Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
As a dedicated marine player, no, no they dont. Marines get nerfed to.
You can no longer share chapter tactics despite saying it affects units, not individual models.
so, taken from things, despite RAw telling us otherwise

What? No, by RAW you very clearly cannot have units share Chapter Tactics.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Independant Characters attached to the Devastators or Assault Marines in the Skyhammer Annihilation Formation may not benefit from the special rules granted from the formation. For example, they are not able to assault out of reserves, nor do they gain Relentless, etc.

Admittedly contentious, but I agree with it, and it's a common ruling implemented by NOVA and ETC as well I believe.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
The Captain in a Battle Demi-Company or Battle Company formation may not be upgraded to a Chapter Master.

Again, this is a very common ruling

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Models with the Carcharodons Chapter Tactics only gain the Rage special rule when causing an enemy infantry unit to fall back from combat, not from shooting or by any other method.

I'm not familiar with FW enough to comment

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
When a Template weapon hits a Lucius Drop Pod with a Dreadnought embarked upon it, the D6 No Escape hits inflicted on the Dreadnought are resolved against its rear armor.

Again, not terribly familiar with FW, but this is a bit along BRB - the only other time a dread takes hits from a hit on its transport is a Stormraven, I believe, so it seems that's where they got it. Can't say I agree or disagree, but I don't think it's egregious.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
but yeah, tau get ALL the nerfs

by comparison, yeah, they kind of have. Space Marines meanwhile, were allowed to take Battle Companies before the unique detachment limit was lifted, because "it's so fluffy." Literally, that was the argument. Meanwhile Tau have had almost every new option nerfed in some way. Some I agree with being a valid interpretation of a vague rule, but most seem really knee-jerky, and the stealth updates are also troubling.

GreaterGouda wrote:

 Cieged wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

 CKO wrote:
Jy2 do you think its right for it to go from very powerful to uncompetitive? All the things you listed you can still play they just are not as strong now the formation is uncompetitive.

Uncompetitive? Really?

One of my friends, Paul McKelvey, the #1 Tau player on the ITC, plays the Piranha Firestream and he played it that the "nerfed" way ever since the rules came out, long before the FAQ, and his list is a b*tch to play against. He hasn't lost yet with them, at least not that I know of.

Of course he runs them with the seeker missiles and he is highly skilled in the ways of the Greater Good, but still. Uncompetitive? Really? Methinks you really need to play against it, even the "nerfed" version, to see just how "uncompetitive" it is.

In CT I attended a semi-local ITC tournament of 37 people. That formation took first place.

It's small anecdotal evidence, but I'm absolutely blown away anyone thinks that it's trash.

I did take first place. I took the formation 2 times. 8 individual piranhas. But I didn't farm drones in my first 2 games. I used the piranhas to score objectives and deny objectives. In my final game (at the top table) I did, however, farm drones. I made 48 drones over 3 turns. The formation is good. The change the ITC FAQ implemented made the formation non competitive.

I have looked around the internet for reports, videos, anything on how the formation played out in games. I found nothing. That is why I tried it out at the tournament in CT.

I really would have liked to have had a chance to vote on this rule, or at least have been able to understand why the guys at Frontline chose the outcome they did. It all seemed really in the dark. No notice or anything.

I won't be bringing Piranhas to LVO even though I spent this past week painting them and 70 accompanying drones. I actually finished them all up this past Friday. Literally 3 hours before the FAQ was revised.

http://i.imgur.com/Q7fVnbg.jpg

Here is a picture of my drones right after I finished painting them.

I assumed this was Paul, I apologize!

After talking to my friend I realize that by constantly pointing out the flaws of the ITC one would believe that I dislike the ITC. That is far from the truth I love the ITC, I just want to make it better! That is the reason for me pointing out the flaws, I however have been pointing to many fingers! So unintentionally I have hurt the ITC instead of helping it, which was not my goal. Anyone can find a problem but fixing it requires someone who is willing to put in time and effort and that is what Reece, Frank, and the Frontline Gaming guys have been doing. They should be applauded for that! While Frontline gaming has been doing everything thing they can to make 40k tournaments fun, all I have done is point fingers it would seem as if I am on the other team, its time for me to be traded!

I want to help the ITC and I think I may have a way to make the ITC Flawless! The main problem with the ITC is this "Conservative approach" thing! When a new codex comes out and a rule is theoretically or potentially broken currently ITC Judges will automatically use the weaker interpretation of a rule, I believe this is our main mistake. If you let people play with the powerful version of the ruling than the community actually gains knowledge! Playing with the powerful version allows the community the chance to see for themselves if something is overpowered or overrated!

