned/looked at in disbelief for doing so. I'm not saying they don't have uses, or that with that formation they won't be really good - I'm just saying the benchmark for rules changes needs to be a bit higher, with a bit more burden of proof, to see if it functionally damages the metagame. How long did we let invis and 2++ stick around before they got changed? There was a lot of testing, deliberation, and it was done because of how unbalancing they can be. That same level of care should be taken, or even more, when impacting one particular codex versus core-rulebook/mechanics.
Now I'm not saying that the formation needs to be nerfed. All I'm saying is that I can see why they are considering nerfing it.
I've had one game against it and, as someone here said, "anyone with a pair of working eyes and enough grey matter in their head to comprehend the rules" to tell when something is really good. The Piranha formation basically gives Tau the best tool for one of their worst matchups....fast Assault armies. Unfortunately for me, I was playing assault Daemons with very little shooting. I just couldn't get past his layers and layers of screening units while his shooty units shot the crap out of my army. His drones (BS3 TL thanks to also taking the Dronenet formation) even shot down my Bloodthirster! I am really impressed with this formation as it makes Tau almost an auto-win matchup against these types of armies. IMO, this build is just as strong and maybe even stronger than the original Hunter Contingent.
Like I said, it was only 1 game, but that 1 game was enough to give me a lot of data about it. I'm sure the Frontline guys have probably much more experience than me with the formation to even consider "suggesting" changes to it.
Totally agree JY2 - I think it's a formation to examine. Tell players "its going to be played as X, we're going to source feedback and may change it in the coming (timeframe) depending on how it all pans out.
I've played...6-8 games with it now (running anywhere from 9-13 piranhas, as opposed to my old 8-9 i ran). In some games it was pretty amazing and provided the gas I needed for attrition wars and blocking, in others I realized after I'd made a mistake playing my drone-farmer mini game and instead should have kept the Piranhas on more. I won some, I lost some, as in many cases my opponent's army just didn't care about drones much, and as such more drones didn't do anything for me.
My hope is that at the very least there will be more caution used with this one, and we'll wait to see if it actually causes issues before changing it. I may not agree with removing there ability to come/go in the same turn, but if that was done I'd understand (though not like) it.
The odd way some people are reading the "bring the unit back at full strength" doesn't replace dead ones does still baffle me though, especially with the back up from the war zone damocles books. That bit just needs a faq to cover the fact that if you immobilize a piranha, it forms a new unit with a size of 1 when you do so - so you can't use immobilized piranhas to create new full units of free piranhas.
Daemon summoning was originally going to break 7th edition and ruin 40k, it did not. Tervigons? Ha, taking one is considered a fools errand (I take 2). Its when it escalates that I feel it gets a bit unfair, free points in the actual list.
Haldir wrote: I am so not a fan of anything that adds free units to the game. Leaves so much open for abuse.
Does that include:
-Spawning Termagaunts
-Creating Scarabs using Tomb Spyders
-Daemon Summoning
-Daemon Portaglyph
-Gladius free units
?
Creating free gun drones is hardly the first in the line of free things, nor the most impactful.
I want to apologize in advance for the slight off-topic reply, but I will just say this and be done with the Tau Piranha formation.
To me, what makes the formation so good is not the free units that it produces (though that is what makes the formation so great). Rather, it is the fact that you literally can do nothing about it if the Tau player doesn't want you to. At least with the other free units, you can do something about them. Tervigons, Spiders, the Portaglyph and Gladius freebies you can kill to stop the free units. Summoning is highly unreliable and then takes away from Daemon capabilities to cast more offensive/defensive powers. But the Piranhas, they are on the board and then off on the same turn before you can even do anything. Not even Interceptor works on them because the Tau player can choose to move them off the table before Interceptor occurs. It is just guaranteed free units with no loss in efficiency in production (that is, until Turn 5 when the piranhas move flat-out onto objectives to score/contest them). Now I am not saying that this makes the formation broken, but what it will do is to make it exceedingly frustrating to play against by a lot of armies. Hence, I understand why the ITC would put this up for consideration by the ITC public.
Haldir wrote: I am so not a fan of anything that adds free units to the game. Leaves so much open for abuse.
Does that include:
-Spawning Termagaunts
-Creating Scarabs using Tomb Spyders
-Daemon Summoning
-Daemon Portaglyph
-Gladius free units
?
Creating free gun drones is hardly the first in the line of free things, nor the most impactful.
I want to apologize in advance for the slight off-topic reply, but I will just say this and be done with the Tau Piranha formation.
To me, what makes the formation so good is not the free units that it produces (though that is what makes the formation so great). Rather, it is the fact that you literally can do nothing about it if the Tau player doesn't want you to. At least with the other free units, you can do something about them. Tervigons, Spiders, the Portaglyph and Gladius freebies you can kill to stop the free units. Summoning is highly unreliable and then takes away from Daemon capabilities to cast more offensive/defensive powers. But the Piranhas, they are on the board and then off on the same turn before you can even do anything. Not even Interceptor works on them because the Tau player can choose to move them off the table before Interceptor occurs. It is just guaranteed free units with no loss in efficiency in production (that is, until Turn 5 when the piranhas move flat-out onto objectives to score/contest them). Now I am not saying that this makes the formation broken, but what it will do is to make it exceedingly frustrating to play against by a lot of armies. Hence, I understand why the ITC would put this up for consideration by the ITC public.
This whole discussion over the Pirahna v. other free unit formations highlights my problem with the ITC polls. The polls, and their content, feels arbitrary. Why do some questions get put up for a poll and not others? To the best of my memory Battle Company providing free units was never put up for a poll. There was/is a lot of flack still over that, but no questions, it feels like the polling questions are unfairly applied sometimes. That has led to quite a bit of vocal frustration over the polling, which it does seem has increased significantly from the inception of the ITC polling.
Haldir wrote: I am so not a fan of anything that adds free units to the game. Leaves so much open for abuse.
Does that include:
-Spawning Termagaunts
-Creating Scarabs using Tomb Spyders
-Daemon Summoning
-Daemon Portaglyph
-Gladius free units
?
Creating free gun drones is hardly the first in the line of free things, nor the most impactful.
I want to apologize in advance for the slight off-topic reply, but I will just say this and be done with the Tau Piranha formation.
To me, what makes the formation so good is not the free units that it produces (though that is what makes the formation so great). Rather, it is the fact that you literally can do nothing about it if the Tau player doesn't want you to. At least with the other free units, you can do something about them. Tervigons, Spiders, the Portaglyph and Gladius freebies you can kill to stop the free units. Summoning is highly unreliable and then takes away from Daemon capabilities to cast more offensive/defensive powers. But the Piranhas, they are on the board and then off on the same turn before you can even do anything. Not even Interceptor works on them because the Tau player can choose to move them off the table before Interceptor occurs. It is just guaranteed free units with no loss in efficiency in production (that is, until Turn 5 when the piranhas move flat-out onto objectives to score/contest them). Now I am not saying that this makes the formation broken, but what it will do is to make it exceedingly frustrating to play against by a lot of armies. Hence, I understand why the ITC would put this up for consideration by the ITC public.
This whole discussion over the Pirahna v. other free unit formations highlights my problem with the ITC polls. The polls, and their content, feels arbitrary. Why do some questions get put up for a poll and not others? To the best of my memory Battle Company providing free units was never put up for a poll. There was/is a lot of flack still over that, but no questions, it feels like the polling questions are unfairly applied sometimes. That has led to quite a bit of vocal frustration over the polling, which it does seem has increased significantly from the inception of the ITC polling.
They've answered that question several times: They put up votes based on what topics are seeing a lot of activity on the rules question form. If there's something you don't think should be in the game, throw it on there, like GC toe in cover, wraithknight price point, and free models.
Yes the fact that it's touted as a rules question form is a bit misleading considering they want ALL issues with rules thrown on there, even the ones where the issue isn't the clarity, but the balance or silliness of the rule.
This whole discussion over the Pirahna v. other free unit formations highlights my problem with the ITC polls. The polls, and their content, feels arbitrary. Why do some questions get put up for a poll and not others? To the best of my memory Battle Company providing free units was never put up for a poll. There was/is a lot of flack still over that, but no questions, it feels like the polling questions are unfairly applied sometimes. That has led to quite a bit of vocal frustration over the polling, which it does seem has increased significantly from the inception of the ITC polling.
While it might feel arbitrary, I think that there is a "method" to their "madness".
1. The Frontline guys playtest it - either amongst themselves or in their local meta - and they find the "issue" to be either really good or really strong. Thus, they present the issue to the public to see what the public thinks or how the public wants to play it. (Keep in mind that when I say the public, I mean the ITC public and the people who follow their blog). For example, they playtested a lot with Battle Company and no one there felt that it was really a big issue. People still had fun playing against BC so the ITC guys didn't feel it necessary to address the public with regards to it.
2. People complain about the "issue" to them a lot. And I'm not talking just about the vocal minority or the one guy who complains to them 100 times about the same thing. Rather, many different people with different backgrounds (i.e. not just one person trying to defend his army, but various people playing different armies complaining about the same thing) complaining about the same thing.
Keep in mind that Reece and the FLG guys are not omniscient. What they are are super-busy people trying to run a business as well as trying to maintain a tournament standard. Unfortunately, they probably only have time to test out a fraction of all the shenanigans that go on rules-wise in this hobby of ours. They can't address every single issue, just those that they personally have experienced or ones that a a substantial amount of people have brought it up to their attention.
Battle company was actually put up for a vote - the ITC didn't allow for a duplicate detachment of any kind even within the Russian nesting dolls of formations that have occurred lately. There was a vote to allow a single duplicate detachment shortly after the demi battle company was released, and it passed. Similarly, they put it up for a vote whether or not to allow multiple stormsurges since they can be taken in a unit of up to 3, but the previous ruling was that you could only take 1 LOW in your list, period. The Tau were right on the receiving end of that buff (which was not any agenda from Frontline - Frankie would still be the world's greatest 40k player TM even without his double stormsurge list).
The point is that what Jy2 said is true - yes they do selectively put things up for vote, but those things are based on play testing. And the people who whine about this or that not being put up for a vote, etc etc forget that many of these things (scatbikes being 1/3 or all, battle demi company, multiple stormsurges) were actually put up for a vote at one point, and that the crew at Frontline is not opposed to voting again on any given topic if the outcry is great enough. (FYI that doesn't mean that they count the nerd rage posts on dakka, nor am I encouraging you to flood Reece's mailbox with angst-ridden messages)
I personally don't think the piranha formation should be allowed - zero counterplay = zero fun. Any game mechanic that you can do nothing about is by definition broken. Generally, the spawning of free units is balanced by tax models and/or just not that effective in the long run. Even if spawned Gants were obsec (which I think they should be FYI) it would still be an awful tactic. Daemon-summoning has proved time and time again to be not that great. Can it be useful? Sure. But did it break 40k by summoning over 9000 points worth of models over the course of a game? Of course not.
Voting in ignorance is a problem regardless of the circumstances. If you don't like their methods campaign for your point of view or vote with your wallet.
Crimson Devil wrote: Voting in ignorance is a problem regardless of the circumstances. If you don't like their methods campaign for your point of view or vote with your wallet.
I am not exactly sure what you mean by "campaign for your point of view or vote with your wallet", would you ellaborate?
Even if someone campaign their point of view it would not have the same influence as one of the Frontline Gaming guys. Who is a conservative going to pay attention to Fox News or Joe Blow?
Haldir wrote: I am so not a fan of anything that adds free units to the game. Leaves so much open for abuse.
Does that include:
-Spawning Termagaunts
-Creating Scarabs using Tomb Spyders
-Daemon Summoning
-Daemon Portaglyph
-Gladius free units
?
Creating free gun drones is hardly the first in the line of free things, nor the most impactful.
I want to apologize in advance for the slight off-topic reply, but I will just say this and be done with the Tau Piranha formation.
To me, what makes the formation so good is not the free units that it produces (though that is what makes the formation so great). Rather, it is the fact that you literally can do nothing about it if the Tau player doesn't want you to. At least with the other free units, you can do something about them. Tervigons, Spiders, the Portaglyph and Gladius freebies you can kill to stop the free units. Summoning is highly unreliable and then takes away from Daemon capabilities to cast more offensive/defensive powers. But the Piranhas, they are on the board and then off on the same turn before you can even do anything. Not even Interceptor works on them because the Tau player can choose to move them off the table before Interceptor occurs. It is just guaranteed free units with no loss in efficiency in production (that is, until Turn 5 when the piranhas move flat-out onto objectives to score/contest them). Now I am not saying that this makes the formation broken, but what it will do is to make it exceedingly frustrating to play against by a lot of armies. Hence, I understand why the ITC would put this up for consideration by the ITC public.
Jim - appreciate the added discussion, and I'll say that 1) I think we agree it should be assessed and that 2) your reasoning above is one of the valid reasons I can see to vote it. My main resistance with the discussion of the Piranha formation is that it's detractors tend to frame it in terms of "its too powerful" or "broken" - to which I wholeheartedly disagree. It's definitely very good, but its limited, and far less broken than many things we're A-okay with. However, if the goal was to see if, after having played against it, players feel it's just a game-killingly-obnoxious mechanic and they as a majority want to change it, I can get that. Providing it's done as a rules change, based on the potential for it to be fun-ruining, I can understand that even if I don't agree with it myself.
Crimson Devil wrote: Voting in ignorance is a problem regardless of the circumstances. If you don't like their methods campaign for your point of view or vote with your wallet.
I am not exactly sure what you mean by "campaign for your point of view or vote with your wallet", would you ellaborate?
Even if someone campaign their point of view it would not have the same influence as one of the Frontline Gaming guys. Who is a conservative going to pay attention to Fox News or Joe Blow?
Reece has stated he would be happy to debate anyone on the Podcast about rules changes. Let him know you would like to do so about the next vote. Or if you don't want to, don't go to their tournaments and tell him why you won't. The ITC only has the power you let them have. Don't like it, don't use it.
Conservatives generally listen to whoever is the angriest. Start your own podcast and yell a lot.
I'd prefer a reasoned discussion rather than that, if it's all the same to you Crimson . No need for our negative political climate to bleed over into wargaming...
Target wrote: Jim - appreciate the added discussion, and I'll say that 1) I think we agree it should be assessed and that 2) your reasoning above is one of the valid reasons I can see to vote it. My main resistance with the discussion of the Piranha formation is that it's detractors tend to frame it in terms of "its too powerful" or "broken" - to which I wholeheartedly disagree. It's definitely very good, but its limited, and far less broken than many things we're A-okay with. However, if the goal was to see if, after having played against it, players feel it's just a game-killingly-obnoxious mechanic and they as a majority want to change it, I can get that. Providing it's done as a rules change, based on the potential for it to be fun-ruining, I can understand that even if I don't agree with it myself.
This is where I'm at. Things have come up a number of times recently and hopefully the guys at Frontline will listen and improve the process. What I'd like to see, if using the current voting system, is:
1. A clear "FAQ" and "Errata" distinction, like GW and I believe Privateer Press have done. This shows you when it's just a rules clarification, or a rules change (for balancing purposes). Companies do this all the time, but it really helps to distinguish which is which. Otherwise, it creates confusion and hard feelings...
2. A clearer system for "nominations". Is there a dedicated link for rules question nominations on the Frontline page? I think something like that would be excellent, as right now it is very vague / opaque regarding how something gets enough "critical mass" to be nominated for vote.
3. A way to go back and re-evaluate items after a certain amount of time has passed. Basically, I can only really speak to nids as that's my army and not being a fan of the current direction of rules I don't keep up with all of them... but I don't get why 5 Flyrants is totally kosher while something like this isn't. It seems arbitrary what gets nominated, and sometimes even the results seem arbitrary... so a way to re-visit them would be useful.
In the end, it's a can of worms and I'm glad someone is trying to tackle it... but I think things need to be clearer. Voting is actually the least important part of it in my mind - what I want to see is more transparency in the process, whether a rules committee were making the calls (which might actually result in more consistent results) or whether it was put to a public vote.
