Update 26 Feb:
Reading some comments on the FLG website and I saw Reecius post the following:
OK, nm, trying to get the data verified but day is running short. The shipments coming in late burned a day on us.
So far for sure:
1,850pts
3 Detachments
ITC Faction will be the detachment with the most points in it
Yes to Chaos Knight with Legacies
No to Eldar Corsair Jetbikes shooting then scooting in overwatch
Honestly, I love the idea of a two detachment limit. It means that the guys playing Inquisition + Grey Knights, Sisters + Inquisition, Inquisition + Guard, Harlies + Eldar or DEldar, ect. can keep their thing, but makes Marines less good.
I personally voted for keeping 3 detachments and 1500 pts, as well as GMC's needing 25% obscured. I wish FMC's in flyer mode also needed 25% to get a save was up for a vote, but it's not =\. Sad to see the community doesn't even get to vote on the Piranha Firestorm Wing coming back and leaving in the same turn, although I'm sure they'd vote to keep it from doing so.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I also wish ITC would track all detachments in an army, not just 'primary.' So if there was an army that was 60% DE, 35% Eldar, and 5% inquision, they would be shown as DE/Eldar/Inq. That would make analysis of events MUCH easier from a data standpoint.
I voted for it because I don't think it's a nerf. i read the rule, and to me it says they use it as a unit. So yeah, in my opinion this is an actual RAW debate, though I'd rather not get into the debate here. I will say I would like to see if we can get it changed to a two detachment limit instead of 3.
Except it specifies that the model uses the effect. So a unit uses it, and then one model in the unit uses it. Which leaves the other two ghostkeels with their charges in a unit of three. They don't all use them at once. That's how I see it and I've made a strong case for it that will likely just be forgotten somewhere on the forum. Nerfing this rule will likely see Ghotskeels drop off the radar as a viable unit completely in the ITC.
I've read your case, and disagree. again, not getting into the argument, just agreeing to dissagree and saying that not all of us are just out to nerf tau, a lot of us just have different interpretations
Sad the we didn't get a chance to re-vote the Hunter Contingent. I think the Nova ruling is the appropriate one:
Coordinated Firepower and Interaction with Unit-Wide Buffs - The Signature Systems and similar unit wide effects transfer via the coordinated fire rule. Unit Wide effects apply to all contributing units, however only models, or weapons in the case of Gargantuan Creatures, firing at the target of the coordinated firepower attack gain the effect of applicable buffs through coordinated firepower. As such, contributing units that make use of Target Locks or GC Split Fire rules do not gain the buffs on those shots that don’t go at the primary target.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swampmist wrote: I voted for it because I don't think it's a nerf. i read the rule, and to me it says they use it as a unit. So yeah, in my opinion this is an actual RAW debate, though I'd rather not get into the debate here. I will say I would like to see if we can get it changed to a two detachment limit instead of 3.
Except the model is paying for a benefit it can never use. I understand your view, but it doesn't make it right. To date, Tau has received the most nerfs vs. buffs of any army in the 7.5 update. /sigh
This cant be right, they dident even pre nerf the ork decursion by saying they cant charge turn one, and they dident remove any options in the farsight enclaves redone book.
Oh thats right, they aren't going to vote for those, just do it.
TWC + 3 units of min Wulfen have the possibility of giving the TWC a move 24" + run 6" + 2d6 Charge with fleet. The Orks can wait
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gamgee wrote: Nerfing this rule will likely see Ghotskeels drop off the radar as a viable unit completely in the ITC.
The communities complaint about Riptide spam will just get louder as thats all we are left with for truly competetive. Riptide Wings in different variations. meh!
thejughead wrote: TWC + 3 units of min Wulfen have the possibility of giving the TWC a move 24" + run 6" + 2d6 Charge with fleet. The Orks can wait
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gamgee wrote: Nerfing this rule will likely see Ghotskeels drop off the radar as a viable unit completely in the ITC.
The communities complaint about Riptide spam will just get louder as thats all we are left with for truly competetive. Riptide Wings in different variations. meh!
Maybe the occasional Stormsurge. Otherwise Riptides and Broadesides till the end of time.
Posting this on dakka is like giving especially slow paste eating kindergarten kids the ability to vote on world issues. ITC just needs a panel of people that actually play the game and know what they are talking about.
Guys, the hell are you talking about? the ghostkeel is still incredible, both on it's own and in any of the formations it exists in. it's a tanky as hell MC that can sit on objectives, has good guns, easy ablative wounds, and in the OSC and the one with the stormsurge it's totally bonkers. Really, a unit of them being bad changes nothing, as realistically MSUing them is better anyway.
The OSC isn't up to snuff in the current meta at the ITC though. The top two Tau lists didn't utilize it at all. Stealth Suits just aren't survivable enough to justify themselves. It's a good formation, but not great. The only key thing that even seen Tau relevant in the current meta was the top Tau list using a Y'vahrarh + Riptide Wing as his main component to his force. Watch that get nerfed too.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm terrified of Markerlight-less Ignores Cover, Twin-Linked, BS4, Always-Back-Armor-Hitting melta guns. Though, I play marines, so maybe it's just me...
Until you shoot at the stealth suits an and blow them to pieces in less than heartbeat. Leaving only the Ghostkeels left which don't pull their weight enough on their own to justify it. Most people just ignore the Ghostkeels from being too tanky, but they rarely inflict serious damage to their opponents either not without formation benefits. Removing their ability to tank is going to see them never taken except as a one only model or in separate units which against dilutes their power since no +1 BS for having 3 in a single unit.
W\e man. I personally would never leave home without an OSC as Tau just because the Gladius and Knights exist. Heck, I considered Tau for a while when trying to decide what Army I would play, and the ghostkeel came into my calculations a ton.
I'm guessing you didn't see the recent tournament results of the Tau? Its pretty grim for how "OP" they are only two lists made high enough to be considered good, and even than none in the top 10. The top Tau player placed 12. The next placed 18th.
LVO 2016 rankings. These corroborate what I seen happening the last few months. Tau have not been placing or winning in any major ITC tournaments. I've been keeping a hawk eye on it since the new update came out in October. Even most of the video "evidence" Reccius posted was of the new Tau getting wrecked over and over again with the occasional win and yet he insists they are a super potent army that was so so deadly they had to be nerfed. He was even playing against the "OP" unerfed version and the Tau still couldn't win. It's only dropped off since the Hunter Contingent ruling about coordinated firepower.
I feel all of this fear and bias is crippling the Tau's tournament prospects. Not to mention the outright nerfs.
Edit
I've even tried to contact Reccius and the ITC about this stuff and just get a standard form letter. Much like GW does. I was reasonable about it and wanted to know why they felt the need to make these decisions, but I didn't get any reasonable replies back and was ignored.
I want to believe the ITC is fair and unbiased and that they will take the time to answer and logically respond to all my questions and put my issues to rest, but all I get is silence.
Please. Yes, Tau are powerful. No they aren't as powerful as Eldar, Necrons, or well played superfriend marines. I'm not on board with everything ITC does, but a lot of the main problem is still with the CORE game. All ITC does is turn the game from being heavy into death stars, into heavy MSU. The same balancing issues are there throughout.
I actually think that one player going undefeated, possibly the other (thought i haven't checked into their standings yet) skews the data quite heavily. Tau are a gunline army, and that doesn't work in the ITC format. However, they have ways to fix this, and I expect them to show up quickly now that the LVO is over. Heck, I personally think the OSC is the direct counter to the Gladius, which with it's amry-wide obsec and tank spam goes a long way to hurting the ability for the Tau to take objectives. Either way, I expect to see a shift to games played at 1650, if not 1500, and the results will be very different then.
Orock wrote: This cant be right, they dident even pre nerf the ork decursion by saying they cant charge turn one, and they dident remove any options in the farsight enclaves redone book.
1: Them charginf turn one is mathematically difficult and your opponent needs to be an idiot to let it happen
2: Farsight is just a reprint
3: Stop with the damnt negativity dude, you need to take a chill pill
OSC is not as strong as ghost keel wing where that formation is basically a support unit helping give the squishy units a chance. Taking it cheap it fine, but it's not an offensive build.
Using the OSC requires risk as you have to get close to perform it snowflake leaving you at risk of not getting your 2+ save. The countermeasures mitigated that risk for one enemy shooting.
Swampmist wrote: I actually think that one player going undefeated, possibly the other (thought i haven't checked into their standings yet) skews the data quite heavily. Tau are a gunline army, and that doesn't work in the ITC format. However, they have ways to fix this, and I expect them to show up quickly now that the LVO is over. Heck, I personally think the OSC is the direct counter to the Gladius, which with it's amry-wide obsec and tank spam goes a long way to hurting the ability for the Tau to take objectives. Either way, I expect to see a shift to games played at 1650, if not 1500, and the results will be very different then.
Why would anyone go OSC when its nefed though? I don't get it. If people already aren't using it and I've seen tournaments where people ran it and they just don't place well. It might be good against those two things but it suffers against anything else. Nothing your saying logically supports your choice to nerf the Ghostkeel. It's even a little at odds with one another. You want the OSC to be used but your going to try and nerf it?
Swampmist wrote: Maybe it's just me, but I'm terrified of Markerlight-less Ignores Cover, Twin-Linked, BS4, Always-Back-Armor-Hitting melta guns. Though, I play marines, so maybe it's just me...
See that is not a valid reason to vote for Tau nerfs. When the vote to allow double Demi company came up, did people shoot it down just because it was going to be very good? No. If it breaks the game (old invis or 2+ re-rollable) then it should be changed. But this unbiased fear of perceived power (which has not shown itself in GT results whatsoever, unlike Demi company marines, for example) is just fear of another army being good. If you start voting to nerf armies that you don't play because you think they are strong and need nerfs to bring them down to your army's level, you should probably just go all out wheelchair. The crutch that you've been using isn't going to cut it for long.
Swampmist wrote: I actually think that one player going undefeated, possibly the other (thought i haven't checked into their standings yet) skews the data quite heavily. Tau are a gunline army, and that doesn't work in the ITC format. However, they have ways to fix this, and I expect them to show up quickly now that the LVO is over. Heck, I personally think the OSC is the direct counter to the Gladius, which with it's amry-wide obsec and tank spam goes a long way to hurting the ability for the Tau to take objectives. Either way, I expect to see a shift to games played at 1650, if not 1500, and the results will be very different then.
Why would anyone go OSC when its nefed though? I don't get it. If people already aren't using it and I've seen tournaments where people ran it and they just don't place well. It might be good against those two things but it suffers against anything else. Nothing your saying logically supports your choice to nerf the Ghostkeel. It's even a little at odds with one another. You want the OSC to be used but your going to try and nerf it?
No he's just voting with fear tactics. See his above post "nerf Tau because I'm afraid I'll lose to them"
again, I don't see it as a nerf. Its how i read it RAW, and so I voted for it that way. I honestly don't care how it turns out, simply because the rule is vague! We have differing opinions on it, as do many here on Dakka, so it is by all counts a vague rule. As such, I don't honestly care how they rule it as long as there is a rule. and maybe i'm wrong about the OSC, I have no idea I've never played with or against it. Just going by what I've seen, read and theorized. Either way though, the ITC is putting it, and many things, up to vote, so can we stop complaining about them not doing so, since they are doing it?
On a more negative note (yes, I am capable being both positive and negative with this ), why was there not an option for less detachments, and do you guys think we should ask them to add it to the next poll? As I've said, I feel that a two detachment limit would be a lot better than three, or god forbid more, and would be happy to see it get toned down instead of up.
EDIT: Luke, when did i ever say i voted for it as a nerf? again, I voted for it as what I SEE ASRAW. On your other point, I would be happy to nerf the gladius. In my opinion, the gladius should only be for Ultrasmurfs, for example, as it seems custom made for them, and I personally never run it anymore because I don't play them. Heck, I'd love to nerf the free transports thing, would add some variety. I ALSO want to change the detachment limit to two, which is a direct nerf to my own faction. so no, I'm not voting based on fear, I'm voting based on the game being a gakky mess that needs fixing, and the ITC are some of the only ones willing to do it.
Oh I know I caught him on his faulty logic, but no matter how many times I do this very few people admit they are wrong. It takes a brave person to do that.
Swampmist wrote: I voted for it because I don't think it's a nerf. i read the rule, and to me it says they use it as a unit. So yeah, in my opinion this is an actual RAW debate, though I'd rather not get into the debate here. I will say I would like to see if we can get it changed to a two detachment limit instead of 3.
Nope. It specifically first says that once per battle A MODEL may activate the ability. The UNIT then uses that ability that was activated by the MODEL.
It is no different than any other army that has 3 models each with a single use ability. Do those ones have to activate them all at once? Nope. Each one activates it one at a time and it affects the entire unit it is in. That is how it is written RAW and most likely RAI. Otherwise why would anyone put multiple ghost keels in a squad if you can only activate it once? Why wouldn't you always just take 3 seperate one so you could activate it 3 times?
My question is why doesn't the ITC right the actual rule in the vote? Otherwise people who have never read the codex are just going to go into the vote, see 2 options: 1 that helps Tau and 1 that hurts them, and a great deal of people are going to just choose the latter.
EDIT: Probably didn't need to go even that far, but either way I'm done here. I've stated my points, and the fact that I realize that either point of view is fine, and I'm just going to leave it there.
Not to be crass, but it does get hard to take the complaints about Tau nerfs seriously when such posters also proclaim not to have lost a single game of 40k in 2 years.
There's some validity to the arguments against the changes the ITC imposed for the LVO, but mostly they come off as "well I can't bring the Eldar level painstick!", and that doesn't gain traction with most people. Yes, it might seem somewhat stilted, and yes, Eldar *really* deserve some toning down, but those are largely matters of direct unit functionality as opposed to formation mechanics that are much easier for people to accept changing.
Tau may not have dominated the LVO, but they had a very respectable overall showing, and are consistently ranked in the top 5 most powerful and capable armies by most players. Overall, there's nothing that the ITC is doing that's going to utterly cripple the army into unplayability here, they're trimming some of the more outrageous cheese, though yes, they should be spreading that a bit more evenly across some other books as well.
Vaktathi wrote: Not to be crass, but it does get hard to take the complaints about Tau nerfs seriously when such posters also proclaim not to have lost a single game of 40k in 2 years.
