This sums it up perfectly as to why their rulings are dumb. http://dave40k.blogspot.ca/2016/02/itc-vs-tau-round-2.html

My concern is that the ITC is being corrupted from within. If the ITC can no longer provide unbiased rules where will we get suggested rulings from? This just further shows the corruption within and Recce forcing these completely arbitrary and unnecessary nerfs especially with zero testing, no explanation, being hard to find on their main site (not the faq) but news of it, and the fact that every time I send them a polite letter I get a form letter response back. It's almost like they're becoming the GW of house rules and I don't like it one bit. Until we have more fairness in their internal voting system and publicly share their statistics and data I can't trust them and need to start spreading word for tournaments not to use their set of rules. At this point they need more competition or else we're going to see them become too entrenched and that would be a bad thing for competitive players. Funny how the hero becomes the Emperor like that.

Until we can get some results I say avoid em like the plague.

Tau have won no major tournaments yet and they likely won't at the rate of nerfing. And even in the ITC covered battle reports I've seen Tau lose a ton of the time for such an over powered faction that needs nerfs.

There have been a few ITC rulings I have taken issue with. Some are done not on power level but rules clarification.

For example, the ruling about Khorne Daemonkin where the bloodthirster entered play swooping...felt so stupid to me. It made a gimmick ability pointless. This was the same time that the eldar codex was given the stamp of approval.


I dont think things were done for power reasons but more so that the ITC consistently seems to rule on the conservative side whenever there is a rules question. It can be irritating, but eh, at least its consistent.

There's nothing conservative about the Ghostkeel nerf at all. The rules are crystal clear with zero ability to debate it unless you start playing word semantics and trying to change the meaning of words themselves (I see this happen a lot).

This is just incredibly biased nerfs to us for no reason taking away the main thing making ghostkeels so tanky. The funny thing is at a tournament that allowed both the "over powered" version of both the Tau combined firepower rule and the Ta'unar titan no Tau list using those made it into the top 10.

It was a FSE list that made it there. So not only did he not test anything but his is "clarifying" *cough* nerfing he is in fact blatantly showing Tau bias to such an insane degree its likely any referee doing something like this in a sport would be fired so fast.

I grow to detest the ITC more and more as a "competitive" scene. Reminds me too much of MechWarrior Online "competitive" scene where we had players cheating and developers awarding them first place. Even when caught they get a slap on the wrist. Then the MWO civil war happened anyways long story short I can see the same tactics being used by the Rece and his stooges as any corrupt video game "competitive" scene and I'v been in a a few of those.

I find Recce guilty of favoritism and bias rule writing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyjfNQ0lJn4

I'll take the ITC over stock 40k. Tau too a hit yes but over all their rule set provides a more enjoyable game.

 Gamgee wrote:
If the ITC can no longer provide unbiased rules where will we get suggested rulings from?

Wherever you want?

3rd party FAQs are only ever providing house rules for those who choose to use them. There is nothing forcing you to adopt it for your own games, and if you do choose to use it, nothing forcing you to adopt it wholesale - If there are specific rulings you disagree with, just ignore them.

 insaniak wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
If the ITC can no longer provide unbiased rules where will we get suggested rulings from?

Wherever you want?

3rd party FAQs are only ever providing house rules for those who choose to use them. There is nothing forcing you to adopt it for your own games, and if you do choose to use it, nothing forcing you to adopt it wholesale - If there are specific rulings you disagree with, just ignore them.

That is true. I should have specified. Where will we get third party faqs for tournament players. A great deal of tournaments are beginning to use the ITC and I don't think ours do yet and I'll have to see to it that we don't.

Oh thank god. Lol. Have you guys played against the 300 spawned drone list? It's not fun at all and it's extremely overpowered.

I'm glad we won't have to see such a stupid list winning any tournaments. Although I am sad to see that they ruled that dead piranhas can be "refueled" even though they are dead.

Really, games workshop should have done these things themselves so as not to force itc's hand.

For The Greater Nerf!

I thought this was a joke when I first heard about it...

I don't see the problem. I'd rather something is preemptively nerfed instead of it ruining an entire tournament

To be perfectly honest, I wish they'd have done more of this sort of thing in general. One can say many things about Reece (or anyone for that matter), but from my experience with him in person at a couple of events (though never as an opponent admittedly) and on tabletop gaming forums like this, it's hard to see him on some sort of power-tripping personal vengeance quest against Tau.

 Gamgee wrote:

That is true. I should have specified. Where will we get third party faqs for tournament players..

And the answer would be the same.

Tournaments were creating their own FAQs long before the ITC, and before that the INAT (which received much of the same sort of criticism), came along. TOs are free to use publicly-available 3rd party FAQs or not, and to cherry-pick the bits they like from them or not.

The people who create these FAQs aren't doing it as a power trip. They're doing it to have a list of known issues and suggested resolutions for them that people can choose to use or not. Nobody is forcing you to use them.

 Gamgee wrote:
This sums it up perfectly as to why their rulings are dumb. http://dave40k.blogspot.ca/2016/02/itc-vs-tau-round-2.html

My concern is that the ITC is being corrupted from within. If the ITC can no longer provide unbiased rules where will we get suggested rulings from? This just further shows the corruption within and Recce forcing these completely arbitrary and unnecessary nerfs especially with zero testing, no explanation, being hard to find on their main site (not the faq) but news of it, and the fact that every time I send them a polite letter I get a form letter response back. It's almost like they're becoming the GW of house rules and I don't like it one bit. Until we have more fairness in their internal voting system and publicly share their statistics and data I can't trust them and need to start spreading word for tournaments not to use their set of rules. At this point they need more competition or else we're going to see them become too entrenched and that would be a bad thing for competitive players. Funny how the hero becomes the Emperor like that.

Until we can get some results I say avoid em like the plague.

Tau have won no major tournaments yet and they likely won't at the rate of nerfing. And even in the ITC covered battle reports I've seen Tau lose a ton of the time for such an over powered faction that needs nerfs.

Play Sisters of Battle from now on. I GUARANTEE that no ruling by ITC or ANYONE ELSE will EVER impact your army in any way. Impossible to get nerfed if no one remembers you exist.

It's a simple clarification to a poorly written rule TFGs have been abusing. Seems to be happening a lot with the new Tau book.

The intent of the rule is obvious and good on the ITC for following the correct interpretation.

The sky is not falling.

I think stopping the never ending supply of Drones is an ok ruling. Not saying that the wording doesn't support the ability to do so, but it is a bit of a jerk move to fly in drop drones, then leave without ever having a chance of losing anything.

I do disagree with the Ghostkeel ruling though. The benefit of taking multiples is that you can use the countermeasures multiple times to keep the unit safer longer. This is part of the point cost paid for the Ghostkeel and taking a unit's ability to use the countermeasures more than once, essentially means you paid for upgrades on any model past the 1st that you aren't allowed to use.

No a biased or inflammatory title AT ALL.

Here's some baby powder for that diaper rash.

I'm a big fan of ITC, though some rulings irk me. Good thing no one's holding a boltgun to my head, eh?

If the drone thing is nerfed, does that mean that we can ignore demon summoning and tervigon spawnings?

If ITC nerfs Tau's Decurion benefits, does that mean that we can strip them from the other armies as well?

If someone wants me to play by ITC rules, and brings an invisible death star against me sure, but every time you roll a dice we'll treat it as a one. Fair, no?

 CrownAxe wrote:
I don't see the problem. I'd rather something is preemptively nerfed instead of it ruining an entire tournament

As long as it isn't YOUR army, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cindis wrote:
It's a simple clarification to a poorly written rule TFGs have been abusing. Seems to be happening a lot with the new Tau book.

The intent of the rule is obvious and good on the ITC for following the correct interpretation.

The sky is not falling.

You are 100% incorrect. It is not a "simple clarification" lmao. It is a complete opposite ruling of the rule simply because they didn't like it.

There is a reason why people enjoy playing ITC rules even in there personal meta, cause the rules are more far and will be corrected if presented with a good argument. If you do not like ITC rules then you don't have to play at those tournaments, probable better for other people who won't have to deal with an increase of WAAC players at tourneys

 Mojo1jojo wrote:
There is a reason why people enjoy playing ITC rules even in there personal meta, cause the rules are more far and will be corrected if presented with a good argument. If you do not like ITC rules then you don't have to play at those tournaments, probable better for other people who won't have to deal with an increase of WAAC players at tourneys

you DO realize the hypocrisy of what you are saying, yes?

notredameguy10 wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
I don't see the problem. I'd rather something is preemptively nerfed instead of it ruining an entire tournament

As long as it isn't YOUR army, right?

Thats highly presumptuous of you to think that i only could like it because I benefit from it

You'll have to excuse them. They are a bit blind in their rage right now. Anyone not raging at the moment is considered the enemy.

I'm all for you having free speech to voice your own opinion, but calling for a boycott without suggesting a viable alternative isn't helpful and doesn't support your cause.

Suggestion:

1. Spend hundreds of hours and create a better alternative rule set.
2. Spend your own time and money promoting it and making it the defecto tournament standard.
3. Make every decision 100% perfect, every time, so that nobody is impacted and nobody has reason to complain.
4. Come back in 6 months when you've achieved all the above and tell us how easy it was.

Yeah. Thought not.

Its a pile of crap is what this is.

I am so done with it. to think I just got my local shop to ACTUALLY run a tournament and because none of them KNOW 40K well enough and I didnt want to have to run one AGAIN, I got them to use the ITC as their format to make it easy on them.

and then this. I feel like destroying the very event I just helped organize. I am that angry. I am already NOT a fan of the ITC FAQ and format but this rules authoring is absolutely absurd.

And a lot of tournaments were run before AND after the ITC came along so lets not act like the ITC is doing us a big huge FAVOR by doing this "for us". It isn't for us. It's just a necessity of their events and some people liked it.

The INAT was the same way. This is just bad.

Haters of the ITC, due to clear rules clarifications and honest voting polls. Oh well, can't please everyone.. And honestly, the group that isn't pleased isn't that great of one anyway.. I mean, look what they play

Wow you sure can play 'spot the Tau' player easy here.

 CrownAxe wrote:
I don't see the problem. I'd rather something is preemptively nerfed instead of it ruining an entire tournament

Ok then. Your entire army is banned. And you'd better not complain, because you made it perfectly clear that you'd rather see something preemptively nerfed than risk letting it ruin an entire tournament. And who knows what horrible abusive fun-ruining things your army might be capable of.

PS: don't bother trying to buy a different army, that will also be banned.

notredameguy10 wrote:
You are 100% incorrect. It is not a "simple clarification" lmao. It is a complete opposite ruling of the rule simply because they didn't like it.

This. There was nothing at all ambiguous about the rules, certain players just didn't like that GW made the rule. And because of the popular idea that Tau are overpowered they manage to get people to support their nerfs. Is it a good change to make? Arguably, but that doesn't make it a clarification.

And, honestly, I'd be much less annoyed about ITC if they admitted that this is what they are doing instead of hiding behind their laughable "we're just clarifying ambiguous rules" excuse. If you want to nerf Tau at least have the courage to openly say "we don't like this unit, so we're going to nerf it".

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Haters of the ITC, due to clear rules clarifications and honest voting polls. Oh well, can't please everyone.. And honestly, the group that isn't pleased isn't that great of one anyway.. I mean, look what they play

sorry...there was a vote on this? Umm...

Oh noez, they turned the uneven rules against you. Too bad GW can't write stuff corectly.

ITC faq's are good. Now their missions and comp are not.

 Peregrine wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
I don't see the problem. I'd rather something is preemptively nerfed instead of it ruining an entire tournament

Ok then. Your entire army is banned. And you'd better not complain, because you made it perfectly clear that you'd rather see something preemptively nerfed than risk letting it ruin an entire tournament. And who knows what horrible abusive fun-ruining things your army might be capable of.

PS: don't bother trying to buy a different army, that will also be banned.

Ok I buy and play all armies then

No. The Stormsurge ruling HELPS Tau.

The other two screw them. So no. that's not it at all.

Inventing freaking rules out of thin air is the issue.

I'm all out sorry.

Anyway, none of these were actually a problem to a top Tau player except the Ghostkeel one. WHICH I feel is fair because of its similarity to invisibility and we all know how much that one is house-ruled.

Otherwise you've lost nothing, unless you are a WAAC casual ITC-Ruling player.

I can make anything sound fair. Is that all i need to do now?

Lol.

Ho dear. Lets start a list of things we all THINK would be fair...and then just send it to the ITC so they can unilaterally change it like they just did.

Or. We could not.

Just saying.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Quick, I need my popcorn!

That's why we all love the General Discussion forum right?

The passion, the pain, the narrow self-interest!

 Jancoran wrote:
No. The Stormsurge ruling HELPS Tau.

The other two screw them. So no. that's not it at all.

Inventing freaking rules out of thin air is the issue.

You know ITC makes and modify rules all the time already right? Such as LOS! against stomps, or stomps not working out of combat, or FMCs also not being hit by blasts and templates, or Invis being BS1 instead of snap shots...

The list goes on. Getting angry because their tournament rulings aren't RAW is ridiculous because ITC was never strictly RAW in the first place.

Spammy "popcorn" joke posts, posts that add nothing like "Spot the X player" and just the whole general level of this thread has to lift, or else moderation action will happen. Everyone give your posts an extra read before you let them loose on the forum, have a quick flick of the rules if you're uncertain, then post when you're sure.

I keep hearing a top tier army saying they are victims. It isn't the case.

Only ONE of these is a real nerf and it only affects ONE thing a player would take.

1 or 2 Ghostkeels in a OSC.

This probably kills the ghostkeel in their tournaments.

Guess its time for ITC Tau players to spam Riptides and Stormsurges until those get taken away too.

Christ man you sound like a Blood Angels player in the current meta.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
No. The Stormsurge ruling HELPS Tau.

The other two screw them. So no. that's not it at all.

Inventing freaking rules out of thin air is the issue.

You know ITC makes and modify rules all the time already right? Such as LOS! against stomps, or stomps not working out of combat, or FMCs also not being hit by blasts and templates, or Invis being BS1 instead of snap shots...

The list goes on. Getting angry because their tournament rulings aren't RAW is ridiculous because ITC was never strictly RAW in the first place.

Oh I think you're oversimplifying to defend your point when i am expanding to make mine. I have not said all the rulings WERE bad. I have not said that interpreting rules that aren't clear is bad.

But when you ask a populace that cosists in the majority of armies you don't play (not me...you) and say "Whatcha wanna' do to these guys" I find it highly unlikely based on the many posts here that have demonstrated their butt hurt feelings about this and that faction would not enter into such a vote... even when its not necessary.

They are ruling on Stormsurges dying to Tank shock but the rules say they die. The rules say they die. So let them die and let those players sort out how valuable their pilons are to them. Dont rewrite the darn rules!

The Ghostkeel wargear thing is literally taking the unit and saying that you simply dont benefit from yur gear,. At all. Its not INTERPRETING a difficult to understand rule. Its a straight up nerf to an army that doesnt even have ccess to invis nor to a counter and they somehow find it a bad idea to allow the faction to do it? Why? Because Centurion Stars are so much friendlier? lol. Hilarity.

The Piranha thing isnt going to affect me but It is what it is. A bunch of non scoring suff and reclyclable missiles MAYBE. like the Forge world artillery blasts that can target any point and cant be stopped. Like the Daemon summoning that can be if you kill the caster (read: Piranha). I feel Daemon summoning should be banned based on this ruling. is that fair or not? nope. And few sorcerer ever thought of being as expensive as 5 piranhas with or without missiles on em. The ones who are flying are a darn sight more annoying to kill.

So yeah. I don't understand why we're making these weird rulings. i don't because i dont see that they even needed to be. yeah it will be jarring to lose a Stormsurge that way but then... Is anyone crying for me after I just bombed them with double the shots? Nope. As a player who own just about every army, I get hit from every angle on these things and the cumulative effect of it all for me is this: its their tournament FAQ. if its what they wanna do fine. But I will not run tournaments like this and i run them at four stores.

More T.O.'s need to smell what's being served before they eat heartily from this steaming plate.

 Quickjager wrote:
I'm all out sorry.

Anyway, none of these were actually a problem to a top Tau player except the Ghostkeel one. WHICH I feel is fair because of its similarity to invisibility and we all know how much that one is house-ruled.

Otherwise you've lost nothing, unless you are a WAAC casual ITC-Ruling player.

They could have made it so that the Snapshots were instead resolved at BS1/WS1 or something to that effect. Not make it once per unit so that there is a monumental tax to taking extra Ghostkeels for +1 BS.

Also why would people avoid the ITC? It's literally everywhere (predominately in the USA, but it's making it's way here too and other countries) and not everyone thinks that it's a bias against Tau. Or just don't care, so long as their army don't care. But they are WAAC so won't be the best opponent regardless of any nerfs.

I agree with that Frozocrone. Perhaps make a counter to the ITC with the rest of the players who are affected?

 Jancoran wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
No. The Stormsurge ruling HELPS Tau.

The other two screw them. So no. that's not it at all.

Inventing freaking rules out of thin air is the issue.

You know ITC makes and modify rules all the time already right? Such as LOS! against stomps, or stomps not working out of combat, or FMCs also not being hit by blasts and templates, or Invis being BS1 instead of snap shots...

The list goes on. Getting angry because their tournament rulings aren't RAW is ridiculous because ITC was never strictly RAW in the first place.

Oh I think you're oversimplifying to defend your point when i am expanding to make mine. I have not said all the rulings WERE bad. I have not said that interpreting rules that aren't clear is bad.

But when you ask a populace that cosists in the majority of armies you don't play (not me...you) and say "Whatcha wanna' do to these guys" I find it highly unlikely based on the many posts here that have demonstrated their butt hurt feelings about this and that faction would not enter into such a vote... even when its not necessary.

They are ruling on Stormsurges dying to Tank shock but the rules say they die. The rules say they die. So let them die and let those players sort out how valuable their pilons are to them. Dont rewrite the darn rules!

The Ghostkeel wargear thing is literally taking the unit and saying that you simply dont benefit from yur gear,. At all. Its not INTERPRETING a difficult to understand rule. Its a straight up nerf to an army that doesnt even have ccess to invis nor to a counter and they somehow find it a bad idea to allow the faction to do it? Why? Because Centurion Stars are so much friendlier? lol. Hilarity.

The Piranha thing isnt going to affect me but It is what it is. A bunch of non scoring suff and reclyclable missiles MAYBE. like the Forge world artillery blasts that can target any point and cant be stopped. Like the Daemon summoning that can be if you kill the caster (read: Piranha). I feel Daemon summoning should be banned based on this ruling. is that fair or not? nope. And few sorcerer ever thought of being as expensive as 5 piranhas with or without missiles on em. The ones who are fly nd are a darn sight more annoying to kill.

So yeah. I don't understand why we're making these weird rulings. i don't because i dont see that they even needed to be. yeah it will be jarring to lose a Stormsurge that way but then... Is anyone crying for me after I just bombed them with double the shots? Nope. As a player who own just about every army, I get hit from every angle on these things and the cumulative effect of it all for me is this: its their tournament FAQ. if its what they wanna do fine. But I will not run tournaments like this and i run them at four stores.

More T.O.'s need to smell what's being served before they at heartily from this steaming plate.