You really cannot ban this formation in good faith while keeping things like free OB sec units for marines.
Not only are the marine units more powerful, and OB SEC, they are there from the start of the game and require no actions nor concessions from the owning player to acquire them. Its literally just free points for taking units that are already desirable.
By definition, there is nothing you can do to stop the marine player from getting their free units on the table and having a large advantage.
The tau formation requires you to basically not use the piranhas all game as they keep flying off the table, and the units are only on the table in waves.
All this assumes you dont kill the piranas with interceptor, or get first turn to do it, or that the tau player can afford to actually not use them the whole game. Plenty of things can be done about this tau formation.
A unit brought into the game at a later turn will have less opportunity to influence the game then a unit available at the start.
In terms of "fun to play" Ill take tau formation every single time rather then play marines that get a 30% boost in free points of an all OB sec army as that is just such a huge advantage in objective based game play. At least the tau player has to do something to get their free units, and those units arrive peicemeal for me to blow back off the table, and they in no way can affect the objectives, instead of all just being a set bonus like with marines that I literally cannot do anything about as a player.
+1 RiTides, right now the community at large is left in the dark and expected to have faith in the process because of good intentions. Without taking things personally and while staying objective I think it is fair to say that with their already touted busy schedules and limited resources that it is very unfair to expect them to handle it to the standards the community demands while keeping everything so privately. As said, it just feels arbitrary what gets selected for vote and often the wording is less then neutral.
They say it's based on feedback, but from whose community? Just their own? Are folks expected to personally call or email frontline? Honest questions. Are only folks attending frontline events (BAO/LVO) allowed to voice concerns? Again, I have no real idea. I also have a hard time believing he is filtering all the data personally, what systems is he implementing, how can he tell it isn't the same few loud individuals for example if it is done by phone, in person through email? When are issues readdressed? That's another huge problem I see, for example I don't find out of the book invisibility that much of an issue anymore, or rerollable invulns. Deathstars are not actually what they were, not with maelstrom and gladius MSU running around. Who knows though, maybe the community would still maintain the status quo, which is fine, however it would be nice to readdress old problems rather then leave them for years on end while the game changes around them.
I think folks would respect the results much more, and cut FLG a deserved break if things were done more publicly/transparently. Honestly a forum with ITC only related questions and concerns and public polls by free to register users would make the most sense, filter ALL concerns there, then folks know what is a concern, how much debate or play testing is done. Right now, it does appear to be arbitrary. Appears to be. Just to be clear.
I think the main problem is that right now, it's a hybrid - a public vote, but everything prior to the actual vote isn't public. What Red Corsair describes sounds like a lot of work, but in some ways also sounds like something like what the Mantic Rules Committee does. The burden doesn't have to be on the Frontline staff alone, they could reach out to the tourney circuit and get some qualified folks to help.
On that note, as I said, whether it's a committee like that helping sift through nominations / craft the questions, or whether they actually make the decisions, it actually wouldn't matter to me. But some improvement to the process needs to be made, to increase transparency or help with consistency... ideally both.
Once again, the work you guys are doing is appreciated and hopefully discussions like this will help improve the process even more!
Crimson Devil wrote: Voting in ignorance is a problem regardless of the circumstances. If you don't like their methods campaign for your point of view or vote with your wallet.
Exactly.
Also, it's not ignorance if you know that you don't like Tau, and just want them to be nerfed into oblivion. That's simply bias, and there's a longstanding tradition of using that as the basis of one's vote, regardless of any merits that might be present. Or lacking.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: You really cannot ban this formation in good faith while keeping things like free OB sec units for marines..
Absolutely the can, and should. If the ITC membership chooses to bias for SMs and against Tau, that is entirely their choice.
It's is equally valid to say that Tau players should simply boycott ITC events until such time that the nerfs are undone.
That's how formats change and groups gain or lose influence. By people voting with their feet and wallets.
I don't see a problem with influencing voting. Anyone else is free to as well.
It might be helpful for a longer discussion period before voting, with knowledge of each question's exact wording. But I understand these issues must be resolved before big tournaments, so time is constrained.
easysauce wrote: You really cannot ban this formation in good faith while keeping things like free OB sec units for marines.
Just a point of clarification, but did they say they wanted to ban the formation? I thought the only issue they had was coming on the table and leaving in the same turn. The problem was having a unit that your opponent cannot engage. I could be wrong. Does anyone know?
So I clearly let lack of sleep and super long work hours this week get the better of me before I replied on the nearby Adepticon, but my major concerns remain. ITC has been really turning off myself and my friends with recent votes. The target of votes seem arbitrary, and they haven't been about rule clarifications as much as they have been blatent rule rewrites or balancing acts. If the ITC is going to concern itself with rebalancing the games rules as a whole, they need to do it for everybody. Not just the flavor of the month. And that means every race needs to be cracked open and the top teir reduced on their core units - the lower ones buffed in methods like the ork superheavy walker.
As a separate note, it's really a problem if reece and/or frankie are going to be throwing their opinion on rules out there before public votes. It skews public opinion of people who have never tried the rules or read them - and to be honest anyone who read that op ed they posted should realizd there are so many logic holes in the rule challenges they raise you could drive a truck through it. Some were just outright falsehoods such as "unit coherency". If that post hadn't been made by Reecius I sincerely doubt they would have voted down coordinated firepower since they raised problems like that which didn't actually exist. And offering to simply debate some random community member on their podcast is a super gakky solution that will not help us as a community.
I love this game and have no intention of allowing us to fall into the same comp trap that WHFB fell into over the years. By the final version the game balance was such an attrocious mess and the rules so heavily comped in tournaments that attendance and purchaser interest fell into a void and GW felt no option existed other than a complete reboot that turned into AoS. 40k balance still mostly works, and I don't think we want to start alienating entire blocks/races at the tournament level by simply kneecapping them. Only when a rule is unworkable should an faq be created for it.
easysauce wrote: You really cannot ban this formation in good faith while keeping things like free OB sec units for marines.
Just a point of clarification, but did they say they wanted to ban the formation? I thought the only issue they had was coming on the table and leaving in the same turn. The problem was having a unit that your opponent cannot engage. I could be wrong. Does anyone know?
If the Adepticon rule is any guide (and they copied the coordinated firepower one verbatim from the itc) then yes, it also restricts the formations recovery when off the board to hullpoints lost and not lost piranhas from the unit. I really have no idea what they think they are fixing, firestream isn't all that much of a balance issue in our experience with the rules as written. Seems to lose as much as it wins against any decent list, it's free units but they are made out of paper mache.
easysauce wrote: You really cannot ban this formation in good faith while keeping things like free OB sec units for marines.
Just a point of clarification, but did they say they wanted to ban the formation? I thought the only issue they had was coming on the table and leaving in the same turn. The problem was having a unit that your opponent cannot engage. I could be wrong. Does anyone know?
1: Any flyer from any faction can already do the "I fly off the table you cant shoot me, neener neener neener trick"
2: Id argue that RAW if you arrive and use your arrival move to move off the table, you cannot dump the drones off anyways, making it pointless.
3: Killing a few drones over the span of a few turns is of little consequence compared to having all those drones on the table from turn 1, let alone compared to 30% of free OB SEC space marine stuff on the table from turn one.
4: If the issue actually is things that players cannot affect, you have ways to affect the pirana's ability to spawn troops, they are limited, but they are there. You have zero ways to stop a marine player from geting a 30% points advantage on you, in addition to the other supurb benifits from that formation (namely ob sec))
easysauce wrote: You really cannot ban this formation in good faith while keeping things like free OB sec units for marines.
Just a point of clarification, but did they say they wanted to ban the formation? I thought the only issue they had was coming on the table and leaving in the same turn. The problem was having a unit that your opponent cannot engage. I could be wrong. Does anyone know?
1: Any flyer from any faction can already do the "I fly off the table you cant shoot me, neener neener neener trick"
2: Id argue that RAW if you arrive and use your arrival move to move off the table, you cannot dump the drones off anyways, making it pointless.
3: Killing a few drones over the span of a few turns is of little consequence compared to having all those drones on the table from turn 1, let alone compared to 30% of free OB SEC space marine stuff on the table from turn one.
4: If the issue actually is things that players cannot affect, you have ways to affect the pirana's ability to spawn troops, they are limited, but they are there. You have zero ways to stop a marine player from geting a 30% points advantage on you, in addition to the other supurb benifits from that formation (namely ob sec))
Just to clarify a few things:
#2 - RAW allows you to deposit drones and leave. You deposit in the movement phase, then you have a rule that says - if you're within 6" of a board edge at the end of the movement phase you can go into ongoing reserve, no conflict here.
And also I don't think Reece and FLG have ever stated they plan to ban the formation, they are considering *changing* it. From the last thread I saw him posting in on it he seemed to feel at the time replacing dead piranhas was how the rule read, plus the backup of the previous rule doing just that from warzone damocles. The bit they're considering changing (I think) is the moving on/off in the same turn.
I actually got my first point wrong, flyers/FMC explicitly cannot leave combat airspace the turn they arrive.
If that is the only contention, that the tau player can just land and go, just say tau are bound by the same rule as flyers/FMC/everything else that can go into ongoing reserves.
GW wrote tau a specific exemption with that in mind i would hope? A bit like a special rule on a flyer stating they can leave the same turn they arrive.
Either way its still troops that cannot deny or score being piecemeal deposited near a board edge, not really scary even without nerfs.
Yes, how dare they provide this free way for the community to organize itself! They should do more work in their spare time to make this free thing better and more transparent!
I keep telling people that the great thing about the ITC is not that the rulings are perfectly balanced or that the rules are legislated in such a way that everyone's happy. The great thing about the ITC is that it draws a bright line, now matter how "arbitrarily" it's drawn, about ambiguous rulings and unpleasant tactics. Based on how quickly the ITC format been adopted by the tournament organizers it shows that there was a need for TOs to not deal with these rule issues. TOs want to bring people together and throw a tournament. They don't want to keep making the same rulings over and over again.
The most important part of the ITC is that rulings are made that allows everyone to come to the table and not have any discussion about contentious issues. The actual determinations are irrelevant.
DarknessEternal wrote:You shouldn't pay attention to anything said by that site. They couldn't be more biased about any subject and deaf to anything not in their mindset.
The salt is strong with this one!
Bythe same token, you shouldn't listen to anything on this website either, as they too are totally blind to anything that doesn't fit their strict definition of the game.
easysauce wrote:You really cannot ban this formation in good faith while keeping things like free OB sec units for marines.
Not only are the marine units more powerful, and OB SEC, they are there from the start of the game and require no actions nor concessions from the owning player to acquire them. Its literally just free points for taking units that are already desirable.
By definition, there is nothing you can do to stop the marine player from getting their free units on the table and having a large advantage.
The tau formation requires you to basically not use the piranhas all game as they keep flying off the table, and the units are only on the table in waves.
All this assumes you dont kill the piranas with interceptor, or get first turn to do it, or that the tau player can afford to actually not use them the whole game. Plenty of things can be done about this tau formation.
A unit brought into the game at a later turn will have less opportunity to influence the game then a unit available at the start.
In terms of "fun to play" Ill take tau formation every single time rather then play marines that get a 30% boost in free points of an all OB sec army as that is just such a huge advantage in objective based game play. At least the tau player has to do something to get their free units, and those units arrive peicemeal for me to blow back off the table, and they in no way can affect the objectives, instead of all just being a set bonus like with marines that I literally cannot do anything about as a player.
Sure, ObSec Rhinos and Drop Pods are powerful. But there's one important distinction: the Marine player doesn't get to regenerate their Rhinos and Drop Pods every turn. The Tau player does. And due to an esoteric timing interaction, Interceptor does not work against the Piranhas entering or leaving. If the Tau player is smart, they'll hide the formation out of range and Line of Sight of the opposing player so they can't be targeted.
"But it's just Gun Drones!" "They can't score!" They can still deny objectives. And they come on in waves.That's plenty of TL S5 shots at BS2. Not quite Scatbiker levels of firepower, but still nasty. And the Tau player gets more of those every turn, so you can effectively cover the board in drones and prevent your opponent from moving. You can kill Rhinos pretty easily (Drop Pods are more obnoxious), but you can't kill all the gun drones a turn on top of whatever else the Tau player brought.
I'm not saying that the formation should be banned; that's not the ITC's way of doing things. I would instead clarify/nerf the formation, such as by preventing new drones from coming on when the Piranhas re-enter and allowing Interceptor to be used against them. That way there is some actual counterplay to the formation.
"But it's just Gun Drones!" "They can't score!" They can still deny objectives. And they come on in waves.That's plenty of TL S5 shots at BS2. Not quite Scatbiker levels of firepower, but still nasty. And the Tau player gets more of those every turn, so you can effectively cover the board in drones and prevent your opponent from moving. You can kill Rhinos pretty easily (Drop Pods are more obnoxious), but you can't kill all the gun drones a turn on top of whatever else the Tau player brought.
I'm not saying that the formation should be banned; that's not the ITC's way of doing things. I would instead clarify/nerf the formation, such as by preventing new drones from coming on when the Piranhas re-enter and allowing Interceptor to be used against them. That way there is some actual counterplay to the formation.
Again, they cannot deny objectives. Their rule has never allowed them to - previously it said they could never score or deny, in 7th it says "they can never score" but that's because the core rulebook now states only scoring units can deny.
"But it's just Gun Drones!" "They can't score!" They can still deny objectives. And they come on in waves.That's plenty of TL S5 shots at BS2. Not quite Scatbiker levels of firepower, but still nasty. And the Tau player gets more of those every turn, so you can effectively cover the board in drones and prevent your opponent from moving. You can kill Rhinos pretty easily (Drop Pods are more obnoxious), but you can't kill all the gun drones a turn on top of whatever else the Tau player brought.
they cannot deny objectives,
they are also forced to be deployed close to the tau players zone, and they can only leave to get more drones within 6", not a huge foot print, not going to "cover the whole board" and prevent an opponent from moving, not by a long shot, and it has less chance to do this then a batle company which gets all its free units from turn one, without having to tie up a unit to spawn them.
Drones die to las guns, rhinos do not, drones cannot cap, deny, or contest anything, ob sec rhinos/free units can (the increase in pts affects other units, my SM army was already heavy in drop pods and the mandatory units for BC, now they are free, in effect I got free pts to spend on other stuff of my choosing).
I cant take it very seriously when you argue that a few drones per turn is harder to kill then 30% more points of SM all at once. Your assertion that 30% extra points of marines is easy to deal with is laughable, its one of the most played formations specifically because it grants what is arguably the best bonuses in the entire game when playing ITC scoring based on objectives. When you play against a battle company you are literally putting you 1850 list against someone else's 2000+pt list, and all they had to do was take units that are already desirable, even a 100pt advantage is a huge boon, let alone 30%.
Fishboy wrote: Now the ATC is using ITC and several regional events are as well so now I am paying attention to the voting.
Quick side-question, where was it said that the ATC would be following ITC rules? I was planning on attending this year but haven't heard any format rules yet. This would be interesting information!
As to the topic as a whole, I personally am not opposed to the ITC FAQ or it's process of voting, however I think that they could be a little more open in the pre-poll stages. For example, they put up a poll about what should be done with the overall Tau formation, and spread it to the best of their abilities. I have no problem with that, but how are the options chosen? There were a few different "answers" to the Tau formation question, but how were the options chosen, and what if there are other answers that other people have thought of, that weren't even options in the poll? It's possible that this is already covered by them and I just missed it, but I wouldn't mind if say, a week before the poll is released, they put up the questions they intended to ask and invited people to email in what they thought the options to be voted on were.
Yes, the polling process could be considered flawed/biased, but I personally thing FLG has done a good enough job so far that I'm willing to let them continue.
So I clearly let lack of sleep and super long work hours this week get the better of me before I replied on the nearby Adepticon, but my major concerns remain.