There's some validity to the arguments against the changes the ITC imposed for the LVO, but mostly they come off as "well I can't bring the Eldar level painstick!", and that doesn't gain traction with most people. Yes, it might seem somewhat stilted, and yes, Eldar *really* deserve some toning down, but those are largely matters of direct unit functionality as opposed to formation mechanics that are much easier for people to accept changing.
Tau may not have dominated the LVO, but they had a very respectable overall showing, and are consistently ranked in the top 5 most powerful and capable armies by most players. Overall, there's that the ITC is doing that's going to utterly cripple the army into unplayability here, they're trimming some of the more outrageous cheese, though yes, they should be spreading that a bit more evenly across some other books as well.
That is one heck of a strawman fallacy you pulled there questioning my victory streak and gaming habits as if it had anything to do with the rules discussion at hand and the Tau nerf one. Oh they had a great showing not that it means anything. Tons of Tau players turned up, and despite the boasts that the nerfs were justified we only seen two Tau lists where as Eldar and all the other faction dominated the top of the chart. A good showing means nothing. I could say the musket had a good showing in Vietnam if 65% of people used them, but then if 99% of the musket users perished and all the other guns placed higher in terms of effectiveness and survival rates it still shows the musket had a good showing. Doesn't mean it was good or effective.
OK, one last question here: Anybody have Reece's E-mail? Wanted to ask him about adding a smaller detachment limit to the next poll since it was missing here.
I apologize for putting words in your mouth. A number of Tau players have seen people say "tau are strong and need to be nerfed" and so some vote in that vein regardless of what they think is RAW
I do respect your opinion of what RAW is in this case, though I do disagree with it. However, your characterization of it not being a nerf is mathematically inaccurate. Having a squad of 3 allows for BS4 natively, as well as wound allocation shenanigans if you can rotate in between turns. So that was always better. And with 5 point target locks, they can shoot whoever they want so overkill is not an issue.
Most importantly, with regards to the holophoton rule, all 3 ghostkeels are protected from 3 units (if you read as 1 activation per suit). In solo squads, each suit can protect itself once. So if your opponent has 3 squads to shoot, the big squad can make all bullets snap fire. But in separate squads, 2 or your opponent's squads will fire at full BS if he decides to focus fire one ghostkeel down (which is the smart thing to do anyways). So it's actually a fairly significant ruling
Oh, no, I guess i misspoke. i meant I didn't feel that it was done purely as a nerf, but as a rules clarification. I won't argue that the change nerfs the Ghostkeels, that would be ridiculous. I just don't care how it's ruled because I believe that both readings are possible and I respect them, and as such would be happy with either reading being voted on. And thank you, I'm sorry for being so abrasive and not explaining myself well enough.
Also, I'm not sure where this should go. do I send it to the contact-us section, or to the Rules Question section? It's not really a rules question as much as a proposed change to the format, so I'm not sure...
Swampmist wrote: I voted for it because I don't think it's a nerf. i read the rule, and to me it says they use it as a unit. So yeah, in my opinion this is an actual RAW debate, though I'd rather not get into the debate here. I will say I would like to see if we can get it changed to a two detachment limit instead of 3.
Nope. It specifically first says that once per battle A MODEL may activate the ability. The UNIT then uses that ability that was activated by the MODEL.
It is no different than any other army that has 3 models each with a single use ability. Do those ones have to activate them all at once? Nope. Each one activates it one at a time and it affects the entire unit it is in. That is how it is written RAW and most likely RAI. Otherwise why would anyone put multiple ghost keels in a squad if you can only activate it once? Why wouldn't you always just take 3 seperate one so you could activate it 3 times?
My question is why doesn't the ITC right the actual rule in the vote? Otherwise people who have never read the codex are just going to go into the vote, see 2 options: 1 that helps Tau and 1 that hurts them, and a great deal of people are going to just choose the latter.
Voted for Ghostkeels to only get one use of countermeasures per unit cause well.. that's what the rule says.
Vaktathi wrote: Not to be crass, but it does get hard to take the complaints about Tau nerfs seriously when such posters also proclaim not to have lost a single game of 40k in 2 years.
There's some validity to the arguments against the changes the ITC imposed for the LVO, but mostly they come off as "well I can't bring the Eldar level painstick!", and that doesn't gain traction with most people. Yes, it might seem somewhat stilted, and yes, Eldar *really* deserve some toning down, but those are largely matters of direct unit functionality as opposed to formation mechanics that are much easier for people to accept changing.
Tau may not have dominated the LVO, but they had a very respectable overall showing, and are consistently ranked in the top 5 most powerful and capable armies by most players. Overall, there's that the ITC is doing that's going to utterly cripple the army into unplayability here, they're trimming some of the more outrageous cheese, though yes, they should be spreading that a bit more evenly across some other books as well.
That is one heck of a strawman fallacy you pulled there questioning my victory streak and gaming habits as if it had anything to do with the rules discussion at hand and the Tau nerf one.
It's relevant in two ways, first in how the complaints about the ITC are being raised and their perception by other players, and in that it shows the strength of the army already and that the changes are either for the best given such victory streaks (assuming you play regularly and your opponents are competent players and you aren't just curbstomping newbies or ultra casual gaming pals) and kept Tau turning into another Eldar debacle, or that they just weren't as egregious as one thought and the impact of their non-inclusion was minimal.
I've played this game through many editions and many armies (including Tau since the tail end of 4th edition! they're just not painted save for one hammerhead, one fire warrior, and two Crisis suits ). I've played utterly filthy and broken armies and completely incapable ones (often the same army through multiple editions...), and defeats should come at least once in a while either way unless there's a very real power issue.
Oh they had a great showing not that it means anything. Tons of Tau players turned up, and despite the boasts that the nerfs were justified we only seen two Tau lists where as Eldar and all the other faction dominated the top of the chart.
When you're only looking at the ultimate top sliver of results out of ~300 players, where the difference between any particular (or even multiple) placings may be a single dice roll amongst very closely ranked players, it's going to skew your perception, to say nothing of the fact that there's more armies than there are places in the top8/10/12, which means that some armies just aren't going to show no matter what, and fewer still if any armies show up more than once. For an event with what, 300 people, you really should be looking at the top 10-20%, not just the top 3 or 4%, and when you look at the top 10%, you see Tau in there twice, almost 3 times, just as well as Chaos Daemons and AdMech, only slightly behind Necrons, as opposed to say, IG, who didn't even clear the top 100 or BA's where their top finisher was 93rd, while CSM's had one result in the top 10% (and, IIRC, allied with Daemons) and then nothing until spot 113.
Overall, the Tau did well at the LVO, well enough that most players would rank them in the top 5 most competitive armies in most cases. Were they *the* top? No. But they weren't crumped to SoB/IG/CSM/MT/etc status either, far, *FAR* from it, and there's no guarantee they would have done any better if the changes were not in place. Tau armies ranked highly enough that a couple dice rolls going differently (even by players in other games) could have gotten them "top" spots, and with that sort of a showing, it shows there's nothing wrong with their functionality.
A good showing means nothing. I could say the musket had a good showing in Vietnam if 65% of people used them, but then if 99% of the musket users perished and all the other guns placed higher in terms of effectiveness and survival rates it still shows the musket had a good showing. Doesn't mean it was good or effective.
Which bears zero resemblance to the situation we're talking about...the Tau were not massacred by all their opponents and left hanging mostly around the middle and bottom placings like certain other armies, nearly half the Tau armies that showed up placed in the top 20%, while only *one* placed in the *bottom* 20%.
Vaktathi wrote: Not to be crass, but it does get hard to take the complaints about Tau nerfs seriously when such posters also proclaim not to have lost a single game of 40k in 2 years.
Vaktathi wrote: Not to be crass, but it does get hard to take the complaints about Tau nerfs seriously when such posters also proclaim not to have lost a single game of 40k in 2 years.
That is why I voted to bring balance to Tau.
Be sure to vote 5 or 6 more times to counteract the buttmad Tau kids stuffing the boxes.
Truth be told, I don't get it. Yeah they're strong but so are a number of other armies. I would place at least 4 armies above Tau in terms of overall power at the top of the tournament tier. My only hope is that people don't vote for "game balance" meaning "my dark eldar can't beat this so I'll vote to nerf unit/army X".
Thankfully this has not been shown to be true as a pattern statistically, so we'll see how things shake out. I trust that the guys at FLG are smart enough to see trends (often because they get emails from us pointing them out) and they do have the ability to adjust things if they so choose. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if like 9/10 votes or so come out in the negative for a given army, then it's more likely than not that that's how people are voting.
I'd prefer a council of the top tournament players and be done with the masses.
It wouldn't be a bad idea from a balance standpoint, but it's tough to justify from a business standpoint. FLG are both trying to balance 40k in a tournament format and make the experience as enjoyable as possible for the majority of their customers that attend their tournaments. It's a tough middle ground to walk, but truth be told I would be fine with them just doing game balance. They do more play-testing in a month than I do in a year.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pain4Pleasure wrote: We can all only hope and pray every tau nerf sticks, so that tau players will continue to be minimal and outside of the top listings as the warhammer gods intended for it to be.
(Assuming you're serious)
You do realize that this attitude is not only the worst kind of sportsmanship, but also indicative of a generally selfish person who is also bad at 40k, right?
I apologize because that is harsh but it is really the truth. People not wanting other armies to have nice things and voting for that express purpose is the only way that the ITC format for FAQs and rules interpretations falls apart. I get something being broken and unfun to play against, but saying "I hope Faction X just falls off the face of the planet and I'm going to continue to vote in such a way so that that happens" is completely bigoted and more than just a little sad.
40k has always had seasons where specific armies do well in the meta. This is a shooting meta. Tau (one of, if not the premier shooting army, who can't really do any of the other phases particularly well) SHOULD be doing well; otherwise they would be woefully under-powered. I hope that some day, every army *COUGH CSM COUGH* has their day in the sun (or you know, all of the armies are just good)
I wonder if more people would be open to more/unlimited Detachments if ITC limited the number of Factions your army can have. Allies are fun and all, but Superfriends getting 4 codices worth of models is no fun.
I wonder if more people would be open to more/unlimited Detachments if ITC limited the number of Factions your army can have. Allies are fun and all, but Superfriends getting 4 codices worth of models is no fun.
They really should have just put in a "Chapter Tactics: <Insert Non-Codex Space Marine Chapter Name Here>" special rule within Space Wolves, Blood+Dark Angels, and Grey Knights.
It would let them cut down on the USRs they list for each unit type(just have them shoveled under Chapter Tactics) and it would have the benefit of totally screwing over Superfriends because of the addition of "Chapter Tactics" to the wording.
I think a lot of people vote for Tau nerfs simply because they hate the faction. Personally, I wouldn't mind a "council" of high-end players who know the rules and tourny play making these calls. Then at least you know the people making the calls and all the biases, perceived or actual. Anonymous voters sort of scare me.
A "council" of top end players isn't as clean an idea as one might think. First, defining that is difficult, many of them only play a year or two and then are gone (and/or may rotate armies depending on whats strongest and have no problem leaving abusable stuff around or kneecapping other armies) and usually only go to one "big" event each year, and while they may be good at playing they dont necessarily have any ability in the areas of game design/balance or event organization.
Much like you dont necessarily want race car drivers designing cars, they know how to drive but arent engineers
Top end players have biases too. I know a few and they have a list of things that they would nerf/buff without question.
The best would be to get some people with game design experience to work on it and have rigorous testing before even talking about changing it with people at large.
The notion of an all-wise, all-knowing, impartial and unbiased council is a nice idea, but you're basically talking about dudes having meetings to decide what everybody else will play.
At best, you'd get one representative per Codex, but that's pushing 20 representatives with the addition of GSC and Deathwatch. And most of them will still be Imperial Super-Friends, with much to lose and an even stronger interest to nerf the hell out of Xenos. Especially Tau. At least Team Eldar will have 3+ reps (CWE, DE, and Harlies), so they'll be able to hold their own in the votes. But the presence of so many SMs means that nothing will fix Gladius.
Also, note that more of Imperial Super-Friends have Team Eldar armies on the side, so there's that bias as well.
No, if there's a council, expect Tau and Necrons to be nerfed into oblivion, as the sacrificial lambs to show that the Council is serious about reining imbalances.
I'd prefer a council of the top tournament players and be done with the masses.
This isn't a bad idea, but be sure to include the top players for each army. Otherwise it's just an oligarchy of Eldar/Necron/Tau/SM/Daemon players making rules to keep out the others.
I'd prefer a council of the top tournament players and be done with the masses.
This isn't a bad idea, but be sure to include the top players for each army. Otherwise it's just an oligarchy of Eldar/Necron/Tau/SM/Daemon players making rules to keep out the others.
You mean a council that just doesn't arbitrarily nerf anything?
Just my personal opinion, and yes I'm a Tau player, but anyone who reads my posts knows I'm not against everything the ITC does, I'd like to un-nerf invisibility, and D shooting. The 2++ re-rollable annoys the crap out of me, but I'd be ok with it coming back in as well if ranged D was given back, since it can hard counter the 2++ re-rollable.
My only reason for not un-nerfing D shooting would be that currently not every faction has access to it, but it seems more and more are getting it with the new releases (I think the D shotgun is the inferior choice on the Stormsurge even un-nerfed though).
Overall they just need to evaluate the changes they've already made and see if they are still relivent or need to change as 7th edition has evolved with new codexes/campaign books.
Hey what do you know. Someone made a study of the LVO and did a more in depth look at it. What do you know quite a bit of what I said here has been confirmed the Tau are not doing flawlessly. They aren't a top tier army. It also confirms what some other posters have said here. They are an upper mid tier that can stomp lesser armies but isn't truly viable to try and win their tournament.
I think the only acceptable thing for the ITC to do is unnerf the Tau, but that won't happen and we all know it. If I could nerf every single army to be equal I would but I can't. So i would rather have the Tau be unnerfed to have them brought higher up into the top tier to add diversity and competition to the event.
I suspect the GW rules writes full well KNEW their Hunter Contingent buff would be viable to get Tau back into the upper tier. One of the few good rules writers, but due to the politics and fear surrounding the Tau someone within the ITC made up a false case on unfounded information to nerf the Tau that would work into the general public and the greater ITC's player base fears of the Tau to nerf them. It seems to have the desired effect. Now I could say this is all coincidence except this goes back two years now and the data supports that this is a concentrated effort or a widely held fear against the Tau army. Every year that goes by I have more and more data and information disproving widely held beliefs. It's my personal opinion that the ITC still needs to revisit not only the Tau but several other mid tier armies to see what can be done to bring them up to the tier of the top armies.
