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.

Name another army nerfed by itc rules. Not "my death star was needed because invisible sucks now and 2+ became 2+/4+. That affects anyone that can get that. This is a laser focused specifically Nerf against a specific army. If itc suddenly ruled drop pods could no longer xontest/score the site would FLOOD with complaints. But because marines it won't ever happen.

 Orock wrote:
Also, I predict this nerf WILL be voted in, because you can SAY people vote fairly, but if even just one in four votes just for the reason that it will make games where they have to play tau for possible tournament prizes easier, they WILL vote that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:
You already answered your question: They are going to have a vote. Everyone who votes decides what is fun/fair.

TOO BAD I CANT VOTE AND IT AFFECTS ME HUH??

Thought you fellas liked taxation without representation?

Here is my 2c...

First I feel very fortunate that my area in general does not use ITC rules mods. I know exactly how the OP feels since the last thing they tried to nerf was SM BB.

Second and on the flip side imo the rules for the Hunter Cadre was horribly written so GW leave themselves open to these kinds of things.

DaPino wrote:
You know what I'm getting out of all this?
"I was totally fine with playing under ITC rules until they changed something that was to my disadvantage"

I'd agree that the combined fire rule would pass on special rules like monster hunter, but that's not the point here.
The point is that you seemed to have been ok with playing under ITC rules for the sake of balance. That is until they did something to your army you disliked and now all of a sudden ITC rules are a problem.

Are you sure it's not you trying to get whatever advantage you can get by suddenly arguing the fairness of ITC rules?

That's what I'm reading from this as well.

@orock
They haven't even done the vote yet. It could turn out the way you like. And if it doesn't, oh well. Again, discuss it with your local players. If they also agree with the ITC vote, then maybe you should just accept that maybe your opinion is not above and beyond everyone else's, and just maybe their enjoyment of the game is just as important as yours.

If you think you can write up a perfect game where everyone likes all the rulings, write it up.

 Orock wrote:
Name another army nerfed by itc rules. Not "my death star was needed because invisible sucks now and 2+ became 2+/4+. That affects anyone that can get that. This is a laser focused specifically Nerf against a specific army. If itc suddenly ruled drop pods could no longer xontest/score the site would FLOOD with complaints. But because marines it won't ever happen.

I think the Ranged D changes are directed at the Eldar.

They also took a vote on scatter lasers in Eldar.

Runes of the Farseer in the Eldar book.

Warp Spiders flickerjump nerf

Serpent shield can be destroyed by a weapon destroyed result - Eldar

That was just a quick look through my favorite faction, I'm sure there are other examples.

Bottom line is you cannot begrudge a TO for running a Tournament, or tournament series using their own FAQ. If you CHOOSE to use it, then great... but if you don't like it... CHOOSE not to.

If your gaming group isn't willing to talk it out and come to a compromise... then maybe find a new group, or explain to them how obtuse they're being.

Honestly, I don't disagree with your points, but you can't be mad that a TO is asking his tournament community to help him determine FAQs and balancing. That's not fair. You're choosing to use the packet. This is your active choice... no one is forcing you to do it.

What I DO think ITC and other COMP system should be doing is reviewing some of the old COMPS in place. As time ticks on they have a greater impact than when they were implemented... but that's a different conversation.

 Orock wrote:
Name another army nerfed by itc rules. Not "my death star was needed because invisible sucks now and 2+ became 2+/4+. That affects anyone that can get that. This is a laser focused specifically Nerf against a specific army. If itc suddenly ruled drop pods could no longer xontest/score the site would FLOOD with complaints. But because marines it won't ever happen.

Some, including many in this forum, argue that skyhammer formation can carry ICs along with them in order to deep strike and charge turn 1. ITC rules forbid this entirely.

So, that's a marines nerf for you right there, that is both reasonable and fair, in my opinion.

No ICs benefiting from SH is pure RAW... it is not a rules mod .

People outside of their tournament circuit are not obligated to play by their, just as if I'm playing outside of their tournaments I'm not obligated to play by Nova Open rules, or your personal ideal rules. People playing inside of their tournament rules are obligated to play by their rules, so they are impacted by the changes to them much more heavily.

Your problem isn't that ITC rules effect those outside of the ITC, it's that GW doesn't provide good enough standard rules for people to default to and as such many players gravitate to the ITC as a result. Changing how the ITC does things is treating a symptom, if you want things to actually change for the better, complain to GW about their lack of solid rules work.

Edit: Also yes, I'm a Tau player and I love the rulings the ITC made for the Coordinated Fire rules.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
No ICs benefiting from SH is pure RAW... it is not a rules mod .