...
If the Adepticon rule is any guide (and they copied the coordinated firepower one verbatim from the itc) then yes, it also restricts the formations recovery when off the board to hullpoints lost and not lost piranhas from the unit.
Couple of things (disagree if you will, I won't argue it. I'm just laying out the thought process behind the decisions):
1) The AdeptiCon faq ruling on Coordinated Firepower, despite its similarities in print, is not merely a copy/paste from the ITC faq. The committees driving the 'ITC' and AdeptiCon faqs no longer share members (until recently, they did), and the process by which the AdeptiCon faq committee arrived at its decision did not involve offering a 'vote' to players. Essentially, the following abilities/allowances are expressly made by Coordinated Firepower: Ignore restriction of shooting with one unit at a time. Ignore restriction of markerlights only benefitting one unit (at a time). Gaining a (conditional) +1BS against a nominated target. That is all.
2) The decision regarding restoring units to 'Full Strength' centered around the fact that 'Full Strength' is insufficiently defined. It could mean that I purchase a single Piranha, and then, subsequent to leaving the table, I return that unit with the maximum number of Piranha allowed by the codex (a 'Full Strength' unit). It could mean that I replace 'lost' Piranha up to the number I purchased (as per the Damocles rule, yes?). It could mean that I repair missing hull points, remove damage effects (Weapon Destroyed) and replenish Seeker Missiles and Drones. Of these three options, the first is absurd, the second is not stated explicitly in the formation's rules, and the third still satisfies returning the unit at full strength.
3) The AdeptiCon faq has already ruled that the Piranha from the formation cannot enter from reserves and leave the table on the same turn. The reasoning has nothing to do with an opponent's inability to 'interact' (AdeptiCon abides by Invisibility and 2++ rerollables as written). The reasoning has to do with the following problem: No unit in the game has express permission to enter from reserves and then leave the table in the same turn. Several (Flyers and Swooping Hawks as examples) are expressly forbidden from doing so. The Piranha formation, while describing the conditions by which it can leave the table, does not address whether or not it can exercise that ability on the turn it enters from reserves. So, we can assume one of two things: 1) Any unit with the ability to leave the table may exercise that option on the turn it enters from reserves unless expressly forbidden from doing so (see: Flyers and Swooping Hawks). 2) Any unit with the ability to leave the table may NOT exercise that option on the turn it enters from reserves unless expressly permitted to do so. Influencing the decision between these two options is the understanding of 40K as a 'permissive' rules set (not implying in any way that you are not aware of this, merely including it for the sake of completeness). The committee came down on the side of the second assumption.
Those are some very good explanations, DCannon4Life! That's really all I'm looking for - while I don't totally agree with bogalubov that the "actual determinations are irrelevant", I think the main thing for me is the process. And right now, whether it's accurate or not, the voting process feels a bit skewed / unfair. In normal (political) voting, there is a very clear process for things like getting on the ballot, how to get a referendum question up for vote, etc. There's also a clear process for "undoing" any of these things.
So, if continuing with the public voting method the ITC is using now, then I think some of those prerequisite parts of the process need to be made clearer. I would also be fine with a committee decision like AdeptiCon and other tournaments implement... As long as it is clear, the players can either embrace and support it, or reject it. TOs are really striving for clarity so it can be a real benefit to the community, but if the process is suspect it can have the opposite effect (people kept mentioning fantasy, and I agree that was a part of its downfall).
DCannon4Life wrote: 2) The decision regarding restoring units to 'Full Strength' centered around the fact that 'Full Strength' is insufficiently defined. It could mean that I purchase a single Piranha, and then, subsequent to leaving the table, I return that unit with the maximum number of Piranha allowed by the codex (a 'Full Strength' unit). It could mean that I replace 'lost' Piranha up to the number I purchased (as per the Damocles rule, yes?). It could mean that I repair missing hull points, remove damage effects (Weapon Destroyed) and replenish Seeker Missiles and Drones. Of these three options, the first is absurd, the second is not stated explicitly in the formation's rules, and the third still satisfies returning the unit at full strength.
Piranha Firestorm Wing, Rearm and Refuel special rule:
If all of the surviving models from a unit in this Formation are within 6" of a table edge at the end of their Movement Phase, the unit can enter Ongoing Reserves. When it returns to play, it does so at full strength with any damage repaired and Drones and seeker missiles replaced.
In your example, #3 is a given and separate point from what full strength means - it has to occur in any interpretation. Because the sentence as written states it does so at full strength, with....the following things...which as the sentence works are things that are in addition to being at full strength.
Remember, vehicle squadrons are just units, like a unit of 10 space marines. If you take the exact same concept and go: You purchase a unit of 10 sternguard with combi-meltas, 3 die, you can remove the unit from the board and it returns at full strength with all combi-weapons replaced. Do only 7 space marines come back with renewed combi-weapons, or do 10 space marines come back? I think anyone would be hard pressed to say anything other than 10, as "full strength" is what the unit began at.
I completely agree that #1 is an absurd interpretation, but #2 is both how it reads, and has precedent for being exactly defined as that in the last incarnation of the rule. I can understand - even if I don't agree with - the change to the coming/going from reserves in the same turn. But the "full strength" bit is silly.
Remember, vehicle squadrons are just units, like a unit of 10 space marines. If you take the exact same concept and go: You purchase a unit of 10 sternguard with combi-meltas, 3 die, you can remove the unit from the board and it returns at full strength with all combi-weapons replaced. Do only 7 space marines come back with renewed combi-weapons, or do 10 space marines come back? I think anyone would be hard pressed to say anything other than 10, as "full strength" is what the unit began at.
That reasoning doesn't transfer as well to vehicles though for a bunch of reasons. At full strength for single wound infantry can mean almost nothing else but adding back guys. It could mean many different things for a unit of vehicles.
I'll also throw in that applying the interpretation where the unit goes back up to its original size leads to a number of other questions and ridiculous circumstances, most of which happen when one of the piranhas is immobilized.
Take a unit of 3 and 1 gets immobilized and 2 separate into a different unit. What happens when:
Just the 2 go off the tables and come back? When the unit of 1 goes off the table (note nothing in the rule about leaving requires the model to be mobile)? When they both go off in the same turn?
Not only is bringing piranhas back to life not well substantiated by the text (I'll concede it's questionable, if it was clear cut than no one would be arguing), but it requires 3 to 4 further clarifications.
"But it's just Gun Drones!" "They can't score!" They can still deny objectives. And they come on in waves.That's plenty of TL S5 shots at BS2. Not quite Scatbiker levels of firepower, but still nasty. And the Tau player gets more of those every turn, so you can effectively cover the board in drones and prevent your opponent from moving. You can kill Rhinos pretty easily (Drop Pods are more obnoxious), but you can't kill all the gun drones a turn on top of whatever else the Tau player brought.
they cannot deny objectives,
they are also forced to be deployed close to the tau players zone, and they can only leave to get more drones within 6", not a huge foot print, not going to "cover the whole board" and prevent an opponent from moving, not by a long shot, and it has less chance to do this then a batle company which gets all its free units from turn one, without having to tie up a unit to spawn them.
Drones die to las guns, rhinos do not, drones cannot cap, deny, or contest anything, ob sec rhinos/free units can (the increase in pts affects other units, my SM army was already heavy in drop pods and the mandatory units for BC, now they are free, in effect I got free pts to spend on other stuff of my choosing).
I cant take it very seriously when you argue that a few drones per turn is harder to kill then 30% more points of SM all at once. Your assertion that 30% extra points of marines is easy to deal with is laughable, its one of the most played formations specifically because it grants what is arguably the best bonuses in the entire game when playing ITC scoring based on objectives. When you play against a battle company you are literally putting you 1850 list against someone else's 2000+pt list, and all they had to do was take units that are already desirable, even a 100pt advantage is a huge boon, let alone 30%.
I will admit that I was mistaken; i thought that units that couldn't score could still deny objectives, and had forgotten about the BRB passage stating to the contrary.
I'm not saying that the Battle Company formation isn't extremely powerful; tournament results have already borne it out as highly effective. What I am saying is that there are ways to counter it. Strong melee and enough mid-strength high-rof weapons will kill plenty of Rhinos, and Space Marines can also die to enough lasgun shots. There is no way for the opposing player to prevent the Piranha formation from making more drones. Over the course of the game, you can get almost as many free points in drones as in free transports. And lest we forget, enough S5 shots will kill both Rhinos and Space Marines.
I'm having trouble taking you seriously if you don't understand the obvious potential for abusive shenanigans this formaiton allows, and why the ITC and other tournaments would nerf it.
RiTides wrote: Those are some very good explanations, DCannon4Life! That's really all I'm looking for - while I don't totally agree with bogalubov that the "actual determinations are irrelevant", I think the main thing for me is the process. And right now, whether it's accurate or not, the voting process feels a bit skewed / unfair. In normal (political) voting, there is a very clear process for things like getting on the ballot, how to get a referendum question up for vote, etc. There's also a clear process for "undoing" any of these things.
The reason I say that each individual determination is irrelevant is that I have never seen a rules debate thread end with everyone coming to an agreement. Rule debates are tedious and never ending. If people learn to just accept a ruling and stop talking about it, that's the only way it ends. If we keep the door open to only accepting "reasonable" interpretations, that means the debate never ends.
I think this applies to the process as well. I don't disagree that clarity in the process will bring peace of mind to some people about how questions made it onto the ballot. However, I really doubt that seeing the guts of the process will make everyone happy. Then we start questioning about how they determined the number of rule question submissions required to get a question on the ballot or other minutia.
I think what most people want to happen is that they show up to a tournament and just play without having to have lengthy rule discussions. If there's a dispute, you look at the ITC FAQ, find the answer and move on. My guess is that most people want this, otherwise the ITC wouldn't have become so widely accepted. If it turns out that the majority of the players want every question answered perfectly and to have greater transparency in the ITC process, FLG will adjust and make it a priority. It's in their interest to keep the majority happy, so that people keep showing up to their events and getting funneled to their website to buy stuff from them.
So overall, I don't care what the individual rulings are, I just want to show up and play with predetermined expectations.
Remember, vehicle squadrons are just units, like a unit of 10 space marines. If you take the exact same concept and go: You purchase a unit of 10 sternguard with combi-meltas, 3 die, you can remove the unit from the board and it returns at full strength with all combi-weapons replaced. Do only 7 space marines come back with renewed combi-weapons, or do 10 space marines come back? I think anyone would be hard pressed to say anything other than 10, as "full strength" is what the unit began at.
That reasoning doesn't transfer as well to vehicles though for a bunch of reasons. At full strength for single wound infantry can mean almost nothing else but adding back guys. It could mean many different things for a unit of vehicles.
I'll also throw in that applying the interpretation where the unit goes back up to its original size leads to a number of other questions and ridiculous circumstances, most of which happen when one of the piranhas is immobilized.
Take a unit of 3 and 1 gets immobilized and 2 separate into a different unit. What happens when:
Just the 2 go off the tables and come back?
When the unit of 1 goes off the table (note nothing in the rule about leaving requires the model to be mobile)?
When they both go off in the same turn?
Not only is bringing piranhas back to life not well substantiated by the text (I'll concede it's questionable, if it was clear cut than no one would be arguing), but it requires 3 to 4 further clarifications.
Take multiple wound models - it transfers just fine. Imagine it's Tyranid warriors. It does create rules oddities - just as many rules do, that need to be closed because of sloppy writing. That's the bit you need to fix/close up, and you do so as follows:
-Note: If a Piranha in a squadron is immobilized and abandoned, it immediately forms a new unit with an initial strength of 1 model, per the core rulebook. (this is just restating the core rulebook so far). Immobilized models can still use the "Rearm and Refuel" option, as they are only required to be within 6" of a board edge, however their "full strength" is 1 model, as they form a new unit when immobilized (still just restating the rules).
Now from here you can go one of two ways, RAW or what is likely RAI:
RAW: If a unit of Piranha have abandoned vehicles from their squadron due to immobilized results and then leave the board, they come back at the full initial strength. Note, this could create an additional Piranha over what was brought.
---This is just the RAW of it, their initial unit size didn't change, so that's how it works. But, no way to know if it was RAI. On one hand you're creating a new Piranha - on the other hand, the rule pretty clearly wants you replacing dead piranha, which is (sort of) the same thing.
RAI: If a unit of Piranha have abandoned vehicles from their squadron due to immobilized results and then leave the board, they come back at the full initial strength, minus the abandoned squadron members as long as those members remain alive.
Take multiple wound models - it transfers just fine. Imagine it's Tyranid warriors. It does create rules oddities - just as many rules do, that need to be closed because of sloppy writing. That's the bit you need to fix/close up, and you do so as follows:
-Note: If a Piranha in a squadron is immobilized and abandoned, it immediately forms a new unit with an initial strength of 1 model, per the core rulebook. (this is just restating the core rulebook so far). Immobilized models can still use the "Rearm and Refuel" option, as they are only required to be within 6" of a board edge, however their "full strength" is 1 model, as they form a new unit when immobilized (still just restating the rules).
Now from here you can go one of two ways, RAW or what is likely RAI:
RAW: If a unit of Piranha have abandoned vehicles from their squadron due to immobilized results and then leave the board, they come back at the full initial strength. Note, this could create an additional Piranha over what was brought.
---This is just the RAW of it, their initial unit size didn't change, so that's how it works. But, no way to know if it was RAI. On one hand you're creating a new Piranha - on the other hand, the rule pretty clearly wants you replacing dead piranha, which is (sort of) the same thing.
RAI: If a unit of Piranha have abandoned vehicles from their squadron due to immobilized results and then leave the board, they come back at the full initial strength, minus the abandoned squadron members as long as those members remain alive.
So you've had to write a small paragraph and make up your own rules to explain the implications of a decision that is only weakly supported by the text...
My point with all this is that FAQ writing is not easy. There are many, MANY things to consider. I understand people only see the final product which may look ad hoc from the outside. But quite a bit of effort goes into making a document that is clear, objective, consistent, and simple.
Except it's not weakly supported by text, its *clearly* supported by the text, and the previous version of the rule, which Reece referenced in his discussion of it. Literally they removed the explanation, which they felt was obvious, from the rule. (i.e. five models). The entire rest of the rule is the same, word for word.
Note - I also went overboard and wrote in stuff to make it crystal clear just to make sure it couldn't be mis-used. That's the point of an FAQ.
bogalubov wrote: I think this applies to the process as well. I don't disagree that clarity in the process will bring peace of mind to some people about how questions made it onto the ballot. However, I really doubt that seeing the guts of the process will make everyone happy. Then we start questioning about how they determined the number of rule question submissions required to get a question on the ballot or other minutia.
Well, I didn't mean just showing the process - by making it transparent, it might also cause it to be more consistent or at least understandable. Right now, I don't think it's clear why certain old rules get on the ballot and others don't - although it's clear any new release is up for being addressed very quickly.
So, while it's true that there would be scrutiny about the details, with the level of scrutiny already going on right now, releasing information about the process of rules nomination and possibly making it more transparent / consistent could help relieve some of that pressure... I certainly think it could only help, not hurt, with credibility and player adoption.
Target wrote: Except it's not weakly supported by text, its *clearly* supported by the text, and the previous version of the rule, which Reece referenced in his discussion of it. Literally they removed the explanation, which they felt was obvious, from the rule. (i.e. five models). The entire rest of the rule is the same, word for word.
Note - I also went overboard and wrote in stuff to make it crystal clear just to make sure it couldn't be mis-used. That's the point of an FAQ.
It could be they took it out because it's obvious. Why they felt a compelling need to save 16 characters to make a rule less clear is beyond me. They also could have removed it because they wanted to change the meaning. I don't know, you don't either.
Prior versions of rules are not binding. They're not really anything.
Based off the text that's available and legal now the correct interpretation is ambiguous. You can still think you're right, but to say that it is unambiguous is just being stubborn.