I find it rather ironic when the Tau were given the necessary tools to lift them up to the top table they were taken away from them. The one time the GW actually managed to balance a codex properly and we have its very own player base who thinks it knows better attempting to fix something that never needed fixing with the coordinated firepower nerf.
I'm sure when next years lvo comes and goes the same data will be on display as the powerful get more powerful and the mid tier gets squeezed with more pressure and we see some armies drop into lower tiers than middle. The ITC and the LVO has now had two recurring studies done on it and the meta has taken a turn for the worse.
I have to still advise the ITC to have a widespread reforms to root out this source of either corruption, bias, or even conspiracy that is hindering your tournament from potential growth and balance.
I sent something quite similar to this to Reccius and co last year and got a standard form reply back. It's evident no one their cares about any of this. So I will still sit here hoping to get the message out that there are major problems with the ITC. Thanks to all those who continue to do in depth analysis of their tournament results and for those who do agree with me. Maybe we'll make a difference next year.
Gamgee wrote: Hey what do you know. Someone made a study of the LVO and did a more in depth look at it. What do you know quite a bit of what I said here has been confirmed the Tau are not doing flawlessly. They aren't a top tier army. It also confirms what some other posters have said here. They are an upper mid tier that can stomp lesser armies but isn't truly viable to try and win their tournament.
I think the only acceptable thing for the ITC to do is unnerf the Tau, but that won't happen and we all know it. If I could nerf every single army to be equal I would but I can't. So i would rather have the Tau be unnerfed to have them brought higher up into the top tier to add diversity and competition to the event.
I suspect the GW rules writes full well KNEW their Hunter Contingent buff would be viable to get Tau back into the upper tier. One of the few good rules writers, but due to the politics and fear surrounding the Tau someone within the ITC made up a false case on unfounded information to nerf the Tau that would work into the general public and the greater ITC's player base fears of the Tau to nerf them. It seems to have the desired effect. Now I could say this is all coincidence except this goes back two years now and the data supports that this is a concentrated effort or a widely held fear against the Tau army. Every year that goes by I have more and more data and information disproving widely held beliefs. It's my personal opinion that the ITC still needs to revisit not only the Tau but several other mid tier armies to see what can be done to bring them up to the tier of the top armies.
I find it rather ironic when the Tau were given the necessary tools to lift them up to the top table they were taken away from them. The one time the GW actually managed to balance a codex properly and we have its very own player base who thinks it knows better attempting to fix something that never needed fixing with the coordinated firepower nerd.
I'm sure when next years nova comes and goes the same data will be on display as the powerful get more powerful and the mid tier gets squeezed with more pressure and we see some armies drop into lower tiers than middle. The ITC and the NOVA has now had two recurring studies done on it and the meta has taken a turn for the worse.
I have to still advise the ITC to have a widespread reforms to root out this source of either corruption, bias, or even conspiracy that is hindering your tournament from potential growth and balance.
I sent something quite similar to this to Reccius and co last year and got a standard form reply back. It's evident no one their cares about any of this. So I will still sit here hoping to get the message out that there are major problems with the ITC. Thanks to all those who continue to do in depth analysis of their tournament results and for those who do agree with me. Maybe we'll make a difference next year.
Dude, while I appreciate your passion, you're trying too hard. We, the Tau players, are not suffering under the lash of the ITC because of the loss of the full fledged HC. Even the nerf to the Ghostkeel that I don't agree with doesn't kill us. OSC, Riptide Wing, and the DBC with a retaliation cadre core are all VERY powerful. I firmly believe one of the reasons Tau didn't make top 8 is that the power players know that while Tau IS a powerful army, Eldar, Necrons, and some superfriend combo's are MORE powerful. Keep in mind the HC was DESIGNED to kill death stars, which the ITC format does not support winning anyway. ITC is an MSU game, and Tau can MSU VERY WELL with the current ITC meta, just some people do it better. Changing the HC and the Ghostkeel back aren't going to change that.
I fully believe in un-nerfing EVERYTHING from invisibility, to ranged D, to even allowing the 2++ rerollable (two of those Tau don't have access to), but ITC gives us, as a community, a common ground on which to build our games, nothing more.
I'm trying to hard? That is very unhelpful. I would prefer it if you kept this in mind when playing at the ITC. The more people that start complaining and showing them this data the more likely Reccius and co have to do something about it. Without a voice things can't be fixed. Torrent of Fire has information for other ITC tournaments stretching back a year showing similar data pasterns. Tau has not been in the top for a long time now. Hence why I found the nerfs unjustified. Also I'm a very competitive player but as annoying as I am it's only because I want my opponent to have a fair chance at winning and giving me a fair chance. Right now it's not fair. 40k is inherently unfair and the ITC is only making its own mistakes. It's funny but I was going to be recruited in some video game teams to go pro a long time ago, but corruption brought down one of the games. While casualization took down the other. I'm inherently distrustful of competitive events for good reason now. The majority of people out there seem to cheat their way to success.
These results aren't just for Tau players but they can be used to call out armies that need toning down and nerfs if your not approving of buffs.
ok, so what we've learned: Eldar are the top codex (We knew that already, and I don't think anyone would mind a re-vote on the 1-in-3 scatterlaser per jetbike rule) and SM are second best (Which will probably change with less points, and is why I would like to try to lower the detachment limit to limit superfriends.) Tau still did well, but that doesn't mean other stuff shouldn't be nerfed. I'd rather see all the codexes that can\are top be nerfed to the mid level and the terrible codexes buffed than everything be high level.
Which is less likely to happen than raising one up to their level. It's too much work for the ITC to write full house rules for every codex. I mean if they want to do it go for it I'll support them. However I know humans all too well and they would seek to do the easiest thing if forced to take action.
Once every codex theoretically makes it to the top tier of balance then it could set that as the standard and try to keep further power creep from setting in.
but... that IS power creep. as of right now the top codexes break the game on so many levels it's not even funny. Ignoring Tau, as I agree their more top-mid tier than true top tier in the ITC, we have:
Eldar: Infinite-D, the single best troops choice in the game (Scat Bikes,) Move-shoot-move, Great allies, almost no bad unit, Spiders, Good Psychic use, good deathstar (Seer Council.)
Necrons: Basically Unkillable, have some pretty good shooting, good melee units and a good deathstar (Wraiths and Lychgaurd,) LD 10 everything meaning morale is pointless
Demons: The best psychic phase pretty much hands down, great death stars, summoning BS, Invis Spam, Great MCs, Renegade allies
Marines: MSU spam of legends with the most obsec out of anyone and ALSO free transports(Gladius,) The best deathstars (super friends,) Grav Cents, good psychic powers, White Scars bikey BS
As far as I know, that is everything wrong with the top 4 in the current iteration of the ITC. the Gladius stops being broken if you dissallow duplicate formations, meaning no free transports, and two detachments means no super friends and no 9 warp spiders. Not sure on the rest, but those are some pretty easy comp changes that help to bring down Marines, and to a lesser degree Eldar. More to the point, we should really try to list what these four armies do best and see what needs to be changed.
Considering I can't even convince one forum Tau aren't OP your going to convince them to nerf the Space marines, Eldar, Necrons, and Chaos Deamons?
Good luck. I've found a few like minded people and we continue to spread the word but it's taking a long time.
I'm not disagreeing with you and if we could convince them to nerf all of those down to the level of everything else I would, but pick and choose your battles. Once they start taking the small suggestions seriously maybe we could get them to do more and open up an internal discussion to see if we want them to move from FAQ's to complete house rules, but one thing at a time.
Dude, Im a marine player and i realize this. I'm also writing an entire homebrew set up, starting with orks, because I want to be able to play fluffy games while still being semi competative. At this point, any little bit helps. and plenty of people are happy to nerf the top tier codexes, just many believe tau to be one of those codexes. Personally, I think they may need a slight toning down from now if everything is toned down, if only because i'd rather everything about the same power level with some small variance then have high, mid and low mid tier, but that would need play testing to see for sure. seriously, the game wouldn't be hard to fix if we actually put our minds to it.
Are you Reccius or the ITC though and do you have that kind of influence with them or the ITC to make your voice heard and an actual chance of any of that happening?
Otherwise I doubt there's much more that you can do. So I'll continue to do my thing trying to get them unnerfed and a look at the ITC. Easier said than done. Your plan is far less likely to succeed than mine which could lead to further changes down the line.
I just think you'd have more luck getting people to agree with you about nerfing the top than to unerf the tau, tbh. Lots of BA, Nids, CSM, I|G and Ork players are going to, as we have seen, be kinda satly about a good codex wanting to be better, buit would love to see the best codexes taken down a notch.
Except we have to deal with the entrenched winning codices player bases who all have far more sway at the ITC.
However if you really ever think you can do it then I'll support an even nerf of the top codices. People need to realize just because they don't like one army it's not a valid reason to suddenly treat them unfairly.
If the ITC can work at its basic issues with treating Tau and their players like they do then I feel they can have a mature discussion about larger sweeping changes, but if they can't even deal with something this minor as one faction being slightly nerfed and some quick small changes all that's needed to fix it I just don't see them all cooperating enough to start nerfing everything down to the lower level of the other codices.
Baby steps. We have to try and fix the underlying way people approach competitive gaming and each other to try and treat each other with more respect. I don't think diving into the deep end and everyone fighting it out to see how we would nerf the good codices down is a good way to test them to see if they can handle it.
From what I understand, the goal of the ITC is to spread around the fun of playing to as many people as possible. While it doesn't exactly justify nerfing Ghostkeels (and that's hardly nerfing, let's get real), the intent seems pure. If Tau players feel they are now forced into running TripTides to stay competitive, then so be it. At least they'll have one army configuration to play that doesn't get roflstomped by everything out there. IG, CSM, Ork and BA players would rejoice if they even had one single army configuration that could compete at the top levels. If these kinds of decisions leave Tau players with salt in their mouths, then so be it, it is only one faction after all.
That being said, since there is likely to be a reduction in points, potentially all the way to 1500, any kind of arguments about this unit or that unit are really just academic at this point. A smaller points limit will shake up the meta way more than any one other thing could, so until we wait to see how things settle, there's not much point to tripping up over minor things.
In fact, thinking about it more, the points reduction should have been the only thing on the poll. It's impact will be felt thought the entirety of the game, so I think it deserves more gravitas than it has been getting. The rest of the proposed changes could easily have waited until after that decision was made.
I would be okay with that... assuming I felt the parties were trustworthy. Nothing I've seen so far as indicated such given the many accusations leveled at me across this forum. More of implications I suppose. This is a trust game here. I have to trust all the other codex representatives and they only have to trust me. It's definitely not in my favor. At some point there needs to be cooperation or nothing is going to get done. If I'm willing to see the Tau nerfed then someone else should step forward and want to see their top tier faction nerfed as well.
So.... When are we gonna get to vote on the Wraithknigt, 450pts minimum, and scatter bikes, 1-3 heavy weapons, that would make eldar a little bearable to me.
I don't know Formosa but all I know is the entrenched codex players would throw a fit at nerfs. Which is why I think it would be easier to convince them to buff factions up. Though if we can convince them to get nerfed that will do a well.
Gamgee, take a break. At this point you are worse than a troll. You are attacking people and quoting blogs that are using a data set with one point. If Tau are weak it will come out naturally and instead of being in the top 3 you'll have to settle for top 5.
You and some of the other Tau players keep stirring gak up and people are starting to dislike Tau for the exact reason I do. Because of the PEOPLE who play the army.
There is literally nothing you can say to change minds, no data to quote to prove your point, no good will to cash in.
All the Tau players just need to suck it up and smile while playing their favorite army; because you know, you picked it because you liked the fluff? Otherwise you'd be playing Eldar.
I think it's more a referendum on the Tau players than the Tau Codex...
Hate the player, not the game.
If not for Gamgee's temper tantrum over the last ITC vote, I wouldn't have even voted. But the way he stirs the pot, it's impossible for me not to have voted against every Tau point on basic principle. Really, it's players like Gamgee that are driving the anti-Tau reaction more than anything else.
And, for the record, this is actually voting against my self-interest, as normally, I'd want more Xenos as counterbalance against Imperial Super Friends....
Always attacking me and not the points raised. Just because you personally don't like me. Speak for yourself about having no good will. Me and swamp seemed to have come to an understanding if not an agreement.
Edit2
LVO 2015. http://www.torrentoffire.com/6767/graphing-lvo Tau Empire... Mid tier. It's almost like I have a lot of data to support my claims. I could go on. However I've found listing facts alone isn't enough.
Tau don't win tournaments because good players don't play Tau. The Codex is fine, it's just the types that are attracted to it can't handle more than 2 out of the 4 phases of the game.
This becomes a problem when they face players that can. Eventually the training wheels have to come off.
So 1650 is way better than 1500. I play a lot of 1500 pt tourneys and because they're friendlies it's fine, but at an ITC large tourney with nut crushingly cheesey lists, 1650 just opens up a bunch more options and is more fun.
The main roblem with Tau (IMO) is entirely based on perception. They are a pure shooty army in a shooty meta that requires (at a glance) little perceived skill. Stand and shoot and win. Its not fun to play against and as such does not create a very engaging or fun experience for the one playing against it.
Tau could be a weaker codex and would still be disliked due to its playstyle and what its like to play against it. It just does not lend itself well to creating fun and balanced games. Does this mean it cant? Of course not, but the problem is perception and a person's perception defines their reality. I realize this and I still hate Tau and immedietly judge someone the moment they say they are a Tau main or defend Tau. I know they can have entirely good points as to why they believe Tau are not OP. I know the guy who is playing them can be a super nice guy and not a try hard at all, but even then I cannot overcome my utter hate towards the Tau due to their playstyle.
Tau are like super high dps stealth characters in MMOs or MOBAs. Nobody but the person playing them likes them. They can be totally balanced but will still be hated by the vast majority of players because of their playstyle. I personally always see Tau as being hated and disliked because they ARE a shooty army with strong gameplay mechanics thats not fun to face.
So by this logic you may ask how are they any different from IG? IG are a pure shooty army so why do people not hate guard nearly as much? Beyond Guard being a weaker codex they have the invaluable quality of being fun to kill. Killing hordes of enemy models is just plain satisfying and on top of that just about any IG list is fluffy so its hard to perceive the player as being a WAAC kinda guy.