You don't know if it is broken you just know it has potential to be broken. If you automatically make it weaker you never got a chance to see its brokenness but, if the community plays with it and its broken a vote can change it! Also by letting people play with the powerful version the community can decide that its slightly broken but we can make modifications to make it still powerful but not broken!

Kenpachi, what about tournaments? Are we to allow new rules to dominate the tournament scene with their brokenness because it just came out? The answer is a passionate NO, if something is potentially broken when a new codex comes out a player should voice their concerns to a judge prior to the event! The judge will than come up with a "proposed ruling" for the potentially broken thing prior to the tournament and let it be known. The judge will monitor the first game that the potentially broken thing plays in and decide after the game if it is broken or not. If it is he can immediately hit it with his "proposed ruling". After the first game he can continue to watch the potentially broken unit and if after the second game he decides that it is broken he can invoke his "proposed rule".

That way the broken thing will not dominate the tournament scene, just the first game. Yes, the first player is a sacrificial pawn that helped the community decide that something is broken but the knowledge gained is priceless and will make the ITC Flawless!

We all know that I have a problem with the recent ITC Tau rulings and I would like to show how my "proposed rule" idea could have altered things!

First thing up is my problem with the voting process and how the voter is influence by Reece articles well that is completely eradicated! I will use Tau as an example imagine if you will that a player brought the new scary Tau and a Hunter Contingent! In his first game the player used a Buff Commander (gives re-rolls to hit, ignore cover, and tank or monster hunter) along with coordinated fire power rule to spread those benefits to almost his entire army, and he absolutely destroys his opponent! The judge watched and hits him with the "proposed ruling" for the rest of the tournament. The judge will announce to the players that the tournament is using his "proposed rule" on a certain rule!

Kenpachi, why not let the judge play test himself in advance and make the proposed rule before the tournament so that way the first player is not utterly destroyed. Its because the sacrifice needs to happen so that word of mouth can happen, every player at that tournament gets to hear about or even see the broken or potentially broken rule themselves. Every player at that tournament gains knowledge and when its time for a vote they will make the right and just decision based off of facts and not theories or other players playtesting!

Judges can create different kinds of proposed rulings. That way when it comes time to vote there can be several proposals made that were tested that can possibly keep something powerful but not broken such as allowing only the targeted unit of the coordinated firepower rule be affected by special rules that can be shared.

People will get a chance to play against the ghostkeel squads and realize that countermeasure is not like the Necron's Solar Staff where its effect last the entire turn, it only affects the enemy unit shooting at it, meaning that potentially they can use up all countermeasures in one shooting phase! 390 points to make 3 units fire snap shots is strong but not broken.

Allowing the stormsurge the option to choose to move if it is tank shock is fair because that means next turn it cannot fire twice! They will either lose the ability to fire twice or have a 33% chance of taking d3 wounds, either way the tau opponent wins!

Lets make it to where the piranhas can't leave turn one giving players at least a turn to kill them if the opposing player goes first than he gets 2 turns to kill the piranhas. You also set back the drone farm clock by one turn meaning no bonus drones till turn 3. I cannot stress that enough the first drones made would be there regardless of the formation. Two drones is 28 points the vehicle is only 40 points meaning Tau gets a vehicle for 12 points! Its been Tau's best kept secret for years. When you find out about something that is really good but you never knew it was really good your natural reaction is to assume that the new formation is what made it good and that's not the case.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/678956.page

Read this tactica and you will see why the formation is not broken, and how with a slight modification it can be competitive.


I believe that ITC is already using something similar to my proposed "proposed ruling" idea but currently Judges are making changes before the community can see it in action that is HUGE! No one can complain after seeing it in a game, the voters will be voting off of facts that they saw or heard. If you want to you can make it to where the first game is not affected by the brokenness! The judge can come over and say this is an experimental shooting phase using the Hunter Contingent rule he watches the phase no one removes model just keep up with the results and if the judge believes that its to powerful he can cancel it right than and there and invoke his proposed ruling! Word of mouth can happen thus player knowledge goes up, thus fairer vote results, and more proposed ideas! So I hope my idea helps and that everyone enjoys the LVO!

GO TAU!

I really don't like the idea of judges needing to try things out on the spot - that's actually the reason the ITC (or the INAT before it, etc) exists - to avoid such situations from happening! The ITC is extremely helpful for this, and I definitely appreciate the work they put into it even if I'm hoping they'll be a little less preemptive with future rulings

As I said in the other thread, there are a number of reasons I don't think the above proposed ruling is a good idea. I prefer things as they currently are as at least I know how things will be ruled.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Frankie plays Tau and Reece plays Eldar. Apparently that is just a clever ruse to throw us off as they try to destroy these Tau and Eldar.