I don't know what you are complaining about? Why is modifying the rules so bad for you?

I think there really needs to be another option, but it is a daunting task to undertake. Hmmm since I do find a good chunk of the ITC ruling good I think this is less a secondary circuit and more of a splitting off of the church to use a metaphor.

The easiest thing to do would be to use the ITC as a base and try figure out the rulings that they did wrong as a community and revert them, change them, or offer alternative takes on them.

Jancoran.

Why is rewriting the tank shock rule so bad? There was ambiguity in it. Hell it was more of a clarification it literally changed nothing.

Locked down it cannot move. Tank shock forces units to move. Under the rules, units who cannot move are removed from play. But GC just lose D3 if it is supposed to removed from play.

EDIT: Gamgee THATS THE POINT! Its just a stupid set of houserules. My store doesn't even play ITC, we just know the issues that come up with our army and clear it up beforehand. People take these "official" rules too seriously.

 Quickjager wrote:
I agree with that Frozocrone. Perhaps make a counter to the ITC with the rest of the players who are affected?

I won't be voting if it's comes to a vote, as I don't play ITC. I'm just throwing suggestions around for the people that do play (and disagree with erratas).

 Quickjager wrote:
Jancoran.

Why is rewriting the tank shock rule so bad? There was ambiguity in it. Hell it was more of a clarification it literally changed nothing.

Locked down it cannot move. Tank shock forces units to move. Under the rules, units who cannot move are removed from play. But GC just lose D3 if it is supposed to removed from play..

That one is reasonable, but the ghostkeel one is not.

Reasonable tankshocks? They literally broke raw and made a bunch of rhinos being able to insta-kill stuff like no big deal.

ITC rules are nuts sometimes. It's up for community to use it or no. Basically, for every thing it fixes, it breaks another one. And some things are just sidegrades. Their missions are: get 2 VP every turn and the one who gets FB wins.

 Gamgee wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Jancoran.

Why is rewriting the tank shock rule so bad? There was ambiguity in it. Hell it was more of a clarification it literally changed nothing.

Locked down it cannot move. Tank shock forces units to move. Under the rules, units who cannot move are removed from play. But GC just lose D3 if it is supposed to removed from play..

That one is reasonable, but the ghostkeel one is not.

I'm sorry was the Optimized Stealth Cadre not good enough?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
Reasonable tankshocks? They literally broke raw and made a bunch of rhinos being able to insta-kill stuff like no big deal.

ITC rules are nuts sometimes. It's up for community to use it or no. Basically, for every thing it fixes, it breaks another one. And some things are just sidegrades. Their missions are: get 2 VP every turn and the one who gets FB wins.

They removed the ability for rhinos to insta-kill Stormsurges. You still haven't explained what's so bad about "breaking RAW" and you clearly haven't played any ITC missions if you think that's how it goes. They don't even use FB in 4/6 missions.

 Gamgee wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Jancoran.

Why is rewriting the tank shock rule so bad? There was ambiguity in it. Hell it was more of a clarification it literally changed nothing.

Locked down it cannot move. Tank shock forces units to move. Under the rules, units who cannot move are removed from play. But GC just lose D3 if it is supposed to removed from play..

That one is reasonable, but the ghostkeel one is not.

The Ghostkeel thing is dumb.

 Gamgee wrote:

The easiest thing to do would be to use the ITC as a base and try figure out the rulings that they did wrong as a community and revert them, change them, or offer alternative takes on them.

That would be more productive than just complaining about it, yes.

 Jancoran wrote:

They are ruling on Stormsurges dying to Tank shock but the rules say they die. The rules say they die. So let them die and let those players sort out how valuable their pilons are to them. Dont rewrite the darn rules!

This is actually a perfect illustration of the problem faced by anyone trying to write an FAQ like this. INAT faced the same problem... When they address ambiguous rules that some people disagree are ambiguous, it inevitably winds up being perceived by some people as a rules change rather than a clarification.

More T.O.'s need to smell what's being served before they eat heartily from this steaming plate.

Alternatively, players could try to remember that it's an optional rules guide that someone has put a crapload of work into so that others who don't want to do that work themselves don't have to, for a game of toy soldiers.

A little perspective wouldn't go astray.

 Quickjager wrote:
Jancoran.

Why is rewriting the tank shock rule so bad? There was ambiguity in it. .

There is none. Read ther actual rules. Not this forum. the rules. Tank shock kills a Stormsurge. thats it.

Read Ghostkeel. Each one can use its wargear. Nothing says they have to do it at one time. Why would they? Do Psykers lose their power when they cast invis? No.

this is the knee jerk stuff I cannot stand. the Canoptek Spyder thing was the same way: dumb. The rules are right there. why are you changing them? It wasn't game breaking either way and it was not "unclear" except for people who just hated Necrons at the time.

Dark eldar need their Crucible to work on Psykers in the unit first. I'd vote for it but... would that be right to the Psyker players? Does it matter?

They are free to do as they please at their marquis event. I'll do what I think is right at mine. As I've said, no one needs most of the ITC FAQ to run a good tournament and they tell you to change them as you will. So i will.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:


Alternatively, players could try to remember that it's an optional rules guide that someone has put a crapload of work into so....

You think I don't know what the work is like for that? I know what its like. I have to do it every year! I dont need "more perspective" on the matter. I get plenty right from the T.O. drivers seat.

So what if they did a lot of work on it? They did it for their Marquis event. One expects no less. they didnt do it for YOU or the goodness of their heart. Lol. Your comment suggests I should treat them like Martys. They are a BUSINESSS. They happen to be run by very cool people and i like them, but that's what they are. not martyrs for the cause.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Jancoran.

Why is rewriting the tank shock rule so bad? There was ambiguity in it. .

There is none. Read ther actual rules. Not this forum. the rules. Tank shock kills a Stormsurge. thats it....

No they don't. The GMC rules are clear that they don't

The next step would be to bring the nerfbat heavily against MCs, turning most of them into walker vehicles. Then we can sit back, build a pier and make nice money loaning boats for people to cross the massive river created by Tau tears.

More Tau tears, for lulz sake!

On a more serious tone, when a certain game is such a bug-ridden mess as the current 40k is, it's up to the community to take the reims and try to fix it. We're certain the company has no interest in doing so. I too believe the ITC crowd should just drop any pretense of being "clarifying" rules, just admit you're houseruling everything that seems broken to you, there's nothing wrong with that. The result won't be worse than the 'official' rules no matter how hard they try.

Of course the cheesemongers won't be pleased. And there seems to be quite a bunch of them among the Tau playerbase, I wonder why.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Jancoran.

Why is rewriting the tank shock rule so bad? There was ambiguity in it. .

There is none. Read ther actual rules. Not this forum. the rules. Tank shock kills a Stormsurge. thats it....

No they don't. The GMC rules are clear that they don't

It is. i can quote them. It absolutely is. Bottom of page 92. Last paragraph, left ide. So yeah. Its supr clear that:

"any model that cannot manage that are crushed and removed from play as casualties with no save allowed. Crunch!"

So...

 Jancoran wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Jancoran.

Why is rewriting the tank shock rule so bad? There was ambiguity in it. .

There is none. Read ther actual rules. Not this forum. the rules. Tank shock kills a Stormsurge. thats it....

No they don't. The GMC rules are clear that they don't

It is. i can quote them. It absolutely is. Bottom of page 92. Last paragraph, left ide. So yeah. Its supr clear that:

"any model that cannot manage that are crushed and removed from play as casualties with no save allowed. Crunch!"

So...

UNSTOPPABLE

"Any attack that normally inflicts Instant Death or says that the target model is removed from play inflicts D3 Wounds on a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature instead."

Its in the Gargantuan Creature section of unit types. If you insist on a pg number i'll have to go to my car to get it

 Jancoran wrote:

So what if they did a lot of work on it? They did it for their Marquis event. One expects no less. they didnt do it for YOU or the goodness of their heart. Lol. Your comment suggests I should treat them like Martys.

No, my comment suggests that if you don't like the ITC FAQ, you can just choose to not use it, or you can modify it to suit yourself, rather than carrying on like they broke into your house and ate your puppy.

It's an FAQ for a game of toy soldiers.

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.

 insaniak wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

So what if they did a lot of work on it? They did it for their Marquis event. One expects no less. they didnt do it for YOU or the goodness of their heart. Lol. Your comment suggests I should treat them like Martys.

No, my comment suggests that if you don't like the ITC FAQ, you can just choose to not use it, or you can modify it to suit yourself, rather than carrying on like they broke into your house and ate your puppy.

It's an FAQ for a game of toy soldiers.

Well I sure am glad you let me know, lest my illusions continue.

You're stating the obvious as a defense of their choice to make these changes in a tournament people are paying to attend. No offense but if it was free you'd have a point. It isn't free.

You buy the right to an opinion on the subject any time you attend an event labeled ITC. You paid for the right to an opinion. not that you needed to, but ya did. And while it is a game, its my leisure time. My time is worth something to me. I spend a lot of it on this game and I enjoy 95% of that time. So I don't want someone coming along and mucking up my leisure time with this tripe. But that will happen or else i don't get to play at that ITC tournament. Those are my choices.

I also run tournaments, I get the right to have an opinion for that reason also. for FREE, I spend my time and my money to entertain people like you. FOR FREE I promote the ITC name in all my tournament postings. And what the players expect of me is that I will shepherd their leisure time with as much care as i hope others will for me.

So I get an opinion on this and this is my opinion: it stinks. The process stinks and i am encouraging T.O.'s to be critical of the document and address this. If a bunch of sheeple simply tell them they can ignore whatever outrage they create, they will. That simple. Lol. That is the reality. They don't care what this forum thinks as long a their prestige remains relatively undiminished. If 2016 turns out to have half as many ITC events as before, I cant imagine that wont be a mandate for reconsideration of their positions on some things. If it takes 30 more days than the year before to fill all their slots, they will start to notice and they will start to wonder why.

And that is why the opinion needs to be expressed. No one responds to idle talk, nor sheeple. No one cares what they have to say. No one. Not even the sheeple. So it is best not to fall into that category and to instead express ones opinion when given the chance.

Ergo, forums exist. Ergo, voting.

So lets not oversimplify this down to plastic men being pushed around. You know it's more than that, its a competition and a pretty intense mental exercize as well. You've spent enough time n this forum to prove you think its more. so lets not kid ourselves. We dont treat it like Monopoly my friend.

 Jancoran wrote:


"any model that cannot manage that are crushed and removed from play as casualties with no save allowed. Crunch!"

So...

It says previously that the models must move the minimum distance to avoid it and still maintain coherency. This minimum distance can be half the field when needed. So, brb basically explicts crunch other than on a 100% surrounded squad. And it literally explicts a cruch of a solo model on anything other than a 100% crowded table.

 Jancoran wrote:
Stuff

You've misunderstood.

I'm not questioning your right to hold an opinion. I'm questioning the way you're choosing to express that opinion.

Toning down the vitriol is far more conducive to reasoned discourse.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Haters of the ITC, due to clear rules clarifications and honest voting polls. Oh well, can't please everyone.. And honestly, the group that isn't pleased isn't that great of one anyway.. I mean, look what they play

Dont know how honest the voting was the last time the Tau got nerfed, from what I heard several people voted multiple times to sway the vote. Either way doesnt effect me because my FLGS doesnt like ITC, feel they favor Imperial Armies to much over Xenos in general and we prefer to play stroy driven Campaigns.

Honestly, how can they justify the Ghotkeel nerf...their ruling has absolutely no basis in the rules working wording, in fact its the exact opposite...i'm confused?

did they even give an explanation?

 Messy0 wrote:
Honestly, how can they justify the Ghotkeel nerf...their ruling has absolutely no basis in the rules working wording, in fact its the exact opposite...i'm confused?

did they even give an explanation?

I guess they justify it exactly the same way they justify D-weapon nerfs. It's supposedly better for the game. With the D-weapons I'm strongly in favor of diminishing their power but I can't really say about the Ghostfish, I've never played against one. But anyway they are not trying to interpret the book in any strange way, they are just fixing it to their liking. These fixes don't have to be based on the original rules.

 Gamgee wrote:
Tau have won no major tournaments yet and they likely won't at the rate of nerfing. And even in the ITC covered battle reports I've seen Tau lose a ton of the time for such an over powered faction that needs nerfs.

I mean, I feel the same way about Necrons and watching Miniwargaming's Batreps.

And have these loses been with or without the nerfs?

OP- If you don't like the rulings,
Don't play in tournaments using them.

Problem solved.

Going online, bashing them, putting out a call to action to boycott them just because you disagree with what they say your army does just makes you look bad.
Do your talking with your wallet, not your mouth. It is a much better way to protest.

 Messy0 wrote:
Honestly, how can they justify the Ghotkeel nerf...their ruling has absolutely no basis in the rules working wording, in fact its the exact opposite...i'm confused?

did they even give an explanation?

I would expect it's based on the rule stating that the unit uses the countermeasures... So that would use all instances of them at once.

Another case of it not actualy being a rules change but rather having gone with an existing interpretation that some players don't feel is a valid one.

Nocturus wrote:
I do disagree with the Ghostkeel ruling though. The benefit of taking multiples is that you can use the countermeasures multiple times to keep the unit safer longer. This is part of the point cost paid for the Ghostkeel and taking a unit's ability to use the countermeasures more than once, essentially means you paid for upgrades on any model past the 1st that you aren't allowed to use.

Yeah, I don't get the reason for this... That's also been my problem with the ITC rulings, some things just seem to kind of randomly get nerfed, especially early after release, while extremely powerful things from older armies are left to run amuck... makes no sense to nerf the Ghostkeel like this =/

 Gamgee wrote:
Until we can get some results I say avoid em like the plague.

It's easy to poop all over someone else's work. It's much harder to actually create something.

In regards to a power trip, I have spoken with Recce on multiple occasions. He is a down to earth guy and has always been very humble and real. I find your title rather offensive, which only makes your complaint less valid.

 Gamgee wrote:
I think there really needs to be another option, but it is a daunting task to undertake. Hmmm since I do find a good chunk of the ITC ruling good I think this is less a secondary circuit and more of a splitting off of the church to use a metaphor.

It looks like you are thinking correctly here.

When the choice is between coke and pepsi, the consumer wins.

The thing with third party FAQs is that they are based on a simple social contract: its better to have one set of rules for competitive play than a dozen different house rules, or worse, dice offs.

Nobody is going to be happy with every ruling. Obviously, people directly affected by a ruling that nerfs a unit or army will be upset, but people are also upset when they perceive things to be broken and not fixed by the FAQ.

Even fair minded arbiters get things wrong. It happens. It's less likely due to a "power trip" than to how they perceive the issue. Gamers tend to be extremely provincial, and many have very narrow views of what they consider "fair." It's a tough crowd to appease.

Finally, I'd say that splitting away from a national standard over a tiny minority of rulings is probably an overreaction.

So you do know these are all provesional rules for the LVO and will be up for a vote after, right?

Reece is not power tripping or whatever, in their LVO thread I asked about why they weren't allowing ECPA on Riptides, along with my argument for them, to which he openly admitted all these rulings were made more to get everything ready for the LVO and they'd be voted on later. He also admitted that not allowing the ECPA on Riptides could easily have been an oversight that will be corrected.

Honestly, Reece is a super reasonable guy, treat him like a person and put away those pitch forks, it's for the greater good.

 Wopbopadobop wrote:
2. Spend your own time and money promoting it and making it the defecto tournament standard.

The term that I believe you wanted here is De Facto.
As it is, the tau targeting does feel as though ITC is defecating all over Tau,
I could certainly agree that it is a defective tournament standard.

 Polonius wrote:
Did you stay up all night writing that?

no actually. I turned in and got 7 hrs worth of sleep.
hence why it is a response to something that happened 2 pages ago.

 carldooley wrote:

 Wopbopadobop wrote:
2. Spend your own time and money promoting it and making it the defecto tournament standard.

The term that I believe you wanted here is De Facto.
As it is, the tau targeting does feel as though ITC is defecating all over Tau,
I could certainly agree that it is a defective tournament standard.

Did you stay up all night writing that?

So did Eldar ever get their second/third round of nerfs like Tau did, or are they still God Tier and no one cares anymore?

My issue with ITC is that most places use it now, so unless you like it you are stuck with it regardless. Or don't play...fun.

Also, I know many people who want to start a 30k faction, but won't because "ITC doesn't allow it."

The drone thing I can get behind nerfing, but I do think the process could be more transparent and explained to everyone since it affects people that don't even know they could vote.

As someone who doesn't play Tau and certainly don't attend ITC Tournaments, I gotta say I don't know why these are causing such a ruckus.

I have no idea what the Ghostkeel one is about so maybe that's why I don't get the rage, but the Piranha and Stormsurge ones seem to be based more on logic rather than any intention of nerfing. If I hit a giant Robot-Monstrous-thingy that is *Anchored* into the ground, obviously that thing isn't going to be dodging out of the way anytime soon. It also won't magically implode because it's a freaking giant robot (if it was gonna suffer the square-cube law, it'd have suffered it long ago). Piranhas too. If they left in the same turn they entered play, they basically just dipped their toes into the battlefield and went "NOPE". And coming back minus members that have split off seems reasonable in that they would later expect their comrades to return after the engagement.

As for them restating the obvious, it's a necessity in any sort of rule-writing. I have seen many, many times on this forum where people refuse to accept a ruling because it wasn't spelled out alphabets style. If you made a drinking game game out of "but they didn't say exactly that" on the YMDC forum, you'd probably need a new liver before the third thread is finished. Redundancy never hurts if you spell out your exact intent. When you don't is when people start using word limboing. Back in 5th edition there was literally someone arguing that "line of sight" and "vision" were not the same because nothing in the rules explicitly said so.

Anyways, just my two cents. Again, I don't play ITC tournaments nor do I play Tau, so I'm from an outsider perspective here.

The issue at hand is that it's no longer a FAQ, it's a set of house rules. They've basically snuck into the tournament circuit - being a solid, agreeable FAQ for a number of years, and now using inertia to force people to play how Reece feels is 'fair'.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
if it was gonna suffer the square-cube law, it'd have suffered it long ago

good point. I love mechas and powered armor, but I don't see any realistic uses for it outside of media or games until we have reliable gravitics (anti- or counter- gravity manipulation) Then, the only people that would actually bother with the suits in the first place would be the sort of people who rebuild steam cars now.

There are some things that I disagree with, and some that I actually agree with. But I am reminded of Anne Frank, When they came for my neighbors I said nothing, then when they came for me there was no one to speak in my defense.' I see how the piranha thing is broken as hell. I honestly believe that things like the stormsurge's anchors should have opportunity cost - go ahead and anchor and shoot twice, but if I get into tank shock range it is probably going to die.

So... yeah.

The Stormsurge ruling is in fact a sensible middle-of-the-road solution for two sharply conflicting rules.

The piranha ruling is a blatant house rule but one I agree with in principle- I just wish they'd acknowledge it as such, it's hard to argue there was any ambiguity here, certainly not by 40k standards.

It's the Ghostkeel ruling that grinds my skull. The countermeasures rules are extremely explicit in saying its one per model, impacting one unit shooting at that model's unit. There's no room to argue ambiguity here, or that it makes sense in fluff, since the drones still benefit anyway.