Now I could be 100% incorrect (Would not be the first time), but thats what I have observed so far.
Keep 1850, keep detachment limit, nerf GC cover, countermeasures once per unit. I generally went quite conservative, with some exceptions (I think the CK taking legacies is fine).
I think it's more a referendum on the Tau players than the Tau Codex...
Hate the player, not the game.
If not for Gamgee's temper tantrum over the last ITC vote, I wouldn't have even voted. But the way he stirs the pot, it's impossible for me not to have voted against every Tau point on basic principle. Really, it's players like Gamgee that are driving the anti-Tau reaction more than anything else.
And, for the record, this is actually voting against my self-interest, as normally, I'd want more Xenos as counterbalance against Imperial Super Friends....
The irony is that of all the people here I have voted most fairly. I've only ever put in one single vote the way I see it. I vote for things that buff weaker factions and vote to try and keep the power of the big 4 in check. Why would I ever vote multiple times when I believe there are those faking accounts to vote multiple times. I mean I could be a hypocrite but I started this crusade because I found people doing it.
Yet every time I get accused of being the one using under handed tactics. Then we get people blatantly admitting to emotional voting which is ridiculous and only undermines not only my point but the whole system the ITC operates under. I'm sure Reccius and his fellow ITC operators would only be too happy to see posts like these.
It's a very petty thing to do. However no matter how low some individuals might sink I wont stoop to their level and revenge petty vote. I have to set a good example after all. Despite my utter distaste for Imperial factions I will do what I can to buff the weaker ones.
Also still no one actually reads the data I have provided to even try and counter point me. It's silly.
This poll is comical. After the LVO the Frontline guys stated that their FAQ/amendments were only temporary. And that the issues regarding Tau would come to a vote. Fair enough. I took this to be damage control. They were trying to calm the upset Tau players down by giving them a fair vote. After seeing the poll I was wrong to assume they were trying to ease Tau player's concerns. In fact it is the opposite. It appears they were only easing the concerns of players that felt Tau were not nerfed hard enough. The poll doesn't offer opportunity to reverse any of the Tau nerfs. It in fact gives opportunity to further tighten the noose on Tau formations. And here we are, ready to nerf Tau further into the ground while just about every other book has an opportunity to rise up.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: The main roblem with Tau (IMO) is entirely based on perception. They are a pure shooty army in a shooty meta that requires (at a glance) little perceived skill. Stand and shoot and win. Its not fun to play against and as such does not create a very engaging or fun experience for the one playing against it.
Tau could be a weaker codex and would still be disliked due to its playstyle and what its like to play against it. It just does not lend itself well to creating fun and balanced games. Does this mean it cant? Of course not, but the problem is perception and a person's perception defines their reality. I realize this and I still hate Tau and immedietly judge someone the moment they say they are a Tau main or defend Tau. I know they can have entirely good points as to why they believe Tau are not OP. I know the guy who is playing them can be a super nice guy and not a try hard at all, but even then I cannot overcome my utter hate towards the Tau due to their playstyle.
Tau are like super high dps stealth characters in MMOs or MOBAs. Nobody but the person playing them likes them. They can be totally balanced but will still be hated by the vast majority of players because of their playstyle. I personally always see Tau as being hated and disliked because they ARE a shooty army with strong gameplay mechanics thats not fun to face.
So by this logic you may ask how are they any different from IG? IG are a pure shooty army so why do people not hate guard nearly as much? Beyond Guard being a weaker codex they have the invaluable quality of being fun to kill. Killing hordes of enemy models is just plain satisfying and on top of that just about any IG list is fluffy so its hard to perceive the player as being a WAAC kinda guy.
Now I could be 100% incorrect (Would not be the first time), but thats what I have observed so far.
I will first say I 100% agree that mowing down hordes of guardsmen is absolute bliss.
However, what you state (which is your opinion and i respect that), is really the root of the issue, and why general public polls written up as they are don't work to balance anything. Many people feel the way you do, and vote against an army because they don't like it.. but does this help the game at large? absolutely not. I play Tau (main), Eldar, and Nids; I used to play space marines but honestly got extremely bored playing them. It is all perspective. I thought Space marines are as you perceive tau.. one play style.. i spam as many combat squads in rhinos as possible, move hop out, blow something up.. hop back in move to an objective. The new marine codex just reenforced this play style for me (which is super boring.. for me). Tau can be a very strong gunline, but I would like to make a distinction, there are Tau gunline players and there are every other tau player... If you look at the lists for Tau that did well at LVO (despite the previous rulings), none of them are gunline or even close too it. On top of this you have many of the Tau players playing a Farsight Enclaves style list which is extremely mobile and reactive. Yes, many of my friends hate playing my FSE lists because it is going to be a tough game; doesn't mean i always win, but every game was a great battle start to finish (my gaming group does not play ITC though).
Yeah the second best Tau list was an FSE using the drones. They nerfed him at the last second and he didn't get very far at all.
I bet he wouldn't have even won the tournament if he didn't get nerfed, but you know that Tau fear and bias.
I agree with you as well Grizzyzz. I was originally quite upset when they made polls public and so conveniently timed with the Tau release as well. The one and most hated faction gets a big release and polls go public with fear mongering and hysteria everywhere.
It's been a complete farce for Tau, but I'm sure other armies out there have horror stories like us. Right?
Also I do play FSE and am much more mobile. To the point where when I do take a SS I might use its default gun because it's going to be in close range a lot more with me.
GreaterGouda wrote: This poll is comical. After the LVO the Frontline guys stated that their FAQ/amendments were only temporary. And that the issues regarding Tau would come to a vote. Fair enough. I took this to be damage control. They were trying to calm the upset Tau players down by giving them a fair vote. After seeing the poll I was wrong to assume they were trying to ease Tau player's concerns. In fact it is the opposite. It appears they were only easing the concerns of players that felt Tau were not nerfed hard enough. The poll doesn't offer opportunity to reverse any of the Tau nerfs. It in fact gives opportunity to further tighten the noose on Tau formations. And here we are, ready to nerf Tau further into the ground while just about every other book has an opportunity to rise up.
The temporary LVO Tau rulings are on the poll. FLG said those would be the ones on the new poll. If you want the previous Tau rulings to have a re-vote then contact FLG.
And that is why I voted against him by voting against Tau.
As the poster child for "why you should nerf Tau", Gamgee is doing an excellent job.
Honestly, this makes you just as bad as him IMO. One troll on the internet makes you upset, so you make an effort to not help make the game more balanced... excellent job.
And that is why I voted against him by voting against Tau.
As the poster child for "why you should nerf Tau", Gamgee is doing an excellent job.
Honestly, this makes you just as bad as him IMO. One troll on the internet makes you upset, so you make an effort to not help make the game more balanced... excellent job.
Assuming that unnerfing Tau makes the game more balanced, the idea of which is part of the reason people are dismissing him in the first place.
And that is why I voted against him by voting against Tau.
As the poster child for "why you should nerf Tau", Gamgee is doing an excellent job.
Honestly, this makes you just as bad as him IMO. One troll on the internet makes you upset, so you make an effort to not help make the game more balanced... excellent job.
Assuming that unnerfing Tau makes the game more balanced, the idea of which is part of the reason people are dismissing him in the first place.
Your missing my point (maybe your not, but at least your response seemed like you were).. It is not about "Tau", its the fact that you vote based on how you feel and not by what will make the game better. (and no, nerfing tau will not make the game better)
To your point, I think Tau were fine as was, but considering how complicated the CF rule is. I played more conservatively and exactly how NOVA is ruling it for their upcoming tournament..
Coordinated Firepower and Interaction with Unit-Wide Buffs - The Signature Systems and similar unit wide effects transfer via the coordinated fire rule. Unit Wide effects apply to all contributing units, however only models, or weapons in the case of Gargantuan Creatures, firing at the target of the coordinated firepower attack gain the effect of applicable buffs through coordinated firepower. As such, contributing units that make use of Target Locks or GC Split Fire rules do not gain the buffs on those shots that don’t go at the primary target.
I think this is an extremely fair middle ground. Will it make Tau more competitive in ITC formats.. I think it will add options to Tau lists, but I don't think this would even bring Tau to and Eldar/Cron/SM level.
And that is why I voted against him by voting against Tau.
As the poster child for "why you should nerf Tau", Gamgee is doing an excellent job.
Honestly, this makes you just as bad as him IMO. One troll on the internet makes you upset, so you make an effort to not help make the game more balanced... excellent job.
Also, I recognize that the game has never been balanced, and that it's kinda pointless to try and balance it. I have several armies, and many of them would have sat on the shelf for years, if not multiple entire editions, if all I did was worry about competitive "balance". I play what I want. If I want to play competitively, and the rules favor Wraithknights, then that's what I'm going to buy and play. If the rules say to buy a lot of Razorbacks, then I'll do that. Because I'm a competitive player.
However, if I'm actually a casual player, then none of this "balance" crap matters. In that case, I play what I like and don't worry about it.
Given that I'm just one drop in the bucket, it won't matter. But it makes me feel better as a casual to turn the screws to the guys who want to have their cake and eat it, too. Which is what Gamgee wants. He wants the meta and TOs to cater to him, so that his army becomes competitive. I say "boo" to that. If he wants to play with the big boys, he needs to suck it up and buy a competitive army. If he wants to be Fluffy and fun, then let him play on the lower tables with the CSM / IG players.
That is, I am 100% in favor of GW's "Pay To Win" strategy. I think GW is correct to make bank on competitive players. The competitive crowd claims that they support GW's new releases in a significant financial way, so l am very happy to see them put their money where their mouth is.
Cindis wrote: Tau don't win tournaments because good players don't play Tau. The Codex is fine, it's just the types that are attracted to it can't handle more than 2 out of the 4 phases of the game.
This becomes a problem when they face players that can. Eventually the training wheels have to come off.
This is highly relevant. I'd be interested to see if someone could run a quick analysis of the top 20 players (those who consistently win GT level events or make top 8 at GT level events) and how many of them play Tau, and if they do play Tau, if that had a negative impact on their consistent placing. There is probably not enough data (since the update is relatively new) to paint a clear picture, but my experience in any competitive game is that the top players tend to be the top players, not necessarily just the army that they run.
Not to mention, Tau is still newish, and most top players don't just jump lists/factions for major events. List fluency is a real thing, and it takes time to develop, no matter how good you are. I think a lot of people are emphasizing the tools instead of the carpenter, and yes, certain books are weaker compared to others, and so this may influence with armies the top players play, but I think we are starting to blame the book far more than the player, and that doesn't go well.
And that is why I voted against him by voting against Tau.
As the poster child for "why you should nerf Tau", Gamgee is doing an excellent job.
Honestly, this makes you just as bad as him IMO. One troll on the internet makes you upset, so you make an effort to not help make the game more balanced... excellent job.
GreaterGouda wrote: This poll is comical. After the LVO the Frontline guys stated that their FAQ/amendments were only temporary. And that the issues regarding Tau would come to a vote. Fair enough. I took this to be damage control. They were trying to calm the upset Tau players down by giving them a fair vote. After seeing the poll I was wrong to assume they were trying to ease Tau player's concerns. In fact it is the opposite. It appears they were only easing the concerns of players that felt Tau were not nerfed hard enough. The poll doesn't offer opportunity to reverse any of the Tau nerfs. It in fact gives opportunity to further tighten the noose on Tau formations. And here we are, ready to nerf Tau further into the ground while just about every other book has an opportunity to rise up.
The temporary LVO Tau rulings are on the poll. FLG said those would be the ones on the new poll. If you want the previous Tau rulings to have a re-vote then contact FLG.
I can think of a few good Tau players, but the only really competitive one that comes to mind is Paul McKelvey, and he had pretty bad luck at the LVO. I don't think his ninja Tau list performed like it used to in the previous book.
DarkLink wrote: I can think of a few good Tau players, but the only really competitive one that comes to mind is Paul McKelvey, and he had pretty bad luck at the LVO. I don't think his ninja Tau list performed like it used to in the previous book.
Is there a source for all the players lists at LVO. I would be interested in others outside of the top 8.
GreaterGouda wrote: This poll is comical. After the LVO the Frontline guys stated that their FAQ/amendments were only temporary. And that the issues regarding Tau would come to a vote. Fair enough. I took this to be damage control. They were trying to calm the upset Tau players down by giving them a fair vote. After seeing the poll I was wrong to assume they were trying to ease Tau player's concerns. In fact it is the opposite. It appears they were only easing the concerns of players that felt Tau were not nerfed hard enough. The poll doesn't offer opportunity to reverse any of the Tau nerfs. It in fact gives opportunity to further tighten the noose on Tau formations. And here we are, ready to nerf Tau further into the ground while just about every other book has an opportunity to rise up.
The temporary LVO Tau rulings are on the poll. FLG said those would be the ones on the new poll. If you want the previous Tau rulings to have a re-vote then contact FLG.
Not all the pre-LVO rulings are up on the poll. Specifically the ability to leave the turn the piranhas arrive.
I don't think that one was really necessary to vote on. Having units your opponent can't interact with is bad for the game regardless of casual or competitive.
Gamgee wrote:Yeah the second best Tau list was an FSE using the drones. They nerfed him at the last second and he didn't get very far at all.
I bet he wouldn't have even won the tournament if he didn't get nerfed, but you know that Tau fear and bias.
I agree with you as well Grizzyzz. I was originally quite upset when they made polls public and so conveniently timed with the Tau release as well. The one and most hated faction gets a big release and polls go public with fear mongering and hysteria everywhere.
It's been a complete farce for Tau, but I'm sure other armies out there have horror stories like us. Right?
Also I do play FSE and am much more mobile. To the point where when I do take a SS I might use its default gun because it's going to be in close range a lot more with me.
If by "didn't get very far at all", you mean "only just missed getting into the top eight". There were mono-DE and IG and Ork players that did far worse.
That Tau player stood just as much of a chance as any other competitive army going in. What determines final standings at events of the LVO's caliber is a combination of random pairings, player skill, and luck of the dice. Notice that the Tau player could only affect one of those three factors.
I do have a horror story to share with you, and one with which you should be very familiar Gamgee. Not quite one year ago, the latest Eldar Craftworlds codex was released. On a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of Power Creep, the new Eldar codex was firmly at "ludicrous".
The response by TOs was at that point some of the swiftest rulings in history. The ITC unilaterally, without any input from its playerbase, nerfed ranged D. A vote was held on nerfing Scatbikers to one heavy weapon per three was held, and only narrowly failed. These changes were greeted with cheers by many on DakkaDakka, with the ITC being hailed as the saviors of 7th edition 40k.