And I guarantee that whatever reasoning you use to conclude that this particular situation is unambiguously the way you think it should be will in other instances, applied in the exact same way, lead to interpretations that are ridiculous and counter intuitive. GW just does not write rules that are meant to be subjected to any level of technical scrutiny.
Crimson Devil wrote: Reece has stated he would be happy to debate anyone on the Podcast about rules changes. Let him know you would like to do so about the next vote. Or if you don't want to, don't go to their tournaments and tell him why you won't. The ITC only has the power you let them have. Don't like it, don't use it.
What if you live in a region where all the tournaments are ITC? What if you live in a region where seeing your name on some ranking list is most important? What is a player to do than, do not attend any tournaments? I haven't given anyone power over me it has been taken!
What I find most ironic about some of the responses is that some are saying people get to vote on the issue your opinion matters but when someone says something and gives their opinion about the process and its flaws they are essentially told to be silent, "don't go, don't use their rules, don't attend their tournaments". I wish it was that simple but I literally have to travel several states to attend tournaments that are not using ITC rulings, who's wallet am I hurting again?
I would like to chime in on the Piranha conversation. I don't think the formation should be altered mainly because they are non-scoring and non-contesting units. I feel a free OSC drop pod that sits on an objective the entire game is more valuable. The offensive firepower that the 3 units can put out I believes averages out to be 6-7 str 5 hits. Lets say you create 3 of these units you are looking at 18-21 str 5 hits. Let me add the one piranha, you paid a minimum of 400 points for 19-23 str 5 hits on turn one, except they will most likely not be in range of anything due to the requirement of being within 6 of a board edge so their firepower on the turn they are created is obsolete. To kill the entire unit it takes 12 saves, but how many does it take to make the unit harmless? (If you consider 6 str 5 hits a threat)
Next turn they create more drones at this point you are looking at 480 points worth of drones! Sounds daunting doesn't it but wait its not really you are truly only looking at 240 points worth of free drones because the first wave do not count! If I bought that many piranhas without the formation I would get those original drones. So at this point I have 240 points worth of free drones but the formation cost 400 points. So at this point I have not gotten a return on my investment for the formation.
Turn 3 I now have 480 points worth of free drones and I have a return of 80 points on my investment since the piranhas cost 400 points. So by turn 3 in order for my opponent to make my formation have a negative return all he has to do is kill one of the drone units, which has a value of 72 points! Mind you I do have several non-scoring and non-contesting units on the board that is putting out a lot of inaccurate str 5 hits, that can delay my opponent! However how hard is it to kill these guys in cc or with shooting?
Now the main weakness of this formation besides the fact that you are paying entirely to much for units that cant contest or score and are easily killed is that by creating all of these drones the tau player is setting himself up for multi-charges all over the place. You have 6 drones next to your riptide, crisis suits, or broadsides your opponent will charge both units kill the drones than run down the other unit.
Because the drones are non scoring and non contesting in order for them to make back their points back they must either kill stuff or delay your opponent from reaching your army so the rest of your army can shoot them to bits. Quite frankly they are incapable of doing either regardless of how many there are especially when they have to come in by waves. Do you think drones can do 400 points of damage? With 400 points you could buy 2 riptides or a stormsurge, which would you rather see 3 units of drones coming at you or 2 riptides or a stormsurge shooting at you.
However the way it will most likely be ruled will ironically force players to play the formation the way it should be played! The true terror is not drones but seeker missiles, you should shoot your seeker missiles, next turn move closer than let your drones off than leave come back with more seeker missiles that will have more of an impact than a drone farm, especially considering the missiles can have tank-hunter.18 seeker missiles has a value of 148 points now add that with 240 your looking at 388 points out of 548 but the difference is the seeker missiles are going to be destroying units a rhino is 35 points a drop pod is 35 a bike squad with no save, now we are talking power!
EDITED I just looked you can buy 5 piranhas a squad which means squads of 10 drones but your looking at 640 points for the formation. At that point a third of your army is drone farm you have to buy units to grab objectives and kill stuff it simply will not work. You would have to make a army themed around the drones.
So I clearly let lack of sleep and super long work hours this week get the better of me before I replied on the nearby Adepticon, but my major concerns remain.
...
If the Adepticon rule is any guide (and they copied the coordinated firepower one verbatim from the itc) then yes, it also restricts the formations recovery when off the board to hullpoints lost and not lost piranhas from the unit.
Couple of things (disagree if you will, I won't argue it. I'm just laying out the thought process behind the decisions):
1) The AdeptiCon faq ruling on Coordinated Firepower, despite its similarities in print, is not merely a copy/paste from the ITC faq. The committees driving the 'ITC' and AdeptiCon faqs no longer share members (until recently, they did), and the process by which the AdeptiCon faq committee arrived at its decision did not involve offering a 'vote' to players. Essentially, the following abilities/allowances are expressly made by Coordinated Firepower: Ignore restriction of shooting with one unit at a time. Ignore restriction of markerlights only benefitting one unit (at a time). Gaining a (conditional) +1BS against a nominated target. That is all.
ITC Version: Use the following clarifications for the Coordinated Firepower command benefit:
Signature Systems, wargear and other special rules that alter the way that a unit fires (e.g., Skyfire) do not apply to other units using the Coordinated Firepower command benefit.
Special rules that allow a model to fire at different target than the one generating benefits from Coordinated Firepower (e.g., Split Fire) function normally.
If a model fires at a unit other than the one generating the benefits from Coordinated Firepower then that model does not receive any of the benefits (though they may still receive benefits applying to the unit from other sources as normal).
The +1 BS from the Coordinated Firepower command benefit does not apply to Snap Shots.
Adepticon Version: • Use the following clarifications for the Coordinated Firepower command benefit:
o Signature Systems, wargear and other special rules that alter the way that a unit fires (e.g., Skyfire) do not
apply to other units using the Coordinated Firepower command benefit.
o Special rules that allow a model to fire at different target than the one generating benefits from
Coordinated Firepower (e.g., Split Fire) function normally.
o If a model fires at a unit other than the one generating the benefits from Coordinated Firepower then that
model does not receive any of the benefits (though they may still receive benefits applying to the unit
from other sources as normal).
o The +1 BS from the Coordinated Firepower command benefit does not apply to Snap Shots.
Sure looks like a copy and paste job to me. Unless you're seeing something I'm not here. Same dumb rule references as the ITC version, same notations, etc.
I believe the ITC took Adepticon's language. At the time Adepticon's was written they were not the same (I don't think the ITC had a ruling yet).
It doesn't really matter. The original point that they're different groups using different methods stands.
The writers for the ITC and Adepticon (and I suspect NOVA) read each others stuff all the time. It just makes sense to copy each others language if we have the same intent.
Thanks as always for the feedback, everyone, it is appreciated.
We are always looking to improve and to make the process more educational for everyone, we plan to even have debates for the next round of votes after the LVO. We do want everyone to have a voice, that's the point.
And in some cases, language between different FAQs is similar because we do all communicate with one another, yes.
Yeah, no worries! I would have jumped in sooner, but the last two days have been bananas. We're in the Red Zone for the LVO so everyone is going full tilt, plus we have some side projects that we're really excited about the require attention, too.
All the concerns and comments (even the mean ones, lol) here are noted and valid. We want the ITC to be a format that allows for a relatively level platform from which to empower players to attend and TOs to run events. A lot of folks seem to forget that it is essentially "open source" and that they can modify any aspect of it if their local group wants to see some tweaks to meet their desires. We're not trying to dictate, we're trying to assist. But, its all good.
Anyway, we have some really exciting stuff coming up for next year with the ITC! Can't wait to share it with everyone.
I haven't given anyone power over me it has been taken!
That statement is a bit melodramatic.
The greatest accomplishment of the ITC is that it has helped bring the community together. That also means that you need to interact with other people and occasionally accept their point of view. If you disagree with a ruling, submit your question through the ITC rule question. If enough people submit, a question will be re-evaluated. If you still don't like the ruling you can keep talking about it to whoever is willing to listen. However I think it's easier to accept that you're participating in a community of players and that requires abiding by the consensus.
Wall of text about the rules and how this unit is not that bad
@RiTides
See, if you care about the specifics of each ruling and its justness you get this drawn out conversation each and every time. I personally don't want to have this conversation. To me it's boring and unavoidably becomes confrontational. Allow endless drones, don't allow endless drones. I don't care. I just want a ruling so that I don't have to talk about it. For me, the benefit of a bright line in the murky depth of GW rules far outweighs the correctness of any one interpretation.
Fishboy wrote: Now the ATC is using ITC and several regional events are as well so now I am paying attention to the voting.
Quick side-question, where was it said that the ATC would be following ITC rules? I was planning on attending this year but haven't heard any format rules yet. This would be interesting.
I talked with Shane a few weeks ago so I could start on my list and he stated they were using ITC army construction rules. I took that to mean the FAQ as well but this just points to my dilemma...which interpreted rules set do I build my army to so I can have fun but remain competitive.
Again I want to state I appreciate everything that Reece and company are trying to do and the effort put into it but it seems very biased in the end result for things that don't need FAQ's. I agree with Target...how can you even discuss Tau formations when the Space Marine detachments go unnuetered? In progressive objective missions (which many events have 2/3 of the missions) it is an auto win against many armies and over powered yet not questioned?!? It's straight up bias and ruines the game for anyone not playing an imperial army.
I haven't given anyone power over me it has been taken!
That statement is a bit melodramatic.
I agree with you that comment I should have never made it has little meaning.
bogalubov wrote: The greatest accomplishment of the ITC is that it has helped bring the community together. That also means that you need to interact with other people and occasionally accept their point of view. If you disagree with a ruling, submit your question through the ITC rule question. If enough people submit, a question will be re-evaluated. If you still don't like the ruling you can keep talking about it to whoever is willing to listen. However I think it's easier to accept that you're participating in a community of players and that requires abiding by the consensus.
I don't have a problem with any particular ruling, I have a problem with the process its not a major issue its just there are certain things that can be fixed that I believed will make it better.
Wall of text about the rules and how this unit is not that bad
I don't recall saying this!
bogalubov wrote: @RiTides
See, if you care about the specifics of each ruling and its justness you get this drawn out conversation each and every time. I personally don't want to have this conversation. To me it's boring and unavoidably becomes confrontational. Allow endless drones, don't allow endless drones. I don't care. I just want a ruling so that I don't have to talk about it. For me, the benefit of a bright line in the murky depth of GW rules far outweighs the correctness of any one interpretation.
Yes, I agree with you that is one of the benefits of the ITC. I don't have a problem with iTC I have a problem with the voting process it can be fixed my original post I point out those things, each thing that is brought up for voting should have a thread dedicated to it so the voters can have multiple view points.
All I want is there to be a way that the voter can be more informed before they make their vote. If not they will read one article and vote a certain way or if they don't play that army they will vote against it.
Reecius , keep up the great work. Most of us have full time jobs that preclude us from playing as much as we would like too. I'm a TO for my LGS and we have switched to ITC. Here's why , I'm a police officer with a rotating schedule . Lucky to get in my weekly game. So my play testing for events is very limited. Reecius and those guys do it as a living. Which means they have plenty of time to both play test and play , which benifits all of us. I watch their bat reps and have to say that they seem pretty squared away.
Do I agree with everything from ITC? NO I don't. I think LOW's skewer the game , physic phase is overpowering and formations are broken. However I believe Reecius and company have gotten us as close to a decent , unified tournament format as we are going to get.
Well done and kudos to Frontline Gaming.
Haldir wrote: Reecius , keep up the great work. Most of us have full time jobs that preclude us from playing as much as we would like too. I'm a TO for my LGS and we have switched to ITC. Here's why , I'm a police officer with a rotating schedule . Lucky to get in my weekly game. So my play testing for events is very limited. Reecius and those guys do it as a living. Which means they have plenty of time to both play test and play , which benifits all of us. I watch their bat reps and have to say that they seem pretty squared away.
Do I agree with everything from ITC? NO I don't. I think LOW's skewer the game , physic phase is overpowering and formations are broken. However I believe Reecius and company have gotten us as close to a decent , unified tournament format as we are going to get.
Well done and kudos to Frontline Gaming.
Yep, I agree. I have never been to a tournament where I agree with every ruling, but I would rather go in knowing it's not going my way and have e consistency in list building rather than having to change it constantly and message every tournament organizer for their FAQ. Makes the game a lot more laid back as well as helps build towards a more centralized community which I think is the most important thing for the health of the game.
Crimson Devil wrote: Reece has stated he would be happy to debate anyone on the Podcast about rules changes. Let him know you would like to do so about the next vote. Or if you don't want to, don't go to their tournaments and tell him why you won't. The ITC only has the power you let them have. Don't like it, don't use it.
What if you live in a region where all the tournaments are ITC? What if you live in a region where seeing your name on some ranking list is most important? What is a player to do than, do not attend any tournaments? I haven't given anyone power over me it has been taken!
What I find most ironic about some of the responses is that some are saying people get to vote on the issue your opinion matters but when someone says something and gives their opinion about the process and its flaws they are essentially told to be silent, "don't go, don't use their rules, don't attend their tournaments". I wish it was that simple but I literally have to travel several states to attend tournaments that are not using ITC rulings, who's wallet am I hurting again?
Since you ignored the first part of my statement. To reiterate: Talk to Reece directly to express your point of view. Talking at him indirectly doesn't always work. You lucked out he saw the thread.
Edited by RiTides - Rule #1 of Dakka is "be polite"
Crimson Devil don't be so mean bra chill out we are just talking about ways to improve a voting process. I apologize I said some people not you I am sorry you feel that way.
No name calling in this thread, guys - we're all adults here. Further inflammatory posts will be edited / deleted. Thanks
Crimson Devil, that's actually the point, imo. Right now, I don't think the process for directly submitting rules for consideration is clear enough. It sounds like they've got some great things planned, so I'm hoping improving on that is among them!
You've stated this before. I think you're mistaken (not about the references being the same, about their being dumb). A Skyfire Nexus (Mysterious Objectives) gives Skyfire to a unit. If one of the units participating in a Coordinated Firepower shooting attack controls a Skyfire Nexus, and the units fire 'as if' they are one unit, then there is a legitimate question about whether or not Skyfire propagates from the specific unit controlling the Skyfire Nexus to the other units utilizing CF. So, not a 'dumb rule reference'.
As for the other 'dumb rule reference': I haven't looked into it and don't plan to.
My point is if you actually read the ITC rules is one of the very first lines states "these rules are a guideline". There is no reason you should have to use them if you don't want. If you and your group don't agree with a ruling then do the opposite.
Dude, what are you talking about? The people in this thread are talking about tournaments and at tournaments the rules are not optional. They are the official rules being used at the tournament in question.
ChainswordHeretic wrote: Dude, what are you talking about? The people in this thread are talking about tournaments and at tournaments the rules are not optional. They are the official rules being used at the tournament in question.
This is true, but the TOs/ Event Organizers are free to amend the rules to fit their own event.
ChainswordHeretic wrote: Dude, what are you talking about? The people in this thread are talking about tournaments and at tournaments the rules are not optional. They are the official rules being used at the tournament in question.
TOs are free to use their own missions and to amend the FAQ however they want. The No Mercy GT had no limits on LoWs or invisibility for example. Their missions were not standard ITC missions either. If you're a TO, you are free to mess with the format however you want.
More than that, if both players in a given round want to agree to disregard some portion of the FAQ, go ahead and do it.
All these rules are optional as long as you get agreement from your opponent.
bogalubov wrote: More than that, if both players in a given round want to agree to disregard some portion of the FAQ, go ahead and do it.
All these rules are optional as long as you get agreement from your opponent.
I don't think that's necessarily the case at all tournaments - I know yakface was a proponent of this idea, too, but I think it opens up a whole can of worms like what you (bogalubov) wanted to avoid. For example, if a tournament allows this, now as a player I have to plan whether I want to consider changing any specific part of the rules... and even allowing someone to ask could result in a situation where a player agrees to a rules change as a favor to their opponent, without truly realizing its impact.