Or is there precident for this? If I have a unit of three dreadnoughts and one pops smoke, do they all pop smoke? If I use a spotlight do they all use their spotlights?

I've edited the title slightly (honestly, might need a bit more of an edit...). The opinions are totally fine to express here, but please remember to do so politely.

Thanks all

A lot of the ITC folks do read Dakka and might see things posted here, but will only have an effect if they're reasonable and supported by solid arguments rather than name-calling. I think there's a strong case to be made that the process should be revised, and I'm surprised how close to the LVO these rules have come out (although they'll be incorporated into the next ITC vote, it seems). But again, folks will have a much stronger case for revising the process / decisions / etc by making a strong argument supported by facts, rather than name-calling.

 carldooley wrote:
But I am reminded of Anne Frank, When they came for my neighbors I said nothing, then when they came for me there was no one to speak in my defense.'

The quote is not like that, and it's not from Anne Frank.

 Korinov wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
But I am reminded of Anne Frank, When they came for my neighbors I said nothing, then when they came for me there was no one to speak in my defense.'

The quote is not like that, and it's not from Anne Frank.

I think the point is that a third party house ruling on a wargame is roughly as serious as the holocaust.

Pfft dont care

Riptide wing with XV107s plus a Drone Net with marker drones will kill mostly everything

 Peregrine wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
I don't see the problem. I'd rather something is preemptively nerfed instead of it ruining an entire tournament

Ok then. Your entire army is banned. And you'd better not complain, because you made it perfectly clear that you'd rather see something preemptively nerfed than risk letting it ruin an entire tournament. And who knows what horrible abusive fun-ruining things your army might be capable of.

PS: don't bother trying to buy a different army, that will also be banned.

notredameguy10 wrote:
You are 100% incorrect. It is not a "simple clarification" lmao. It is a complete opposite ruling of the rule simply because they didn't like it.

This. There was nothing at all ambiguous about the rules, certain players just didn't like that GW made the rule. And because of the popular idea that Tau are overpowered they manage to get people to support their nerfs. Is it a good change to make? Arguably, but that doesn't make it a clarification.

And, honestly, I'd be much less annoyed about ITC if they admitted that this is what they are doing instead of hiding behind their laughable "we're just clarifying ambiguous rules" excuse. If you want to nerf Tau at least have the courage to openly say "we don't like this unit, so we're going to nerf it".

Some people have more trouble reading than others - the rule clearly states that when a model uses countermeasures the unit as a whole fires them off. TFG Tau players have just chosen to conveniently ignore that bit about the unit though.

The ITC ruling is correct, no amount of tears will wash that simple truth away.

So you're upset about them trying to bring a bit of balance to an OP army?

FFS

It really does say the UNIT will use the countermeasure. I got some words that need to be had with a guy now.

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
Wahhhhh! My overpowered army gimmicks are being nerfed to be more balanced in a tournament setting!

It's all fun and games until your army gets nerfed
EDIT: edit your post all you want, also if they were trying to "balance OP armies" why is eldar still basically let loose? Same goes for Marines and Necrons as well, doesn't it?

I'm not a Tau player, but it's fairly obvious looking at ITC that it's designed in such a way that certain play-styles and armies (a mix of flawed 40k balance, and the missions/changes set by ITC) do leagues better then others (cough MSU cough). That's not to say that it's terrible, but to treat it like some infallible book on how you're supposed to go to pretend-war is just silly (which, judging by some comments, some of you do) The codex astartes ITC faq isn't the only way to play warhammer, though it's the most common Tournament set up, and it actively cripples different play styles and certain armies in favor of others.

In regards to the Tau rulings, some of them seem off, but I haven't read the Tau rules, so I can't really comment on that half of things.

Oh wow it does say unit. For those not in the know:

"Once per battle, in the enemy Shooting phase, a model equipped with holophoton countermeasures can disrupt the targetings 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 hit rolls are made. The enemy unit can only make Snap Shots in that Shooting phase."

So one model can do the deed, but the "unit" is using the holophoton countermeasures.

This one actually needs clarification, because to me it sounds like you nominate a specific model, declare it is using its countermeasures, and then the entire unit blows all of its countermeasures anyways.

So wait, the FAQ clarified a grammar error in the rules and people complained that it's a nerf?

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
So wait, the FAQ clarified a grammar error in the rules and people complained that it's a nerf?

Seems that way to me. That rule, as written, has the classical GW problem of conflating 'model' with 'unit', in the first half implying a model is using the wargear and in the second half implying it is the entire unit.

The second one is the ruling ITC went with, which isn't any more or less reasonable than the first.

Actually in that context I would argue that "The whole unit uses it" is more reasonable. I can see that GW went with "model" because it requires a model in the unit to actually have that wargear, or else you get people arguing that a single drone still being alive would let you use it.

(The line of thought would be that, if it said "A unit that has this piece of wargear", then even if the actual model holding it dies, the unit isn't dead and technically still has it". Yes it sounds stupid but we've seen stupid-er logic coming out of the YMDC forum.)

However if it was specifying the entire unit it would say the unit uses their holophoton counter measures. Instead it says uses it's as in singular. So what I take from this is one model uses its counter measure in the unit. And since a model can only use this once it can allow a unit to use it three times before every model in the unit of three (or two) is out.

The Unit is still singular. "It" in this case is refering to the single unit, not the single model. A unit of 3 is still "a" unit. Now it's just playing semantics and word limboing.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The Unit is still singular. "It" in this case is refering to the single unit, not the single model. A unit of 3 is still "a" unit. Now it's just playing semantics and word limboing.

It says "A model". How is that semantics?

 koooaei wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:


"any model that cannot manage that are crushed and removed from play as casualties with no save allowed. Crunch!"

So...

It says previously that the models must move the minimum distance to avoid it and still maintain coherency. This minimum distance can be half the field when needed. So, brb basically explicts crunch other than on a 100% surrounded squad. And it literally explicts a cruch of a solo model on anything other than a 100% crowded table.

Except Pilons stop it from moving under any circumstance. Codex trumps rules. So he cannot move and is therefore destroyed.

There has already been a YMDC thread, and the consensus (at least with most posters) was the opposite - that the model uses it, but the unit benefits:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/669989.page

There's also some discussion of it here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/678734.page

It's like most GW rules and could use clarification... I'm just really surprised they chose this ruling since it significantly reduces the effectiveness of the unit, doesn't (to me) seem to be how the rule was intended - they could easily have ruled the other way, in other words.

In-depth discussion of the wording should probably head over to YMDC... but I just wanted to provide those links to prior discussion as reference (the second link is still active).

Cindis wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
I don't see the problem. I'd rather something is preemptively nerfed instead of it ruining an entire tournament

Ok then. Your entire army is banned. And you'd better not complain, because you made it perfectly clear that you'd rather see something preemptively nerfed than risk letting it ruin an entire tournament. And who knows what horrible abusive fun-ruining things your army might be capable of.

PS: don't bother trying to buy a different army, that will also be banned.

notredameguy10 wrote:
You are 100% incorrect. It is not a "simple clarification" lmao. It is a complete opposite ruling of the rule simply because they didn't like it.

This. There was nothing at all ambiguous about the rules, certain players just didn't like that GW made the rule. And because of the popular idea that Tau are overpowered they manage to get people to support their nerfs. Is it a good change to make? Arguably, but that doesn't make it a clarification.

And, honestly, I'd be much less annoyed about ITC if they admitted that this is what they are doing instead of hiding behind their laughable "we're just clarifying ambiguous rules" excuse. If you want to nerf Tau at least have the courage to openly say "we don't like this unit, so we're going to nerf it".

Some people have more trouble reading than others - the rule clearly states that when a model uses countermeasures the unit as a whole fires them off. TFG Tau players have just chosen to conveniently ignore that bit about the unit though.

The ITC ruling is correct, no amount of tears will wash that simple truth away.

Try reading again buddy, maybe you are the one having trouble.

The rule clearly states that ONE MODEL activates the ability, then the UNIT uses the ability. Its pretty simple

I had a similar lack of understanding with unit\model interaction when I asked about a solo Riptide with a Target Lock. The question was: the unit designates its shooting against an enemy within assault range, the model uses its Target Lock to target another unit with its shooting, then the unit assaults the enemy that the unit shot at. That there is only one model is immaterial, but people cannot seem to wrap their heads around it.

If you folks think that I am trying to draw a comparison between the ITC nerfs and the holocaust, you are crazy and I would suggest ingesting something to raise your blood sugar. The point came across, yes? I could have used the second amendment's attempted limitations, but that would have had several people outside the US scratching their heads.

notredameguy10 wrote:

Cindis wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
I don't see the problem. I'd rather something is preemptively nerfed instead of it ruining an entire tournament

Ok then. Your entire army is banned. And you'd better not complain, because you made it perfectly clear that you'd rather see something preemptively nerfed than risk letting it ruin an entire tournament. And who knows what horrible abusive fun-ruining things your army might be capable of.

PS: don't bother trying to buy a different army, that will also be banned.

notredameguy10 wrote:
You are 100% incorrect. It is not a "simple clarification" lmao. It is a complete opposite ruling of the rule simply because they didn't like it.

This. There was nothing at all ambiguous about the rules, certain players just didn't like that GW made the rule. And because of the popular idea that Tau are overpowered they manage to get people to support their nerfs. Is it a good change to make? Arguably, but that doesn't make it a clarification.

And, honestly, I'd be much less annoyed about ITC if they admitted that this is what they are doing instead of hiding behind their laughable "we're just clarifying ambiguous rules" excuse. If you want to nerf Tau at least have the courage to openly say "we don't like this unit, so we're going to nerf it".

Some people have more trouble reading than others - the rule clearly states that when a model uses countermeasures the unit as a whole fires them off. TFG Tau players have just chosen to conveniently ignore that bit about the unit though.

The ITC ruling is correct, no amount of tears will wash that simple truth away.

Try reading again buddy, maybe you are the one having trouble.

The rule clearly states that ONE MODEL activates the ability, then the UNIT uses the ability. Its pretty simple

It is pretty simple. Because since the unit has 'used' the ability, and it may only be 'used' once, then that counts as the one use.

"Once per battle, in the enemy Shooting phase, a model equipped with holophoton countermeasures can disrupt the targetings 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 hit rolls are made. The enemy unit can only make Snap Shots in that Shooting phase."

Okay the unit is declared, but a single ghostkeel is still using its holophoton countermeasures. The unit is using its holophoton counter measures but because a single ghostkeel is using them. The ambiguity is the fact that they don't specify if a single model uses up its counter measures or the entire unit. Considering the very rule itself says a single model and the later parts of it are causing the ambiguity I would err on the side of the unit using up only one ghostkeels counter measures. So the ITC simply decided to specify and they chose to nerf for some reason. Which is silly given this will just hurt Tau. If the unit being referred to had not been modified beforehand by this part of the rule a model equipped with holophoton countermeasures then there would be less heated debate since the later part of the rule would simply refer to the unit and that would be that. As it is the rules are fairly clear the unit expends only one use of the holophoton projector. Not to mention circumstantially from a rules writing perspective why even specify a single model uses it if an entire unit would use it up there are much clearer ways to write that it would use up all the Ghostkeels uses of the countermeasures.

Edit
The rule doesn't say a unit may only use it once per battle, it says an individual model may only use it once per battle.

notredameguy10 wrote:


The rule clearly states that ONE MODEL activates the ability, then the UNIT uses the ability. Its pretty simple

It really really does.

 Gamgee wrote:
"Once per battle, in the enemy Shooting phase, a model equipped with holophoton countermeasures can disrupt the targetings 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 hit rolls are made. The enemy unit can only make Snap Shots in that Shooting phase."

Okay the unit is declared, but a single ghostkeel is still using its holophoton countermeasures. The unit is using its holophoton counter measures but because a single ghostkeel is using them. The ambiguity is the fact that they don't specify if a single model uses up its counter measures or the entire unit. Considering the very rule itself says a single model and the later parts of it are causing the ambiguity I would err on the side of the unit using up only one ghostkeels counter measures. So the ITC simply decided to specify and they chose to nerf for some reason. Which is silly given this will just hurt Tau. If the unit being referred to had not been modified beforehand by this part of the rule a model equipped with holophoton countermeasures then there would be less heated debate since the later part of the rule would simply refer to the unit and that would be that. As it is the rules are fairly clear the unit expends only one use of the holophoton projector. Not to mention circumstantially from a rules writing perspective why even specify a single model uses it if an entire unit would use it up there are much clearer ways to write that it would use up all the Ghostkeels uses of the countermeasures.

I think the point is that it requires clarification. They use model in one part of the rule and unit in another; we cannot know which one was intended. Therefore, it isn't as clear as you made it seem with this thread, and this thread in my mind went from wow, they have a real point, ITC is fething up to oh, they're whining over something that ITC clarified that actually is questionable. There is contention about this rule - heck, the rule even contradicts itself. So to claim that ITC has jumped the shark and should be boycotted for making a ruling is overreaction at best or disingenuous at worst.

My belief is that GW originally intended for the ghostkeel to be a solo battlesuit (with drones of course), wrote the rule, and then decided to add more ghostkeels to the unit but didn't edit the rule. This doesn't get us any closer to a destination, but it would make more sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jancoran wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:


The rule clearly states that ONE MODEL activates the ability, then the UNIT uses the ability. Its pretty simple

It really really does.

Right, and the ability says it may be used once, not activated once. So it's rather irrelevant how it is activated - what matters is how many times it is used.

Okay, so now we've gone from the ITC being the spawn of Shlrrrg, God of Nasty Things, to them making a call on an ambiguous rule that people disagree with (which is pretty much the definition of "ambiguous").

This is really starting to feel this a YMDC thread now.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Okay, so now we've gone from the ITC being the spawn of Shlrrrg, God of Nasty Things, to them making a call on an ambiguous rule that people disagree with (which is pretty much the definition of "ambiguous").

Yes, that was the point I was going for.

Dozer Blades wrote:This is really starting to feel this a YMDC thread now.

Sorry, I'll drop it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Right, and the ability says it may be used once, not activated once.

"IT" in this sentence is the singular countermeasure used. So no. its not. This is just... ridiculous is what it is. I have move colorful words i am DYING to use but this overreach is, once again, a reason for T.O.'s to reconsidr their reasoning for even using this voluminous, bloated and mostly sour grapes document. They should just write some rules, call it 50K and be done with it so we can all start ignoring it.

I'm not gonna argue the wording any further. On top of not having the codex on hand at the moment, my quote has already been taken out of context and misinterpreted and I have no intention of typing out another page-long explanation only to get it ignored or cherrypicked because someone doesn't like a nerf. Especially since these aren't even official rules.

If you don't like em, don't play (like the title of this thread suggest). If this means losing your playgroup, maybe consider not forcing everyone else to play by your rules, and play by what everyone else wants.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Right, and the ability says it may be used once, not activated once.

"IT" in this sentence is the singular countermeasure used. So no. its not. This is just... ridiculous is what it is. I have move colorful words i am DYING to use but this overreach is, once again, a reason for T.O.'s to reconsidr their reasoning for even using this voluminous, bloated and mostly sour grapes document. They should just write some rules, call it 50K and be done with it so we can all start ignoring it.

I am pretty sure 'it' is the unit. (See? I can make claims too about ambiguous rules full of pronouns!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I'm not gonna argue the wording any further. On top of not having the codex on hand at the moment, my quote has already been taken out of context and misinterpreted and I have no intention of typing out another page-long explanation only to get it ignored or cherrypicked because someone doesn't like a nerf. Especially since these aren't even official rules.

If you don't like em, don't play (like the title of this thread suggest). If this means losing your playgroup, maybe consider not forcing everyone else to play by your rules, and play by what everyone else wants.

Preach!

 Jancoran wrote:
No. The Stormsurge ruling HELPS Tau.

The other two screw them. So no. that's not it at all.

Inventing freaking rules out of thin air is the issue.

Wait...where do you think rules come from? There's not like a rules tree out there somewhere GW picks every few months, ALL rules come out of thin air.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I am pretty sure 'it' is the unit. (See? I can make claims too about ambiguous rules full of pronouns!)

You can do anything that doent make sense and no one will stop you. You can be obtuse and no one will stop you. But if you read what YOU wrote, its pretty obviously answering its own question.

I wasnt ambiguous. You're just being obtuse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
No. The Stormsurge ruling HELPS Tau.

The other two screw them. So no. that's not it at all.

Inventing freaking rules out of thin air is the issue.

Wait...where do you think rules come from? There's not like a rules tree out there somewhere GW picks every few months, ALL rules come out of thin air.

Irrelevant to the discussion...but...uh....ok?

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
If you don't like em, don't play (like the title of this thread suggest). If this means losing your playgroup, maybe consider not forcing everyone else to play by your rules, and play by what everyone else wants.

I think that's the point of some of the pushback lately, though - not everyone wants to use all of the ITC "power level adjustment" rules. It would be really great if they would separate out the true errata from power level adjustment rulings... right now it is all mixed together and listed as FAQ, which obviously many of the rules are not.

 RiTides wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
If you don't like em, don't play (like the title of this thread suggest). If this means losing your playgroup, maybe consider not forcing everyone else to play by your rules, and play by what everyone else wants.

I think that's the point of some of the pushback lately, though - not everyone wants to use all of the ITC "power level adjustment" rules. It would be really great if they would separate out the true errata from power level adjustment rulings... right now it is all mixed together and listed as FAQ, which obviously many of the rules are not.

First rule of ITC is you don't have to use any ITC rules if you don't want to. If your TO doesn't take out the rules he doesn't like that's his fault.

 RiTides wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
If you don't like em, don't play (like the title of this thread suggest). If this means losing your playgroup, maybe consider not forcing everyone else to play by your rules, and play by what everyone else wants.

I think that's the point of some of the pushback lately, though - not everyone wants to use all of the ITC "power level adjustment" rules. It would be really great if they would separate out the true errata from power level adjustment rulings... right now it is all mixed together and listed as FAQ, which obviously many of the rules are not.

Exactly, but more to the point if they are going to do adjustments may as well nerf all the powerful faction equally down or buff all the weak ones up. Not this shadowy half measure where you can't tell what's a bias ruling, what's a clarification, and what rules are them trying to tone the power levels down. It doesn't help they didn't put news of these changes on the front page which makes it look really suspicious and shadowy and they did it super close to tournament time.

I'd even settle for them acknowledging they're house ruling for the sake of balance so we could at least have a discussion about it without people acting so outraged.

I look forward to round three when they rule in favour of the wording that each additional set of ghostkeel and drones to a unit is 390 points, though I expect it'll pan out much the same.

ERJAK wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
I think that's the point of some of the pushback lately, though - not everyone wants to use all of the ITC "power level adjustment" rules. It would be really great if they would separate out the true errata from power level adjustment rulings... right now it is all mixed together and listed as FAQ, which obviously many of the rules are not.

First rule of ITC is you don't have to use any ITC rules if you don't want to. If your TO doesn't take out the rules he doesn't like that's his fault.

It'd be worlds easier to take out rules if the "power level adjustment" rules were in a separate Errata section!