At the same time, a wave of hate not seen since the days of 5th edition Grey Knights swept the forum. Many rage threads were created denouncing the new Eldar codex and Eldar players in general. In particular, one thread attempted to launch a boycott of Eldar from all competitive events. In the time of perhaps the greatest hatred toward the Space Elves, it managed to garner a total of five signatures and was described by none other than Carl Tuttle as "The most ridiculous thing I have ever read". To this day, Eldar remain one of the most reviled and disliked armies in the game.
Do you remember those days, Gamgee? I do. There’s plenty of other people who remember as well. Yet you continually seem to forget those days, which is why I keep having to tell this story.
What I remember most about those days was the reaction of Eldar players. There were very few cries for people to “L2P” or that they should simply adapt to the new Eldar book. I, along with many other Eldar players, instead chose to self-limit and tone down our armies we brought. Competitive events still brought out the cheese, but that was to be expected. Eldar players recognized how overpowered their army was, and compensated for the sake of the game (and their ability to play).
So I don’t have much sympathy for Tau players at the moment. I would have some sympathy, but instead of reacting with some humility, you and a couple of other noted Tau players on this forum have reacted as if you have rightfully inherited the title of “Most Overpowered Army”. Instead of recognizing how powerful Tau are, you play it down and put the onus on other armies to build against you. You ask for TOs to consider only your viewpoints when making their tournament FAQs. You act as if Tau rightly should be the most powerful army in an imbalanced mess of a game, when not too long ago Tau were a bad joke.
Eat a giant slice of humble pie, and I might just start taking your arguments seriously. Who knows, I might even stop having to tell my story…
Grizzyzz wrote:Your missing my point (maybe your not, but at least your response seemed like you were).. It is not about "Tau", its the fact that you vote based on how you feel and not by what will make the game better. (and no, nerfing tau will not make the game better)
To your point, I think Tau were fine as was, but considering how complicated the CF rule is. I played more conservatively and exactly how NOVA is ruling it for their upcoming tournament..
Coordinated Firepower and Interaction with Unit-Wide Buffs - The Signature Systems and similar unit wide effects transfer via the coordinated fire rule. Unit Wide effects apply to all contributing units, however only models, or weapons in the case of Gargantuan Creatures, firing at the target of the coordinated firepower attack gain the effect of applicable buffs through coordinated firepower. As such, contributing units that make use of Target Locks or GC Split Fire rules do not gain the buffs on those shots that don’t go at the primary target.
I think this is an extremely fair middle ground. Will it make Tau more competitive in ITC formats.. I think it will add options to Tau lists, but I don't think this would even bring Tau to and Eldar/Cron/SM level.
Considering that NOVA for unmodified 2+ re-rollable and Invisibility, I can understand the reasoning behind loosening the reins on Coordinated Fire Power.
Allow me to play Devil’s Advocate: Why shouldn’t people vote based on their feelings of how powerful Tau are? For the average player, Tau are part of the Cheese List that includes Necrons, Eldar, Chaos Daemons, and Admech/Skitarii. Tournaments do not cater to the type of people who regularly place highly at the final rankings. They cater to the average player coming in and wanting to have fun in a competitive environment. Without this base, there is no money for prize support and not enough people to make solid pairings. If from this standpoint Tau are overpowered, why should they not be brought down to approximate the mean power level?
TheNewBlood wrote: What I remember most about those days was the reaction of Eldar players. There were very few cries for people to “L2P” or that they should simply adapt to the new Eldar book.
To be fair, I was part of the "L2P" crowd, simply because it made for a funnier narrative. Really, I'm just gratified that Eldar get a turn on top.
Now, I'm waiting for CSM and IG to get their turn as the "OMG, OP!!11!" army of the month. That would be far more satisfying. Unfortunately, I do not see that happening for IG, based on the ridiculously bad formations that came out recently. Nor CSM, which GW always keeps a half step behind SMs.
Allow me to play Devil’s Advocate: Why shouldn’t people vote based on their feelings of how powerful Tau are? For the average player, Tau are part of the Cheese List that includes Necrons, Eldar, Chaos Daemons, and Admech/Skitarii. Tournaments do not cater to the type of people who regularly place highly at the final rankings. They cater to the average player coming in and wanting to have fun in a competitive environment. Without this base, there is no money for prize support and not enough people to make solid pairings. If from this standpoint Tau are overpowered, why should they not be brought down to approximate the mean power level?
Fairly put. It is as you put of best interest for a TO to cater to the majority of players because they want people to have fun, I think that is the best thing for them to do. The ultra competitive as said above are going to "pay to win", it will always be that way and no FAQ is going to change that.
HOWEVER, there is a huge difference even with feelings involved in giving a Poll that says -- "hey guy who probably has no idea what this new rule XYZ might be... (A) Nerf XYZ (B) Dont nerf"
In this case someone who has ill feelings will always vote to nerf, despite RAW, or any other criteria or even if it has no effect on him what so ever. I HATE facing necrons, they are just such a pain, but it is what it is, I am not going to vote to change a 4+ reanimation to be worse just because it annoys me... my personal view though.
I guess what I am trying to say, I understand the need to please the masses, but I don't care for the approach that is taken. And yes, I still vote because hey maybe my 1 vote might matter. And whether anyone will believe me, I try to vote with other armies in mind. I play more than just Tau. I try and be fair and want the game to be fun for everyone. Plus on the off chance that one day I can make it to LVO.. I at least know what the current Meta is like!
TheNewBlood wrote: What I remember most about those days was the reaction of Eldar players. There were very few cries for people to “L2P” or that they should simply adapt to the new Eldar book.
To be fair, I was part of the "L2P" crowd, simply because it made for a funnier narrative. Really, I'm just gratified that Eldar get a turn on top.
Now, I'm waiting for CSM and IG to get their turn as the "OMG, OP!!11!" army of the month. That would be far more satisfying. Unfortunately, I do not see that happening for IG, based on the ridiculously bad formations that came out recently. Nor CSM, which GW always keeps a half step behind SMs.
As am I, because that means people aren't complaining about <insert current hated army here>.
Gamgee wrote: The irony is that of all the people here I have voted most fairly.
See, it's saying stupid things like this that makes no one take you seriously.
Yes, you are the only person in the entire internet who votes fairly with no bias whatsoever.
I vote for things that buff weaker factions and vote to try and keep the power of the big 4 in check.
No bias. Only fair person in the world.
Have you even looked at this thread? Want me to quote all the people who literally say they voted to nerf Tau just because they hate Tau and not because of the actual rules?
Gamgee wrote: The irony is that of all the people here I have voted most fairly.
See, it's saying stupid things like this that makes no one take you seriously.
Yes, you are the only person in the entire internet who votes fairly with no bias whatsoever.
I vote for things that buff weaker factions and vote to try and keep the power of the big 4 in check.
No bias. Only fair person in the world.
Have you even looked at this thread? Want me to quote all the people who literally say they voted to nerf Tau just because they hate Tau and not because of the actual rules?
raverrn wrote: Where's the option for only two detachments?
As I've said many times, I'm gonna write an email once the poll finishes asking this exact question, as I believe it would go a long way to fixing some of the stupider builds (Like 9x squads of Spiders, for example.)
notredameguy10 wrote: Have you even looked at this thread? Want me to quote all the people who literally say they voted to nerf Tau just because they hate Tau and not because of the actual rules?
There are none.
And to clarify, I voted to nerf Tau because I don't like the pontificating of a particular Tau player, not because of the Tau army nor the rules.
Also, this whole RAW thing that the Tau players are on? You know what? Fine. Play your Tau stuff RAW. Just be damn sure that Eldar get to play their Codex 100% RAW. No nerfs to S(D), no limits on Scatbikes. None of that crap.
Poll questions are based on player feedback. If they didn't include an option for 2 detachments (which was previously voted on and more detachments won by a solid margin), it's likely because they aren't getting asked to reduce the number of detachments in any real quantity. They're not going to revote on it unless there are people asking for it, and presumably people aren't asking for it.
TheNewBlood wrote: What I remember most about those days was the reaction of Eldar players. There were very few cries for people to “L2P” or that they should simply adapt to the new Eldar book.
To be fair, I was part of the "L2P" crowd, simply because it made for a funnier narrative. Really, I'm just gratified that Eldar get a turn on top.
What, the previous two turns at the top weren't enough for you John?
Now, I'm waiting for CSM and IG to get their turn as the "OMG, OP!!11!" army of the month. That would be far more satisfying. Unfortunately, I do not see that happening for IG, based on the ridiculously bad formations that came out recently. Nor CSM, which GW always keeps a half step behind SMs.
Hey now. The Guard formations aren't all terrible.
Clean up the wording of the Emperor's Shield Infantry Company/Platoons("Must contain a minimum of 5 Infantry type units") and they become much more realistic for basically everyone that isn't a die-hard Guard player to potentially field!
Also, make a normal Infantry Platoon or the ESIP a Core Choice and it becomes something that can be fielded sub-2k with some options!
At the same time, a wave of hate not seen since the days of 5th edition Grey Knights swept the forum. Many rage threads were created denouncing the new Eldar codex and Eldar players in general. In particular, one thread attempted to launch a boycott of Eldar from all competitive events. In the time of perhaps the greatest hatred toward the Space Elves, it managed to garner a total of five signatures and was described by none other than Carl Tuttle as "The most ridiculous thing I have ever read". To this day, Eldar remain one of the most reviled and disliked armies in the game.
Lol, i'm pretty sure i'm one of those 5 signatures. I don't play against eldar, and i'm not playing against tau either.
GreaterGouda wrote: This poll is comical. After the LVO the Frontline guys stated that their FAQ/amendments were only temporary. And that the issues regarding Tau would come to a vote. Fair enough. I took this to be damage control. They were trying to calm the upset Tau players down by giving them a fair vote. After seeing the poll I was wrong to assume they were trying to ease Tau player's concerns. In fact it is the opposite. It appears they were only easing the concerns of players that felt Tau were not nerfed hard enough. The poll doesn't offer opportunity to reverse any of the Tau nerfs. It in fact gives opportunity to further tighten the noose on Tau formations. And here we are, ready to nerf Tau further into the ground while just about every other book has an opportunity to rise up.
The temporary LVO Tau rulings are on the poll. FLG said those would be the ones on the new poll. If you want the previous Tau rulings to have a re-vote then contact FLG.
Not all the pre-LVO rulings are up on the poll. Specifically the ability to leave the turn the piranhas arrive.
I don't think that one was really necessary to vote on. Having units your opponent can't interact with is bad for the game regardless of casual or competitive.
While I agree with that sentiment, I still would've liked to see rule changes up for votes if we're going to be voting on rules at all.
Seeing all the drama on this thread makes me happy that my FLGS and basically every store in my area doesn't use the ITC rule set or if we do we tweak certain things, for example not nerf a single army into the ground yet let other armies have their shenanigans (in particular the tendency to favor Imperial Armies it seems). Way to much immaturity on here from several people, especially those voting repeatedly (which some have admitted and just proves how broken and corrupt their system of voting is) just to spite Tau players because they need the handicap in order to win, or at least judging from many peoples attitudes on here it seems that way.
gmaleron wrote: Seeing all the drama on this thread makes me happy that my FLGS and basically every store in my area doesn't use the ITC rule set or if we do we tweak certain things, for example not nerf a single army into the ground yet let other armies have their shenanigans (in particular the tendency to favor Imperial Armies it seems). Way to much immaturity on here from several people, especially those voting repeatedly (which some have admitted and just proves how broken and corrupt their system of voting is) just to spite Tau players because they need the handicap in order to win, or at least judging from many peoples attitudes on here it seems that way.
It makes me kinda sad that my FLGS is adopting the ITC stuff for their next tournament (this weekend), and I keep reading all this stuff about how ITC works. I don't blame the TO for doing it because he doesn't actually work for the store or get ANY compensation for doing this, he does this for our gaming community and I commend him on that. He was trying to take questions from everyone at the previous tournaments and write a FAQ/Errata for our local meta, but it just got to be too much work in his spare time. He chose ITC because it's wide spread, even though he PERSONALLY doesn't like all of it, and it was easy to access.
At the end of the day ITC doesn't make the top armies unplayable, it doesn't make Tau unplayable, it does change how some things work, and as I've said before I don't agree with all of it, but as long as everyone understands that going in, it’s just a set of house rules to help everyone get along. All I want to do is play 3 or 4 games with my little plastic men, have a good time, and go home having enjoyed myself, and hopefully my opponents will have had a good time too.
Gamgee wrote: Yeah the second best Tau list was an FSE using the drones. They nerfed him at the last second and he didn't get very far at all.
I bet he wouldn't have even won the tournament if he didn't get nerfed, but you know that Tau fear and bias.
I agree with you as well Grizzyzz. I was originally quite upset when they made polls public and so conveniently timed with the Tau release as well. The one and most hated faction gets a big release and polls go public with fear mongering and hysteria everywhere.
It's been a complete farce for Tau, but I'm sure other armies out there have horror stories like us. Right?
Also I do play FSE and am much more mobile. To the point where when I do take a SS I might use its default gun because it's going to be in close range a lot more with me.
Gamgee where have you been I thought I was the only one who notice this!
I made a thread about it, I even made another thread to show where the piranha formation is not overpowered. I have created 3 threads with over 3k viewers and the response I get is you should go through the proper channels to get in contact so I tried to get in contact via personal message and facebook to voice my concerns and ironically they ask a question on the poll to further nerf the piranha formation! Than everyone tells me I should try email or ask the question through the blog so I did that, I wonder what the result will be?
The worst part is I dont even play Tau, I play Marines and Imperial Guard! I just see the injustice and I dislike it and I am seen as the bad guy. The inability of people to see that they are being manipulated is unbearable! The vote to allow Dark Eldar to get a 10 point hq so they can use the points they save to pay for a venom or pay for another warp spider squad makes me want to through up. There are so many flaws that its crazy and people want to act like its perfect, give me a break.
Luckily for me you are that break or atleast a breathe of fresh air, I have a companion!
Why do you guys think I am thinking about myself? I just told you I play a different army, why would I complain about changes that are being done to an army that I don't play!
Save your breath. They care not for fairness nor equal treatment.