I don't Care either way, but you can be damn sure others dont see it this way, they will claim pure raw they can, so ITC. Made a ruling for all their tourneys, as they knew there would be arguments.

Some of the ITC rules are on grey areas, some are outright changes to the RAW.

I understand OPs concern, but stating its an issue because of MSU drop armies makes no sense, as the combined fire attack must target a single unit to benefit from the special rules. Not targeting that unit does not give permission to combine special rules. So there is no benefit against MSU and in fact it makes your ability to kill MSU even worse as you are combining units who could be firing at a seperate units to fire at one unit...

That said even if ITC rule that way you can build your with the knowledge of how the rule will be ruled in an ITC format event instead of building it one way, then arguing with your opponent and having a judge call and make a ruling that messes up your entire army build for the rest of the tournament/league whatever.

Many of the OPs examples list things which are clearly written that people find OP, the tau combined fire ruling does have grey areas.

also unless I am mistaken they haven't voted on this yet, or even issued a vote for it yet....so little premature.

It's combining the Buffmander and Hunter Cadre with mass Splitfire

 Dozer Blades wrote:
No ICs benefiting from SH is pure RAW... it is not a rules mod .

I read through all the points of those ymdc threads, and I actually think raw supports IC's joining and benefitting. I would prefer your interpretation though, and I'm glad the ITC took that route.

Point being: RAW is super-ultra debatable in the 40k rule set.

 Tinkrr wrote:
People outside of their tournament circuit are not obligated to play by their, just as if I'm playing outside of their tournaments I'm not obligated to play by Nova Open rules, or your personal ideal rules. People playing inside of their tournament rules are obligated to play by their rules, so they are impacted by the changes to them much more heavily.

Your problem isn't that ITC rules effect those outside of the ITC, it's that GW doesn't provide good enough standard rules for people to default to and as such many players gravitate to the ITC as a result. Changing how the ITC does things is treating a symptom, if you want things to actually change for the better, complain to GW about their lack of solid rules work.

Edit: Also yes, I'm a Tau player and I love the rulings the ITC made for the Coordinated Fire rules.

Lol they have made no ruling on Tau CF rule yet.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
People outside of their tournament circuit are not obligated to play by their, just as if I'm playing outside of their tournaments I'm not obligated to play by Nova Open rules, or your personal ideal rules. People playing inside of their tournament rules are obligated to play by their rules, so they are impacted by the changes to them much more heavily.

Your problem isn't that ITC rules effect those outside of the ITC, it's that GW doesn't provide good enough standard rules for people to default to and as such many players gravitate to the ITC as a result. Changing how the ITC does things is treating a symptom, if you want things to actually change for the better, complain to GW about their lack of solid rules work.

Edit: Also yes, I'm a Tau player and I love the rulings the ITC made for the Coordinated Fire rules.

Lol they have made no ruling on Tau CF rule yet.

They did and they didn't. Originally they stated they'd play it as only the +1 BS and the sharing of Markerlights, at least until the LVO ended. Now they're doing an extra bonus vote (Aka an "emergency" vote) to see which way the community will take it.

From your wording it sounds like your Necron opponent may be cheating.
There is a points tax for giving the wraiths Reanimation, while not a direct pay-for-upgrade, in order to access reanimate rolls up to 6 wraiths must be brought in a formation including 60 points of scarabs and 50 points for a Canoptek spyder. 110 mandatory points for granting a 4+++ to a squad of 3-6 wraiths seems like a tax to me. Being a necron player though I could be a bit biased

ITC has also reined in the wraith formation with 2 separate rules.
The first rule limiting the number of spyders in each formation to 1. As the spyder is what grants the wraiths reanimate, having only 1 means that its loss eliminates the 4+++ (this rule limiting how many spyders could be brought was pretty much already decided on by the community by the time ITC got around to it, they just formalized it)

The second rule limits the distance wraiths can be from the spyder to receive the Reanimate bonus, if the wraiths are outside of 12" from the spyder they do not receive the reanimate bonus. Since wraiths have a movement range double that of the spyder it seriously tethers the wraiths to a slow moving single model. (this one I'm not a fan of, but again, biased)

Also, I would stop playing your 18 wraith friend if that's all he plays. Having played 18 wraiths in a 1500 point game I can attest that it is no fun, for either player. When I do play wraiths I limit 6 for every 2000 points, simply because it does make games more fun.

DaPino wrote:
You know what I'm getting out of all this?
"I was totally fine with playing under ITC rules until they changed something that was to my disadvantage"?

Don't get me wrong, man.