As many have pointed out, it's just the mixing of these things all together that is frustrating, and the fact that new units get "toned down" while old, extremely powerful units are untouched. It seems to reinforce the status quo and keep the meta from progressing as it naturally would otherwise, imo... and I'd love to be able to more easily ignore those rules by separating them. Much easier to go to an already-overworked T.O. and say "What do you think about using the ITC FAQ but not the Errata?" than it is to say "What do you think about removing the second-to-last FAQ entry on the bottom of page 19?"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
So wait, the FAQ clarified a grammar error in the rules and people complained that it's a nerf?

Seems that way to me. That rule, as written, has the classical GW problem of conflating 'model' with 'unit', in the first half implying a model is using the wargear and in the second half implying it is the entire unit.

The second one is the ruling ITC went with, which isn't any more or less reasonable than the first.

To be fair, a Ghostkeel is a "unit" in the sense of "more than one model" that most people think of even when you're taking just one.
The Ghostkeel cannot ever be taken without the Stealth Drones.They're not Wargear, they're models in their own right.

This is kind of a two part reading:
A) Ghostkeels opt to trigger their Holophoton Countermeasures
B) The unit is then declared to have used HCMs.

The wargear entry specifically states that it affects the whole unit but it is kinda wonky wording.

Cindis wrote:


Some people have more trouble reading than others - the rule clearly states that when a model uses countermeasures the unit as a whole fires them off. TFG Tau players have just chosen to conveniently ignore that bit about the unit though.

The ITC ruling is correct, no amount of tears will wash that simple truth away.

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.

ITC tournaments springing up all over the place, even other countries, bringing together a community that was fractured by the fast pace of releases and changes to the game...

The community at large votes on the rule changes...

284 people signed up for the 40k championship...

I don't think Frontlinegaming has a lot to apologize for here.

This is all fine and good, but I still have no respect for them, as they haven't sufficiently gutted the Eldar.

 Voidwraith wrote:
ITC tournaments springing up all over the place, even other countries, bringing together a community that was fractured by the fast pace of releases and changes to the game...

The community at large votes on the rule changes...

284 people signed up for the 40k championship...

I don't think Frontlinegaming has a lot to apologize for here.

Nobody voted on this change. They were pulled straight from Reece's ass.

Naaris wrote:

Cindis wrote:


Some people have more trouble reading than others - the rule clearly states that when a model uses countermeasures the unit as a whole fires them off. TFG Tau players have just chosen to conveniently ignore that bit about the unit though.

The ITC ruling is correct, no amount of tears will wash that simple truth away.

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.

And what everyone is missing is that it doesn't AFFECT the unit. it AFFECTS the target!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 raverrn wrote:

 Voidwraith wrote:
ITC tournaments springing up all over the place, even other countries, bringing together a community that was fractured by the fast pace of releases and changes to the game...

The community at large votes on the rule changes...

284 people signed up for the 40k championship...

I don't think Frontlinegaming has a lot to apologize for here.

Nobody voted on this change. They were pulled straight from Reece's ass.

sorry but he's right. he literally is authoring another game altogether.

It affects the shooting unit. Learn to read?

Unannounced change. The other 'votes' are poorly advertised, don't stay out long, and tend to be announced with a biased article. It's not a very transparent or clean process at all.

Jancoran, you can't read for gak. THE GC CREATURES RULE ARE MORE SPECIFIC!

So, again, the discussion of the Ghostkeel's rules is better taken elsewhere at this point.

Although it does quite nicely illustrate the point that there are multiple interpretations of the rule. The fact that the ITC went with an interpretation you disagree with doesn't automatically make it a rules change.

I have to give the ITC credit, they are trying to polish the turd of GW rules. The ITC are trying to make a non tournament game into a tournament game and I wish them luck. I'm sure it's a lot of work polishing that turd.

Your anger should be focused on GW for releasing such crap and unbalanced rules, not the guy trying to fix that mess.

 foto69man wrote:

My issue with ITC is that most places use it now, so unless you like it you are stuck with it regardless. Or don't play...fun.

Or start a discussion with your local TO to tailor it to suit local players...

 raverrn wrote:
It affects the shooting unit. Learn to read?

Yup.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chute82 wrote:
I have to give the ITC credit, they are trying to polish the turd of GW rules. The ITC are trying to make a non tournament game into a tournament game and I wish them luck. I'm sure it's a lot of work polishing that turd.

Your anger should be focused on GW for releasing such crap and unbalanced rules, not the guy trying to fix that mess.

Yeah except GW really isnt the issue. The goal posts are what they are. Just because you dont like a couple rules or they "could be tighter" doesnt justify...this...whatever this mess is called.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Quickjager wrote:
Jancoran, you can't read for gak. THE GC CREATURES RULE ARE MORE SPECIFIC!

I've read them. I know what you're TRYING to say. You're just wrong. Theres a difference between my reading comprehension which is stellar and your mutation of meaning to fit what you'd like to be true (see ITC for other examples).

I know what rules you're TRYING to be confused about. What i don't get is why you'd attempt to be.

 RiTides wrote:
I've edited the title slightly (honestly, might need a bit more of an edit...). The opinions are totally fine to express here, but please remember to do so politely.

Thanks all

A lot of the ITC folks do read Dakka and might see things posted here, but will only have an effect if they're reasonable and supported by solid arguments rather than name-calling. I think there's a strong case to be made that the process should be revised, and I'm surprised how close to the LVO these rules have come out (although they'll be incorporated into the next ITC vote, it seems). But again, folks will have a much stronger case for revising the process / decisions / etc by making a strong argument supported by facts, rather than name-calling.

Quoting over this mod note from earlier in the thread...

If you can't post politely here, you simply won't be able to post. That includes comments about pulling rules out of one's arse, people not being able to read, etc. Rule #1 on Dakka is Be Polite - either make your point politely, or it will have to be edited / deleted / etc.

So, back on topic politely, please! Thanks to blaktoof below for doing so already.

Other than the ghostkeel thing they all seem good.

The piranha re-arm thing puts it in line with how all of reserves works in 40k. i.e. you cannot enter and leave the table on the same turn. That it is not addressed in the rule for piranhas does not give permission to override the basic rule that you cannot leave and re-enter reserves on the same turn.

The clarification about getting more piranhas back is not a nerf, this was a contentious point and rules in favor of tau power. The issue about immobilized piranhas is also a good ruling, that prevents allowing tau players to make more piranhas than were in the starting unit.

The stormsurge not being removed on tank shock is definately not a nerf.

Overall I find nothing about these unreasonable, and in fact many of them are good clarifications that could reduce arguments at tables. FWIW I also like the clarification about the librarian conclave for SMs.

I am not sure what bias people are complaining about.

And honestly if you do not like it you can always get together with people and start your OWN rules faqs/erratas and support it, then run a tournament system to help back it. I am pretty sure thats how ETC / Adepticon /LVO / ITC etc all worked out, they are not sanctioned by the games they run.

Janc you're talking about how when a locked down Stormsurge is tank shocked *and cannot move because of said lock* it is removed following the rules of tank shock.

However I find an exception to this rule under a more specific section stating that when a GC is affected by an ability that would normally remove a model from play it instead takes D3 wounds.

How is this incorrect. You state Codex triumphs BRB, but the codex doesn't state it is removed from play; just that the Stormsurge can't move.

EDIT: Also I apologize Janc.

blaktoof wrote:


And honestly if you do not like it you can always get together with people and start your OWN rules faqs/erratas and support it, then run a tournament system to help back it. I am pretty sure thats how ETC / Adepticon /LVO / ITC etc all worked out, they are not sanctioned by the games they run.

And if you do then you also get the added joy of having strangers on the internet question your honesty, fairness, intelligence, and sanity.

blaktoof wrote:
The piranha re-arm thing puts it in line with how all of reserves works in 40k. i.e. you cannot enter and leave the table on the same turn. That it is not addressed in the rule for piranhas does not give permission to override the basic rule that you cannot leave and re-enter reserves on the same turn.

By basic rule, do you mean an explicit rule in the rulebook, or simply a longstanding practice (what we in the legal industry call precedent)? I honestly don't know, but I think when you have a rule that acts counter to multiple similar rules, there's enough wiggle room to call a change an "FAQ" instead of a conscious nerf.

OP, I have zero sympathy.

Tau are already horrifically powerful and these nerfs should have been a lot more heavy handed IMO. But thats just me, a salty IG player whom is fed up with being lambasted by every tau army he comes across.

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be perfectly honest, I wish they'd have done more of this sort of thing in general. One can say many things about Reece (or anyone for that matter), but from my experience with him in person at a couple of events (though never as an opponent admittedly) and on tabletop gaming forums like this, it's hard to see him on some sort of power-tripping personal vengeance quest against Tau.

You mean the same guy who in just watching one of his battle-reports in the last week thought he was hilarious for spouting disability-shaming "comedy" that would've gotten him banned in a second here on DakkaDakka? Clearly he's a bastion of good taste, and definitely the good guy the ITC rules committee deserves.

Or maybe I am just salty because he is so consistently intolerant or rude during the content he records that it is genuinely hard to root for the guy.

I'm utterly bewildered at this kind of a post. The ITC has regularly modified rules seemingly in favor of the desires of the masses. I for one am thrilled Invisibility is scaled down or that 2+ rerollable saves are penalized. Nothing truly unique has been done here.

One could argue this outrage is perhaps outstanding as the nerfs were made a bit proactively, prior to real data being accumulated. Curious, I wonder if those whom posted that feeling made similar remarks during the discussions to reduce ranged D or limit ScatBikes 1-to-3 prior to the Craftworld Codex being launched.

It's hard to take these criticisms seriously given what I've just proposed above. If you aren't consistent then your outrage is so utterly biased that your opinion is hardly useful.

Moving past that a moment, it wouldn't personally occur to me to even make a post like this. If I felt extraordinarily wronged by a rules call, I would make a post to honestly and rationally discuss what has occurred. If I still felt justified, I'd send a well constructive non-offensive email to the FLG group to demonstrate my point. If that was ignored, the ITC rules are guidelines and I would work my best to convince my local group to support me and not utilize those rulings.

This is not binary decision making. There are reasonable choices to be made that can resolve your concerns. You should be using this anger to instead be productive, you'll get more done and be happier about the results.

Oh look, my silly little irrelevant blog has been plugged!

While my posts on my own personal blog may be a little charged sometimes, they were replied to with some pretty fantastic examples of why people are leaving this hobby left and right. My blog isn't moderated by Dakka Dakka mods so people are choosing to be childish and disrespectful (with the exception of one person) and avoiding the issue altogether with blanket statements, insults, and not actually trying to have a discussion. I mean, to each their own, but I'd rather talk it out than go on someone's blog and tell them to "man up".

Wasnt aware that the ITC was the official GW gospel that the game has to be played as now.

This isnt your first post ranting about the ITC OP, with the apparent 'forced' rules that you have to play, but you really dont.

How about you make up your own rulings if you dont like theirs?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Wasnt aware that the ITC was the official GW gospel that the game has to be played as now.
...How about you make up your own rulings if you dont like theirs?

This process is actually pretty fun too! If you find yourself among a group of like-minded individuals that are open to playing in an event with your own version of an ITC rules set/misison pack/etc, then why not give it a shot? If it's good, it'll catch on, and you'll possibly even develop your own Independent Tournament Circuit!

 insaniak wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
If the ITC can no longer provide unbiased rules where will we get suggested rulings from?

Wherever you want?

3rd party FAQs are only ever providing house rules for those who choose to use them. There is nothing forcing you to adopt it for your own games, and if you do choose to use it, nothing forcing you to adopt it wholesale - If there are specific rulings you disagree with, just ignore them.

It always genuinely amazes me that some folks forget you can literally make up any rules you want for it. Want your Tac Marine to have 20 wounds? As long as your opponent is okay with it? Sure! Don't like the idea of mere bullets doing anything but plinking harmlessly off a tank's hull? Make up a rule for it (or ignore rules addressing it). I could give countless examples, but the point of all of this - the models, the rules, the game - is to have fun. Being as "fun" is such a subjective term, it's really up to each of us to decide what we want to do with our toys and time.

The changes made to Tau are mostly consistent with a conservative approach to rule ambiguities and multiple interpretations.

The Stormsurge rule is a middle ground between two rules that have no means of reconciliation without an outside FAQ. The anchor rule clearly states that the model cannot move under any circumstances; the Tank Shock rules are clear that models that fail certain requirements like moving, failing death or glory, or not maintaining coherence are removed from play; the gargantuan creature rule states that they cannot be removed from play but instead suffer D3 wounds. This is the best way to reconcile the rules as making a 400 point stormsurge die to a free rhino is a bit much as is a stormsurge essentially being immune to tank shock if it plants its feet.

The Piranha ruling is smart as the ability to create up to 30ish drones per turn, for free, without any possible interaction by the opponent is just game breaking. Daemon-farm still requires dice rolls, and the summoner models can still be killed, but if Piranhas are allowed to leave play the turn they arrive, then there is really no way to stop them, and at least against Daemon-farm, you have a few turns before the heaviest stuff comes out most times while Tau can theoritically put out 60 BS3, twin-linked str5 shots for free, and of course, by turn 2, this is 120 BS3 -twin-linked shots that can still benefit from marker lights, and this is not including whatever else the Tau army shoehorns in. I in fact just built a Tau army designed to use this, and I admit that if I went harder into the drone-factory, it would be markedly unfair.

I do disagree with the Ghostkeel decision. To me, the ruling is clear that it is activated on a model by model basis as the cost of a Ghostkeel essentially includes this one-time ability, and if it is limited to once per unit, then any additional Ghostkeels are paying points for an ability that cannot be used. I am hopeful that ITC will open this up to a vote after LVO. Frontline has communicated via podcast that a new FAQ update is in the works, but I do agree that in the future, FAQ updates receive a wider announcement such as here, Warseer, and the frontpage of their website.

For those that feel Tau are being nerfed, I still hold that they are a top-tier army. From what I've seen, they can produce more firepower than anyone outside of scatbike spam but with more durability and a surprising amount of agility (although not scatbike levels). We will see how LVO pans out for Tau, and if the numbers show that Tau get bushwhacked, then there is some solid ground to talk about their "nerfs".

 Cieged wrote:
I'm utterly bewildered at this kind of a post. The ITC has regularly modified rules seemingly in favor of the desires of the masses. I for one am thrilled Invisibility is scaled down or that 2+ rerollable saves are penalized. Nothing truly unique has been done here.

There is a huge difference in general rulings (making Invisibility less potent, or adjusting 2+ rerollable saves for Any army) than taking a new unit and immediately nerfing it. The former is great for the game (in my opinion) and the latter is not, because there are so many more units that need nerfing! Why should a new unit be so susceptible to it?

The process for which units get nerfed just seems to not be working in a fair manner. I think the rules you highlight are great examples of this - those rules were fair because they could be applied to a number of armies across the board. I also recognize that sometimes it would be good to nerf a new, crazy formation... but the Ghostkeel ruling really bothers me, even though I'm not a Tau player, as it seems to be unfairly targeted as a new unit. My guess is that when put to a vote, if the question is worded fairly, that ruling will be overturned... but it will still be in effect for the LVO.

They do a great job overall with their FAQ, but a clearer process for "nerfs" of new units would address almost all complaints that have been raised, and is well worth considering! That, or just put them in a separate section of the ITC packet so that TOs can more easily choose whether or not to use the "power level adjustment" rulings, as opposed to the normal FAQ.

Based on the general demeanor in this thread, I realize that my comments as a Tau player will most likely be ignored, but here goes anyways.

I don't tend to have a problem with tournament organizers clarifying rules that are ambiguous or non-functional. This is what an FAQ should be. People say "how does this work" and the organizers answer.

This is not what the ITC is doing. They are taking rules that are generally unambiguous and changing them to make them arbitrarily less competitive. They are simply rewriting the rules... not clarifying them.

From a player's perspective, this can be extremely frustrating. Ghostkeels are 75 USD each. I read the unambiguous rules and decided that I wanted to run a unit of 3. After all, assuming the models survive from turn to turn, they can activate their countermeasures three times... once for each model. Seemed cool. So, I went out, spent 225 USD, assembled and painted my unit in preparation for a local tournament. I'm now being told that the rules are arbitrarily being changed for my unit and that my models are significantly less durable than I was expecting based on the rules. I'm left feeling like I've wasted time and money on a unit that won't perform as promised.

I know it's very popular to hate all things Tau right now. I just hope everyone remembers the Tau players' comments on this sort of arbitrary rules changing when the Nerf Bat starts hitting your armies. When that happens, I'll be there to support you.

 RiTides wrote:
I also recognize that sometimes it would be good to nerf a new, crazy formation... but the Ghostkeel ruling really bothers me, even though I'm not a Tau player, as it seems to be unfairly targeted as a new unit.

The thing is, I don't think it's 'unfairly targeted' at all, because the rule as written is ambiguous (one reference to the model using the ability, one to the unit triggering it), and if you go with them being used on a model by model basis, the ability becomes exponentially more powerful when you have them in a unit, due to the rule benefiting the unit as a whole...

Basically, you have an ability that is supposed to provide a benefit to a model once per game. Put two of those models in a unit, and allow them to trigger that ability separately, and suddenly the model gets double the benefit of that ability, for no extra individual cost. Three in a unit means three times the power for no extra individual cost. That's three turns of coverage for an ability that is only supposed to provide the model a benefit for a single turn.

Frankly, I think they made the right call on this one.



On the Piranha thing, it strikes me that when a similar 'nerf' was made to Eldar Swooping Hawks back in 4th edition, even Eldar players largely agreed it was for the best. Having units that can affect the game without ever actually standing on the board is not good for the game.

 Kriswall wrote:
Based on the general demeanor in this thread, I realize that my comments as a Tau player will most likely be ignored, but here goes anyways.

I don't tend to have a problem with tournament organizers clarifying rules that are ambiguous or non-functional. This is what an FAQ should be. People say "how does this work" and the organizers answer.

This is not what the ITC is doing. They are taking rules that are generally unambiguous and changing them to make them arbitrarily less competitive. They are simply rewriting the rules... not clarifying them.

From a player's perspective, this can be extremely frustrating. Ghostkeels are 75 USD each. I read the unambiguous rules and decided that I wanted to run a unit of 3. After all, assuming the models survive from turn to turn, they can activate their countermeasures three times... once for each model. Seemed cool. So, I went out, spent 225 USD, assembled and painted my unit in preparation for a local tournament. I'm now being told that the rules are arbitrarily being changed for my unit and that my models are significantly less durable than I was expecting based on the rules. I'm left feeling like I've wasted time and money on a unit that won't perform as promised.

This is exactly the problem (and for what it's worth, a lot of people in the thread have been posting "I have no problem with what the ITC did here except the Ghostkeel ruling"). I am really hopeful, Kriswall, that when the ITC actually puts this up for vote this won't pass. At least, I really hope this item is one of the voting questions, as otherwise it just seems like a completely unnecessary nerf to a cool new unit...

As a Tyranid player, I really don't want that to happen to us when we finally get something new and cool (hey, a guy can dream right ). How does it make sense to limit this model when so many others are just rampantly better. It seems to me that it's just because it's new, that it's on the chopping block of a "preemptive" nerf... and I really think the ITC should avoid that and stick to FAQs, and general rulings... and only nerf something that is really game-breaking or breaks the flow of the game terribly (the pirahna formation might qualify as this, and I'm OK with that change... but the Ghostkeel is just totally unecessary!).

It's possible that something that was unambiguous to you was in fact, either ambiguous, or unambiguous yet meaning the opposite to somebody else?

