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.

 Reecius wrote:
Follow my very simple logic here.

You believe ITC members vote in their own self-interest.
Premise: ITC Voters vote in their own self-interest to make their own faction stronger or by making opposing factions weaker when give the opportunity.
No faction has a majority of players in the ITC (over 51% of players).
In order to pass a vote, you need a majority vote (51% off votes in favor).
Hypothetical conclusion: Therefore, anytime a vote to increase a faction in power is proposed, it will fail.

Reality: Almost every vote to increase a faction in power has PASSED. Every time one of these votes passes, it further debunks the above argument as it shows a majority of players not only vote to help their fellow factions if they feel it is the right thing to do, but repeatedly vote to help their neighbor factions.
Therefore, the ONLY conclusion you can draw is that ITC voters in fact do not always vote in their own self interest and that further, do not even do so frequently.

I think that might be characterizing it a bit too black and white - there is some input to support the conclusion (votes to buff a faction often pass) but I think the full conclusion being drawn from it is too broad.

Personally speaking, I would vote to buff a faction if I thought it was underpowered, or was a mechanic that needed fixing, etc. And similarly speaking the opposite, if something was overpowered or out of whack, and needed nerfing, I would vote to do so.

But just because I vote that way does not mean I'm not voting in my self interest... I'm partially willing to buff a faction or unit because it's already weak / isn't a threat. And if something is a threat, by human nature I'm likely to want it toned down!

Might also be a case of just seeing things in a different way - the way you are thinking of "self interest", I think isn't the same way MVBrandt was using the same term last page. Part of my self interest is having a good time... which means I might want to up the power curve of an underpowered faction or unit (I might play it someday, as well!) and lower the power curve of a monster one... so it might just be the way the terms are being used. Either way, appreciate the thorough writeup

The thing with chapter tactic stacking and super friends seems to come out of left field or is a direct results of NOVA. I cannot remember the last GT they won nor anyone ever claiming on the Internet that it is over the top. The lack of SHW and GMC gave it a huge boost as these are its natural counters.

@RiTides

I actually did specify what I defined self-Interest as

All good, though. Like I said, interpret it how you will, and I'd be full of it if I said I understood what each individual's motivation was for how they voted. But in general terms we see a movement towards benevolence. People tend to vote against their own self-interest (as defined here) time after time. I think that is cool, and something to be applauded.

@Dozer

You probably feel that way due to your perspective as someone that is primarily a tournament gamer. The results of a big tournament like NOVA are on your mind. You look at those results, you see this poll question, "connect the dots" as they appear to you and then jump to a conclusion. It happens all of the time. I can't tell you how many times I have been accused of "hating" a specific faction because that is obviously the only possible reason we would do X,Y,Z when in reality that person is having an emotional reaction to something they do not like and then projecting reasons onto us that have no basis in reality. We don't get mad, because we've seen it multiple times now, but the reality is that a sample group of people in the ITC are influenced by an infinite number of factors: their local meta, personal experience with the game, time of day, what they ate for breakfast, what they read on the internet, if they got in a fight with their GF that day, etc. Rarely does one thing have that big of an impact. You perceive it that way because it is a big deal to you, but I assure you that a large percentage of the folks voting couldn't even tell you what faction won the NOVA open, or the LVO. That is no put down, just the truth, everyone voting has their own ideas about what is important in 40k or not, how the game should be played, etc. All we can do really, is look at overall trends, and move with it. Guessing as to the motivations of all those people will be nothing more than a guess.

Reecius = Abaddon
ITC = 13th Black Crusade

Truly dark times are upon us all!

 Reecius wrote:


@Dozer

You probably feel that way due to your perspective as someone that is primarily a tournament gamer. The results of a big tournament like NOVA are on your mind. You look at those results, you see this poll question, "connect the dots" as they appear to you and then jump to a conclusion. It happens all of the time. I can't tell you how many times I have been accused of "hating" a specific faction because that is obviously the only possible reason we would do X,Y,Z when in reality that person is having an emotional reaction to something they do not like and then projecting reasons onto us that have no basis in reality. We don't get mad, because we've seen it multiple times now, but the reality is that a sample group of people in the ITC are influenced by an infinite number of factors: their local meta, personal experience with the game, time of day, what they ate for breakfast, what they read on the internet, if they got in a fight with their GF that day, etc. Rarely does one thing have that big of an impact. You perceive it that way because it is a big deal to you, but I assure you that a large percentage of the folks voting couldn't even tell you what faction won the NOVA open, or the LVO. That is no put down, just the truth, everyone voting has their own ideas about what is important in 40k or not, how the game should be played, etc. All we can do really, is look at overall trends, and move with it. Guessing as to the motivations of all those people will be nothing more than a guess.

This is your way of telling me what you will take away from me and why I should be okay with it...

 RiTides wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
Follow my very simple logic here.

You believe ITC members vote in their own self-interest.
Premise: ITC Voters vote in their own self-interest to make their own faction stronger or by making opposing factions weaker when give the opportunity.
No faction has a majority of players in the ITC (over 51% of players).
In order to pass a vote, you need a majority vote (51% off votes in favor).
Hypothetical conclusion: Therefore, anytime a vote to increase a faction in power is proposed, it will fail.