Personally, I don't think this should be done at tournaments - although certainly in club games and the like, folks should change anything they don't like. But that's kind of the point of tournament rules - that the games at that event are all being played using those same rules.
bogalubov wrote: More than that, if both players in a given round want to agree to disregard some portion of the FAQ, go ahead and do it.
All these rules are optional as long as you get agreement from your opponent.
I don't think that's necessarily the case at all tournaments - I know yakface was a proponent of this idea, too, but I think it opens up a whole can of worms like what you (bogalubov) wanted to avoid. For example, if a tournament allows this, now as a player I have to plan whether I want to consider changing any specific part of the rules... and even allowing someone to ask could result in a situation where a player agrees to a rules change as a favor to their opponent, without truly realizing its impact.
Personally, I don't think this should be done at tournaments - although certainly in club games and the like, folks should change anything they don't like. But that's kind of the point of tournament rules - that the games at that event are all being played using those same rules.
The second party always has the option to say "No thanks, I prefer to play as described in the rules packet." This still allows me to point to the bright line drawn by the rules packet and not be involved in a protracted rules discussion.
The most common instance of this happening in my experience has been in regard to mysterious objectives. They are part of the ITC rules, but most people forget about them. Out of 20 or so games I've played in ITC tournaments I think mysterious objectives have been used once. Both parties acknowledged that they did not want to bother keeping track of the objectives so their mysterious nature was never used. No TO ran over and demanded that we actively use that option.
However if someone said "I would like to use the book version of invisibility" I would tell them "no thanks".
Shameless plug but it sounds like you guys could use these
And yeah, that makes sense - I guess I was thinking of something more drastic that would benefit one player over another (whereas mysterious objectives should have an equal impact on both players) but you can obviously say "No". I just don't think that can really be an official policy for a tournament, even though in practice that's how players operate on things like that.
Some of our friends Ben Mohlie and Goatboy said it very well: I don't agree with everything in the ITC, but I'd rather play ITC format than not.
That sums it up quite well. None us us got everything we wanted but it's better to have a baseline for play than not. That requires compromise, the nature of which is giving ground o things you don't agree with. It just is what it is.
But again, thanks for the feedback everyone, we really do listen and constantly try to improve.
The most common instance of this happening in my experience has been in regard to mysterious objectives. They are part of the ITC rules, but most people forget about them. Out of 20 or so games I've played in ITC tournaments I think mysterious objectives have been used once. Both parties acknowledged that they did not want to bother keeping track of the objectives so their mysterious nature was never used. No TO ran over and demanded that we actively use that option.
You are comparing a rule that is a mission parameter in the BRB, that effects both players equally, and there is no debate on how it works, with one opponent being able to spawn units with no way of stopping them or being able to place 700 pts. of free transports on the table as basically the same thing !?! Not even in the same ball park. If two opponents that are both ambivalent to a rule, forget to use it, and it affects them equally, I agree let them have at it. I have never been to a tournament where the players did not know that the rules packet were the official rules for that tournament and I can not think of anyone asking to play them differently unless they were trying to get an advantage.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Collusion to not play by the rules means they should both forfeit.
Eh I don't agree. war hammer isn't silly rigid like competitive magic like that. If a pair of tau players want to do full power hunter contingent for their game, even in a tournament where the rule is set otherwise, what's the harm? It's essentially a gentlemanly affair where it's up to the two of them to decide how rules work, and who wins the game, and a judge is only called in dire situations.
Compare that to tourney magic where ANY odd situation requires a judge. Players in that game are ONLY empowered to play the game, not resolve any situations.
The most common instance of this happening in my experience has been in regard to mysterious objectives. They are part of the ITC rules, but most people forget about them. Out of 20 or so games I've played in ITC tournaments I think mysterious objectives have been used once. Both parties acknowledged that they did not want to bother keeping track of the objectives so their mysterious nature was never used. No TO ran over and demanded that we actively use that option.
You are comparing a rule that is a mission parameter in the BRB, that effects both players equally, and there is no debate on how it works, with one opponent being able to spawn units with no way of stopping them or being able to place 700 pts. of free transports on the table as basically the same thing !?! Not even in the same ball park. If two opponents that are both ambivalent to a rule, forget to use it, and it affects them equally, I agree let them have at it. I have never been to a tournament where the players did not know that the rules packet were the official rules for that tournament and I can not think of anyone asking to play them differently unless they were trying to get an advantage.
My opponent has almost nothing but flyers and I have no skyfire options in my list. Does the refusal to play with mysterious objectives affect us equally?
This is a past time where the investment of money and time on making your army far outweighs any potential winnings. People should feel free to ask their opponent to change a rule interpretation. Their opponent should feel just as free to refuse if the interpretation does not jive with the tournament rules.
JohHwangDD wrote: Collusion to not play by the rules means they should both forfeit.
Haha, ok. I'll report myself for not using mysterious objectives to the nearest Inquisition outpost.
There's things I dislike about the ITC faq, and there are things I like about it.
Overall the best feature of something like its wide adoption is that you can have a general idea of how certain contentious rules will be ruled, and certain aspect of the game which reduce competitiveness, or might deter people from wanting to play the game (2++ rerollable saves, unbound WK armies etc.) won't be something you need to consider despite them being RAW.
In many ways, imo, the evolution of 6th-7th feels like GW responding to its on rules which are not good for competitive play with new rules to try and balance them by slapping them with a D-Hammer.
After all GW is a miniatures company, not a game company, so to think their rules alone should be good enough for most people to play is probably silly
So we have various groups of players all complaining that their formation has been nerfed into uselessness while other formations are just as if not more powerul haven't been touched.
Wouldn't it just be easier to ban all formations? We managed without them before, why suddenly have they become so essential?
AndrewC wrote: So we have various groups of players all complaining that their formation has been nerfed into uselessness while other formations are just as if not more powerul haven't been touched.
Wouldn't it just be easier to ban all formations? We managed without them before, why suddenly have they become so essential?
Cheers
Andrew
Because there are at least two non-knight Armies ( Skitarii and Harlequins) that removing formations makes entirely unplayable, as they lack requirements for the CAD (in the case of Skitarii and Harlies, HQs.)
AndrewC wrote: So we have various groups of players all complaining that their formation has been nerfed into uselessness while other formations are just as if not more powerul haven't been touched.
Wouldn't it just be easier to ban all formations? We managed without them before, why suddenly have they become so essential?
Cheers
Andrew
Because there are at least two non-knight Armies ( Skitarii and Harlequins) that removing formations makes entirely unplayable, as they lack requirements for the CAD (in the case of Skitarii and Harlies, HQs.)
Formations and special detachments are two different things. Fleshtearers strikeforce is not a formation, for example.
I share his opinion. Removing formations would remove like 80% of the game's problems at the moment, bringing it back to pretty much just grav, invis, and eldar.
AndrewC wrote: So we have various groups of players all complaining that their formation has been nerfed into uselessness while other formations are just as if not more powerul haven't been touched.
Wouldn't it just be easier to ban all formations? We managed without them before, why suddenly have they become so essential?
Cheers
Andrew
Because there are at least two non-knight Armies ( Skitarii and Harlequins) that removing formations makes entirely unplayable, as they lack requirements for the CAD (in the case of Skitarii and Harlies, HQs.)
Formations and special detachments are two different things. Fleshtearers strikeforce is not a formation, for example.
I share his opinion. Removing formations would remove like 80% of the game's problems at the moment, bringing it back to pretty much just grav, invis, and eldar.
I disagree. There are three problems with this approach:
1. Formations are also detachments, as stated in the BRB. 7th edition was designed from the beginning to be Formation Edition (TM). The problem was in GW's execution, where the design philosophy changed to put a much greater emphasis on formations not even halfway through 7th edition.
2. In my opinion, formations have only benefited the game. The standard Force Org Chart was getting stale, and did not do a very good job of representing or accommodating non-Imperium armies. Now, players have more options than ever before as to how to build and construct their lists, and in ways that much better reflect their armies individual lore. In addition, as previously stated, some armies are now only playable through formations. Should they simply be cast aside?
3. Not all formations are created equal. You cannot honestly tell me that the Blood Angels formations out of their campaign book or some of the formations in the new starter sets are on par with Skyhammer, Canoptek Harvest, or the Optimized Stealth Cadre. If anything, I would simply balance or restrict certain formations rather than completely banning all formations.
Tellingly, the ITC has embraced formations, but has placed restrictions on them. You have a maximum of three detachments you can bring (Formation Detachments count), and you may only bring one duplicate formation either as a standalone or within a Formation Detachment.
I disagree. There are three problems with this approach:
1. Formations are also detachments, as stated in the BRB. 7th edition was designed from the beginning to be Formation Edition (TM). The problem was in GW's execution, where the design philosophy changed to put a much greater emphasis on formations not even halfway through 7th edition.
2. In my opinion, formations have only benefited the game. The standard Force Org Chart was getting stale, and did not do a very good job of representing or accommodating non-Imperium armies. Now, players have more options than ever before as to how to build and construct their lists, and in ways that much better reflect their armies individual lore. In addition, as previously stated, some armies are now only playable through formations. Should they simply be cast aside?
3. Not all formations are created equal. You cannot honestly tell me that the Blood Angels formations out of their campaign book or some of the formations in the new starter sets are on par with Skyhammer, Canoptek Harvest, or the Optimized Stealth Cadre. If anything, I would simply balance or restrict certain formations rather than completely banning all formations.
Tellingly, the ITC has embraced formations, but has placed restrictions on them. You have a maximum of three detachments you can bring (Formation Detachments count), and you may only bring one duplicate formation either as a standalone or within a Formation Detachment.
I agree with you. Overall Formations have been good for the game. They have made it possible in many ways to play a fluffy force and still be competitive for the most part. The nly problem I see with formations is there aren't enough balanced ones and not every army has formations that are competitive.
I think overall the ITC is a good thing. They are at least trying to do what GW should be doing, ie, balance the game. Where I disagree with them on is often it is kind of inconsistent. Some things that should be restricted and/or reduced in effectiveness are not while others are. In some cases it is understandable like an extremely powerful top tier army gets a serious power buff so gets nerfed to be reasonable and a mid tier army's exceptionally stron formation is not nerfed. The difference being the mid tier can better compete in top tier. I still have no clue why they have not voted on making the WK a 100 points more. Seriously, make it cost what it should or start giving IK army wide points drops to reflect their lesser effectiveness. At least that is my opinion.
There's a key difference in normal detachments and formations; normal detachments always have a force organization chart of some capacity (CAD uses a traditional one, Decurion/Gladius uses units instead of battlefield roles), formations use a pre-selected list instead of a force organization chart.
I've just seen a lot of people get confused because Formations also count as a detachment and not know that there is a clear difference between the two, causing some TOs to make weird rulings like a formation's special rules extend to dedicated transports not explicitly forced through the restriction.
TLDR: There's a measurable difference between Detachments and Formations rules-wise, any claims of it being a grey area are simply not informed enough
The concept of the ITC is actually great. It fills the role that GW failed to do. That is an attempt at balancing the game. The problem is that the ITC is doing the same thing as GW. They are throwing "rules" out there for simple opinion. There is no play testing to justify the FAQs.
"This is too Powerful. We need to nerf it."
This is before any real games are done or before any Meta has a chance to adjust.
There should be a couple major events with any new formation before adjustments are made. It may seem too powerful for some, but others may come with a good way to beat it. Currently we will never know. The new thing may not do as good as everything thinks it might. Kneejerk FAQs to Kneejerk design.
People say that they don't playtest at all, but that would imply that they're lying when they say they play plenty of games that they don't stream.
Around the time of the tau CF vote, I specifically heard them say that Frankie was constantly running tau in off-camera games. Why do people think that Tuesday night fight is the only game they play every week?
Perhaps we can agree to refer to the ITC modifications to rules (2++/4++, ranged D, and the re-writing of invisibility, for example) as "ITC Eratta". Referring to the entirety of the faq as ITC fails to describe the two essential parts: Rule Clarification (FAQ) and Rule Modification (Eratta). The ITC, as I understand it, strives to produce an RAWFAQ, generally ignoring questions of 'balance', and an Eratta that does have 'balance' as its goal.
There is an opportunity for confusion due to the manner in which the ITC makes its rulings (i.e voting), and it seems that there is some muddying between FAQ and Eratta. By and large though, some things are rules interpretations, and some things are complete rewrites.
I would love that distinction, since then it would be easy for TOs to determine what they want to use from it.
The only problem arises if a rule that was errata'ed was in need of a FAQ entry if not using the errata - which then might not be present in the ITC FAQ.
Skimask Mohawk wrote: There's a key difference in normal detachments and formations; normal detachments always have a force organization chart of some capacity (CAD uses a traditional one, Decurion/Gladius uses units instead of battlefield roles), formations use a pre-selected list instead of a force organization chart.
I've just seen a lot of people get confused because Formations also count as a detachment and not know that there is a clear difference between the two, causing some TOs to make weird rulings like a formation's special rules extend to dedicated transports not explicitly forced through the restriction.
TLDR: There's a measurable difference between Detachments and Formations rules-wise, any claims of it being a grey area are simply not informed enough
The easiest way to think of it is: formations are detachments which specify unit names that you must take or choose from, like a Scout Bike or Tactical Marine; whereas detachments specify unit types, like Fast Attack or Troop to choose from.
However, that said, there IS a grey area, because some formations are very flexible, like the Space Marine Battle Pinion Battle Demi-Company. The restrictions allow you to choose from a pretty big list, and more practically, a pretty useful list. On the other hand, there are highly restrictive detachments, like the Archangels Strike Force, which says "14 Elites", but you're only allowed specific elites, and more practically a mostly useless list excluding a bunch of the great choices... Effectively, they end up being the same thing, because if the Archangels Strike force said, 14 units in any combination from (list of units), plus 1 unit of (list of HQs) it would be called Formation instead of a Detachment.
Therefore, in my opinion, it's not really a useful distinction anymore. There's no game distinction between them; they are both legal-for-play force organization structures. There are sucky formations and sucky detachments, and really powerful ones of both.
niv-mizzet wrote: People say that they don't playtest at all, but that would imply that they're lying when they say they play plenty of games that they don't stream.
Around the time of the tau CF vote, I specifically heard them say that Frankie was constantly running tau in off-camera games. Why do people think that Tuesday night fight is the only game they play every week?
It has nothing to do with "lying." Im sure they play games with it. However, playing in a small group with limited outside insight results in alot of poor decisions. Again, look at GW. Just looking at the old SM codex, 7 playtesters and 1 "writer". Small groups of people often fall into a "group think" rather than often thinking outside the box. Just look at how everyone said Tyranids sucked and yet last year won the LVO and another GT with Lictors, an all around crap unit according to everyone pre LVO. Or the Ork player managing good top 16 results, imagine if more people ran Orks to refine them. Its more about the law of large numbers. Everyone said the Decurion was "broken" when it came out, but we dont see Necrons dominating the metas.
niv-mizzet wrote: People say that they don't playtest at all, but that would imply that they're lying when they say they play plenty of games that they don't stream.
Around the time of the tau CF vote, I specifically heard them say that Frankie was constantly running tau in off-camera games. Why do people think that Tuesday night fight is the only game they play every week?
It has nothing to do with "lying." Im sure they play games with it. However, playing in a small group with limited outside insight results in alot of poor decisions. Again, look at GW. Just looking at the old SM codex, 7 playtesters and 1 "writer". Small groups of people often fall into a "group think" rather than often thinking outside the box. Just look at how everyone said Tyranids sucked and yet last year won the LVO and another GT with Lictors, an all around crap unit according to everyone pre LVO. Or the Ork player managing good top 16 results, imagine if more people ran Orks to refine them. Its more about the law of large numbers. Everyone said the Decurion was "broken" when it came out, but we dont see Necrons dominating the metas.