Rules, particularly sloppily written ones, can often be read in different ways. True, some of that can be based on the biases or goals of the reader, but anybody that's spent any time with contract language knows that seemingly clear language can still have different meanings.

There's a lot of confidence in how clearly rules can be read, and as a legal professional, I cringe.

I don't think many GW rules are truly "unambiguous" but this one was fairly clear, as thoroughly discussed in the YMDC thread I linked to. I think being a new unit it was open to being adjusted, and they did it... and I think they should make it clearer when they're adjusting for power level, versus truly clarifying the rules. Right now, it's one big mix of everything, and really hard to sort out these "power level adjustment" rulings from the true FAQ, if any TO had the energy to try to do so.

 RiTides wrote:

This is exactly the problem (and for what it's worth, a lot of people in the thread have been posting "I have no problem with what the ITC did here except the Ghostkeel ruling"). I am really hopeful, Kriswall, that when the ITC actually puts this up for vote this won't pass. At least, I really hope this item is one of the voting questions, as otherwise it just seems like a completely unnecessary nerf to a cool new unit...

I couldn't agree more.

There shouldn't be arbitrary, outright nerfs, unless the participating community decides that that's what it wants.

RiTides wrote:How does it make sense to limit this model when so many others are just rampantly better. It seems to me that it's just because it's new, that it's on the chopping block of a "preemptive" nerf... and I really think the ITC should avoid that and stick to FAQs, and general rulings... and only nerf something that is really game-breaking or breaks the flow of the game terribly (the pirahna formation might qualify as this, and I'm OK with that change... but the Ghostkeel is just totally unecessary!).

RiTides wrote:There is a huge difference in general rulings (making Invisibility less potent, or adjusting 2+ rerollable saves for Any army) than taking a new unit and immediately nerfing it. The former is great for the game (in my opinion) and the latter is not, because there are so many more units that need nerfing! Why should a new unit be so susceptible to it?

The process for which units get nerfed just seems to not be working in a fair manner. I think the rules you highlight are great examples of this - those rules were fair because they could be applied to a number of armies across the board. I also recognize that sometimes it would be good to nerf a new, crazy formation... but the Ghostkeel ruling really bothers me, even though I'm not a Tau player, as it seems to be unfairly targeted as a new unit. My guess is that when put to a vote, if the question is worded fairly, that ruling will be overturned... but it will still be in effect for the LVO.

They do a great job overall with their FAQ, but a clearer process for "nerfs" of new units would address almost all complaints that have been raised, and is well worth considering! That, or just put them in a separate section of the ITC packet so that TOs can more easily choose whether or not to use the "power level adjustment" rulings, as opposed to the normal FAQ.

RiTides wrote:This is exactly the problem (and for what it's worth, a lot of people in the thread have been posting "I have no problem with what the ITC did here except the Ghostkeel ruling"). I am really hopeful, Kriswall, that when the ITC actually puts this up for vote this won't pass. At least, I really hope this item is one of the voting questions, as otherwise it just seems like a completely unnecessary nerf to a cool new unit...

As a Tyranid player, I really don't want that to happen to us when we finally get something new and cool (hey, a guy can dream right ). How does it make sense to limit this model when so many others are just rampantly better. It seems to me that it's just because it's new, that it's on the chopping block of a "preemptive" nerf... and I really think the ITC should avoid that and stick to FAQs, and general rulings... and only nerf something that is really game-breaking or breaks the flow of the game terribly (the pirahna formation might qualify as this, and I'm OK with that change... but the Ghostkeel is just totally unecessary!).

RiTides wrote:I don't think many GW rules are truly "unambiguous" but this one was fairly clear, as thoroughly discussed in the YMDC thread I linked to. I think being a new unit it was open to being adjusted, and they did it... and I think they should make it clearer when they're adjusting for power level, versus truly clarifying the rules. Right now, it's one big mix of everything, and really hard to sort out these "power level adjustment" rulings from the true FAQ, if any TO had the energy to try to do so.

Thank you, this is what people need to understand. There's a difference between FAQ-ing a set of rules that are ambiguous or altering an ability that has been proven over time to be outrageously OP, and preemptively nerfing something into the ground before it's even had the ability to go through a few tournaments, statistical analysis, or extensive playtesting.

 Polonius wrote:
It's possible that something that was unambiguous to you was in fact, either ambiguous, or unambiguous yet meaning the opposite to somebody else?

Rules, particularly sloppily written ones, can often be read in different ways. True, some of that can be based on the biases or goals of the reader, but anybody that's spent any time with contract language knows that seemingly clear language can still have different meanings.

There's a lot of confidence in how clearly rules can be read, and as a legal professional, I cringe.

Interpretations can obviously vary from person to person, but when you read words saying that a MODEL can do X and interpret is as ambiguous and possibly meaning that a UNIT can do X... your interpretation probably isn't valid.

The Ghostkeel rules text isn't particularly ambiguous. There haven't been any major rules forum debates on how the rules work. Honestly, the fact that three units have more than 3x the utility as one unit makes total sense. The background is full of examples of Tau tech creating a "force multiplier" effect. Heck, the majority of their Signature Systems are force multipliers. Drone Controllers are force multipliers. Why can't countermeasures be force multipliers? The answer we get, unfortunately, is that the ITC said so and a relatively small cross section of the gaming community that isn't necessarily representative of the whole agreed.

 RiTides wrote:
I don't think many GW rules are truly "unambiguous" but this one was fairly clear, as thoroughly discussed in the YMDC thread I linked to.

The thread you linked to doesn't show that it was clear at all. It was a half a dozen people discussing the issue, with one side of the discussion arbitrarily declaring their interpretation as the concensus.


I honestly don't think that this was done as a deliberate rules change. It was a rule that can be read two different ways, and they choose to go with the more conservative interpretation, as is so often the case in tournament FAQs in that sort of situation.

 master of ordinance wrote:
OP, I have zero sympathy.

Tau are already horrifically powerful and these nerfs should have been a lot more heavy handed IMO. But thats just me, a salty IG player whom is fed up with being lambasted by every tau army he comes across.

Being bad against an army doesn't offer you the right to nerf it whenever and however you want. That's not even an argument I can stomach. IG are fully capable of defeating the Tau Empire but they cannot try to outgun them which is what every IG player tries to do.

The FAQ in question is the official one for their events. i am 100% behind the efforts of T.O.'s putting their own stamp on events. i do too. But my FAQ for the Elvensword Ambassadorial Tournament isn't being adopted like an INAT nor do i have a ranking system people get addicted to. And I didnt come up with the idea of nerfing invisibility which was a biiiiiig reason people started looking at adopting this FAQ as their own. Back then it was nowhere near as large and obtrusive.

Now it is. Things have changed and T.O.'s need to really take a hard look if this entire concept of trying to adopt a universal FAQ is more devisive than it is smart. We have to live with the local players and if they start getting ticked off and just not showing up? The community cant take more of this devisiveness. Every time you decide you have to step in instead of let players play their games, you create this potential.

That is a problem for us who want to go to tournaments locally, and they end up being ITC. Because now we have to play under this convoluted, bloated format with a ton of "What...they changed that? really? why?" conversations and a bunch of stuff more casual players dont even have the time or care to keep up on. they bounce the FAQ's out without much warning and it's getting old. Fast.

Its a problem for T.O.'s who are not paid and are mostly community builders, like me. I spend a lot of time building up the community and this is making people have this kind of disuccsion. this discussion is happening across the internet now and in my game store. Its poisoning the waters by simply stepping on too many things and playing the role of Batman.

The LVO has the RIGHT and PRIVILEGE to do as they please. So this is more me talking to the T.O. community than it is even to the Frontline Gaming people. they dont care what my opinion is. At all. They will respond to one thing: Actualized results of these discussions in attendance and in events that choose to BE ITC.

Maybe it's just not WORTH being an ITC event if it means this divisiveness. And it's coming from all sides here.

 dbgoldberg323 wrote:
Thank you, this is what people need to understand. There's a difference between FAQ-ing a set of rules that are ambiguous or altering an ability that has been proven over time to be outrageously OP, and preemptively nerfing something into the ground before it's even had the ability to go through a few tournaments, statistical analysis, or extensive playtesting.

The problem, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, is getting people to agree when something is ambiguous.

If you think a rule is clear, and the guy writing the FAQ thinks it's ambiguous and goes with an interpretation that differs from your 'clear' reading of the rule, of course you're going to assume that he's just changing the rules, when that's not actually necessarily the case.

We've seen this time and time again with FAQs, both unofficial ones and those coming from GW - people get set on the idea that the way that they read a given rule is the only possible 'correct' way to read it, and will just assume that anyone who reads it differently is wrong... when quite a lot of the time, it's simply that the language used can be interpreted multiple ways.



Although, to be honest, it's entirely possible that the 'each model can use the ability individually' interpretation for the Ghostkeel is the more correct RAW, and that GW simply didn't consider the effect of having multiples in a unit. Either way, though, I think the ruling is the 'right' one.

 insaniak wrote:
Although, to be honest, it's entirely possible that the 'each model can use the ability individually' interpretation for the Ghostkeel is the more correct RAW, and that GW simply didn't consider the effect of having multiples in a unit. Either way, though, I think the ruling is the 'right' one.

That's definitely the side I come down on (obviously). The rule wording uses individual tense a Lot, but it has to also use the word unit for where the effect applies because the Ghostkeel always comes with drones.

GW probably wrote the rule, then later added that they could be run in groups, without adjusting the wording. So, like usual, they made it hard on their players... but to rule it the way the ITC has, is simply to say "Only ever run this model as a single". It sucks for Tau players, and just because they're a "good" army, I hate to see rulings like this invalidating cool options (the opposite of what a FAQ should do when possible, imo).

 insaniak wrote:

 dbgoldberg323 wrote:
Thank you, this is what people need to understand. There's a difference between FAQ-ing a set of rules that are ambiguous or altering an ability that has been proven over time to be outrageously OP, and preemptively nerfing something into the ground before it's even had the ability to go through a few tournaments, statistical analysis, or extensive playtesting.

The problem, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, is getting people to agree when something is ambiguous.

If you think a rule is clear, and the guy writing the FAQ thinks it's ambiguous and goes with an interpretation that differs from your 'clear' reading of the rule, of course you're going to assume that he's just changing the rules, when that's not actually necessarily the case.

We've seen this time and time again with FAQs, both unofficial ones and those coming from GW - people get set on the idea that the way that they read a given rule is the only possible 'correct' way to read it, and will just assume that anyone who reads it differently is wrong... when quite a lot of the time, it's simply that the language used can be interpreted multiple ways.



Although, to be honest, it's entirely possible that the 'each model can use the ability individually' interpretation for the Ghostkeel is the more correct RAW, and that GW simply didn't consider the effect of having multiples in a unit. Either way, though, I think the ruling is the 'right' one.

The "right one". Ultimately, many of us are making value judgments. If I had a dollar for every time someone tried to justify a rules interpretation that is clearly wrong with a statement that it seems more fair, I wouldn't be as pissed about wasting my money on three Ghostkeels I no longer feel like using.

On a side note, is the ITC offering refunds for the models they render less useful? (Snark. Obviously not serious. Just irritated.)

However, this isn't a rules forum, so I'll let the interpretation thing go.

I actually support blatant nerfs that rebalance an overly unbalanced situation. If the same rules "trick" is showing up over and over in the top tournament lists, it's probably unbalanced and needs to be pulled back a bit. On the other hand, preemptive nerfs where there is no real evidence that a rule will create an unbalanced situation seems bad.

 Kriswall wrote:
On the other hand, preemptive nerfs where there is no real evidence that a rule will create an unbalanced situation seems bad.

I think that would be somewhat situational, but I dont see a problem with a TO removing a potential issue before it actually arises if they think letting it happen might result in people having less fun at their event.

Take the endless drone farm, for example. That's exactly the sort of thing that I would much rather have removed from the game before I wind up facing it on the table, because unless I'm prepared specifically for it, it's just not going ot result in a fun game.


And players getting to triple the use of a single-use ability at no extra cost just by having a few models stand close to each other feels like just the same kind of rules exploit that will spoil peoples' day. Whether or not it's actually overpowered, it feels cheaty.


YMMV, obviously.

 Jancoran wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
OP, I have zero sympathy.

Tau are already horrifically powerful and these nerfs should have been a lot more heavy handed IMO. But thats just me, a salty IG player whom is fed up with being lambasted by every tau army he comes across.

Being bad against an army doesn't offer you the right to nerf it whenever and however you want. That's not even an argument I can stomach. IG are fully capable of defeating the Tau Empire but they cannot try to outgun them which is what every IG player tries to do.

because the army was designed to function by outgunning its opponents, and thats how most people who get into IG want to play them, and how it still works best on most games. IG dont have much in the departments of maneuver or raw resiliency, nor terribly tricksy deployment shemnanigans or the like. A Tau player facing an IG player will generally have every major advantage except model (though not always unit) count, which isnt much for thr IG to capitalize on in 7th edition.

Can they win? Sure. Will they win on anything near an even basis with an equally skilled Tau opponenent? No. Thats not unique to Tau however.

Now it is. Things have changed and T.O.'s need to really take a hard look if this entire concept of trying to adopt a universal FAQ is more devisive than it is smart. We have to live with the local players and if they start getting ticked off and just not showing up? The community cant take more of this devisiveness.



Maybe it's just not WORTH being an ITC event if it means this divisiveness. And it's coming from all sides here.

I think honestly, with the current edition, youre going to get a similar level of divisiveness no matter what. There are just too many divergent expectations, too many abusesble mechanics, and too wide an array of perceptions at this point to avoid it with 7th edition. There is no perfect answer. I'm not the greatest fan of the ITC, but i dont think it's any worse than anything else out there, none of them thrill me, and i dont think anyone thinks any of them are perfect.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
It's possible that something that was unambiguous to you was in fact, either ambiguous, or unambiguous yet meaning the opposite to somebody else?

Rules, particularly sloppily written ones, can often be read in different ways. True, some of that can be based on the biases or goals of the reader, but anybody that's spent any time with contract language knows that seemingly clear language can still have different meanings.

There's a lot of confidence in how clearly rules can be read, and as a legal professional, I cringe.

Interpretations can obviously vary from person to person, but when you read words saying that a MODEL can do X and interpret is as ambiguous and possibly meaning that a UNIT can do X... your interpretation probably isn't valid.

The Ghostkeel rules text isn't particularly ambiguous. There haven't been any major rules forum debates on how the rules work. Honestly, the fact that three units have more than 3x the utility as one unit makes total sense. The background is full of examples of Tau tech creating a "force multiplier" effect. Heck, the majority of their Signature Systems are force multipliers. Drone Controllers are force multipliers. Why can't countermeasures be force multipliers? The answer we get, unfortunately, is that the ITC said so and a relatively small cross section of the gaming community that isn't necessarily representative of the whole agreed.

I disagree with the ruling, in that I think it goes with a less plausible interpretation of the rules, while also depriving a unit of utility, when clarifications should endeavor to preserve utility where not game breaking.

That said, I can see where people perceive an ambiguity.

 Vaktathi wrote:

...because the army was designed to function by outgunning its opponents, and thats how most people who get into IG want to play them,

and being inflexible in how you play them is probably why you're struggling. I don't know that as fact. its not relevant here. So lets keep it on the FAQ i guess and you can PM me about IG tactica.

 insaniak wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
I also recognize that sometimes it would be good to nerf a new, crazy formation... but the Ghostkeel ruling really bothers me, even though I'm not a Tau player, as it seems to be unfairly targeted as a new unit.

The thing is, I don't think it's 'unfairly targeted' at all, because the rule as written is ambiguous (one reference to the model using the ability, one to the unit triggering it), and if you go with them being used on a model by model basis, the ability becomes exponentially more powerful when you have them in a unit, due to the rule benefiting the unit as a whole...

Basically, you have an ability that is supposed to provide a benefit to a model once per game. Put two of those models in a unit, and allow them to trigger that ability separately, and suddenly the model gets double the benefit of that ability, for no extra individual cost. Three in a unit means three times the power for no extra individual cost. That's three turns of coverage for an ability that is only supposed to provide the model a benefit for a single turn.

Frankly, I think they made the right call on this one.



On the Piranha thing, it strikes me that when a similar 'nerf' was made to Eldar Swooping Hawks back in 4th edition, even Eldar players largely agreed it was for the best. Having units that can affect the game without ever actually standing on the board is not good for the game.

You are missing the point... that does not matter. The ability affects the unit that is shooting. With this ruling, I either make 3 units snapfire at individual ghost keels or 1 unit snapfire at my squad of ghost keels.

with the CORRECT ruling of this ability: 3 separate ghoskeels and 3 ghostkeels in a squad end up doing the same thing: Making 3 different enemies snapfire. You are incorrectly assuming 3x3=9 uses of the ability, when that is not true. You are still making 3 enemy units snapfire.

The itc is clown shoes. We already had this discussion. They can't afford to offend their highest attending/paying majority, the imperium players, and there are too many eldar players to vote a Nerf in. But then they pretend to have goodwill toward the little guy "orks" by using outdated incorrect info to make orks as mono list as war convocation admech have to be. Literally nobody asked for that change.

The thing you have to remember is their very much a business. And that means kissing ass to your majority customer base. Even if it means appeasing them by making the minority mad. No reason to get mad. Essentially they are a corporation owned by the majority shareholders, in this case imperium players, doing what corporations do. If not and they had their own choices do you really think things like scat bikes, wraith knights, sky hammer marines, Gladius or necron decursion would go unchanged. Of course not. They are not blind to them. They just aren't allowed to do anything because they know if they touched them their sales, tournaments, and twitch channel would essentially be committing suicide.

notredameguy10 wrote:
. You are incorrectly assuming 3x3=9 uses of the ability, .

No, I'm not. I'm assuming that benefiting from an ability 3 times is different to benefiting from an ability once.

 insaniak wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
. You are incorrectly assuming 3x3=9 uses of the ability, .

No, I'm not. I'm assuming that benefiting from an ability 3 times is different to benefiting from an ability once.

But its not and thats what you don't see

3 individual ghost keels = 3 uses of ability = 3 enemy units having to snapfire
3 ghostkeels in 1 squad = 3 uses of ability = 3 enemy units having to snapfire

Whats so difficult to see about that

notredameguy10 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
. You are incorrectly assuming 3x3=9 uses of the ability, .

No, I'm not. I'm assuming that benefiting from an ability 3 times is different to benefiting from an ability once.

But its not and thats what you don't see

3 individual ghost keels = 3 uses of ability = 3 enemy units having to snapfire
3 ghostkeels in 1 squad = 3 uses of ability = 3 enemy units having to snapfire

Whats so difficult to see about that

The 3 ghostkeels in a single unit is also 3x as durable as a single ghostkeel

 insaniak wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
. You are incorrectly assuming 3x3=9 uses of the ability, .

No, I'm not. I'm assuming that benefiting from an ability 3 times is different to benefiting from an ability once.

The Ghostkeel ability affects the UNIT...Not the Ghostkeels. So it's actually pretty darn relevant. Those NOT in the know seem to be missing this issue. It isn't like invisibility, it's worse than invisibility. It's expensive. And its the way it was written. You're literally suggesting that the "blind" effect it effectively projects (in some ways) is somehow HARDER to do on the enemy unit because the Ghostkeels have some more of these Holoprojections ot throw?