I think the formation is a neat toy, good enough even that I'd consider making a list with it to try it out despite some of its required units not really working for my play style. But I'm not going to bother individual TOs to find out if their particular event allows the formation to benefit from its only really nice benefit; if there's a chance it'll be a commonly adopted rule, I'll just not bother building that list.

...Though to be completely forthright I'm not really a cuthroat tourney player...

My problem is the argument against the formation conferring unit buffs at all feels like it comes from an assumption that the Tau par should be subpar. This lingering unspoken assumption that they should be utterly incapable of dealing with rapidly advancing troops, cave even harder in melee than they already do, and have HQs that confer the super-amazing ability to have the entire army run off the board when they die.

I'm all for discussion on why people think its OP and don't have a problem with it being nerfed if it actually is, but don't cut it down until it's a complete liability and then have the gall to say its now on par with the decurion or gladius formations.

 Captain Joystick wrote:

DaPino wrote:
You know what I'm getting out of all this?
"I was totally fine with playing under ITC rules until they changed something that was to my disadvantage"?

Don't get me wrong, man.

I think the formation is a neat toy, good enough even that I'd consider making a list with it to try it out despite some of its required units not really working for my play style. But I'm not going to bother individual TOs to find out if their particular event allows the formation to benefit from its only really nice benefit; if there's a chance it'll be a commonly adopted rule, I'll just not bother building that list.

...Though to be completely forthright I'm not really a cuthroat tourney player...

My problem is the argument against the formation conferring unit buffs at all feels like it comes from an assumption that the Tau par should be subpar. This lingering unspoken assumption that they should be utterly incapable of dealing with rapidly advancing troops, cave even harder in melee than they already do, and have HQs that confer the super-amazing ability to have the entire army run off the board when they die.

I'm all for discussion on why people think its OP and don't have a problem with it being nerfed if it actually is, but don't cut it down until it's a complete liability and then have the gall to say its now on par with the decurion or gladius formations.

You think the Hunter Contingent is "pretty good"? Even if the ITC votes to limit the rules that can be shared, +1 BS and the ability to share Markerlights (i.e. ignores cover) is huge. Allowing Tau to add on top of that Interceptor, Tank/Monster Hunter, and Twin-Linked against a single target is insane. Add in Target Locks and Multi-trackers, and Coordinated Fire with all those rules is utterly broken.

This isn't about wanting to keep Tau down. This is about wanting to preserve what little balance remains at the competitive level. Tau were a strong army, and with Coordinated Firepower they will be on the level of power with Space Marines and above Necrons.

Besides, it isn't like the decision has already been made. Voting has yet to take place, though I know how I will vote. As a trend, the ITC only outright changes and re-writes things from the main rulebook, not the codexes. Coordinated Firepower has some RAW entanglements with sharing the benefits from a Buffmander, who will still be viable for buffing his own unit.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

You think the Hunter Contingent is "pretty good"? Even if the ITC votes to limit the rules that can be shared, +1 BS and the ability to share Markerlights (i.e. ignores cover) is huge.

Huge if you're only confident you can land 2-4 markerlights consistently. Which, ok, is nice if you're relying on pathfinders or an unassisted drone unit but if I spend the points I'm saving on units I otherwise wouldn't take I could put a drone controller commander in with those drones and churn out enough markerlight hits to expect the next three units to have the same or near the same quality of bonuses without having to commit them to potentially overkilling the unit.

If I really want heavy-hitters to be able to share markerlights I can look into the firebase support cadre. If I want +1 BS why would the scenario where I can potentially shoot at an unmarked enemy unit with only two units of my own even be possible?

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Allowing Tau to add on top of that Interceptor, Tank/Monster Hunter, and Twin-Linked against a single target is insane.

It's a big nasty threat that requires you to take big nasty units to capitalize on, as well as take small nasty units you wouldn't otherwise want in that kind of formation to even be allowed to do it.

Also, Interceptor isn't a unit-wide buff, EWO only affects the model it's given to, and it isn't even used in the shooting phase.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Add in Target Locks and Multi-trackers, and Coordinated Fire with all those rules is utterly broken.

Far as I'm concerned the 'must shoot at the same target' line supercedes Target Locks hard, but I do agree that that's ambiguous.

Multi-trackers affect the model only, and are built into the models that take them.

 Captain Joystick wrote:
Huge if you're only confident you can land 2-4 markerlights consistently. Which, ok, is nice if you're relying on pathfinders or an unassisted drone unit but if I spend the points I'm saving on units I otherwise wouldn't take I could put a drone controller commander in with those drones and churn out enough markerlight hits to expect the next three units to have the same or near the same quality of bonuses without having to commit them to potentially overkilling the unit.