You might be right about the groupthink, but it's an unprovable statement in either direction.
I don't recall saying tyranids suck anytime close to LVO last year, or hearing it really at all, so apparently not everyone.
And the LVO I watched was won by 1100 points of hive tyrants and mawlocs with 6 lictors riding their coat tails to jump on objectives. Saying the lictors won that is like saying my little 200 point BA detachment has been winning when the rest of my list is white scar gladius and an assassin. Sorry, but I always have to jump on that anytime anyone repeats the misinformative "lictors won lvo!!" comment.
niv-mizzet wrote: You might be right about the groupthink, but it's an unprovable statement in either direction.
Not really, the latest Tau issue was clearly mismanaged.
I don't recall saying tyranids suck anytime close to LVO last year, or hearing it really at all, so apparently not everyone.
And the LVO I watched was won by 1100 points of hive tyrants and mawlocs with 6 lictors riding their coat tails to jump on objectives. Saying the lictors won that is like saying my little 200 point BA detachment has been winning when the rest of my list is white scar gladius and an assassin. Sorry, but I always have to jump on that anytime anyone repeats the misinformative "lictors won lvo!!" comment.
Sure, show me the other lists with Lictors running around.
niv-mizzet wrote: You might be right about the groupthink, but it's an unprovable statement in either direction.
Not really, the latest Tau issue was clearly mismanaged.
I disagree, so apparently it isn't clear.
I don't recall saying tyranids suck anytime close to LVO last year, or hearing it really at all, so apparently not everyone.
And the LVO I watched was won by 1100 points of hive tyrants and mawlocs with 6 lictors riding their coat tails to jump on objectives. Saying the lictors won that is like saying my little 200 point BA detachment has been winning when the rest of my list is white scar gladius and an assassin. Sorry, but I always have to jump on that anytime anyone repeats the misinformative "lictors won lvo!!" comment.
Sure, show me the other lists with Lictors running around.
I don't want to be involved in a long abstract argument over what makes a list, so I'll just skip to the end. To me, 16.2% (ie 300 of 1850 points) of a list is a support element, specifically in this case to overcome the maelstrom grabbing weakness of the tyrants, NOT a list theme. If you disagree, that's fine, I can live with that.
niv-mizzet wrote: People say that they don't playtest at all, but that would imply that they're lying when they say they play plenty of games that they don't stream.
Around the time of the tau CF vote, I specifically heard them say that Frankie was constantly running tau in off-camera games. Why do people think that Tuesday night fight is the only game they play every week?
Heres the problem though, two guys playing 10 games in a back room on little sleep (I say this because they are always talking about how overburdened they are) against the same opponents over and over using the same FAQ/same missions isn't how you collect useful data anyway.
With the first round of TAU voting they didn't even wait to see the official rules. Remember that vote on allowing 1-3 stormsurge units before the book hit and they did in fact have awesome firepower? Whoops. The hunter contingent vote was way to quick too. Sometimes it's about digesting games and data over time. I can play against a new rule 6 times a day for a weekend and I am sure I'll have worse ideas about facing it then if I played less games over a couple months.
The premise that nobody can call out flaws in a system is bogus. People aren't insulting any ones honer for, they are questioning the method. Because being told, "we play tested it all week countless times" isn't meaningful without context. I have seen them make some wrong conclusions on camera for multiple broadcasts, the assault out of coherency thing comes to mind. They were flat out wrong and were griping on camera about it during games and they were interpreting the rule completely out of whack, which happens at the local shops all the time, and which is fine btw we all get things wrong. But that is why it's important to allow the larger community to digest some of the rules before voting.
ITC is a good thing! It's a great thing, but perhaps it's grown to the point where they need to accept help? IDK, questions and debate are good things!
Edited to tremove my poor attempts at humor that end up looking like im a dink
Different strokes. I think people underestimate how much suckage there is in letting things marinate in the stew too long before changing them. You think people nerd rage about their ITC nerfs now? Wait until you yoink away something they've been using like wraithknights or decurions.
I would much rather they tell me out of the gate that something isn't going to fly rather than wait for me to buy, model, paint, list up, and practice with it.
Mulletdude wrote: Well, not sure if anyone noticed this, but the ITC "FAQ" has been updated with more rule changes.
Most notably:
Tau Empire:
Models in the Piranha Firestream Wing formation may not leave the table using the Rearm and Refuel special rule the same turn that they arrive from Reserves or Ongoing Reserves.
When returning to the table using the Rearm and Refuel special rule, the Piranha unit does so at full strength, including regaining Piranhas that have been destroyed earlier in the game. However, models that have formed their own unit due to being immobilized are not replaced.
All Ghostkeels in a unit activate their Holophoton Countermeasures at the same time.
If a Stormsurge that has deployed its Stabilising Anchors is Tank Shocked, it must Death or Glory in response. If it fails to stop the Tank Shocking vehicle, it suffers D3 wounds and the tank is left in base to base contact with the Stormsurge at the point it made contact with it.
General:
Any shooting attack or rule that requires a hit on a unit that is protected by a Void Shield hits the shield instead. Example: Psychic Witchfires, Marker Lights, etc. This will often nullify these attacks.
This means the drone factory idea is dead in ITC, the Stormsurge might just die to a bunch of Rhinos, and the Ghostkeels you never took in units larger than one has literally no purpose to being bigger than 1 ghostkeel.
The ITC has nerfed Tau so much that it is clearly bias. A democratic process doesnt make it right. If you asked a classroom of kids to raise your hand if you want to go play outside but Tommy has to stay inside what is going to be the result?
It is clearly bias and I will explain, every single new competitive thing Tau got was nerfed!
They got a new decurion detachment that allowed multiple units to shoot at one target at the same time sharing marker lights and special rules. The fear of target lock and the stormsurge shooting at different targets and still getting the special rules made ITC the Space Marine Chaptr take a vote to decide if Tau should get to use their new formation. Instead of making an errata to say only the unit chosen as the target of coordinated firepower can be affected by special rules, the Space Marine Chapter eliminated completely. Its ok for Necrons to get a 4+ re-animation roll or space marines to get free dedicated transports or ad mech to get hundreds of free upgrade points but Tau coordinated firepower is just to strong.
They got a new unit called ghostkeels! Which have a once per game ability to make shots fired at them snap shots. You can take them in units of 3 and get 3 uses of it theoratically right, but oh no the Space Marine Chapter does not want to deal with that so they nerfed that also making it to where you can only use it once even if you buy more than one in a squad. These things come equip with 6 str 7 shots and a twin-linked fusion blaster or a small blast str 8 melta shot very scary I know! The sad part about it is that they have a cool formation but its weaker now so out of the two new things that the codex got so far both are nerfed.
They got a new Lord of War! It has a cool rule where it basically cant move and by doing that it can fire its weapons twice. Very hard to deal with as it has 8 wounds I believe, but the Space Marine Chapter made a rule to where they can tank shock it to death if it is taken advantage of its ability to fire twice. Those free transports that their un-nerfed Decurion have plenty of now have a purpose!
The piranha formation first turn you get drones that a regular piranha squad would get so no benefit there. Second turn you get 140 points worth of drones but the piranha squad cost 200 so you havent made a profit you have 60 points less on the field than you should. Turn 3 you now have 280 points worth of drones remember that drones cannot score nor deny objectives and are ld 7, the formation cannot be combine with the cordinated fire power rule because its in a different formation if you combine it with the drone network to boast their bs you are spending around 900 points on drones and piranhas. If the piranhas are constanly leaving the board what is going to claim the objectives? Do you think you could kill their scoring units? If you make a rule saying you cant leave the board turn one you dont get a profit till turn 4 games can end on turn five so I really dont see whats so scary but when the Space Marine Chapter is determining the rules anything can happen. The way its been changed you get 80 free points on turn 5 which is the same turn the game can end so there is no Drone farm it doesnt exist now.
So instead of having cool inventive list your going to see riptide wings all over the place! Ironically riptides was the only thing the tau codex had going for it before they got a new codex and after the Space Marine Chapter (ITC) nerfs, its the only thing it has going for it now. Luckily space marines have grav-cannons to deal with riptides! How is this good for the game? Do you really want to see dozens of riptide wings? Would it not had been cooler to see Hunter Cadres?
So basically the democratic process eliminated all new elements that the tau could have brought and force them back to the same old riptides which Space Marines already had an answer to!
Its a joke, hopefully the rules were rushed because of LVO and people were scared, These rules should be voted on again where erratas are made and not nerfs.
CKO wrote: The ITC has nerfed Tau so much that it is clearly bias. A democratic process doesnt make it right.
This. People need to stop pretending that ITC is an impartial FAQ when it's blatantly a "nerf any army we don't like" set of house rules with no legitimacy at all.
The stormsurge Death and glory is what takes the cake! If the stormsurge have to death and glory because it couldnt move any unit that fired a heavy weapon in the previous shooting phase should have to death and glory! I mean technically they couldnt move, right? If you say they can move out the way the surge can move the restraints are not mandatory!
As a dedicated marine player, no, no they dont. Marines get nerfed to.
You can no longer share chapter tactics despite saying it affects units, not individual models.
so, taken from things, despite RAw telling us otherwise
Independant Characters attached to the Devastators or Assault Marines in the Skyhammer Annihilation Formation may not benefit from the special rules granted from the formation. For example, they are not able to assault out of reserves, nor do they gain Relentless, etc.
The Captain in a Battle Demi-Company or Battle Company formation may not be upgraded to a Chapter Master.
Models with the Carcharodons Chapter Tactics only gain the Rage special rule when causing an enemy infantry unit to fall back from combat, not from shooting or by any other method.
When a Template weapon hits a Lucius Drop Pod with a Dreadnought embarked upon it, the D6 No Escape hits inflicted on the Dreadnought are resolved against its rear armor.
Thunderdome was brought to vote to say that DA, BA and SW had Chapter Tactics so that the IC from White Scars, Iron Hands etc couldn't give their bonuses to TWC.
Voted for the benefit of the SM players (ie give Thunderwolves their 2+ rerollable Jink and Invisible Hit and Run deathstar)
I'm all for nerfing things for balance, but when you rewrite things for some and not all armies, it creates a sense of injustice.
Partly why I don't use ITC. My gaming group wants to use it - I think we'll just make our own house rules using it as a base.
What I don't get is why the nerfs? I understand nerfing the Decurion despite its wording because that can become over powered but, the other stuff should not even be up for questioning. When did drones become feared? If someone is paying 640 points to create 3 - 10 man non scoring, non denial, bs 2, ld 7 units a turn I would wonder how is it worth it? Why did it need to be nerf is it op? Or is it unique?
By the way conservative approach that they claim to take means you make as few changes as possible keep things as they are. The way they are changing things its more of a democratic approach.
I'll quote here what I said in another thread with regards to the Piranha Firestream formation, one of the formations that was nerfed.
jy2 wrote: With regards to the Piranha Firestream formation, I don't think some of the Tau players here even realize just how powerful that formation is. They say it can't score/contest/whatever and so it isn't good. Really? It is "nerfed" and rightly so. It is an extremely powerful build and I will share with you my experiences with playing against it.
I basically wrote a Tau list and my friend ran it against me. It consisted of the Firestream formation (10 piranhas in total), the Dronenet and "other" Tau stuff. We played it the "un-nerfed" way.
Game #1 vs Daemons
This was a larger game, I believe 2500. I ran Chaos knight with 2++/3++ Invuln, Fatey, D-thirster, Be'lakor, Grimoire Prince and some troops. Chaos Knight was basically useless here and just couldn't get through the infinite drone screens. D-thirster and other FMC's eventually got taken down through Tau VoF (volume-of-fire). Result: Tau Crushing Victory
Game #2 vs Daemons
This was an 1850 game with a Daemon list that I won a tournament with. It is actually a worse list than the one I used in Game #1. It was a close game, but my experience and the game ending on Turn 5 gave me a 1-pt win. Had the game went on, it would have been another crushing Tau victory. Result: Daemon Minor Victory
Game #3 vs Tyranids
I brought my 1850 tournament-winning Pentyrant (5-flyrant) list this time, but I just couldn't deal with his Piranhas, which I couldn't even target. Of course it helped that all his riptides had Skyfire, but by Turn 3, all of my flyrants were dead. I then conceded on Turn 4 with just 1 mawloc left. Result: Tau Crushing Victory
Game #4 vs Eldar
This game was played at 2250 and we didn't use ITC list-building rules. I ran an Eldar list with 5 Wraithknights! This was going to be an uphill battle for the Tau, or so we thought. By Turn 4, he had killed all 5 WK's and only lost 2 riptides (including the Y'vahra) in the process!!! Oh, and did I mention that I had Invisibility on 1 WK almost every turn? Result: Tau Crushing Victory
Analysis:
If you're thinking that for formation is not good because the drones can't score/contest, you really don't see the true power of this formation. The job of the drones is A) firepower and B) protection for the rest of the army against assault units. The amount of firepower it puts out is just staggering. With 10 piranhas, my opponent was producing 20 drones a turn. That is 40 twin-linked S5 BS3 shots a turn. And yeah, that's right....BS3 because of the Dronenet. Against my Daemons, the drones did just as much damage as his "main" offensive units (i.e. skyfiring riptides). Against my Tyranids, they shot down 2 flyrants and a couple of Mawlocs just through sheer VoF. Against Eldar, they had a hand in wounding/helping to kill almost all of the WK's. Flying or T8, it didn't matter. Sheer volume of twin-linked shooting was just devastating.
By the way conservative approach that they claim to take means you make as few changes as possible keep things as they are. The way they are changing things its more of a democratic approach.
No, what he meant by the "conservative approach" is that when there is any ambiguity with regards to how a rule worked, the ITC guys will tend more to go with the interpretation that is less powerful, or more "conservative". There are exceptions, however, but that is usually in the case where they think the intent of the rule points to the interpretation that is more aggressive.
CKO wrote: So Jy2 do you believe the piranha formation without restrictions is unbeatable?
Nothing is unbeatable. Not even Invisibility.
The problem is the lack of interaction makes the formation not very fun to play against (and at the same time, very powerful). Just like unmodified D. Just like re-rollable 2+'s. Just like Invisibility. There is literally nothing you can do against it pre-nerf. Piranha's come in, drop of their drones and then leave the table before you can even do anything about it. Unlike tervigon-spam or Daemon summoning, there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop them from producing free units. At least with tervigon-spam of 5th ed., you could kill off the tervgions (or the tervigons could just stop producing by rolling doubles). And with Daemon-summoning, it is highly unreliable and will take away from the Daemon capability to cast other more offensive/defensive powers (not to mention you could kill off the summoners). But the Firestream is operating at 100% efficiency ALL THE TIME. The only thing the opponent can do is to take the hits from the drones and waste their time killing drones that have absolutely nothing to lose. You can't do anything to the source of the problem.
Play against the un-nerfed version and you will see what I mean. It is one of the most powerful mechanisms currently IMO, and that is coming from the perspective of a very competitive player.
Jy2 do you think its right for it to go from very powerful to uncompetitive? All the things you listed you can still play they just are not as strong now the formation is uncompetitive.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Independant Characters attached to the Devastators or Assault Marines in the Skyhammer Annihilation Formation may not benefit from the special rules granted from the formation. For example, they are not able to assault out of reserves, nor do they gain Relentless, etc.
I cant attach a commander to a stealth squad from the optimized stealth cadre and get +1 bs, ignore cover, and hits are resolved in the rear, that's not just you that's all IC and formations.
This is actually not true - in this case the itc faq is specifically on the skyhammer formation and does not impact the tau stealth suit/commander thing. It's one of the few items that didnt get impacted actually. Skyhammer was dealt with directly i believe due to the potential for attaching into a super unit and first turn charging (a no response scenario similar to the piranha change). I dont think its necessary myself, but i believe that was the reasoning.