Its nonsense. the TARGET unit is the enemy unit. IT is blinded (not literally) and it makes no dang difference whether theres three or one Ghostkeels when you're temporarily blinded. you cant see anything anyways for that time. that's what the gear does. and a ton of people aren't understanding that.

Anywho. They do what they want because they can and whatevs. T.O.'s again need to just boycott it or just not use the full document or whatever. Its their right to write it but its not the correct call.

 Jancoran wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
. You are incorrectly assuming 3x3=9 uses of the ability, .

No, I'm not. I'm assuming that benefiting from an ability 3 times is different to benefiting from an ability once.

The Ghostkeel ability affects the UNIT...Not the Ghostkeels. So it's actually pretty darn relevant. Those NOT in the know seem to be missing this issue. It isn't like invisibility, it's worse than invisibility. It's expensive. And its the way it was written. You're literally suggesting that the "blind" effect it effectively projects (in some ways) is somehow HARDER to do on the enemy unit because the Ghostkeels have some more of these Holoprojections ot throw?

Its nonsense. the TARGET unit is the enemy unit. IT is blinded (not literally) and it makes no dang difference whether theres three or one Ghostkeels when you're temporarily blinded. you cant see anything anyways for that time. that's what the gear does. and a ton of people aren't understanding that.

Anywho. They do what they want because they can and whatevs. T.O.'s again need to just boycott it or just not use the full document or whatever. Its their right to write it but its not the correct call.

Jancoran, your attitude is abrasive. What do you mean "those in the know"? Is there some great secret that you're not telling us? Or can you just not accept that differences of opinion exist?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
. You are incorrectly assuming 3x3=9 uses of the ability, .

No, I'm not. I'm assuming that benefiting from an ability 3 times is different to benefiting from an ability once.

The Ghostkeel ability affects the UNIT...Not the Ghostkeels. So it's actually pretty darn relevant. Those NOT in the know seem to be missing this issue. It isn't like invisibility, it's worse than invisibility. It's expensive. And its the way it was written. You're literally suggesting that the "blind" effect it effectively projects (in some ways) is somehow HARDER to do on the enemy unit because the Ghostkeels have some more of these Holoprojections ot throw?

Its nonsense. the TARGET unit is the enemy unit. IT is blinded (not literally) and it makes no dang difference whether theres three or one Ghostkeels when you're temporarily blinded. you cant see anything anyways for that time. that's what the gear does. and a ton of people aren't understanding that.

Anywho. They do what they want because they can and whatevs. T.O.'s again need to just boycott it or just not use the full document or whatever. Its their right to write it but its not the correct call.

Jancoran, your attitude is abrasive. What do you mean "those in the know"? Is there some great secret that you're not telling us? Or can you just not accept that differences of opinion exist?

those in the know being the large number of people who don't play Tau, OR haven't read the codex OR certainly haven't spent the time to actually see that this isn't a power that affects the Ghostkeels...which is pretty critical to the debate. Abrasive is the word you use to describe people who aren't telling you what you like to hear. Sorry about that. but this is the issue. Right here. If you can tell me how it makes sense that I should cast BLINd on another unit... and it should take "more blindness" to work if I happen to have more? then I'd get your point. but I don't. Because you haven't. Its a limited version, it is a limited number of times, and its per time you do it. That's it. I can shoot you with a Sun Rifle and you get blinded. Are we going to FAQ that this can be done but once per game? No. we're not. so why are we doing it here? You don't know. You don't know because you didn't even think of it in those terms. Only its worse than a sun rifles effect.

So if stating my case is abrasive to you, you need a new definition.

There is no Tau hate coming from ITC. Even orks, a army we can agree is not anywhere near top tier was nerfed by not being able to bring the half-price stompa. Despite this you did not see Ork players calling for blood and boycotts.

I am not trying to insult Tau players, but it seems that there is such a higher percentage of WAAC players among them. I have read forums complaining about riptides and Rail-canons being to weak and that they need to be drastically stronger.

ITC FAQ's are good in lieu of GW not having any. Also, it's not JUST Tau. Invisibility is nerfed. All rerollable saves were nerfed too, so Daemons and Ravenwing got their rerollables nerfed.

Now, if they would just do something about Eldar.

 Jancoran wrote:
Abrasive is the word you use to describe people who aren't telling you what you like to hear.


So if stating my case is abrasive to you, you need a new definition.

There are plenty of ways to tell people what they don't want to hear without being abrasive.

You're not being called abrasive due to the content of your posts, but due to the tone. This isn't a bar fight, make your argument and move on.

 Polonius wrote:
I disagree with the ruling, in that I think it goes with a less plausible interpretation of the rules, while also depriving a unit of utility, when clarifications should endeavor to preserve utility where not game breaking.

That said, I can see where people perceive an ambiguity.

Exactly - "clarifications should endeavor to preserve utility where not game breaking". Lately, the ITC has been doing the opposite for anything "new"... and I really think the trend should be pointed out, and if at all possible, discontinued in the future!

 Orock wrote:
If not and they had their own choices do you really think things like scat bikes, wraith knights, sky hammer marines, Gladius or necron decursion would go unchanged. Of course not. They are not blind to them. They just aren't allowed to do anything because they know if they touched them their sales, tournaments, and twitch channel would essentially be committing suicide.

I don't agree with everything in your post / the way you're saying it, but that is what I've been trying to get across - there are such more egregious problems with existing armies, why is the fact that something new comes out an excuse to preemptively nerf it? It just doesn't make any sense given what existing units are allowed to go untouched.

Again, I don't play Tau, but I don't want this to be the "norm" and what happens going forward... that the meta is determined by the ITC "preemptively" adjusting the power level of units. Every 40K player knows the top heavy hitters that should be adjusted, and Orock quoted some of them. To go after something like the Ghostkeel is just too much imo... let the meta adjust itself, and only make rules clarifications or adjust detachments that really need it.

In other words, I'd really like to see a "lighter touch" from the ITC... this is just too heavy-handed and unnecessarily removes a cool unit for Tau that wasn't game-breaking at all. Absolutely no one would field more than one Ghostkeel to get the same defensive abilities that one has on its own... so with this ruling they're setting the meta without any need to do so.

so basically if we have a burr under our saddle about an army... We "do something about it". Like a lynch mob? Like the guys who lose the championship game and go keying the other fans cars?

Do Eldar "deserve" some bad rulings? is that how we will go about it is deciding who "deserves" it?

My problem is two fold. in one hand I see that ITC has done some pretty good things. things the game needed. Things GW could still do on its own and would have widespread support. those things are good things and I subjectively like them. and that makes me guilty of seeking to knock out some peoples plans for world domination such as in the case of Invisibility. Should I do that to them?

On the other hand I see these rulings that, as one who plays a ton of armies, I just don't even understand how these thigns are worthy of actual FAQ consideration plus the ones where they flat out alter the rules in ways like the Ghostkeel situation. and I say to myself: These are terrible and unfair. these are NOTHING like the Invisibility issue or the VERY few issues that I find are worthy of the attention. and that also is subjective.

and So here is the solution I have offered before and will posit again: Seek a super majority for these rulings. No super majority, no ruling. 65% of the people agree? boom. that margin is enough. 50.01%? No! And in this case 0% agreement was sought. 0%. this was just them DECIDING to do it.

if they want the thing to last, unlik the INAT, a super majority vote would make me feel SO much better about all of it. and that is a change they could make tomorrow in the absence of a GW FAQ.

GW needs to do an FAQ. but we can't make them. We do however have some ability to influence the ITC and so I have held out hope for them more than any other INAT type thing that has come along before. Wit hthe snap of a finger they could right this ship and make these discussions a thing of the past. get 65% and say 1000 votes minimum to agree and I would feel it was legitimately in need of a change. otherwise Playters and TO's can totally work these things out. This isn't new territory.

A super majority would set my mind at ease and most peoples at ease.

 Mojo1jojo wrote:
There is no Tau hate coming from ITC. Even orks, a army we can agree is not anywhere near top tier was nerfed by not being able to bring the half-price stompa. Despite this you did not see Ork players calling for blood and boycotts.

I am not trying to insult Tau players, but it seems that there is such a higher percentage of WAAC players among them. I have read forums complaining about riptides and Rail-canons being to weak and that they need to be drastically stronger.

Probably because a lot of players jumped on Tau recently and are now irked that the money they just spent won't instantly crush their opponents.

I am not even joking I do actually believe this to be true of 75% of the playerbase (However for me, Kriswall would be in the other 25%, who just happened to be in the wrong faction at the wrong time. He's been fairly reasonable so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt).

 RiTides wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I disagree with the ruling, in that I think it goes with a less plausible interpretation of the rules, while also depriving a unit of utility, when clarifications should endeavor to preserve utility where not game breaking.

That said, I can see where people perceive an ambiguity.

Exactly - "clarifications should endeavor to preserve utility where not game breaking". Lately, the ITC has been doing the opposite for anything "new"... and I really think the trend should be pointed out, and if at all possible, discontinued in the future!

I would bet, albeit not heavily, that if the concern were presented as such, these proposed rulings might flip. I don't know.

Consistency is a virtue when making decisions, and if they're trying to preserve the utility of other models, they should continue to do so. I'd be curious to see if they took into account the bookkeeping required to keep track of how many holoprojections the unit has remaining.

The best way to analogize this, if you were to prepare a rebuttal, would be that upgrades such as combi-meltas are one use only, but are linked by model, not by unit. And while the RAW does lean towards a unit using Holoprojectors (lets be honest, that word "unit" creeps into the rule"), the RAI is pretty clear that each model has one charge.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Mojo1jojo wrote:
There is no Tau hate coming from ITC. Even orks, a army we can agree is not anywhere near top tier was nerfed by not being able to bring the half-price stompa. Despite this you did not see Ork players calling for blood and boycotts.

I am not trying to insult Tau players, but it seems that there is such a higher percentage of WAAC players among them. I have read forums complaining about riptides and Rail-canons being to weak and that they need to be drastically stronger.

Probably because a lot of players jumped on Tau recently and are now irked that the money they just spent won't instantly crush their opponents.

I am not even joking I do actually believe this to be true of 75% of the playerbase (However for me, Kriswall would be in the other 25%, who just happened to be in the wrong faction at the wrong time. He's been fairly reasonable so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt).

What? I've played Tau empire since 2004. it was my first army. Maybe there is some bandwagoneering going on. 75%? Seems a little harsh.

Yeah, I think RAI is pretty clear, too... and the word "unit" had to creep in due to even only a single Ghostkeel having their effect apply to the drones, too.

I also agree that this ruling might flip, but that's partly my issue - a lot hangs on these rulings, and the way the questions for the polls are come up with, the phrasing, and in this case a number of quite significant rulings the same week as the event... I think they need to work a bit on transparency or just the process in general.

To compare it to actual voting, there is a long and rigorous process in most states for getting measures on the ballot, there are processes in place for overturning these measures even if passed, etc etc. There are still unfair things that happen, but the process is visible.

Here, it's a hybrid where people get to vote, but only for a short time, on a very narrow set of questions, and with the phrasing sometimes strongly in favor of a certain outcome. So, I think if this process is to continue, that needs to be worked on... in the end, I don't mind if a committee decides the rules either, but right now it's listed as being democratic, but the process (with the exception of the actual few days of voting) really feels like the opposite.

Even for getting things on the ballot, I think you're supposed to email frankie AT frontline DOT com or the like? Maybe a few emails asking for the Ghostkeel question to be on the next ballot would be good! But that process itself should be made more clear, too...

In the end, I'm sure it's a ton of work and a rather thankless task (just look at this thread!). It's awesome that Frontline is willing to do this but "with great power comes great responsibility", so there's going to be the need to adjust as they learn, too!

Tau was my first army in 2009. I had a pretty sizable army but got bored with playing a gun line army, though now I would probley be able to have a couple of really good builds had I added any one of the new models.

I can get how people can be frustrated but all this ITC hate is overboard, all I am trying to say is that almost every army has been nerfed by ITC rules in one way or another, I bet you can still do a good Tau list with the nerfs that would be competative

I think I found the correct address - it is:

frankie AT frontlinegaming DOT org

If anyone else wants the Ghostkeel question on the next ballot, it would be a very good idea to email the above address! I just sent this:

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!

Relevant threads on Dakka:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/678686.page

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/678734.page

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/675443.page#8424541

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!

Cheers,
Steve G / RiTides

 Jancoran wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

...because the army was designed to function by outgunning its opponents, and thats how most people who get into IG want to play them,

and being inflexible in how you play them is probably why you're struggling. I don't know that as fact. its not relevant here. So lets keep it on the FAQ i guess and you can PM me about IG tactica.

ok, we'll leave the rather unsubtle L2P insinuation as a substitute for being unable to actually muster a coherent response, but my main point was that many of these armies aren't on anything near equal footings, with massive capability gaps, and that these apply to the game as a whole and feed into the divisiveness that you were bemoaning the ITC causing. There is no format that isnt going to generate drama and divisiveness, the game is simply so messy with so many balance issues and so little focus that expectations simply are not controllable the way they were in previous editions.

The game as it stands in 7th edition doesnt know what it wants to be, and quite frankly makes for an awful organized play ruleset. There isnt a way to structure an event thats not going to make *somebody* butthurt, and the ITC isnt doing any worse job than anyone else. Would i feel undergunned with my Tau in an ITC event? Probably not, or if so, not because of the event rules.


The big problem i have with things like the ITC or old INAT is when they impress themselves on more casual play, though sadly, at least in my area, casual play appears to be increasingly rare, making the issue moot.

Are tau players that signed up for itc events prior to this eligible for a refund. Because changing the rules this close feels like bait and switch.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

...because the army was designed to function by outgunning its opponents, and thats how most people who get into IG want to play them,

and being inflexible in how you play them is probably why you're struggling. I don't know that as fact. its not relevant here. So lets keep it on the FAQ i guess and you can PM me about IG tactica.

ok, we'll leave the rather unsubtle L2P insinuation as a substitute for being unable to actually muster a coherent response, but my main point was that many of these armies aren't on anything near equal footings, with massive capability gaps, and that these apply to the game as a whole and feed into the divisiveness that you were bemoaning the ITC causing. There is no format that isnt going to generate drama and divisiveness, the game is simply so messy with so many balance issues and so little focus that expectations simply are not controllable the way they were in previous editions.

The game as it stands in 7th edition doesnt know what it wants to be, and quite frankly makes for an awful organized play ruleset. There isnt a way to structure an event thats not going to make *somebody* butthurt, and the ITC isnt doing any worse job than anyone else. Would i feel undergunned with my Tau in an ITC event? Probably not, or if so, not because of the event rules.


The big problem i have with things like the ITC or old INAT is when they impress themselves on more casual play, though sadly, at least in my area, casual play appears to be increasingly rare, making the issue moot.

How are they "impressing" themselves on casual play?

 Orock wrote:
Are tau players that signed up for itc events prior to this eligible for a refund. Because changing the rules this close feels like bait and switch.

Nothing got banned. Its not like tau playes that had a preplanned list are now sitting with an illegal army

I think there's still an elephant in the room, and maybe the answers to this question should come in PM format if necessary, but again where's all the evidence, bat-reps, and tournament reports showing that the use of these abilities as written (Coordinated Firepower, Re-arm & Re-fuel, Holophoton Countermeasures, etc, etc) is legitimately overpowered and dominating the game or is dangerous to the game?

Where is it?

I'm still just baffled by the presumptions and fear-mongering. Have any of YOU guys had any battles with or against these units, formations, etc, and if so how did they go? Has every game been overwhelming in Tau's favor, every time or a majority of the time? What tournaments have you been to where these abilities were allowed to be used to their full potential and Tau mopped up specifically because of it? Have you tried building lists to counter it? How did that go? Have you tried approaching those games in different ways?

I'm not being snarky, I actually want to know. Reply to this, PM me, or start a new thread and direct me to it (or hell, I will). I just don't think it does anyone any good to rush to these boards and scream "BROKEN!" when we really don't know if it is because the nerfs went into place before we could even find out.

Tau don't get Psykers or Assault units. We skip those phases so of course the army has to focus on shooting and movement. Why are people still surprised 15 years later that Tau get to do those things well? Get a squad of Guardsmen in combat with Tau and you've got an even fight . Get a squad of anything that even remotely leans towards CC and you'll annihilate Tau units left and right. Multi-assault them. Tie them up. Deny them LoS with Drop Pods or again LoS-blocking terrain. Focus-fire the crucial units down. Take objectives. Focus on the mission. Where are Tau regularly making Top 8 (let alone 1st place which has yet to happen at a GT-level event to my knowledge)?

There are just way too many assumptions being made on how effective something is or isn't for Tau by Reecius, Frankie, and whoever else associated with Frontline/ITC based on nothing more than conjecture and kneejerk reactions. I have yet to see the mountains of evidence showing how Tau and all its 7th ed shenanigans used as printed are the end-all be-all of 40k in some of the highest levels of competitive gaming. There's just a bunch of people chuckling to themselves because "Tau got what was coming to them." When they come for your armies (if they haven't already) we will be having the same discussions but as someone else already said, we'll be a LOT more supportive and open to discussion on the merits of those nerfs than others are being right now.

 Mojo1jojo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

...because the army was designed to function by outgunning its opponents, and thats how most people who get into IG want to play them,

and being inflexible in how you play them is probably why you're struggling. I don't know that as fact. its not relevant here. So lets keep it on the FAQ i guess and you can PM me about IG tactica.

ok, we'll leave the rather unsubtle L2P insinuation as a substitute for being unable to actually muster a coherent response, but my main point was that many of these armies aren't on anything near equal footings, with massive capability gaps, and that these apply to the game as a whole and feed into the divisiveness that you were bemoaning the ITC causing. There is no format that isnt going to generate drama and divisiveness, the game is simply so messy with so many balance issues and so little focus that expectations simply are not controllable the way they were in previous editions.

The game as it stands in 7th edition doesnt know what it wants to be, and quite frankly makes for an awful organized play ruleset. There isnt a way to structure an event thats not going to make *somebody* butthurt, and the ITC isnt doing any worse job than anyone else. Would i feel undergunned with my Tau in an ITC event? Probably not, or if so, not because of the event rules.


The big problem i have with things like the ITC or old INAT is when they impress themselves on more casual play, though sadly, at least in my area, casual play appears to be increasingly rare, making the issue moot.

How are they "impressing" themselves on casual play?

It's not these doing it themselves, but rather when you get stores or clubs where, since their events run these rules, people often just play their pickup games with them or expect to, as pickup games often (in my experience) tend to default to whatevrr tournament rules the house uses.

Jeez, even with this so-called 'nerf' to Holophoton Countermeasures, they're still an amazing bit of wargear.... If only Smoke Launchers were half as good... :(

It's a bit to tough to swallow having to face an Optimised Stealth Cadre with a unit of 3 Ghostkeels - that can have a 2+ cover save mind you, due to Shrouded/Stealth being doubled - and the unit that you found an Ignores Cover option for then is forced to Snap Shoot for 3 turns... Talk about unkillable. Especially if you wanted to use Vehicles against them, because now they're hitting the rear armour and ignoring the only real defense of a Vehicle with its front AV value. I guess you could not shoot and pop smoke for a 5+ cover instead? But oh wait that formation gets Ignore Cover anyway just because.