THE BALLS THOSE TWO HAVE GOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's like saying you can't be racist because you have a minority friend. Bad argument is bad.

 RiTides wrote:
I really don't like the idea of judges needing to try things out on the spot - that's actually the reason the ITC (or the INAT before it, etc) exists - to avoid such situations from happening! The ITC is extremely helpful for this, and I definitely appreciate the work they put into it even if I'm hoping they'll be a little less preemptive with future rulings

They are not coming up with things on the spot because the question about the rule is submitted prior to the tournament. Example Ghostkeel countermeasure rule it can either use it once or up to three times depending on the number of ghostkeels. The judge will say depending on the first game we will decide if it is broken or not. The game starts the judge watches and sees that the player used 2 uses in one turn he only has one use left and his opponent still has several units and 4 turns left to shoot at it. The judge can than decide to let each one have a countermeasure use.

Everyone needs to calm down you are not going to get blown away, I came up with a better idea! Instead of the broken thing lasting the entire game you can have an experimental phase. Where the players roll the dice but do not remove models and keep up with the results if at the end of the experimental phase it is deemed broken than the proposed rule will be used and the players will re-start that phase using the weaker version! If its just overrated than the turn will count. That way the player doesn't have to lose because something is broken.

It doesn't take a entire game to see that a 2+ re-roll able save or the unmodified invisibility power is broken it can be determine in one phase. So you are not losing anything, you are basically playing out a turn that potentially doesn't even count. Broken rules shine brighter than the Astronomican beam and it will only take one phase to see it, when an entire army shoots at a unit and it loses one wound because it has a 2+ re-rollable, you will know that it is broken. If the judge is having a hard time determining if it is broken than its not broken its just really powerful and might need a slight modification. Or it might just be powerful!

In the scenario where a weaker player is facing the potentially broken unit or rule I would hope that the Judge is knowledgeable about the game and will be able to see the difference between a unit being destroyed because something is broken and a unit being destroyed because of a bad move.

Remember that its just one tournament that will be affected and it will usually be a small tournament after the codex release, it should not be used for big tournaments. So you may potentially have to go through a single shooting phase that doesn't even count or at worse one game. Now combine that with the fact that you are not even guaranteed to be the one that has to play the broken unit there is nothing to be scared of!

Out of that one phase that doesnt count or at worst one game at a small local tournament the entire community gains knowledge about a rule and when it comes time to vote the results will reflect that! The results will be based off of facts that players got to see or hear about at a small tournament instead of theories and or games that someone supposely play tested! No one will be mad when a rule is changed when they saw what it can do at a tournament!

Hopefully, there will be players like me Kenpachi at your local tournament who will volunteer to face the supposedly broken unit, nothing like a good fight! Especially if its something I don't think is broken, I mean please prove me wrong with your new toys, if you can?




This video shows how you should feel about facing new opponents, units, and rules!

Ichigo represents the new unit the orange haired one.

 CKO wrote:

Hopefully, there will be players like me Kenpachi at your local tournament who will volunteer to face the supposedly broken unit, nothing like a good fight! Especially if its something I don't think is broken, I mean please prove me wrong with your new toys, if you can?




This video shows how you should feel about facing new opponents, units, and rules!

Ichigo represents the new unit the orange haired one.

Why won't Reece and Frankie make anime real????

 Kriswall wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Frankie plays Tau and Reece plays Eldar. Apparently that is just a clever ruse to throw us off as they try to destroy these Tau and Eldar.

THE BALLS THOSE TWO HAVE GOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's like saying you can't be racist because you have a minority friend. Bad argument is bad.

Ah, well its no sillier than Orock's argument that FLG hate Tau because they are a minority. Anyway, my point was a counter to the argument that it is in FLG financial interests to nerf all of the xenos in favor of the Imperials.

There's a thread discussing the recent ITC (temporary!) rulings for the LVO here in 40K General Discussions:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/678686.page

I skipped the first few pages with that link to avoid some of the unnecessary flaming... but there is some good discussion (I'm biased since I'm posting in there, too ). Didn't want to drag down the LVO thread with that discussion, but just wanted to link to it in case any of the Frontline folks might want to glance over it after they're done with (and recovered from!) the LVO

Also, to be clear my only problem with the recent rulings is the Ghostkeel one, but I think it illustrates a "strategy" for providing early power level adjustments on new units that I hope will not be continued in the future (and that that particular issue will at least make it onto the next ballot instead of becoming permanent without considering it further).