I've being blamed for bring WAAC and having biased opinion just because I play tau and think the nerf are uncalled for, the preemptive nerfs are outright absurd and the questions are worded in a very leading way.
The fact I own only a single ghostkeel, zero piranhas (and even just one riptide and zero broadsides, I just spam various crisis suits) is irrelevant, I play tau therefor everything I say is meaningless, regardless of the fact these rulings have no direct effect on me, regardless of any mathematical or logical point I bring up (who are more often than not receiving no answer at all, let alone a good counterpoint) and I'm facing the same balant lies coming from a select few of the community here on what tau actually can and cannot do according to the RAW rules. (and I know it's lies and not mistakes, ad they repeat it after being corrected dozens of times)
The vast majority of tau nerf support comes from either pure hate, or simple ignorance.
If I have to list the things in tau that actually need to be toned down:
-The riptide's IA needs to lose the non-NOVA blast. Not usual FAQ level fix, but it single handedly fixes the riptide.
-The broadsides HYMP is too efficient (T increase, HRR buff and point increase fixes it, but that's outside FAQ realm)
-The Hunter Contingent need to be clarified that it works like the Firebase Support Cadre and require all models to target the same thing.
-The firestorm formation needs to be put under a magnifying glass and allowed to roam free and see if it's truly too much or "just" on the very strong realm.
That's it. No further messing is required. All the contingent nerfs, premature firestorm nerfs, ghostkeel nerfs, etc are all plain wrong and the result of misguided fearmonging and plain old hate.
Gamgee wrote: Yeah the second best Tau list was an FSE using the drones. They nerfed him at the last second and he didn't get very far at all.
I bet he wouldn't have even won the tournament if he didn't get nerfed, but you know that Tau fear and bias.
I agree with you as well Grizzyzz. I was originally quite upset when they made polls public and so conveniently timed with the Tau release as well. The one and most hated faction gets a big release and polls go public with fear mongering and hysteria everywhere.
It's been a complete farce for Tau, but I'm sure other armies out there have horror stories like us. Right?
Also I do play FSE and am much more mobile. To the point where when I do take a SS I might use its default gun because it's going to be in close range a lot more with me.
Gamgee where have you been I thought I was the only one who notice this!
I made a thread about it, I even made another thread to show where the piranha formation is not overpowered. I have created 3 threads with over 3k viewers and the response I get is you should go through the proper channels to get in contact so I tried to get in contact via personal message and facebook to voice my concerns and ironically they ask a question on the poll to further nerf the piranha formation! Than everyone tells me I should try email or ask the question through the blog so I did that, I wonder what the result will be?
The worst part is I dont even play Tau, I play Marines and Imperial Guard! I just see the injustice and I dislike it and I am seen as the bad guy. The inability of people to see that they are being manipulated is unbearable! The vote to allow Dark Eldar to get a 10 point hq so they can use the points they save to pay for a venom or pay for another warp spider squad makes me want to through up. There are so many flaws that its crazy and people want to act like its perfect, give me a break.
Luckily for me you are that break or atleast a breathe of fresh air, I have a companion!
How did I miss that thread? Now our number is two and perhaps more. All we can do is continue to spread the word. Could you imagine if in Football/Soccer/Hockey the day the day the big semi-finals dawns and they change a rule of the game at the last second that hinders one team specifically. Oh my goodness it would be madness. Or if in Dota2/Leage of Legends they patched a hero one team is using just before the finals match to be worse. What if Space Marines or Eldar got nerfed mid tournament?
Cindis wrote: Friday should be pretty entertaining one way or the other.
Oh, I guarantee it.
And for those Tau whiners, how come Eldar don't have unlimited Jetbike upgrades? The 1/3 heavy weapons limit is a clear nerf that isn't supported by RAW at all. RAW specifically states that any Jetbike can be upgraded to carry a heavy weapon.
The precedent is clearly set that ITC is not RAW, so enjoy your nerfs!
Cindis wrote: Friday should be pretty entertaining one way or the other.
Oh, I guarantee it.
And for those Tau whiners, how come Eldar don't have unlimited Jetbike upgrades? The 1/3 heavy weapons limit is a clear nerf that isn't supported by RAW at all. RAW specifically states that any Jetbike can be upgraded to carry a heavy weapon.
The precedent is clearly set that ITC is not RAW, so enjoy your nerfs!
When you get nerferd mid tournament to 1/4 heavy weapons you'll kn ow how it feels to be the Tau. Then next tournament they reduce all your psyker masteries by one level. Then next tournament they talk about limiting you to one single wraitknight. Then next tournament they limit Eldar to only a single formation. Then next tournament we'll say they.... take away all your D weapons. Whatever the commoners fear the most and roll on the random nerf chart.
Except none of that is going to happen to you since Eldar are not hated like Tau. Nowhere near as much.
Cindis wrote: Friday should be pretty entertaining one way or the other.
Oh, I guarantee it.
And for those Tau whiners, how come Eldar don't have unlimited Jetbike upgrades? The 1/3 heavy weapons limit is a clear nerf that isn't supported by RAW at all. RAW specifically states that any Jetbike can be upgraded to carry a heavy weapon.
The precedent is clearly set that ITC is not RAW, so enjoy your nerfs!
As a Tau player, my thoughts on your comment.
Spoiler:
How many complaint threads do you think we will see?
Cindis wrote: Friday should be pretty entertaining one way or the other.
Oh, I guarantee it.
And for those Tau whiners, how come Eldar don't have unlimited Jetbike upgrades? The 1/3 heavy weapons limit is a clear nerf that isn't supported by RAW at all. RAW specifically states that any Jetbike can be upgraded to carry a heavy weapon.
The precedent is clearly set that ITC is not RAW, so enjoy your nerfs!
Wait.. did I miss something? The two top 8 Eldar lists both had squads of all scatterbikes... or was this in the recent poll (i honestly don't recall.. and if it was i would have voted RAW) Let them pay for it, takes points away from fielding more D weapons
Cindis wrote: Friday should be pretty entertaining one way or the other.
Oh, I guarantee it.
And for those Tau whiners, how come Eldar don't have unlimited Jetbike upgrades? The 1/3 heavy weapons limit is a clear nerf that isn't supported by RAW at all. RAW specifically states that any Jetbike can be upgraded to carry a heavy weapon.
The precedent is clearly set that ITC is not RAW, so enjoy your nerfs!
What are you talking about? Jet bikes can have unlimited HW in ITC
Cindis wrote: Friday should be pretty entertaining one way or the other.
Oh, I guarantee it.
And for those Tau whiners, how come Eldar don't have unlimited Jetbike upgrades? The 1/3 heavy weapons limit is a clear nerf that isn't supported by RAW at all. RAW specifically states that any Jetbike can be upgraded to carry a heavy weapon.
The precedent is clearly set that ITC is not RAW, so enjoy your nerfs!
What are you talking about? Jet bikes can have unlimited HW in ITC
Just goes to prove my point on ignorance and baseless hate, just like half antitau out there, he doesn't even know the rules he argues on. Though this case it's tournament rule rather than outright codex ignorance (the amount of that thing floating around is absurd though. I'm still seems people get anything from jetpack to NOVA to markerlight rules completely and utterly wrong)
Formosa wrote: So.... When are we gonna get to vote on the Wraithknigt, 450pts minimum, and scatter bikes, 1-3 heavy weapons, that would make eldar a little bearable to me.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Per my initial post, I don't play competitively any more. I read that ITC had been nerfing Eldars. Oh well.
There are no nerfs to scat bikes - it was voted against - probably by many of the same tau players you're now voting to nerf and insulting because they want "raw" for their models.. So basically, you voted to nerf tau, because you don't like a guy on Dakka, even though you are completely tuned out of the competitive game, and don't attend tournaments.
So to sum it up: you are voting to potentially harm an entire playerbase for a play style (tournaments) you don't even participate in, based on perceived nerfs (that don't exist) to your own codex because of your dislike for another poster on here, who has stated he doesn't play tau.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Per my initial post, I don't play competitively any more. I read that ITC had been nerfing Eldars. Oh well.
There are no nerfs to scat bikes - it was voted against - probably by many of the same tau players you're now voting to nerf and insulting because they want "raw" for their models.. So basically, you voted to nerf tau, because you don't like a guy on Dakka,
Given that he was they guy who wanted everybody to ban (not merely nerf) Eldar, yes.
He literally wanted me not to be able to play with my army. At all.
So excuse me for taking that personally and holding a grudge. A grudge that will not end until the ITC actually perma-bans Tau armies from their events. In the mean time, I will be satisfied to see Tau nerfed into the ground simply to spite him.
But seriously, please do not vendetta vote. The player-base is already small enough compared to before. Don't let it shrink any further. People who dislike the ITC or their methods will in most likelihood not play in their events. However, don't punish those players who still enjoy playing in the ITC even with armies altered by the ITC.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Per my initial post, I don't play competitively any more. I read that ITC had been nerfing Eldars. Oh well.
There are no nerfs to scat bikes - it was voted against - probably by many of the same tau players you're now voting to nerf and insulting because they want "raw" for their models.. So basically, you voted to nerf tau, because you don't like a guy on Dakka,
Given that he was they guy who wanted everybody to ban (not merely nerf) Eldar, yes.
He literally wanted me not to be able to play with my army. At all.
So excuse me for taking that personally and holding a grudge. A grudge that will not end until the ITC actually perma-bans Tau armies from their events. In the mean time, I will be satisfied to see Tau nerfed into the ground simply to spite him.
Wow, I normally listen to everyone's opinion and move on with my life, but you sir have earned my first ignore. And I don't agree eye to to eye with Gamgee.
But seriously, please do not vendetta vote. The player-base is already small enough compared to before. Don't let it shrink any further. People who dislike the ITC or their methods will in most likelihood not play in their events. However, don't punish those players who still enjoy playing in the ITC even with armies altered by the ITC.
That is all. Thanks.
Not when people call for boycotts of entire armies, no, we can't get along.
I voted as I like, and that includes punitive voting. Unlike Gamgee, I didn't campaign calling for others to join me. Nor did I multi-vote as has been accused. I don't expect that my single vote will decide anything. But even if it did, I just don't see any harm in that. It's not like nerfing Tau is going to make them unplayable. Or worse than, say, Guard or CSM. And it's not like any of this is graven in stone. Any of it can be easily undone in the next poll. It's just not a big deal.
In any case, next poll, I'll just stay quiet, rather than riling everybody up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson Devil wrote: Even if Gamgee hadn't put a big old target on his forehead, John would have stirred things up. He likes to do that.
I admit that I don't mind stir the pot a little from time to time; however, jumping into tournament-related stuff like this is rather unusual for me, as it's not really an interest area for me. I think you underestimate just how much Gamgee annoyed me with his "boycott Eldar" call, to the extent that I actually bother to pay attention to ITC activity at all. If not for his earlier temper tantrum, I'd have paid this no heed, as I've done in years past.
So, you are into punishing all tau players because there was one tau player that was a jerk and wanted to harm all eldar.
That's the definition of collective punishment, that is not morally just, that is not fair and that is not even legal in more rulesystems.
It would equate that I would harm eldar in the local turny I am running just because you are now the jerk, do you think that would be fair?
I mean, this is a whole new level of ignorance. "Dude X did something that pissed me off, so I'll do the same fething thing to hundrends of others to settle my score with him."
This is racism level logic.
I don't see any problem with collective punishment of Tau players because there aren't any in my playgroup, and the ITC has no sway in what we do. I do not care in the slightest what you do in your tournament because I am never going to play in it. I really don't care whether you like it or not.
I don't recall you having much in the way of principles when people were wanting to stick it to the Eldar a while back. Funny, that.
BoomWolf wrote: So, you are into punishing all tau players because there was one tau player that was a jerk and wanted to harm all eldar.
That's the definition of collective punishment, that is not morally just, that is not fair and that is not even legal in more rulesystems.
It would equate that I would harm eldar in the local turny I am running just because you are now the jerk, do you think that would be fair?
I mean, this is a whole new level of ignorance. "Dude X did something that pissed me off, so I'll do the same fething thing to hundrends of others to settle my score with him."
This is racism level logic.
Yeah, I've actually played in a tournament where the guy who looked like he was going to win was such a jerk, his opponent started getting advice from other people at the tournament who had already played him just to make sure he didn't win. (I had already lost to him, he was one of those guys who didn't believe that a mishap occured because part of his dread knight's base went off the table on DS, and he convinently forgot he went to ground with his big squad of BS 5 guns two turns in a row until his assault phase was over.) This guy was the reason I learned to hate Grey Knights. I've since gotten over it as he never came back, and Grey Knights aren't really a bad army to play against, they just have a bunch of tricks you have to be prepared for. (side note 5th edition)
JohnHwangDD wrote: I don't see any problem with collective punishment of Tau players because there aren't any in my playgroup, and the ITC has no sway in what we do. I do not care in the slightest what you do in your tournament because I am never going to play in it. I really don't care whether you like it or not.
I don't recall you having much in the way of principles when people were wanting to stick it to the Eldar a while back. Funny, that.
At this point.. I am assuming your just trolling the thread now..
But in all seriousness, did anything harmful come to eldar from gamgee's pitchfork nonsense? no.. nothing actually happened. Anyway, deaf ears and all.
Cheers!
May you find inner peace and become the dragon warrior we know you to be. (sorry just watched kung fu panda )
JohnHwangDD wrote: I don't see any problem with collective punishment of Tau players because there aren't any in my playgroup, and the ITC has no sway in what we do. I do not care in the slightest what you do in your tournament because I am never going to play in it. I really don't care whether you like it or not.
I don't recall you having much in the way of principles when people were wanting to stick it to the Eldar a while back. Funny, that.
The fact you don't remember my presence calling against it means not I supported sticking it to eldar.
I was simply less active back then, but still advocated to keep it as RAW as possible.
I said the codex was stupid and overpowered. But I still did not support any nerf, at all, not even the ones currently standing.
On a design level, there is much in eldar codex I would nerf. But that's if I was in a position of rewriting the codex, not in a tournament ruling. Same as there are some tau things I would tone down, much in chaos I would buff, etc.
What I say the CODEX should be is one thing. But once the codex is there, I would not change a thing on tournament ruling unless it was ambiguous, or tested and proven to be beyond any scale.
And none of the tau nerfs lately were tested and shown to be overly dominant. Most were not even tested and the ones that were did not actually did very well.