 RiTides wrote:

I also agree that this ruling might flip, but that's partly my issue - a lot hangs on these rulings, and the way the questions for the polls are come up with, the phrasing, and in this case a number of quite significant rulings the same week as the event... I think they need to work a bit on transparency or just the process in general.

Transparency is a key to trust as a decision maker, but it is a lot of hard work. I'm a front line supervisor in the federal government. I manager 13 (soon to be 15) attorneys, mostly only a few years out of law school, but all smart, drive people that can understand complicated rules and standards. I spend hours a week breaking down the opaque, confusing, or outright incorrect messaging from senior management so that my staff understand our goals, my expectations, and how they will be evaluated. It's a huge part of my workload, but I need to do it gain credibility and trust.

The thought of trying to convince thousands of gamers, who are already prone to a schismatic paranoia, that a process if fair sounds exhausting. So, I understand the lack of transparency, while fully agreeing that it would help.

I think part of the problem is that 40k rules inquiries are essentially unknowable. there is no "correct" answer. Odds are, the person that wrote the holo rules didn't interact with the person that made the unit size 1-3, and so the interaction never occurred to anybody. Even if an official answer were delivered, odds are it would be the result of a metaphorical coin flip.

And that's what drives debate: the unknowable and the impossible to disprove. At the root of nearly any chronic debate, public or private, is a question with no correct answer. Sometimes you need to dig deeper than others, but pick any vicious political debate, and you'll find an existential or metaphysical question that cannot be answered. Abortion boils down to the nature of the human soul between birth and conception. Gun control boils down to liberty versus security.

GW rules debates are nastier and hotter because they become binary quite quickly, and frankly anybody with a high school education and the ability read can weigh in without making a fool of himself.

I'll never understand how Tau players ever feel justified in complaining about their codex (really codex with 2 campaign books) that have maybe one or two bad units, lots of awesome formations, and great looking models.

I just simply don't get it. That's all. I doubt that a Tau player could really make me understand because I won't see it from their perspective, I don't have a Tau army, but I feel like I were a Tau player I probably wouldn't care because I would still want to collect most of the faction and run my list whatever way I wanted that day anyway.

I don't have any problem with ITC rulings "nerfing" the Pirahna formation or the Ghostkeel ability, like literally, it's not that gakky of a thing to do. Tau players will still be just fine with those rulings, that's why IMO it's not a gakky thing to do.

 dbgoldberg323 wrote:
I think there's still an elephant in the room, and maybe the answers to this question should come in PM format if necessary, but again where's all the evidence, bat-reps, and tournament reports showing that the use of these abilities as written (Coordinated Firepower, Re-arm & Re-fuel, Holophoton Countermeasures, etc, etc) is legitimately overpowered and dominating the game or is dangerous to the game?

Where is it?

Jy2 (a notable tournament player) has already posted his experience against Piranha Factory http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/678686.page#8424917 And also made an excellent post about the issue Piranha Factory is in a tournament http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/675443.page#8424974

Regarding the Holophoton and Tank Shocking Stormsurges, its is a rules clarification (despite how clear some people feel the rules are written, they aren't) not a targeted nerf (heck the Stormsurge one is a buff because the alternative is that the Stormsurge just auto dies)

As with Coordinated Firepower the rules are a little murky but my understanding is that Frankie and Reece had play tested it and they found it too strong. Also that is has dominated a Euorpean tournament. Plus that one was polled so majority agreed that is too much.

Okay, consider this for a moment...

I read that this decision was pushed out to make it in time for the LVO and was kind of a last minute thing. That would make sense because they are potentially game breaking in their own rights, like the infinite drone spawning. That is an issue that I think most people don't have a problem with because it is so powerful/game breaking. The Stormsurge ruling is yet again a straight forward FAQ that no one seems to be upset about.

The thing that everyone is upset about is the Ghostkeel ruling which if I remember right the formation allows you to take up to three? So that would be three turns of basically invisibility for this unit of MCs, correct? Okay, the ITC has already nerfed invisibility so this new ability which is just another form of it should come as no surprise, was nerfed. No, they likely haven't had time to test it but as was stated they needed to get these issues out of the way before LVO and due to that they had to make a decision on how to handle this new invisibility and I can totally understand why they just limited it to once a game use rather than change it another way. It is a simple fix to test the waters, see how this pseudo-invisibility works unchanged while disallowing a unit to have 3 turns of near immunity. Makes sense, right?

Plus, they can always go back and change it if it proves not to be an issue. But what would you, as an TO, have happen? Upset people by changing a potentially broken mechanic? Or let the broken mechanic reign supreme and sweep the tournament?

I hate to say "back in my day" BUT

Whatever happened to, if there are two possible interpretations of the rule, good sportsmanship insists on the less beneficial interpretation?

More broadly: For those arguing that a unit of Ghostkeels gets multiple uses from multiple Ghostkeels, are you capable of understanding the argument, even if you disagree with it, that the phrase "the unit uses the holophoton" means the entire unit uses its one-use item at one time implies that it is single-use? If you understand it, even if you disagree, right there is where it is ambiguous. If you say "But . . ." you are still implying yes, which means you in fact recognize it's ambiguous.

If it's ambiguous, it's fair for a FAQ, which means this isn't a nerf or arbitrary, but is in fact a FAQ.

A number of people on this thread are also making the emotional mistake of assuming intent. ie, "They only did this because Tau are seen as overpowered, therefore they are anti-Tau, therefore they did this because Tau are seen as overpowered, therefore this is personal to Tau players." That's circular argument, and a logical fallacy. It's ambiguous, they made the conservative (ie, less powerful) interpretation, and those who are pointing out Tau are still strong are generally- with a few exceptions- not saying that "Tau had it coming!" but are instead arguing- in most cases, by my read of tone- "It's not like this is crippling to Tau, so why the fuss?"

EDIT: For the counter-argument that "Ghostkeels come in units, that use of unit doesn't mean anything"; that's assuming intent on behalf of the designers. I can assume the designers want us all to morph into unicorns too- in pure logic space, that's not an argument. As a discussion of how the use of unit could be an error, it's a valid interpretation, but is fundamentally speculative.

 Vaktathi wrote:


substitute for being unable to actually muster a coherent response, .

sure. You can say that's what it was. You could also say it was me trying desperately not to spin off into a tactics discussion. whatevs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

My main point was that many of these armies aren't on anything near equal footings, with massive capability gaps, and that these apply to the game as a whole and feed into the divisiveness that you were bemoaning the ITC causing. There is no format that isnt going to generate drama and divisiveness, the game is simply so messy with so many balance issues and so little focus that expectations simply are not controllable the way they were in previous editions.

The game as it stands in 7th edition doesnt know what it wants to be, and quite frankly makes for an awful organized play ruleset. There isnt a way to structure an event thats not going to make *somebody* butthurt, and the ITC isnt doing any worse job than anyone else. Would i feel undergunned with my Tau in an ITC event? Probably not, or if so, not because of the event rules.


The big problem i have with things like the ITC or old INAT is when they impress themselves on more casual play, though sadly, at least in my area, casual play appears to be increasingly rare, making the issue moot.

I unfortunately dont agree withthe DEGREE you characteriz here of the gap between armies. but lets assume i did: that isnt actually a reason to go changing the rules you dont like and pretending like the rationale makes "perfect sense".

But i dont share the feeling of inequity as keenly as you. That's just a degree thing. There are inequities. Just not these vast expanses you describe that would therefore justify this irrational ruling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ultimentra wrote:


I'll never understand how Tau players ever feel justified in complaining about their codex.

They're largely not. That wasn't what was happening here. This had zero to do with codex. Its about he FAQ.

BrainFireBob wrote:
I hate to say "back in my day" BUT

Whatever happened to, if there are two possible interpretations of the rule, good sportsmanship insists on the less beneficial interpretation?.

I just want to point out that this stance doesn't really work because the opposing player benefits from the less beneficial interpretation so neither side of a rule dispute is inherently fair because one player is always going get a benefit.

(I agree with everything else you said though)

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
Okay, consider this for a moment...

I read that this decision was pushed out to make it in time for the LVO and was kind of a last minute thing. That would make sense because they are potentially game breaking in their own rights, like the infinite drone spawning. That is an issue that I think most people don't have a problem with because it is so powerful/game breaking. The Stormsurge ruling is yet again a straight forward FAQ that no one seems to be upset about.

The thing that everyone is upset about is the Ghostkeel ruling which if I remember right the formation allows you to take up to three? So that would be three turns of basically invisibility for this unit of MCs, correct? Okay, the ITC has already nerfed invisibility so this new ability which is just another form of it should come as no surprise, was nerfed. No, they likely haven't had time to test it but as was stated they needed to get these issues out of the way before LVO and due to that they had to make a decision on how to handle this new invisibility and I can totally understand why they just limited it to once a game use rather than change it another way. It is a simple fix to test the waters, see how this pseudo-invisibility works unchanged while disallowing a unit to have 3 turns of near immunity. Makes sense, right?

Plus, they can always go back and change it if it proves not to be an issue. But what would you, as an TO, have happen? Upset people by changing a potentially broken mechanic? Or let the broken mechanic reign supreme and sweep the tournament?

No. its not. You have got to read it. Its application is way more narrow than invisibility. Its used on a SINGLE unit at a time! NOT the enemy army! At best if you are willing to kick out the points for it...IF... you can try and protect yourself from threee units total... total... in one game. This does not compare to invisibility in any way. Its like a very limited Blind effect. That's what it actually is. People are likening it to something its not like. This makes my point that people have not even read this thing! Its like listening to the media react to the media instead of the actual source of the news.

It was a common sportsmanship attitude when I started- because it was obviously to your advantage to have the "better" interpretation, you assumed you wouldn't unless your opponent acceded- it meant you weren't trying to browbeat them. Basic courtesy, man.

BrainFireBob wrote:
It was a common sportsmanship attitude when I started- because it was obviously to your advantage to have the "better" interpretation, you assumed you wouldn't unless your opponent acceded- it meant you weren't trying to browbeat them. Basic courtesy, man.

The same could be said for the opponent challenging you on a rules interpretation. It would be more sporting for them to let you have the advantage because then they don't look like they're nitpicking for an advantage.

That's true- and don't get me wrong, I understand you- but I control what I do, not what they do. If I go in and ask- but assume I can only have the better interpretation if they agree- then there's no rage, because they're not necessarily being an ass.

Besides, there's always the head game that if they beat you with the weak interpretation, you both know, and if you win with the weak interpretation, you both know. That's what they used to call "gamesmanship".

 CrownAxe wrote:

BrainFireBob wrote:
It was a common sportsmanship attitude when I started- because it was obviously to your advantage to have the "better" interpretation, you assumed you wouldn't unless your opponent acceded- it meant you weren't trying to browbeat them. Basic courtesy, man.

The same could be said for the opponent challenging you on a rules interpretation. It would be more sporting for them to let you have the advantage because then they don't look like they're nitpicking for an advantage.

that's true, but this custom arises from an unlikely place: the old rules of hospitality and decorum. When a person is in their home, or their own land, they know the rules and etiquette and have the advantage. therefore, it is polite to adjust your custom for your guest, as he is unfamiliar with your home, and is no doubt making his own changes.

When you are playing with relatively new rules, or any rules that your opponent is unfamiliar with, the idea that they can prepare a reasonable argument for or against an interpretation is silly. It is sporting, rather than pushing them into debate on a subject, to not only yield, but offer to yield. It is perfectly fine for the opponent to graciously decline, with the idea that an honorable opponent would never bend the rules.

So, the difference is that one person is familiar with the rules, and one is not. In that instance, I think it appropriate that the advantaged party yield.

Nice post on transparency (further up the page), Polonius! I agree with almost everything you said there . It is tough to get a process like this right, but that's also why it's worth discussing, imo.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
No, they likely haven't had time to test it but as was stated they needed to get these issues out of the way before LVO and due to that they had to make a decision on how to handle this new invisibility and I can totally understand why they just limited it to once a game use rather than change it another way. It is a simple fix to test the waters, see how this pseudo-invisibility works unchanged while disallowing a unit to have 3 turns of near immunity. Makes sense, right?

Plus, they can always go back and change it if it proves not to be an issue. But what would you, as an TO, have happen? Upset people by changing a potentially broken mechanic? Or let the broken mechanic reign supreme and sweep the tournament?

The Ghostkeel ability only gives them the benefit against a single enemy unit, and only once per battle. So, that's 3 enemy units on one turn, or one unit on 3 turns, if ruled permissively. Hardly game-breaking!

And that's the point - it is much better to let things play out, than to "preemptively" nerf an ability. I think a nerf should never be used as a "simple fix to test the waters"... it should be the other way around, let it be used without limitations first, and then nerf it only if absolutely necessary!

I'm hoping the ITC will move more in that direction, hence my posting about this issue which doesn't affect my army at all . But I'd much rather see folks get to try things out, and have the ITC err on the side of allowing more types of play in their rulings.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Are tau players that signed up for itc events prior to this eligible for a refund. Because changing the rules this close feels like bait and switch.

Nothing got banned. Its not like tau playes that had a preplanned list are now sitting with an illegal army

But they are now sitting with a potentially sub par army list due to the short notice switches. Nobody brings a sub par army to a tournament they have to pay for.

 Polonius wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

BrainFireBob wrote:
It was a common sportsmanship attitude when I started- because it was obviously to your advantage to have the "better" interpretation, you assumed you wouldn't unless your opponent acceded- it meant you weren't trying to browbeat them. Basic courtesy, man.

The same could be said for the opponent challenging you on a rules interpretation. It would be more sporting for them to let you have the advantage because then they don't look like they're nitpicking for an advantage.

that's true, but this custom arises from an unlikely place: the old rules of hospitality and decorum. When a person is in their home, or their own land, they know the rules and etiquette and have the advantage. therefore, it is polite to adjust your custom for your guest, as he is unfamiliar with your home, and is no doubt making his own changes.

When you are playing with relatively new rules, or any rules that your opponent is unfamiliar with, the idea that they can prepare a reasonable argument for or against an interpretation is silly. It is sporting, rather than pushing them into debate on a subject, to not only yield, but offer to yield. It is perfectly fine for the opponent to graciously decline, with the idea that an honorable opponent would never bend the rules.

So, the difference is that one person is familiar with the rules, and one is not. In that instance, I think it appropriate that the advantaged party yield.

I don't think i've ever seen a game of 40k go down like this, because if the case of a player not being familiar with a rule, you just show them the rule and that solves the problem. Ever time I see a rules dispute it is because the two players think the same rule is done in different ways and one of them has challenged the other on it both thinking they are correct. It's a standoff with no fair comprimises other then to both agree on what is correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xerics wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Are tau players that signed up for itc events prior to this eligible for a refund. Because changing the rules this close feels like bait and switch.

Nothing got banned. Its not like tau playes that had a preplanned list are now sitting with an illegal army

But they are now sitting with a potentially sub par army list due to the short notice switches. Nobody brings a sub par army to a tournament they have to pay for.

How do you know its sub par unless you've played it?

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

BrainFireBob wrote:
It was a common sportsmanship attitude when I started- because it was obviously to your advantage to have the "better" interpretation, you assumed you wouldn't unless your opponent acceded- it meant you weren't trying to browbeat them. Basic courtesy, man.

The same could be said for the opponent challenging you on a rules interpretation. It would be more sporting for them to let you have the advantage because then they don't look like they're nitpicking for an advantage.

that's true, but this custom arises from an unlikely place: the old rules of hospitality and decorum. When a person is in their home, or their own land, they know the rules and etiquette and have the advantage. therefore, it is polite to adjust your custom for your guest, as he is unfamiliar with your home, and is no doubt making his own changes.

When you are playing with relatively new rules, or any rules that your opponent is unfamiliar with, the idea that they can prepare a reasonable argument for or against an interpretation is silly. It is sporting, rather than pushing them into debate on a subject, to not only yield, but offer to yield. It is perfectly fine for the opponent to graciously decline, with the idea that an honorable opponent would never bend the rules.

So, the difference is that one person is familiar with the rules, and one is not. In that instance, I think it appropriate that the advantaged party yield.

I don't think i've ever seen a game of 40k go down like this, because if the case of a player not being familiar with a rule, you just show them the rule and that solves the problem. Ever time I see a rules dispute it is because the two players think the same rule is done in different ways and one of them has challenged the other on it both thinking they are correct. It's a standoff with no fair comprimises other then to both agree on what is correct.

That's certainly how it works in other games, like WMH for the most part, but I've seen it very differently in 40k. People here argue about their own interpretation of the rules vehemently. They think anyone who disagrees with them is trying to gain some kind of advantage, rather than just a simple disagreement due to poor writing. Not all players, obviously, but many.

Look at this thread, the GMC thread, the Tau formation thread for many many instances of the argument breaking down very quickly into camps that disagree with each other over how a word or two should be read.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

BrainFireBob wrote:
It was a common sportsmanship attitude when I started- because it was obviously to your advantage to have the "better" interpretation, you assumed you wouldn't unless your opponent acceded- it meant you weren't trying to browbeat them. Basic courtesy, man.

The same could be said for the opponent challenging you on a rules interpretation. It would be more sporting for them to let you have the advantage because then they don't look like they're nitpicking for an advantage.

that's true, but this custom arises from an unlikely place: the old rules of hospitality and decorum. When a person is in their home, or their own land, they know the rules and etiquette and have the advantage. therefore, it is polite to adjust your custom for your guest, as he is unfamiliar with your home, and is no doubt making his own changes.

When you are playing with relatively new rules, or any rules that your opponent is unfamiliar with, the idea that they can prepare a reasonable argument for or against an interpretation is silly. It is sporting, rather than pushing them into debate on a subject, to not only yield, but offer to yield. It is perfectly fine for the opponent to graciously decline, with the idea that an honorable opponent would never bend the rules.

So, the difference is that one person is familiar with the rules, and one is not. In that instance, I think it appropriate that the advantaged party yield.

I don't think i've ever seen a game of 40k go down like this, because if the case of a player not being familiar with a rule, you just show them the rule and that solves the problem. Ever time I see a rules dispute it is because the two players think the same rule is done in different ways and one of them has challenged the other on it both thinking they are correct. It's a standoff with no fair comprimises other then to both agree on what is correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xerics wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Are tau players that signed up for itc events prior to this eligible for a refund. Because changing the rules this close feels like bait and switch.

Nothing got banned. Its not like tau playes that had a preplanned list are now sitting with an illegal army

But they are now sitting with a potentially sub par army list due to the short notice switches. Nobody brings a sub par army to a tournament they have to pay for.

How do you know its sub par unless you've played it?

I said potentially sub par.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is that something you would be willing to pay for? Potentially sub par list due to last minute nerf to the unit you may have built your entire list around?

 insaniak wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
On the other hand, preemptive nerfs where there is no real evidence that a rule will create an unbalanced situation seems bad.

I think that would be somewhat situational, but I dont see a problem with a TO removing a potential issue before it actually arises if they think letting it happen might result in people having less fun at their event.

Take the endless drone farm, for example. That's exactly the sort of thing that I would much rather have removed from the game before I wind up facing it on the table, because unless I'm prepared specifically for it, it's just not going ot result in a fun game.