The biggest issue with the recent tau changes is they werent announced or posted on the forums - the piranha and ghostkeel one i saw this yesterday,, they apparently occured last friday. Both of those are in my army, and at this point im not changing it as i fly out today. On the upside, at least they got the rearm and refuel bit more right than adepticon.
Partly why I don't use ITC. My gaming group wants to use it - I think we'll just make our own house rules using it as a base.
tell us more! All of you who are hating on the ITC FAQ and errata, how are you going to play instead? How will you avoid the same criticism?
If you don't like the errata, just use the Adepticon FAQ. But if you pick and choose which rules to modify, someone else in your gaming group will be upset and they'll be upset at you, not the ITC crew who apparently have thicker skin than y'all.
Partly why I don't use ITC. My gaming group wants to use it - I think we'll just make our own house rules using it as a base.
tell us more! All of you who are hating on the ITC FAQ and errata, how are you going to play instead? How will you avoid the same criticism?
If you don't like the errata, just use the Adepticon FAQ. But if you pick and choose which rules to modify, someone else in your gaming group will be upset and they'll be upset at you, not the ITC crew who apparently have thicker skin than y'all.
Sarcasm is real :p
We like some of their work. Everyone in our group dislikes playing against my mates Thunderwolf Cavalry that are invisible all the time. So they want to make it BS/WS1 (while keeping them S9 RAW but we'll leave that argument)
But to fully adopt it? Its a guideline at the end of the day. Not something to be taken as law. So we'll pick the parts we agree on and make our own rules on the stuff we disagree and can come to a compromise on.
The thing is, there are levels... nerfing invisibility has an across the board effect that causes people to change tactics. Making all Ghostkeels in a unit use their ability at once is just targeting a single, and seemingly not broken, unit... that's the part I dislike, it feels so arbitrary.
The general FAQ and errata is good... the individual unit targeting / nerfing is not, imo. There are a lot stronger units in the game, why pick on newly released models? I just don't get that part of the process - the reason for it or the implementation.
And before you ask, no, I don't play Tau . But if Nids ever get new toys, I'd love for us to get to actually use them without targeting them so soon after release. If you want to nerf something, the obvious choice is an army's already powerful stuff (like Flyrants for nids). I'd rather avoid nerfing individual units altogether and stick to general rules tweaks, and only clarify rules on on individual models (i.e. FAQ). But this targeting of any decent new unit is just not fun for anybody imo... even non-Tau players.
Note, I'm talking specifically about the Ghostkeel nerf here, not the formation.
This topic is wrong. None of the current changes are ITC votes.
They are rules clarifications for the lvo and ITC until the next vote which is shortly after lvo.
If I'd vote for the new rules changes.
I'd say Stormsurges could move on death and glory.
I'd say ghost keels could activate individually even though it make no sense however you should be able to put blast markers on non invis models.
And piranha formation couldn't pop in and out of reserves on same turn.
The hunter contingent should be able to share rules for only models from the formation but only on the designated target.
There was many many rules clarifications beyond tau that should have a vote after lvo.
CKO wrote: Jy2 do you think its right for it to go from very powerful to uncompetitive? All the things you listed you can still play they just are not as strong now the formation is uncompetitive.
Uncompetitive? Really?
One of my friends, Paul McKelvey, the #1 Tau player on the ITC, plays the Piranha Firestream and he played it that the "nerfed" way ever since the rules came out, long before the FAQ, and his list is a b*tch to play against. He hasn't lost yet with them, at least not that I know of.
Of course he runs them with the seeker missiles and he is highly skilled in the ways of the Greater Good, but still. Uncompetitive? Really? Methinks you really need to play against it, even the "nerfed" version, to see just how "uncompetitive" it is.
CKO wrote: Jy2 do you think its right for it to go from very powerful to uncompetitive? All the things you listed you can still play they just are not as strong now the formation is uncompetitive.
Uncompetitive? Really?
One of my friends, Paul McKelvey, the #1 Tau player on the ITC, plays the Piranha Firestream and he played it that the "nerfed" way ever since the rules came out, long before the FAQ, and his list is a b*tch to play against. He hasn't lost yet with them, at least not that I know of.
Of course he runs them with the seeker missiles and he is highly skilled in the ways of the Greater Good, but still. Uncompetitive? Really? Methinks you really need to play against it, even the "nerfed" version, to see just how "uncompetitive" it is.
In CT I attended a semi-local ITC tournament of 37 people. That formation took first place.
It's small anecdotal evidence, but I'm absolutely blown away anyone thinks that it's trash.
CKO wrote: Jy2 do you think its right for it to go from very powerful to uncompetitive? All the things you listed you can still play they just are not as strong now the formation is uncompetitive.
Uncompetitive? Really?
One of my friends, Paul McKelvey, the #1 Tau player on the ITC, plays the Piranha Firestream and he played it that the "nerfed" way ever since the rules came out, long before the FAQ, and his list is a b*tch to play against. He hasn't lost yet with them, at least not that I know of.
Of course he runs them with the seeker missiles and he is highly skilled in the ways of the Greater Good, but still. Uncompetitive? Really? Methinks you really need to play against it, even the "nerfed" version, to see just how "uncompetitive" it is.
However the way it will most likely be ruled will ironically force players to play the formation the way it should be played! The true terror is not drones but seeker missiles, you should shoot your seeker missiles, next turn move closer than let your drones off than leave come back with more seeker missiles that will have more of an impact than a drone farm, especially considering the missiles an have tank-hunter.18 seeker missiles has a value of 148 points now add that with 240 your looking at 388 points out of 548 but the difference is the seeker missiles are going to be destroying units a rhino is 35 points a drop pod is 35 a bike squad with no save, now we are talking power!
I said that back in January in this very thread, believe you me I know the game, the force is strong with this one!
If your friend is the number 1 ITC Tau player whatever accomplishment that might be did he win a tournament or something, I don't know how it works? I am pretty sure he is capable of winning with any tau list he makes, its not the formation that is winning those games its Paul Mckelvey!
Do people vote with the fear of what if Frankie gets this or Paul Mckelvey gets this? (sorry about using names but they have been used as references in this thread already) Actually I know that is the case, people watch the best Tau players on Frontline gaming battle reports and become fearful. They than read articles which make them even more fearful and are told to go vote on it, which resulted in every new unit or semi-competitive formation in the Tau codex being nerfed for the LVO just validates my reason for starting this thread, the system is flawed!
With the piranha formation if you make it to where the unit cannot leave turn one, that gives the player going against them potentially 2 turns to eliminate the piranhas if they want to shoot their seeker missiles it cuts down the number of drones they can make and they have to make a choice do I use the seeker missiles this turn or cut down on the number of drones I have. Yes, you will have to deal with a lot of drones or potentially a lot of seeker missiles its called a new competitive army it happens! Forge world has 30+ guardsmen coming back on a 2+, 20+ toughness 7 wound artillery pieces in cover, or you can deal with riptide wings. With a slight change it can go from only players like Paul Mckelvey can still make it competitive to the average player can be competitive with it! That list you have to make choices to win with its not an auto win.
My main point is that ITC went from removing things like 2+ re-roll able saves and making invisibility not broken to making changes to units and formations that now the average player can not notice their power boast.
Let me list the new units and formations that tau got that was to give them their codex boast that every new codex deserves and next to it I will say if it was changed by ITC.
RiTides wrote: The thing is, there are levels... nerfing invisibility has an across the board effect that causes people to change tactics. Making all Ghostkeels in a unit use their ability at once is just targeting a single, and seemingly not broken, unit... that's the part I dislike, it feels so arbitrary.
The general FAQ and errata is good... the individual unit targeting / nerfing is not, imo. There are a lot stronger units in the game, why pick on newly released models? I just don't get that part of the process - the reason for it or the implementation.
And before you ask, no, I don't play Tau . But if Nids ever get new toys, I'd love for us to get to actually use them without targeting them so soon after release. If you want to nerf something, the obvious choice is an army's already powerful stuff (like Flyrants for nids). I'd rather avoid nerfing individual units altogether and stick to general rules tweaks, and only clarify rules on on individual models (i.e. FAQ). But this targeting of any decent new unit is just not fun for anybody imo... even non-Tau players.
Note, I'm talking specifically about the Ghostkeel nerf here, not the formation.
Thanks I've just been making a point of this one (as a non-Tau player!) as I think it illustrates the type of ruling I'm hoping the ITC will avoid going forward... i.e., let folks play with their toys unless there's a good reason to limit them (such as the Piranha formation likely being a good enough reason simply for gameplay purposes - but not the Ghostkeel).
If you feel similarly about the Ghostkeel ruling it'd be worth sending Frontline an email and hopefully getting it on the next ballot!
I just sent this to: frankie AT frontlinegaming DOT org
Hi Frankie,
It seems like a lot of people would really like the Ghostkeel ruling to be on the next ITC vote - I know it had to be ruled for the LVO, but for moving forward with ITC, it should be on the next ballot!
So, please consider putting the Ghostkeel question on the next ballot - I.e., when several Ghostkeels are taken as a unit, can a single Ghostkeel activate their defensive ability at a time (to protect the whole unit) or are all activated at once (in which case, no one will be taking them as a unit and you'll have unnecessarily taken away a cool way to play Tau).
Most folks seem to be happy with your other rulings, but this one is too heavy handed and unnecessary. Hope it makes it on the next ballot!
RiTides wrote: The thing is, there are levels... nerfing invisibility has an across the board effect that causes people to change tactics. Making all Ghostkeels in a unit use their ability at once is just targeting a single, and seemingly not broken, unit... that's the part I dislike, it feels so arbitrary.
The general FAQ and errata is good... the individual unit targeting / nerfing is not, imo. There are a lot stronger units in the game, why pick on newly released models? I just don't get that part of the process - the reason for it or the implementation.
And before you ask, no, I don't play Tau . But if Nids ever get new toys, I'd love for us to get to actually use them without targeting them so soon after release. If you want to nerf something, the obvious choice is an army's already powerful stuff (like Flyrants for nids). I'd rather avoid nerfing individual units altogether and stick to general rules tweaks, and only clarify rules on on individual models (i.e. FAQ). But this targeting of any decent new unit is just not fun for anybody imo... even non-Tau players.
Note, I'm talking specifically about the Ghostkeel nerf here, not the formation.
Nail on the head Ritides! Have an exalt!
The problem with this entire stance is that the difference between a targeted nerf and a necessary FAQ is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I was a tournament judge at a recent event, and was asked about the Ghostkeel rule, and found it not at all clear. After the event, I submitted the question to the ITC questionnaire (I'm sure I wasn't the only one) because I legitimately wasn't sure which way to rule. Anyone who is claiming the Ghostkeel ruling is a "targeted nerf" and "not at all in line with the rule" is being disingenuous, because as I read it (as an impartial third party) there were two equally valid readings.
That's a great point, somerandom, and why it should be on the next ballot!
Personally, I think it's pretty clear (compared to many of GW's other rules ). Also keep in mind that the word "unit" had to be used in the latter part of the rule because even a single Ghostkeel has their effect apply to the drones:
Naaris wrote: Wording on the ability -
Once per battle, in the enemy Shooting phase,
a model equipped with Holophoton Countermeasures can disrupt the targeting systems used by one enemy unit that is targeting it or the unit it belongs to.
Declare that the unit will use the Holophoton Countermeasures after the enemy unit has chosen it as a target,
but before any To Hit rolls are made.
The enemy unit can only make Snap Shots in that shooting phase.
So yeah.....one model uses the ability, and as a unit, they declare they are using the HC against the attacking enemy.
I think its pretty clear that each ghostkeel gets to use their HC separately.
Obviously, in-depth discussion of the wording would be most appropriate in YMDC, and there could be a need for a bit of a clarification... but when in doubt, imo utility shouldn't be taken away from an army, and the way Frontline ruled this would mean that people would only ever field single Ghostkeels.
I'd much rather they try to err on the side of "permissive" rulings, and think the way this one went was too heavy-handed... hence, hopefully folks will email the address above and try to get it on the ballot! And even more than that, express to Frontline that they want rulings that cause the least disturbance possible... rather than rulings that err on the side of nerfing things that aren't totally clear (and let's be honest, most GW rules aren't ).
RiTides wrote: That's a great point, somerandom, and why it should be on the next ballot!
Personally, I think it's pretty clear (compared to many of GW's other rules ). Also keep in mind that the word "unit" had to be used in the latter part of the rule because even a single Ghostkeel has their effect apply to the drones:
--Snip--
Obviously, in-depth discussion of the wording would be most appropriate in YMDC, and there could be a need for a bit of a clarification... but when in doubt, imo utility shouldn't be taken away from an army, and the way Frontline ruled this would mean that people would only ever field single Ghostkeels.
I'd much rather they try to err on the side of "permissive" rulings, and think the way this one went was too heavy-handed... hence, hopefully folks will email the address above and try to get it on the ballot! And even more than that, express to Frontline that they want rulings that cause the least disturbance possible... rather than rulings that err on the side of nerfing things that aren't totally clear (and let's be honest, most GW rules aren't ).
I totally agree. In fact, when I was asked to rule on it, I actually ruled exactly the same way, and allowed the guy to use his ability multiple times. I do, however, have an issue with the "the sky is falling, Reece hates Tau" attitude. Reece (and the rest of the people at Frontline Gaming) are working to produce the best tournament environment possible. These are dedicated 40k players who have pretty much given up their ability to actually play in 40k tournaments in order to grow the community. The rule was somewhat vague, and it was definitely going to come up sometime this weekend, so they got out ahead of it and provided an FAQ. I have no doubt that if there's enough requests for it, they'll provide the community a vote after the fact. For now, though, they had to give a ruling, and they gave the one they felt was correct.
I can see Tau winning LVO this weekend. Their new rules combined with the LVOFAQ is way strong plus now they have have a chip on the shoulder and a point to prove.
Let me list the new units and formations that tau got that was to give them their codex boast that every new codex deserves and next to it I will say if it was changed by ITC.
CKO wrote: Jy2 do you think its right for it to go from very powerful to uncompetitive? All the things you listed you can still play they just are not as strong now the formation is uncompetitive.
Uncompetitive? Really?
One of my friends, Paul McKelvey, the #1 Tau player on the ITC, plays the Piranha Firestream and he played it that the "nerfed" way ever since the rules came out, long before the FAQ, and his list is a b*tch to play against. He hasn't lost yet with them, at least not that I know of.
Of course he runs them with the seeker missiles and he is highly skilled in the ways of the Greater Good, but still. Uncompetitive? Really? Methinks you really need to play against it, even the "nerfed" version, to see just how "uncompetitive" it is.
In CT I attended a semi-local ITC tournament of 37 people. That formation took first place.
It's small anecdotal evidence, but I'm absolutely blown away anyone thinks that it's trash.
I did take first place. I took the formation 2 times. 8 individual piranhas. But I didn't farm drones in my first 2 games. I used the piranhas to score objectives and deny objectives. In my final game (at the top table) I did, however, farm drones. I made 48 drones over 3 turns. The formation is good. The change the ITC FAQ implemented made the formation non competitive.
I have looked around the internet for reports, videos, anything on how the formation played out in games. I found nothing. That is why I tried it out at the tournament in CT.
I really would have liked to have had a chance to vote on this rule, or at least have been able to understand why the guys at Frontline chose the outcome they did. It all seemed really in the dark. No notice or anything.
I won't be bringing Piranhas to LVO even though I spent this past week painting them and 70 accompanying drones. I actually finished them all up this past Friday. Literally 3 hours before the FAQ was revised.
Hey Paul, congrats on being the number one Tau player! I agree with you that the changes made makes it non competitive. Do you think by making it to where they cant leave turn one would still be competitive but at the same time not unbeatable?
Edited:
Oh my god, dude you have a legit reason to be mad!