Same as the ranged D, that too was stupid ruling as it was never the problem to begin with,abd proper testing would have shown that. Shown to prove that almost nobody takes the "overly overpowered" wraith units beyond the knight, and the knight is overpowered not because of the D, but because of the GMC stats.
For ITC format events, we use the following profile for ranged Destroyer Weapons in place of that found in the book: D Weapons with the Distort Scythe special rule still subtract 1 from the table below.
Roll of a 1: No damage occurs.
Roll of a 2-5: Target model takes D3 wounds, or hull points with a penetrating hit.
Roll of a 6: Target model takes 3 automatic wounds with no saves allowed, or 3 hull points with a penetrating hit with no saves allowed.
When resolving a Destroyer weapon attack, roll on the Destroyer Weapon Attack Table (DWAT) for each hit generated and then allocate wounds normally. E.g., a Blast weapon with strength D hits five enemy models from the same unit. The attacker rolls five times on the DWAT getting results of 1, 2, 5, 6, and 6. The attacking player chooses to allocate the group of 2 and 5 results first followed by the group of 6 results.
For ITC format events, we use the following profile for ranged Destroyer Weapons in place of that found in the book: D Weapons with the Distort Scythe special rule still subtract 1 from the table below.
Roll of a 1: No damage occurs.
Roll of a 2-5: Target model takes D3 wounds, or hull points with a penetrating hit.
Roll of a 6: Target model takes 3 automatic wounds with no saves allowed, or 3 hull points with a penetrating hit with no saves allowed.
When resolving a Destroyer weapon attack, roll on the Destroyer Weapon Attack Table (DWAT) for each hit generated and then allocate wounds normally. E.g., a Blast weapon with strength D hits five enemy models from the same unit. The attacker rolls five times on the DWAT getting results of 1, 2, 5, 6, and 6. The attacking player chooses to allocate the group of 2 and 5 results first followed by the group of 6 results.
OK thanks! I mean.. it is definitely toned down.. but that is still really good... The only thing they prevented was D weapons insta popping super heavies and straight slaying GMCs.. anything else it is pretty much the same end result.
I don't see any problem with collective punishment of Tau players because there aren't any in my playgroup, and the ITC has no sway in what we do. I do not care in the slightest what you do in your tournament because I am never going to play in it. I really don't care whether you like it or not.
I don't recall you having much in the way of principles when people were wanting to stick it to the Eldar a while back. Funny, that.
At this point.. I am assuming your just trolling the thread now..
But in all seriousness, did anything harmful come to eldar from gamgee's pitchfork nonsense? no.. nothing actually happened. Anyway, deaf ears and all.
Cheers!
May you find inner peace and become the dragon warrior we know you to be. (sorry just watched kung fu panda )
Not really. It's all just a little tempest in a teapot.
Define "harmful". Is it harmful to have created some a personal desires to punish Tau where none existed before?
Thanks!
Ultimately, all these moments will be lost in time. Like tears in rain.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I don't see any problem with collective punishment of Tau players because there aren't any in my playgroup, and the ITC has no sway in what we do. I do not care in the slightest what you do in your tournament because I am never going to play in it. I really don't care whether you like it or not.
I don't recall you having much in the way of principles when people were wanting to stick it to the Eldar a while back. Funny, that.
That is hilarious. So you don't play anywhere with ITC rules, no one in your playgroup even plays Tau, and you don't play in tournaments, yet you are STILL voting to nerf tau simply because you hate one guy. [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]
Define "harmful". Is it harmful to have created some a personal desires to punish Tau where none existed before?
This is what i mean by NOT "harmful" .. Gamgee made some thread -> people yelled and tantrumed -> people were offended. Outcome: there were no polls taken or nerfs given to Eldar in any form by GW or ITC directly because of gamgee or his thread.
Reading some comments on the FLG website and I saw Reecius post the following:
OK, nm, trying to get the data verified but day is running short. The shipments coming in late burned a day on us.
So far for sure:
1,850pts
3 Detachments
ITC Faction will be the detachment with the most points in it
Yes to Chaos Knight with Legacies
No to Eldar Corsair Jetbikes shooting then scooting in overwatch
But incoming salt as the Piranha Firestream wing was!
I don't use piranhas so it doesn't effect me at all, but man did they get utterly nerfed. 3 times in fact:
1.) Cannot leave the turn after they enter
2.) Dead models are not replaced after they re-enter
3.) Immobilized piranhas are not counted as destroyed. (this would only matter if #2 didn't happen)
But incoming salt as the Piranha Firestream wing was!
I don't use piranhas so it doesn't effect me at all, but man did they get utterly nerfed. 3 times in fact:
1.) Cannot enter the turn after they leave
2.) Dead models are not replaced after they re-enter
3.) Immobilized piranhas are counted as destroyed.
#1 is incorrect, they do in fact enter the turn after they leave. They cannot, however, leave the same turn they entered.
But incoming salt as the Piranha Firestream wing was!
I don't use piranhas so it doesn't effect me at all, but man did they get utterly nerfed. 3 times in fact:
1.) Cannot enter the turn after they leave
2.) Dead models are not replaced after they re-enter
3.) Immobilized piranhas are counted as destroyed.
#1 is incorrect, they do in fact enter the turn after they leave. They cannot, however, leave the same turn they entered.
My bad, that is what I meant i mixed them up backwards.
Can someone explain what is so unreasonable about the Piranha results?
1. Tau players actually have to play the unit
2. Dead stays dead
3. Immobilized is dead
Every single one of those things conforms to what one might reasonably expect in the game.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Can someone explain what is so unreasonable about the Piranha results?
1. Tau players actually have to play the unit
2. Dead stays dead
3. Immobilized is dead
Every single one of those things conforms to what one might reasonably expect in the game.
Because those are against what the actual rule says.
It specifically says it can leave the turn it enters
It says the UNIT is returned to full strength, which would mean dead models
Like I said, I will never be using this anyway, but still
Wait, did Tau players think it was perfectly reasonable to just walk a unit on the board, vomit off free drones and weaponry, and then leave before they could be assaulted or shot? LOL
Requizen wrote: Wait, did Tau players think it was perfectly reasonable to just walk a unit on the board, vomit off free drones and weaponry, and then leave before they could be assaulted or shot? LOL
Seeing that is EXACTLY what the rules state, yes.
And there is no "free weaponry" as they are 18" range so the actual piranhas will not be able to hit anything.
Requizen wrote: Wait, did Tau players think it was perfectly reasonable to just walk a unit on the board, vomit off free drones and weaponry, and then leave before they could be assaulted or shot? LOL
Seeing that is EXACTLY what the rules state, yes.
um
Spoiler:
Where does it say you can do that the turn it comes in? It doesn't say you can't, but the only other units in the game that can willingly fly off the board into ongoing reserve are flyers and FMCs (and a few special rules) and they can't do it the same turn. It specifically says Flyers and FMCs can't do this. As that is the precedent, I don't see why ruling accordingly is surprising.
And from a gameplay perspective, yes an unkillable unit that gives you free shots and models is dumb. If they left it in the game I would have to question sanity. Any army without Interceptor (hint: most) could literally not even hurt them. Please tell me why that would be balanced.
notredameguy10 wrote: And there is no "free weaponry" as they are 18" range so the actual piranhas will not be able to hit anything.
Because the opponents never come close to your board edge in your games? Drop pods don't exist? Linebreaker isn't a victory point? Infiltrate never happens? Do you see why this statement of yours is kind of asinine?
Requizen wrote: Wait, did Tau players think it was perfectly reasonable to just walk a unit on the board, vomit off free drones and weaponry, and then leave before they could be assaulted or shot? LOL
Seeing that is EXACTLY what the rules state, yes.
um
Where does it say you can do that the turn it comes in? It doesn't say you can't, but the only other units in the game that can willingly fly off the board into ongoing reserve are flyers and FMCs (and a few special rules) and they can't do it the same turn. It specifically says Flyers and FMCs can't do this. As that is the precedent, I don't see why ruling accordingly is surprising.
And from a gameplay perspective, yes an unkillable unit that gives you free shots and models is dumb. If they left it in the game I would have to question sanity. Any army without Interceptor (hint: most) could literally not even hurt them. Please tell me why that would be balanced.
notredameguy10 wrote: And there is no "free weaponry" as they are 18" range so the actual piranhas will not be able to hit anything.
Because the opponents never come close to your board edge in your games? Drop pods don't exist? Linebreaker isn't a victory point? Infiltrate never happens? Do you see why this statement of yours is kind of asinine?
RAW:
Its absolutely legal to for this formation to leave the same turn they arrive.
1.) they enter the game pre movement as reserves.
2) they are allowed to dissembark the drones withc is still in their movement phase.
3) then if they are in 6" of the board edge they are allowed to leave.
Absolutely legal acording to RAW
in addition:
Are these guys flyers or flying MCs?
No they are not. so the rules that stop flyers and FMC to leave table the same turn they enter it do not apply here.
Face it. RAW this would be legal.
And don't come with " UNFAIR!" of stuff like this. RAW such arguments are worthless! ( But i would agree that this way of playing would suck. )
Where does it say you can do that the turn it comes in? It doesn't say you can't, but the only other units in the game that can willingly fly off the board into ongoing reserve are flyers and FMCs (and a few special rules) and they can't do it the same turn. It specifically says Flyers and FMCs can't do this. As that is the precedent, I don't see why ruling accordingly is surprising.
And from a gameplay perspective, yes an unkillable unit that gives you free shots and models is dumb. If they left it in the game I would have to question sanity. Any army without Interceptor (hint: most) could literally not even hurt them. Please tell me why that would be balanced.
notredameguy10 wrote: And there is no "free weaponry" as they are 18" range so the actual piranhas will not be able to hit anything.
Because the opponents never come close to your board edge in your games? Drop pods don't exist? Linebreaker isn't a victory point? Infiltrate never happens? Do you see why this statement of yours is kind of asinine?
The bolded part is what I'd like to call your attention to. FMCs, Flyers, Mawlocks, Swooping Hawks, and the Piranha formation all have permission to enter ongoing reserves. All of them EXCEPT the Piranha formation have a restriction on them saying when they're not allowed to enter ongoing reserves. You cannot use the FMC/Flyer as precedent to change how the rules work for another unit when it's not restricted in its ruling. What you can do is change the rule at the TO level to make more sense and say you cannot leave the turn you arrive because of game balance.
To answer your string of questions. Drop pods are immune to drones. Linebreaker cannot be scored by the drones. Infiltrate will happen before anything regarding this formation ever happens. The only use the drones have is keeping things away from your deployment zone. This formation is especially bad on Hammer and Anvil, as the spawned drones will have a hard time reaching midfield.
I agree that the formation shouldn't be allowed to enter reserves the same turn it arrives, but for different reasons.
Well I was kinda shocked at the 1850 result. Felt like 95% of the people I talked to off and online were stoked about the points drop, with only a small number that mentioned wanting it kept the same. And then bam, wildly different poll result.
I'm sure it'll come back around anyway. One thing I don't think a lot of the 1850 supporters realize is that it's going to get worse. More decurions, more free points, more free rules, more free units. And armies will take them to be competitive.
A year from now, making it TO turn 5 will be an impressive feat in a game between two good lists where one doesn't get crippled out of the gate.
niv-mizzet wrote: Well I was kinda shocked at the 1850 result. Felt like 95% of the people I talked to off and online were stoked about the points drop, with only a small number that mentioned wanting it kept the same. And then bam, wildly different poll result.
I'm sure it'll come back around anyway. One thing I don't think a lot of the 1850 supporters realize is that it's going to get worse. More decurions, more free points, more free rules, more free units. And armies will take them to be competitive.
A year from now, making it TO turn 5 will be an impressive feat in a game between two good lists where one doesn't get crippled out of the gate.
I have a feeling a lot of ITC voters weren't real big in the tournament scene and didn't realize how big 1850 is in a true competitive environment.
Requizen wrote: Wait, did Tau players think it was perfectly reasonable to just walk a unit on the board, vomit off free drones and weaponry, and then leave before they could be assaulted or shot? LOL
Seeing that is EXACTLY what the rules state, yes.
um
Where does it say you can do that the turn it comes in? It doesn't say you can't, but the only other units in the game that can willingly fly off the board into ongoing reserve are flyers and FMCs (and a few special rules) and they can't do it the same turn. It specifically says Flyers and FMCs can't do this. As that is the precedent, I don't see why ruling accordingly is surprising.
And from a gameplay perspective, yes an unkillable unit that gives you free shots and models is dumb. If they left it in the game I would have to question sanity. Any army without Interceptor (hint: most) could literally not even hurt them. Please tell me why that would be balanced.
notredameguy10 wrote: And there is no "free weaponry" as they are 18" range so the actual piranhas will not be able to hit anything.
Because the opponents never come close to your board edge in your games? Drop pods don't exist? Linebreaker isn't a victory point? Infiltrate never happens? Do you see why this statement of yours is kind of asinine?
RAW:
Its absolutely legal to for this formation to leave the same turn they arrive.
1.) they enter the game pre movement as reserves.
2) they are allowed to dissembark the drones withc is still in their movement phase.
3) then if they are in 6" of the board edge they are allowed to leave.
Absolutely legal acording to RAW
in addition:
Are these guys flyers or flying MCs?
No they are not. so the rules that stop flyers and FMC to leave table the same turn they enter it do not apply here.
Face it. RAW this would be legal.
And don't come with " UNFAIR!" of stuff like this. RAW such arguments are worthless! ( But i would agree that this way of playing would suck. )
Where does it say you can do that the turn it comes in? It doesn't say you can't, but the only other units in the game that can willingly fly off the board into ongoing reserve are flyers and FMCs (and a few special rules) and they can't do it the same turn. It specifically says Flyers and FMCs can't do this. As that is the precedent, I don't see why ruling accordingly is surprising.
And from a gameplay perspective, yes an unkillable unit that gives you free shots and models is dumb. If they left it in the game I would have to question sanity. Any army without Interceptor (hint: most) could literally not even hurt them. Please tell me why that would be balanced.
notredameguy10 wrote: And there is no "free weaponry" as they are 18" range so the actual piranhas will not be able to hit anything.
Because the opponents never come close to your board edge in your games? Drop pods don't exist? Linebreaker isn't a victory point? Infiltrate never happens? Do you see why this statement of yours is kind of asinine?