If I really want heavy-hitters to be able to share markerlights I can look into the firebase support cadre. If I want +1 BS why would the scenario where I can potentially shoot at an unmarked enemy unit with only two units of my own even be possible?

What "units you otherwise wouldn't take"? The Hunter Cadre is the most flexible Core formation in the game! Were you seriously not taking Fire Warriors, Pathfinders, and Broadsides? Fire Warriors are hardly expensive either. If you want, you can also take a Marker Commender in the Command slot of the Hunter Contingent, so you get both the benefits of all the special rules and all the markerlights you could ever need.

If your only problem wiht the Hunter Contingent is that it's so powerful it cna overkill most units, that might suggest it being more than a little overpowered.

 Captain Joystick wrote:

Far as I'm concerned the 'must shoot at the same target' line supercedes Target Locks hard, but I do agree that that's ambiguous.

That is not ambiguous either. The UNITS must shoot at the same target, which they would be. NOTHING stops one model in a unit from using a target lock and shooting something else.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Name another army nerfed by itc rules. Not "my death star was needed because invisible sucks now and 2+ became 2+/4+. That affects anyone that can get that. This is a laser focused specifically Nerf against a specific army. If itc suddenly ruled drop pods could no longer xontest/score the site would FLOOD with complaints. But because marines it won't ever happen.

Some, including many in this forum, argue that skyhammer formation can carry ICs along with them in order to deep strike and charge turn 1. ITC rules forbid this entirely.

So, that's a marines nerf for you right there, that is both reasonable and fair, in my opinion.

If that is in then I guess I am wrong about targeted Nerf's. Though this ones rules Dont seem ambiguous to me. The

ITC has absolutely no weight in my group or any city nearby. I really don't give a feth about what they rule in or out.

 Vector Strike wrote:
ITC has absolutely no weight in my group or any city nearby. I really don't give a feth about what they rule in or out.

Thanks for stopping by?

 Vector Strike wrote:
ITC has absolutely no weight in my group or any city nearby. I really don't give a feth about what they rule in or out.

Same. If anything, ETC has more bearing.

Your group is claimed they decided to use ITC because you thought the decisions were fair and legitimate.

With the 'fake voters' scandal, perhaps you can argue to your group that their original view on ITC is wrong and you should just go back to by the book.

That said, Orock, you claim people only do things to give them a competitive advantage, which either gives us a window into your mind or suggests you don't consider yourself 'people'. Are you a warhammer animal/angel, or perhaps do you need to revaluate the reasons for your displeasure with the ITC rules?

This whole vote is pretty shortsighted. Why ban the use of USRs when the use of target locks is ambiguous. Theres nothing unclear about being able to benefit from USR. Worse, the sharing of USR benefits the weaker tau units. It makes hammerheads, strike teams, crisis auits and piranhas stronger.

So as I see it everyone loses. You end up facing triptides sprinkled with surges and tau players still have a codex full of gak.

Edgarion wrote:
This whole vote is pretty shortsighted. Why ban the use of USRs when the use of target locks is ambiguous. Theres nothing unclear about being able to benefit from USR. Worse, the sharing of USR benefits the weaker tau units. It makes hammerheads, strike teams, crisis auits and piranhas stronger.

So as I see it everyone loses. You end up facing triptides sprinkled with surges and tau players still have a codex full of gak.

There also isn't anything unclear about Target locks. Yes, the UNITS have to shoot at the same target. That does not mean that a single MODEL in that unit (which will still be firing at the combined target) can't use a TL and shoot someone else

 Frozocrone wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
ITC has absolutely no weight in my group or any city nearby. I really don't give a feth about what they rule in or out.

Same. If anything, ETC has more bearing.

That might be true where you play, but the ITC has a lot of influence in the North American scene. Their influence extends from the West Coast to as far East as Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas (NOVA dominates the East Coast, and Adepticon has most of the midwest). Their decisions affect a lot of gaming groups, even those not directly affiliated with the ITC. Because they have so much influence, their rulings end up having a big impact in terms of precedent on North American players, even if they don't play in ITC events. This is to say nothing of the major events that follow ITC rules, such as the Las Vegas Open.

That's true and to be honest, the ETC and ITC share a lot of FAQ's. I still follow Frontline Gaming on twitch, it makes for an informative viewing and to catch up on what y'all doing across the pond.

I absolutely despise the ITC, it is mob voting on rules changes to a ruleset that are not made for the type of game they want to play that does in fact prevent play of the game as it is intended to be played even outside of their own tournament circles.

The sooner the sun sets on the format the better off the 40k community will be.