I think regardless of the rulings, hopefully the timing of the announcement can be different in the future. Even though I think I'd probably vote the other way on that formation, making that change so close to the event is obviously not ideal...
somerandomidiot wrote: I totally agree. In fact, when I was asked to rule on it, I actually ruled exactly the same way, and allowed the guy to use his ability multiple times. I do, however, have an issue with the "the sky is falling, Reece hates Tau" attitude. Reece (and the rest of the people at Frontline Gaming) are working to produce the best tournament environment possible. These are dedicated 40k players who have pretty much given up their ability to actually play in 40k tournaments in order to grow the community. The rule was somewhat vague, and it was definitely going to come up sometime this weekend, so they got out ahead of it and provided an FAQ. I have no doubt that if there's enough requests for it, they'll provide the community a vote after the fact. For now, though, they had to give a ruling, and they gave the one they felt was correct.
Agreed here! I am sure it's both a ton of work and a rather thankless task, but it's awesome that they try to provide this for the community. I emailed them regarding the Ghostkeel ruling and hopefully it will be put on the next ballot!
I know I've said it before, but I'd also be fine with just a committee approach, in which case I'd be submitting that one for them to review. Regardless of how they do it, I really appreciate the work they put in! Hopefully this works itself out in the next revision cycle, even though it's locked in just for the LVO.
CKO wrote: Hey Paul, congrats on being the number one Tau player! I agree with you that the changes made makes it non competitive. Do you think by making it to where they cant leave turn one would still be competitive but at the same time not unbeatable?
Edited:
Oh my god, dude you have a legit reason to be mad!
CKO wrote: Hey Paul, congrats on being the number one Tau player! I agree with you that the changes made makes it non competitive. Do you think by making it to where they cant leave turn one would still be competitive but at the same time not unbeatable?
Edited:
Oh my god, dude you have a legit reason to be mad!
The person you are replying to isn't Paul.
May be a case of mistaken identity, or he may actually be a "Paul", just not the "Paul" who is the ITC #1 Tau player.
The "Paul" lives in the West Coast. As a matter of fact, I see and play against him on a constant basis.
CKO wrote: Jy2 do you think its right for it to go from very powerful to uncompetitive? All the things you listed you can still play they just are not as strong now the formation is uncompetitive.
Uncompetitive? Really?
One of my friends, Paul McKelvey, the #1 Tau player on the ITC, plays the Piranha Firestream and he played it that the "nerfed" way ever since the rules came out, long before the FAQ, and his list is a b*tch to play against. He hasn't lost yet with them, at least not that I know of.
Of course he runs them with the seeker missiles and he is highly skilled in the ways of the Greater Good, but still. Uncompetitive? Really? Methinks you really need to play against it, even the "nerfed" version, to see just how "uncompetitive" it is.
In CT I attended a semi-local ITC tournament of 37 people. That formation took first place.
It's small anecdotal evidence, but I'm absolutely blown away anyone thinks that it's trash.
Yes Jim he has lost several times with it.. still good but no it isn't unbeaten
hotsauceman1 wrote: As a dedicated marine player, no, no they dont. Marines get nerfed to.
You can no longer share chapter tactics despite saying it affects units, not individual models.
so, taken from things, despite RAw telling us otherwise
What? No, by RAW you very clearly cannot have units share Chapter Tactics.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Independant Characters attached to the Devastators or Assault Marines in the Skyhammer Annihilation Formation may not benefit from the special rules granted from the formation. For example, they are not able to assault out of reserves, nor do they gain Relentless, etc.
Admittedly contentious, but I agree with it, and it's a common ruling implemented by NOVA and ETC as well I believe.
hotsauceman1 wrote: The Captain in a Battle Demi-Company or Battle Company formation may not be upgraded to a Chapter Master.
Again, this is a very common ruling
hotsauceman1 wrote: Models with the Carcharodons Chapter Tactics only gain the Rage special rule when causing an enemy infantry unit to fall back from combat, not from shooting or by any other method.
I'm not familiar with FW enough to comment
hotsauceman1 wrote: When a Template weapon hits a Lucius Drop Pod with a Dreadnought embarked upon it, the D6 No Escape hits inflicted on the Dreadnought are resolved against its rear armor.
Again, not terribly familiar with FW, but this is a bit along BRB - the only other time a dread takes hits from a hit on its transport is a Stormraven, I believe, so it seems that's where they got it. Can't say I agree or disagree, but I don't think it's egregious.
by comparison, yeah, they kind of have. Space Marines meanwhile, were allowed to take Battle Companies before the unique detachment limit was lifted, because "it's so fluffy." Literally, that was the argument. Meanwhile Tau have had almost every new option nerfed in some way. Some I agree with being a valid interpretation of a vague rule, but most seem really knee-jerky, and the stealth updates are also troubling.
CKO wrote: Jy2 do you think its right for it to go from very powerful to uncompetitive? All the things you listed you can still play they just are not as strong now the formation is uncompetitive.
Uncompetitive? Really?
One of my friends, Paul McKelvey, the #1 Tau player on the ITC, plays the Piranha Firestream and he played it that the "nerfed" way ever since the rules came out, long before the FAQ, and his list is a b*tch to play against. He hasn't lost yet with them, at least not that I know of.
Of course he runs them with the seeker missiles and he is highly skilled in the ways of the Greater Good, but still. Uncompetitive? Really? Methinks you really need to play against it, even the "nerfed" version, to see just how "uncompetitive" it is.
In CT I attended a semi-local ITC tournament of 37 people. That formation took first place.
It's small anecdotal evidence, but I'm absolutely blown away anyone thinks that it's trash.
I did take first place. I took the formation 2 times. 8 individual piranhas. But I didn't farm drones in my first 2 games. I used the piranhas to score objectives and deny objectives. In my final game (at the top table) I did, however, farm drones. I made 48 drones over 3 turns. The formation is good. The change the ITC FAQ implemented made the formation non competitive.
I have looked around the internet for reports, videos, anything on how the formation played out in games. I found nothing. That is why I tried it out at the tournament in CT.
I really would have liked to have had a chance to vote on this rule, or at least have been able to understand why the guys at Frontline chose the outcome they did. It all seemed really in the dark. No notice or anything.
I won't be bringing Piranhas to LVO even though I spent this past week painting them and 70 accompanying drones. I actually finished them all up this past Friday. Literally 3 hours before the FAQ was revised.
After talking to my friend I realize that by constantly pointing out the flaws of the ITC one would believe that I dislike the ITC. That is far from the truth I love the ITC, I just want to make it better! That is the reason for me pointing out the flaws, I however have been pointing to many fingers! So unintentionally I have hurt the ITC instead of helping it, which was not my goal. Anyone can find a problem but fixing it requires someone who is willing to put in time and effort and that is what Reece, Frank, and the Frontline Gaming guys have been doing. They should be applauded for that! While Frontline gaming has been doing everything thing they can to make 40k tournaments fun, all I have done is point fingers it would seem as if I am on the other team, its time for me to be traded!
I want to help the ITC and I think I may have a way to make the ITC Flawless! The main problem with the ITC is this "Conservative approach" thing! When a new codex comes out and a rule is theoretically or potentially broken currently ITC Judges will automatically use the weaker interpretation of a rule, I believe this is our main mistake. If you let people play with the powerful version of the ruling than the community actually gains knowledge! Playing with the powerful version allows the community the chance to see for themselves if something is overpowered or overrated!
You don't know if it is broken you just know it has potential to be broken. If you automatically make it weaker you never got a chance to see its brokenness but, if the community plays with it and its broken a vote can change it! Also by letting people play with the powerful version the community can decide that its slightly broken but we can make modifications to make it still powerful but not broken!
Kenpachi, what about tournaments? Are we to allow new rules to dominate the tournament scene with their brokenness because it just came out? The answer is a passionate NO, if something is potentially broken when a new codex comes out a player should voice their concerns to a judge prior to the event! The judge will than come up with a "proposed ruling" for the potentially broken thing prior to the tournament and let it be known. The judge will monitor the first game that the potentially broken thing plays in and decide after the game if it is broken or not. If it is he can immediately hit it with his "proposed ruling". After the first game he can continue to watch the potentially broken unit and if after the second game he decides that it is broken he can invoke his "proposed rule".
That way the broken thing will not dominate the tournament scene, just the first game. Yes, the first player is a sacrificial pawn that helped the community decide that something is broken but the knowledge gained is priceless and will make the ITC Flawless!
We all know that I have a problem with the recent ITC Tau rulings and I would like to show how my "proposed rule" idea could have altered things!
First thing up is my problem with the voting process and how the voter is influence by Reece articles well that is completely eradicated! I will use Tau as an example imagine if you will that a player brought the new scary Tau and a Hunter Contingent! In his first game the player used a Buff Commander (gives re-rolls to hit, ignore cover, and tank or monster hunter) along with coordinated fire power rule to spread those benefits to almost his entire army, and he absolutely destroys his opponent! The judge watched and hits him with the "proposed ruling" for the rest of the tournament. The judge will announce to the players that the tournament is using his "proposed rule" on a certain rule!
Kenpachi, why not let the judge play test himself in advance and make the proposed rule before the tournament so that way the first player is not utterly destroyed. Its because the sacrifice needs to happen so that word of mouth can happen, every player at that tournament gets to hear about or even see the broken or potentially broken rule themselves. Every player at that tournament gains knowledge and when its time for a vote they will make the right and just decision based off of facts and not theories or other players playtesting!
Judges can create different kinds of proposed rulings. That way when it comes time to vote there can be several proposals made that were tested that can possibly keep something powerful but not broken such as allowing only the targeted unit of the coordinated firepower rule be affected by special rules that can be shared.
People will get a chance to play against the ghostkeel squads and realize that countermeasure is not like the Necron's Solar Staff where its effect last the entire turn, it only affects the enemy unit shooting at it, meaning that potentially they can use up all countermeasures in one shooting phase! 390 points to make 3 units fire snap shots is strong but not broken.
Allowing the stormsurge the option to choose to move if it is tank shock is fair because that means next turn it cannot fire twice! They will either lose the ability to fire twice or have a 33% chance of taking d3 wounds, either way the tau opponent wins!
Lets make it to where the piranhas can't leave turn one giving players at least a turn to kill them if the opposing player goes first than he gets 2 turns to kill the piranhas. You also set back the drone farm clock by one turn meaning no bonus drones till turn 3. I cannot stress that enough the first drones made would be there regardless of the formation. Two drones is 28 points the vehicle is only 40 points meaning Tau gets a vehicle for 12 points! Its been Tau's best kept secret for years. When you find out about something that is really good but you never knew it was really good your natural reaction is to assume that the new formation is what made it good and that's not the case.
Read this tactica and you will see why the formation is not broken, and how with a slight modification it can be competitive.
I believe that ITC is already using something similar to my proposed "proposed ruling" idea but currently Judges are making changes before the community can see it in action that is HUGE! No one can complain after seeing it in a game, the voters will be voting off of facts that they saw or heard. If you want to you can make it to where the first game is not affected by the brokenness! The judge can come over and say this is an experimental shooting phase using the Hunter Contingent rule he watches the phase no one removes model just keep up with the results and if the judge believes that its to powerful he can cancel it right than and there and invoke his proposed ruling! Word of mouth can happen thus player knowledge goes up, thus fairer vote results, and more proposed ideas! So I hope my idea helps and that everyone enjoys the LVO!
I really don't like the idea of judges needing to try things out on the spot - that's actually the reason the ITC (or the INAT before it, etc) exists - to avoid such situations from happening! The ITC is extremely helpful for this, and I definitely appreciate the work they put into it even if I'm hoping they'll be a little less preemptive with future rulings
As I said in the other thread, there are a number of reasons I don't think the above proposed ruling is a good idea. I prefer things as they currently are as at least I know how things will be ruled.
Crimson Devil wrote: Frankie plays Tau and Reece plays Eldar. Apparently that is just a clever ruse to throw us off as they try to destroy these Tau and Eldar.
THE BALLS THOSE TWO HAVE GOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's like saying you can't be racist because you have a minority friend. Bad argument is bad.
RiTides wrote: I really don't like the idea of judges needing to try things out on the spot - that's actually the reason the ITC (or the INAT before it, etc) exists - to avoid such situations from happening! The ITC is extremely helpful for this, and I definitely appreciate the work they put into it even if I'm hoping they'll be a little less preemptive with future rulings
They are not coming up with things on the spot because the question about the rule is submitted prior to the tournament. Example Ghostkeel countermeasure rule it can either use it once or up to three times depending on the number of ghostkeels. The judge will say depending on the first game we will decide if it is broken or not. The game starts the judge watches and sees that the player used 2 uses in one turn he only has one use left and his opponent still has several units and 4 turns left to shoot at it. The judge can than decide to let each one have a countermeasure use.
Everyone needs to calm down you are not going to get blown away, I came up with a better idea! Instead of the broken thing lasting the entire game you can have an experimental phase. Where the players roll the dice but do not remove models and keep up with the results if at the end of the experimental phase it is deemed broken than the proposed rule will be used and the players will re-start that phase using the weaker version! If its just overrated than the turn will count. That way the player doesn't have to lose because something is broken.
It doesn't take a entire game to see that a 2+ re-roll able save or the unmodified invisibility power is broken it can be determine in one phase. So you are not losing anything, you are basically playing out a turn that potentially doesn't even count. Broken rules shine brighter than the Astronomican beam and it will only take one phase to see it, when an entire army shoots at a unit and it loses one wound because it has a 2+ re-rollable, you will know that it is broken. If the judge is having a hard time determining if it is broken than its not broken its just really powerful and might need a slight modification. Or it might just be powerful!
In the scenario where a weaker player is facing the potentially broken unit or rule I would hope that the Judge is knowledgeable about the game and will be able to see the difference between a unit being destroyed because something is broken and a unit being destroyed because of a bad move.
Remember that its just one tournament that will be affected and it will usually be a small tournament after the codex release, it should not be used for big tournaments. So you may potentially have to go through a single shooting phase that doesn't even count or at worse one game. Now combine that with the fact that you are not even guaranteed to be the one that has to play the broken unit there is nothing to be scared of!
Out of that one phase that doesnt count or at worst one game at a small local tournament the entire community gains knowledge about a rule and when it comes time to vote the results will reflect that! The results will be based off of facts that players got to see or hear about at a small tournament instead of theories and or games that someone supposely play tested! No one will be mad when a rule is changed when they saw what it can do at a tournament!
Hopefully, there will be players like me Kenpachi at your local tournament who will volunteer to face the supposedly broken unit, nothing like a good fight! Especially if its something I don't think is broken, I mean please prove me wrong with your new toys, if you can?
This video shows how you should feel about facing new opponents, units, and rules!
Ichigo represents the new unit the orange haired one.
Hopefully, there will be players like me Kenpachi at your local tournament who will volunteer to face the supposedly broken unit, nothing like a good fight! Especially if its something I don't think is broken, I mean please prove me wrong with your new toys, if you can?
This video shows how you should feel about facing new opponents, units, and rules!
Ichigo represents the new unit the orange haired one.
Crimson Devil wrote: Frankie plays Tau and Reece plays Eldar. Apparently that is just a clever ruse to throw us off as they try to destroy these Tau and Eldar.
THE BALLS THOSE TWO HAVE GOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's like saying you can't be racist because you have a minority friend. Bad argument is bad.
Ah, well its no sillier than Orock's argument that FLG hate Tau because they are a minority. Anyway, my point was a counter to the argument that it is in FLG financial interests to nerf all of the xenos in favor of the Imperials.
I skipped the first few pages with that link to avoid some of the unnecessary flaming... but there is some good discussion (I'm biased since I'm posting in there, too ). Didn't want to drag down the LVO thread with that discussion, but just wanted to link to it in case any of the Frontline folks might want to glance over it after they're done with (and recovered from!) the LVO
Also, to be clear my only problem with the recent rulings is the Ghostkeel one, but I think it illustrates a "strategy" for providing early power level adjustments on new units that I hope will not be continued in the future (and that that particular issue will at least make it onto the next ballot instead of becoming permanent without considering it further).
. No need for our negative political climate to bleed over into wargaming...