The bolded part is what I'd like to call your attention to. FMCs, Flyers, Mawlocks, Swooping Hawks, and the Piranha formation all have permission to enter ongoing reserves. All of them EXCEPT the Piranha formation have a restriction on them saying when they're not allowed to enter ongoing reserves. You cannot use the FMC/Flyer as precedent to change how the rules work for another unit when it's not restricted in its ruling. What you can do is change the rule at the TO level to make more sense and say you cannot leave the turn you arrive because of game balance.
To answer your string of questions. Drop pods are immune to drones. Linebreaker cannot be scored by the drones. Infiltrate will happen before anything regarding this formation ever happens. The only use the drones have is keeping things away from your deployment zone. This formation is especially bad on Hammer and Anvil, as the spawned drones will have a hard time reaching midfield.
I agree that the formation shouldn't be allowed to enter reserves the same turn it arrives, but for different reasons.
Look, I understand what you guys are saying, and I know that no one is saying they want the thing to stay in a completely overpowered state. Obviously we all want to play a relatively balanced game.
But any time you say "Well, I know it works this way in all these other relatively balanced situations, but RAW you can play it extremely broken and ignore all previous precedents in order to do so", you start going into That Guy territory. No one really thought that it was fair that you had an invincible unit that spawned more, free units was in any way fair, did they?
Mulletdude wrote:
To answer your string of questions. Drop pods are immune to drones. Linebreaker cannot be scored by the drones. Infiltrate will happen before anything regarding this formation ever happens. The only use the drones have is keeping things away from your deployment zone. This formation is especially bad on Hammer and Anvil, as the spawned drones will have a hard time reaching midfield.
I was more talking about your statement that '18" weapons on the Piranhas don't matter because they won't reach anything', which is blatantly false. 18" guns that come in from your own table edge can reach and hurt, as I said, drop pods, infiltrated units, and units going for linebreaker. And getting free regenerating missiles to do so is pretty good, even with these nerfs.
You see whats going on? I see your point that the formation is not fun to play against especially when its maxed out. So a nerf on this can be the right thing. What it realy hard to oversee is the way these arguments go round. So many try to declare that it doesn't work RAW and then after taking a closer look it turns then out that its just a " that so OP" argument.
But any time you say "Well, I know it works this way in all these other relatively balanced situations, but RAW you can play it extremely broken and ignore all previous precedents in order to do so", you start going into That Guy territory. No one really thought that it was fair that you had an invincible unit that spawned more, free units was in any way fair, did they?
Is the same way. eighter we talk bout how the rules work. then we do this. OR we talk about how we should change rules to improve the experience. But trying to make a RAW-Statement n then suggesting one turns into getting TFG is... dishonest and a unfair way or arguing.
Unfortunatly i have seen this behavior so often. especialy with the actual Tau Codex.
I was talking RAI as opposed to RAW. RAW is such a crazy point to argue with GW anyway, since they're crap at making their rules work together and even when they acknowledge the confusion that they themselves create, they rarely do anything to fix it.
If it's vague enough that people are arguing it and your only defense is "well techinicallyRAW says I can break the game and there's nothing you can do about it", then I'm always going to argue that RAI it's not supposed to do that. In this specific case:
1) We have a precedent for models being able to fly off the board, and they can't do it the turn they come in.
2) If the Piranha formation was allowed to do so, then it would be pretty darn broken since you could create models for basically free as the unit spawning them would be even more invincible than a Screamerstar with Endurance and Invisibility.
3) This action is not fun or interactive for either player and even by GW's standards would be pretty dumb.
Therefore, RAI reasons that you don't get an invincible Drone factory. That's all I'm saying. Of course, RAI is always up for debate by it's very nature, but honestly the only people I can see defending that interpretation are people who are planning on abusing it. Most Tau players are fine with the "wait a turn" ruling because, surprise, they don't like ruining the game for people they play with.
It's like Wizards turning the final boss into a squirrel with Polymorph when you're playing D&D. Yes, I know it says you can turn anything into anything, but that's dumb and you should feel bad about doing it, DANIEL.
While I'm against the nerf to the firestomr in general, one thing pushed me to accept it as reasonable.
It was made global. ANYTHING that can leave the board, cannot do it the turn it entered.
So its equal to all the other things that could to it besides the firestorm (there are very few, but existing), and it preemptively applies to anything else that might come in the future.
So while its mostly a firestorm nerf, at least it was made to be global.
The GMC ruling seemed obvious to me, I'm amazed it does not apply to EVERYTHING anyway. (considering "area terrain" is not actually in the rules any more and instead there is "terrain datasheets")
Ghost calling was right. I'm surprised haters didn't take over there, call it a pleasant surprise.
Legacies for chaos knights, I think that's a mistake, but chaos could use the bone. maybe they should revert it once chaos is less miserable.
I think another good example that the leaving the board the turn you come in is the new IA Wraithknights.. don't they have a thing about teleporting to reserves?
There is another formation as well that can do this that is relatively new... I want to say from one of the "start collecting" boxes.
The RG bladewing formation the Y’vahra also could technically, but it would be silly as they won't get anything done before leaving. (guess it helps if you want to avoid the table for one turn.)
BoomWolf wrote: The RG bladewing formation the Y’vahra also could technically, but it would be silly as they won't get anything done before leaving. (guess it helps if you want to avoid the table for one turn.)
Bladewing Assault Brotherhood is a once per game thing, and you declare it in your Movement phase with the unit then being placed into Ongoing Reserves.
Ongoing Reserves always re-enter play at the start of their controlling player's following turn, but otherwise follow the normal rules for Reserves(p.136 of the BRB).
Were the results posted? I see y'all talking about them but I can't find them.
I, for one, am glad to see the piranha wing formation lose its ability to leave the field on the same turn, as it always seemed obnoxiously game to me.
It does, however, mean that formation's focus will shift from truly obnoxious levels of drone spam to a healthy mix of drone and seeker missile spam...
Captain Joystick wrote: Were the results posted? I see y'all talking about them but I can't find them.
I, for one, am glad to see the piranha wing formation lose its ability to leave the field on the same turn, as it always seemed obnoxiously game to me.
It does, however, mean that formation's focus will shift from truly obnoxious levels of drone spam to a healthy mix of drone and seeker missile spam...
That wasn't even voted on this time, that had already happened. They instead voted to nerf it further by defining "the unit returns at full strength" as "only the models that left come back, dead piranhas don't return"
niv-mizzet wrote: Well I was kinda shocked at the 1850 result. Felt like 95% of the people I talked to off and online were stoked about the points drop, with only a small number that mentioned wanting it kept the same. And then bam, wildly different poll result.
I'm sure it'll come back around anyway. One thing I don't think a lot of the 1850 supporters realize is that it's going to get worse. More decurions, more free points, more free rules, more free units. And armies will take them to be competitive.
A year from now, making it TO turn 5 will be an impressive feat in a game between two good lists where one doesn't get crippled out of the gate.
I have a feeling a lot of ITC voters weren't real big in the tournament scene and didn't realize how big 1850 is in a true competitive environment.
That, or we play in a lot of tournaments, don't have an issue with our games finishing, and would rather play with the lists and toys we're used to. Implying that those who voted for 1850 are inexperienced or don't play in tournaments is pretty disingenuous.
niv-mizzet wrote: Well I was kinda shocked at the 1850 result. Felt like 95% of the people I talked to off and online were stoked about the points drop, with only a small number that mentioned wanting it kept the same. And then bam, wildly different poll result.
I'm sure it'll come back around anyway. One thing I don't think a lot of the 1850 supporters realize is that it's going to get worse. More decurions, more free points, more free rules, more free units. And armies will take them to be competitive.
A year from now, making it TO turn 5 will be an impressive feat in a game between two good lists where one doesn't get crippled out of the gate.
I have a feeling a lot of ITC voters weren't real big in the tournament scene and didn't realize how big 1850 is in a true competitive environment.
That, or we play in a lot of tournaments, don't have an issue with our games finishing, and would rather play with the lists and toys we're used to. Implying that those who voted for 1850 are inexperienced or don't play in tournaments is pretty disingenuous.
That seems unlikely actually. There were what...26 or 2700 votes? Between LVO, BAO, and Wargamescon there were only 500 entrants, and some of those were the same people. (For example pj pants and incontrol were at all 3, just to name a couple off the top of the head.) That means that a huge, commanding majority of the voters didn't attend any of the big FLG-run events last year. The attendees theoretically could have ALL voted for lower points and still be massively overrun by the voters who don't even go to those.
To be honest, considering that that issue was touted as only affecting their personally ran big events, the vote should've been for attendees only or even just a no-vote TO judgement.
Now I'm not saying everyone that voted that way is somehow ignorant, but I would call BS if someone tried to tell me the opposite: that everyone who voted that way knew exactly what they were doing and had sound reasoning.
That seems unlikely actually. There were what...26 or 2700 votes? Between LVO, BAO, and Wargamescon there were only 500 entrants, and some of those were the same people. (For example pj pants and incontrol were at all 3, just to name a couple off the top of the head.) That means that a huge, commanding majority of the voters didn't attend any of the big FLG-run events last year. The attendees theoretically could have ALL voted for lower points and still be massively overrun by the voters who don't even go to those.
To be honest, considering that that issue was touted as only affecting their personally ran big events, the vote should've been for attendees only or even just a no-vote TO judgement.
Now I'm not saying everyone that voted that way is somehow ignorant, but I would call BS if someone tried to tell me the opposite: that everyone who voted that way knew exactly what they were doing and had sound reasoning.
I agree, a large number of voters aren't people who attend Frontline events. Whether they should have a voice in the Frontline event-specific items is a different question entirely, but my point was that assuming that it was the people who don't attend such events that voted for 1850, rather than the people who do, is a faulty assumption. There are completely valid reasons that someone who actually plays in those events could want the points to stay 1850.
That seems unlikely actually. There were what...26 or 2700 votes? Between LVO, BAO, and Wargamescon there were only 500 entrants, and some of those were the same people. (For example pj pants and incontrol were at all 3, just to name a couple off the top of the head.) That means that a huge, commanding majority of the voters didn't attend any of the big FLG-run events last year. The attendees theoretically could have ALL voted for lower points and still be massively overrun by the voters who don't even go to those.
To be honest, considering that that issue was touted as only affecting their personally ran big events, the vote should've been for attendees only or even just a no-vote TO judgement.
Now I'm not saying everyone that voted that way is somehow ignorant, but I would call BS if someone tried to tell me the opposite: that everyone who voted that way knew exactly what they were doing and had sound reasoning.
I agree, a large number of voters aren't people who attend Frontline events. Whether they should have a voice in the Frontline event-specific items is a different question entirely, but my point was that assuming that it was the people who don't attend such events that voted for 1850, rather than the people who do, is a faulty assumption. There are completely valid reasons that someone who actually plays in those events could want the points to stay 1850.
Well, if the voting system only involved the people who went to these events then that only alienates the other side of the playerbase. These itc votes encourage participation from the non tournament goers, and that helps encourage some of them to come and attend the events.
It's not perfect, but it is in the best benefit of the itc in the long run....at least as far as getting more atendees.
ITC isn't solely the domain of tournaments in America, hundreds of gaming clubs and competitive scenes across the world have adopted it, including some of the ones I frequent here in Australia. The vote being open to everyone is the best solution for a global consensus to be reached on important matters, whether each individuals' opinions are validated by tournament experience or not.
That seems unlikely actually. There were what...26 or 2700 votes? Between LVO, BAO, and Wargamescon there were only 500 entrants, and some of those were the same people. (For example pj pants and incontrol were at all 3, just to name a couple off the top of the head.) That means that a huge, commanding majority of the voters didn't attend any of the big FLG-run events last year. The attendees theoretically could have ALL voted for lower points and still be massively overrun by the voters who don't even go to those.
To be honest, considering that that issue was touted as only affecting their personally ran big events, the vote should've been for attendees only or even just a no-vote TO judgement.
Now I'm not saying everyone that voted that way is somehow ignorant, but I would call BS if someone tried to tell me the opposite: that everyone who voted that way knew exactly what they were doing and had sound reasoning.
I agree, a large number of voters aren't people who attend Frontline events. Whether they should have a voice in the Frontline event-specific items is a different question entirely, but my point was that assuming that it was the people who don't attend such events that voted for 1850, rather than the people who do, is a faulty assumption. There are completely valid reasons that someone who actually plays in those events could want the points to stay 1850.
Well, if the voting system only involved the people who went to these events then that only alienates the other side of the playerbase. These itc votes encourage participation from the non tournament goers, and that helps encourage some of them to come and attend the events.
It's not perfect, but it is in the best benefit of the itc in the long run....at least as far as getting more atendees.
Hey, I wasn't the one claiming that people should be restricted from voting in the ITC polls...
That seems unlikely actually. There were what...26 or 2700 votes? Between LVO, BAO, and Wargamescon there were only 500 entrants, and some of those were the same people. (For example pj pants and incontrol were at all 3, just to name a couple off the top of the head.) That means that a huge, commanding majority of the voters didn't attend any of the big FLG-run events last year. The attendees theoretically could have ALL voted for lower points and still be massively overrun by the voters who don't even go to those.
To be honest, considering that that issue was touted as only affecting their personally ran big events, the vote should've been for attendees only or even just a no-vote TO judgement.
Now I'm not saying everyone that voted that way is somehow ignorant, but I would call BS if someone tried to tell me the opposite: that everyone who voted that way knew exactly what they were doing and had sound reasoning.
I agree, a large number of voters aren't people who attend Frontline events. Whether they should have a voice in the Frontline event-specific items is a different question entirely, but my point was that assuming that it was the people who don't attend such events that voted for 1850, rather than the people who do, is a faulty assumption. There are completely valid reasons that someone who actually plays in those events could want the points to stay 1850.
Well, if the voting system only involved the people who went to these events then that only alienates the other side of the playerbase. These itc votes encourage participation from the non tournament goers, and that helps encourage some of them to come and attend the events.
It's not perfect, but it is in the best benefit of the itc in the long run....at least as far as getting more atendees.
Hey, I wasn't the one claiming that people should be restricted from voting in the ITC polls...
Didn't mean to sound like I was. I just needed a few quotes to put my comment up with, maybe should've just quoted the 1st guy only.
Haha, no worries man, I just didn't want to imply that I was. In fact, I feel strongly that everyone who plays in 40k events should vote, because the changes do impact them.
), why was there not an option for less detachments, and do you guys think we should ask them to add it to the next poll? As I've said, I feel that a two detachment limit would be a lot better than three, or god forbid more, and would be happy to see it get toned down instead of up.