And players getting to triple the use of a single-use ability at no extra cost just by having a few models stand close to each other feels like just the same kind of rules exploit that will spoil peoples' day. Whether or not it's actually overpowered, it feels cheaty.


YMMV, obviously.

Letting it happen MIGHT result in people having less fun. Not letting in happen DOES result in people having less fun. As a former event organizer, I'd always err on the side of whichever choice has to potential to let everyone have fun.

Does it feel cheaty in the same way that letting Space Marines get tons of free Transports feels cheaty? Or is it more along the lines of letting an AdMech/Imperial Knights super Formation get free upgrades. I'm just curious as to which sort of cheaty it is. To me, allowing three models to activate three seperate single use piece of wargear designed to protect a unit over the course of three turns seems less cheaty than giving an army hundreds of points of free models or upgrades... yet those are totally cool.

There is a reason I don't play Tau, and am holding back on my interest in building them. I'ts not that I don't like the models and rules. It's the people who play Tau.

Granted, I've met plenty of decent Tau players in person and even on DakkaDakka (otherwise I wouldn't have played against Tau), but it's the kind of attitude from the OP that turns me off the army.

I remember when the ITC ruled to nerf D-weapons, Flickerjump, and restrict the ability to take multiple Wraithknights in one army. People were practically dancing in the streets that Eldar had been nerfed! I remember the giant storm of hate that occurred when the Eldar codex dropped nearly a year ago. The new Tau release didn't come anything close. And I remember a certain thread the OP of this very topic decided to start...Operation Pitchfork ring a bell?

You didn't see Eldar players complaining that their army had been nerfed. Nobody bothered to wait around for tournaments to see exactly how broken the new Eldar were. I for one was glad that Eldar was being restricted, as t made the competitive scene healthier. But nerf Tau? To the barricades! Boycott the LVO! It's this kind of attitude that really rubs me the wrong way, as though Tau deserve to be better than every other army.

I agree with the ITC's rulings. I don't care that they may contradict the RAW. According to strict RAW, Warp Spiders can Flickerjump an infinite number of times per Shooting Phase, I can take five Wraithknights at 1850 points, Invisibility is the most broken psychic power ever, and there is no limit to how much you can abuse the Allies system. The ITC has already established a precedent of limiting mechanics that force snapshots (Invisibililty), so I can see why they would tone down an ability that would let you force three different units to fire snapshots at what is most certainly a priority target. This on top of said target already having a 2+ cover save and hitting vehicles on their rear armour. It may not be RAW, but the ITC has made it clear that they value the health of the game rather than rules interpretations.

So to the OP (and those posters ITT with similar attitudes): I have zero sympathy. Go eat a giant slice of humble pie, and then I might take your arguments more seriously. Don't want to play at the LVO or in any other ITC events? Fine by you, but you might have trouble finding people west of the Mississippi who will play your version of the rules. All you do by boycotting the competitive scene is to increase the power of everyone who doesn't play Tau. Even with these changes, Tau are still a hard matchup for most every army out there, and you're just giving prospective tournament winners an easier shot at the prize.

I'm pitching in another bit before I go, this is a sidebar to Tau players.

I'm getting a lot of feeling persecuted- ie, "People claim my army is overpowered but I don't see Tau dominating tournaments and I don't personally feel I ROFL people" (the second clause being implied).

Let me use an analogy from when I started:

I started right after 3rd dropped. These were the days of the 20" charge without disembarkation points. I paid the exact same points cost for my codex marines as Blood angels, Berzerkers, and Space Wolves, who all shone in assault. In those days, if you won combat, you consolidated- and if you reached another unit, it counted as a new combat.

I played at a disadvantage and had to struggle to win, and I realized it was because everyone brought marine-slaughtering units because Blood Angels, Zerkers, and Wolves were so devastating when they closed.

Tau players are currently in the same boat. Any tournament list made has to be able to handle Tau and Eldar. That means any Tau player, who yes, is playing with a generic advantage, is playing with a general list at any event against lists optimized to kill Tau and Eldar, because if their opponents don't optimize for their lists, they will lose and lose hard. It's taking generic Marines in a world where Marines with assault freebies and devastating assault existed- everyone kits to slaughter marines fast before they can close.

 Xerics wrote:

Is that something you would be willing to pay for? Potentially sub par list due to last minute nerf to the unit you may have built your entire list around?

I paid for the tournament already not expecting to win (because thats already not a feasible expectation). Most people going are there for more then just the chance to win first place

 Xerics wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Are tau players that signed up for itc events prior to this eligible for a refund. Because changing the rules this close feels like bait and switch.

Nothing got banned. Its not like tau playes that had a preplanned list are now sitting with an illegal army

But they are now sitting with a potentially sub par army list due to the short notice switches. Nobody brings a sub par army to a tournament they have to pay for.

Limiting- not even removing, but limiting- this one ability on one unit in the codex is enough to make their list potentially sub-par? The Ghostkeel ability is this powerful, is that your premise? Because if it's not, then this is an irrelevency.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I agree with the ITC's rulings. I don't care that they may contradict the RAW. According to strict RAW, Warp Spiders can Flickerjump an infinite number of times per Shooting Phase, I can take five Wraithknights at 1850 points, Invisibility is the most broken psychic power ever, and there is no limit to how much you can abuse the Allies system. The ITC has already established a precedent of limiting mechanics that force snapshots (Invisibililty), so I can see why they would tone down an ability that would let you force three different units to fire snapshots at what is most certainly a priority target. This on top of said target already having a 2+ cover save and hitting vehicles on their rear armour. It may not be RAW, but the ITC has made it clear that they value the health of the game rather than rules interpretations.

This ruling does nothing for the health of the game - in fact, I would argue it is bad for the health of the game. Instead of having the viable option of taking a unit of 2 - 3 Ghostkeels, people will simply take units of single Ghostkeels in the ITC format. This continues a trend already established in ITC rulings which pushes the game more towards MSU (which limiting things like invisibility and the 2+ rerollable does, appropriately in those cases I will add!).

So, instead of getting more variety, this gives you less variety (a unit which everyone will then only take in singles). That's bad for the health of the game, as is the idea of preemptively limiting the power level of units that have not proven to be game-breaking. Rulings like that contribute to the meta stagnating, rather than allowing it to naturally evolve as it otherwise would.

Obviously, as a single ruling it only really matters for Tau players who would like to field a unit of Ghostkeels (and no longer will!). But for the game as whole, it matters how the ITC approaches new units - nerf them in case they might cause problems, or let them play out and only nerf something that has shown that it will (I would argue the Piranha formation has shown that it will, simply from a gameplay perspective).

I really, really hope they will begin to err on the side of being more conservative and LESS active in their restrictions. Otherwise, it just feels too arbitrary on what new releases get nerfed, and what already extremely powerful units / abilities are allowed to stand. Adjusting power level of a new release should be a last resort, and the Ghostkeel was definitely not in need of this! Again, I'm not a Tau player...

I think the ITC rulings really help preserve the integrity of the game. GW should have written tighter rules for Tau. The things ITC locked down are super broken in a void.

 Xerics wrote:
But they are now sitting with a potentially sub par army list due to the short notice switches. Nobody brings a sub par army to a tournament they have to pay for.

You might not, but quite a lot of people take sub par armies to tournaments they have to pay for.

I did it for years, because I would rather take an army that I enjoyed playing with than one that was built solely for the 'best' firepower.

 Kriswall wrote:
Does it feel cheaty in the same way that letting Space Marines get tons of free Transports feels cheaty? Or is it more along the lines of letting an AdMech/Imperial Knights super Formation get free upgrades. I'm just curious as to which sort of cheaty it is. To me, allowing three models to activate three seperate single use piece of wargear designed to protect a unit over the course of three turns seems less cheaty than giving an army hundreds of points of free models or upgrades... yet those are totally cool.

Frankly if it were up to me, Formations just wouldn't be allowed, period.

But that's the rub, they Are allowed, so why pick on cool new unit releases just because they're not entrenched yet?

Also, I almost always take subpar armies but, I do like to know important rulings like that more than a few days out from an event I'm flying to!

 RiTides wrote:
But that's the rub, they Are allowed, so why pick on cool new unit releases just because they're not entrenched yet?

Because the sooner you stomp on it, the fewer people go out and buy 3 Ghostkeels thinking that they work a given way only to have an FAQ come out that removes their perceived advantage?



If this is the ruling they're going with, better for it to happen now rather than later when everyone's gone out and bought the models

But that's what makes it all the stranger! The ghostkeel came out, what, 4 months ago? And this ruling comes out a few days before one of their biggest tournies, and seemingly is just for the tourney, and might be voted on later...

So, in the end it's not giving people warning or stopping a trend, just kind of a kick in the nads for anyone who Did bring 3 Ghostkeels

 RiTides wrote:
But that's what makes it all the stranger! The ghostkeel came out, what, 4 months ago? And this ruling comes out a few days before one of their biggest tournies, and seemingly is just for the tourney, and might be voted on later...

So, in the end it's not giving people warning or stopping a trend, just kind of a kick in the nads for anyone who Did bring 3 Ghostkeels

Yeah, the timing is a little odd. I guess that begs the question though of just how many people were actually planning on bringing 3 Ghostkeels to this event...

2 things, 1 didn't all of these changes go through 2-3 months ago when they did all the voting? Is it just the Ghostkeel thing that's new because the consolidated firepower thing was certainly a good while ago.

2. You guys that are arguing pro-ghostkeel or w/e else have legitimate points as far as the rulings go for sure, but it doesn't take much for a rule to be considered ambiguous. Look at the stupid thing with the librarius conclave and the 'end of the turn'.

But saying they're 'Anti-Tau' is ridiculous, no one running a business or a tournament scene would jeopardize the whole thing just because they don't like 1 army. There's no profit in it. No, the thing ITC is against are rules that stop you from interacting with your opponents models. They hit Invis because the baseline version made whatever it got cast on IMMUNE to GAMEPLAY. They nerfed rerollable 2++ because whatever had it became IMMUNE to GAMEPLAY. And they(the entire organization plus it's voters) made holophotons not work against 3 seperate targets for a unit that already has a super easy 2+ cover because if they didn't then Ghostkeels would be IMMUNE to GAMEPLAY.

Erjak, the reason for the (numerous) threads on this issue scattered across Dakka is because several rulings just came out. The Ghostkeel is being discussed because it feels the most unfair / arbitrary, but there were quite a few others (the Piranha drone delivery system was nerfed, for instance, and appropriately so, imo).

I think it's possible to agree that the process of FAQ'ing 40k rules is good and needed... and to disagree with a ruling! Hopefully, they do put the Ghostkeel up for vote, and if anyone wants to copy and paste the text I posted last page that I emailed to Frontline, feel free

That's it for me in this discussion, since I don't even play Tau... but I really do hope Frontline heeds the outcry and is less active with future rulings, only adjusting things that truly need it (again like the Piranha formation probably did).

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Xerics wrote:

Is that something you would be willing to pay for? Potentially sub par list due to last minute nerf to the unit you may have built your entire list around?

I paid for the tournament already not expecting to win (because thats already not a feasible expectation). Most people going are there for more then just the chance to win first place

Only one guy gets it out of 256 or whatever so yeah. Most people dont attend to win. Still, when you play a gajillion games of Warhammer in a weekend the last thing you want is to be constantly annoyed.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Are tau players that signed up for itc events prior to this eligible for a refund. Because changing the rules this close feels like bait and switch.

Nothing got banned. Its not like tau playes that had a preplanned list are now sitting with an illegal army

Changing the rules of the game is just as valid a bait and switch. Maybe you go to buy a new car that was advertised with features you like. Then when you are about to sign the paper they tell you they removed the a/c feature. It's still completely the car you want! Except it's not.

How about we let you play marines, but we take away your 3+ save and replace it with a 5+. They are still marines right?

 RiTides wrote:
But that's what makes it all the stranger! The ghostkeel came out, what, 4 months ago? And this ruling comes out a few days before one of their biggest tournies, and seemingly is just for the tourney, and might be voted on later...

So, in the end it's not giving people warning or stopping a trend, just kind of a kick in the nads for anyone who Did bring 3 Ghostkeels

Ghostkeels IMO are still amazing. Tau can run an MC/GMC/Suit army which is pretty darn cool. Of course again IMO the formation is the way to go. I can easily Tau finishing in the top four and even taking best overall at LVO this weekend. I'm sure the top Tau players will have their game faces on and best wishes to them.

 Orock wrote:

Changing the rules of the game is just as valid a bait and switch. Maybe you go to buy a new car that was advertised with features you like. Then when you are about to sign the paper they tell you they removed the a/c feature. It's still completely the car you want! Except it's not.

That would be an apt analogy if your aircon was a one-use device, you had found a hack that lets you use it three times, but then when you pick the car up you find out that your hack no longer works and your single -use aircon can, in fact, only be used once...

No one was going to be using three Ghostkeels anyway. It would be just too many points in one basket, up to two Ghostkeels per Stealth Cadre is optimal and no one who had a streak of competitiveness in them would run three Ghostkeels out side of that formation anyway.

 insaniak wrote:

 Orock wrote:

Changing the rules of the game is just as valid a bait and switch. Maybe you go to buy a new car that was advertised with features you like. Then when you are about to sign the paper they tell you they removed the a/c feature. It's still completely the car you want! Except it's not.

That would be an apt analogy if your aircon was a one-use device, you had found a hack that lets you use it three times, but then when you pick the car up you find out that your hack no longer works and your single -use aircon can, in fact, only be used once...

According to your opinion once. Mine says three times standard. You are looking at it from a narrow point of view that says your interpretation is indesputibly correct. And my analogy is fine. It's still something they changed. Which fits bait and switch.

How many people in this thread were taking 3 Ghostkeels to the tournament? At this point I just HAVE to know...

 Orock wrote:
According to your opinion once. Mine says three times standard. You are looking at it from a narrow point of view that says your interpretation is indesputibly correct. And my analogy is fine. It's still something they changed. Which fits bait and switch.

But that's just the thing - it's only a change if you're looking at it from the narrow point of view that says that your interpretation is indisputably correct...


I actually thought that I had been fairly clear previously in the thread, but just to put it out there again - I don't think that 'my' interpretation is 'indisputably correct'. I think that it's one legitimate way of reading the rules as written, and that it is unclear just how it is supposed to work. Which makes the FAQ ruling a clarification, not a rules change.

If they had chosen instead to rule for all three Ghostkeels getting to use their abilities separately, I would have still considered that to be a clarification, rather than a rules change, even though it would have gone against 'my' interpretation of the rules. Because I'm more than willing to accept that sometimes some people get a different meaning out of a written rule than I do.

 Quickjager wrote:
No one was going to be using three Ghostkeels anyway. It would be just too many points in one basket, up to two Ghostkeels per Stealth Cadre is optimal and no one who had a streak of competitiveness in them would run three Ghostkeels out side of that formation anyway.

So then. Whats the point of this FAQ IF that were true?

also it's not really true. I used three and it was awesome.

In related news:

Per the ITC FaQ: The Pyrovores Volatile special rule only affects units within D6” of the slain Pyrovore.

What? No outrage on this one even though the rulebook clearly states the explosion hits EVERY UNIT for a number of hits equal to each model within D6" of the slain Pyrovore? For shame...can't anyone read? It's not even game breaking. What am I supposed to do with all these Pyrovores now???

/sarcasm still on and eyes still rolling

 insaniak wrote:
I think that it's one legitimate way of reading the rules as written, and that it is unclear just how it is supposed to work. Which makes the FAQ ruling a clarification, not a rules change.

It really isn't. The rule very clearly says that a MODEL with the rule may use it once per game, not that a UNIT may use it once per game. You indisputably have three copies of a one-use ability which, when used, provides a benefit to the entire unit. This is no more of a "clarification" than ruling that C:SM tactical squads actually have 5+ armor saves instead of 3+ because it's unclear whether the "3" in the printed rules is really a 3 or might have been intended to mean 5 instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Voidwraith wrote:
In related news:

Per the ITC FaQ: The Pyrovores Volatile special rule only affects units within D6” of the slain Pyrovore.

What? No outrage on this one even though the rulebook clearly states the explosion hits EVERY UNIT for a number of hits equal to each model within D6" of the slain Pyrovore? For shame...can't anyone read? It's not even game breaking. What am I supposed to do with all these Pyrovores now???

/sarcasm still on and eyes still rolling

The difference is that the Pyrovore rule was pretty obviously nonsense and the intent of the rule was easy to figure out. With the Ghostkeel ruling there's no such issue. The rule as-printed functions just fine, the only "problem" is that some people feel that it is too powerful and should be nerfed.

 Voidwraith wrote:
How many people in this thread were taking 3 Ghostkeels to the tournament? At this point I just HAVE to know...

It's not really about the LVO - but whether they keep this ruling for the ITC. Hopefully they put it up for vote, instead!

The Pirahna Wing nerf is fine, and Tau is fine. The players who want to win will probably use the Riptide Win (typo intentional) anyway.

If you're unhappy, use another ruleset or make your own, better one. We'll watch how it goes.

The last thing anyone who wants a more balanced WH40K experience should do is to avoid the ITC. Best ruleset around.

Creating, updating and upholding a ruleset is one of the most unthankful processes I can think of. Our own national group has one, it's a tiny fraction of the size of ITC (based on it partially too) and it's popularity and even with that this is evident. The fellas at Fronline have my full respect for their effort.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I think that it's one legitimate way of reading the rules as written, and that it is unclear just how it is supposed to work. Which makes the FAQ ruling a clarification, not a rules change.

It really isn't. The rule very clearly says that a MODEL with the rule may use it once per game, not that a UNIT may use it once per game. You indisputably have three copies of a one-use ability which, when used, provides a benefit to the entire unit. This is no more of a "clarification" than ruling that C:SM tactical squads actually have 5+ armor saves instead of 3+ because it's unclear whether the "3" in the printed rules is really a 3 or might have been intended to mean 5 instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Voidwraith wrote:
In related news:

Per the ITC FaQ: The Pyrovores Volatile special rule only affects units within D6” of the slain Pyrovore.

What? No outrage on this one even though the rulebook clearly states the explosion hits EVERY UNIT for a number of hits equal to each model within D6" of the slain Pyrovore? For shame...can't anyone read? It's not even game breaking. What am I supposed to do with all these Pyrovores now???

/sarcasm still on and eyes still rolling

The difference is that the Pyrovore rule was pretty obviously nonsense and the intent of the rule was easy to figure out. With the Ghostkeel ruling there's no such issue. The rule as-printed functions just fine, the only "problem" is that some people feel that it is too powerful and should be nerfed.

"the unit will use holophoton countermeasues"

Right there in black and white.

TBH this whole situation kinda reminds me of Smogon in Pokemon. They do tests every month or so and lets the community that ranks high enough in the Ladder to see what should be banned or or unbanned due to being broken or not, Be it Moves, Items, Pokemon, or combinations of them.


Sometimes the bans get too heavy handed and end up upsetting everyone that plays. And by banning or limiting one thing, more broken things crop up because the Banned checked the new broken and then more stuff gets banned and it just gets slowly out of hand until new stuff comes out or new things, via DLC, become available to the playerbase.

It just ends up killing the fun for me, but I'm not a tourney guy. I'm a "screw around with my friends playing games for fun" kinda guy.