Reality: Almost every vote to increase a faction in power has PASSED. Every time one of these votes passes, it further debunks the above argument as it shows a majority of players not only vote to help their fellow factions if they feel it is the right thing to do, but repeatedly vote to help their neighbor factions.
Therefore, the ONLY conclusion you can draw is that ITC voters in fact do not always vote in their own self interest and that further, do not even do so frequently.

I think that might be characterizing it a bit too black and white - there is some input to support the conclusion (votes to buff a faction often pass) but I think the full conclusion being drawn from it is too broad.

Personally speaking, I would vote to buff a faction if I thought it was underpowered, or was a mechanic that needed fixing, etc. And similarly speaking the opposite, if something was overpowered or out of whack, and needed nerfing, I would vote to do so.

But just because I vote that way does not mean I'm not voting in my self interest... I'm partially willing to buff a faction or unit because it's already weak / isn't a threat. And if something is a threat, by human nature I'm likely to want it toned down!

Might also be a case of just seeing things in a different way - the way you are thinking of "self interest", I think isn't the same way MVBrandt was using the same term last page. Part of my self interest is having a good time... which means I might want to up the power curve of an underpowered faction or unit (I might play it someday, as well!) and lower the power curve of a monster one... so it might just be the way the terms are being used. Either way, appreciate the thorough writeup

Even if what you describe are people's motivation which I don't believe this is hardly an issue because what you just stated means the majority of people vote to balance the game and to have fun playing a variety of armies which is the point of the itc.

If everyone voted to buff underpowered units and nerf overpowered units the itc would be the most balanced ruleset ever. However I don't believe you are right nor do I think Reece is correct.? the truth is people vote for many reasons some self interest, some for balance, some how the believe the game should be played, some because they are sadomasochistic RAW rule lovers, some how they think rules should be played (rai). In the end it sorta evens out to a balanced ruleset.

Personally I believe a lot of people vote on how they believe it is fun to play with an influence on what's balanced. I believe this because many people who vote in the itc tend to have a negative opinion on GC and Superheavies and want to limit thier exposure to the game yet they sympathize with other players and don't want to completely neuter them. I say this as most feedback and questions seems to center on these units and how they interact to the game in some way. But beyond a handful of GC/SH most of them are not worth the point cost.

I personally try to vote less restrictive however I wish I could change my vote since I voted not to allow the experimental but I don't really think it's bad. Hopefully it passes regardless. I think when I voted I had flashbacks of playing the r'varna when it was first released and how utterly broken it was before they amended it.

Fair points, gungo! This last one seems to be a bit of an oxymoron, though - Do you mean, it isn't that bad now (since you mention facing something you considered "utterly broken" before!)

gungo wrote:
I personally try to vote less restrictive however I wish I could change my vote since I voted not to allow the experimental but I don't really think it's bad. Hopefully it passes regardless. I think when I voted I had flashbacks of playing the r'varna when it was first released and how utterly broken it was before they amended it.

I believe I voted against Experimental... just the name seems pretty clear. I can't think of anytime I'd expect to use something called that in an official (non-testing) capacity.

I'm glad FW acceptance has gotten so broad (Malanthrope definitely helps out my nids!) but if you were going to draw the line anywhere, it seems like their marking rules Experimental would be it!

FW can really juice up a game...

I think the question for the experimental rules should have been:

"Allow experimental rules that are 6 months or older" instead of just allow experimental rules. Forgeworld tends to make the changes they are going to make in that time or it's in print. But since it was just Experimental rules I said no.

That'd be a nice compromise Hulk (maybe something to consider if the vote is close?). If something keeps that label for a half year, it's probably just waiting for the book to be published...

Poll results in the first post!

@Whitedragon

Can I be Solar Macharius instead?

@Gungo

Yeah, everyone votes for their own reasons, but the results are pretty telling. It tends towards altruism.

Very close call on that first one - honestly not sure which way I voted (I had intended to vote to limit super friends! But not sure if I got it right in the end since I'm not a marine player). I think it might not have been worded quite as clearly as the others.

Thank you very much for posting the results Reecius!

While I am somewhat disappointed in the results, I am glad that the ITC did this in a semi-democratic nature.

While I am disappointed that the chapter tactics were not changed to be more consistent, I don't think this will make Super Friends/Thunderdome broken in the ITC format. ITC nerfs the biggest things that make Thunderdome powerful, namely 2+ re-rollable and Invisibility.

I was hoping that the ITC would be more cautions about the Stormsurge in units of three, as the Tau codex has yet to be released. But from what we have seen so far, the unit's rules are balanced. For its cost I don't think that allowing three would be too overpowered.

I am glad that the ITC has allowed more Forge World into the game. Certain factions depend on it, and this will also encourage more variety in list-building. I am glad that the ITC has always been open to Forge World, and this only continues that trend.

While not everything went as I voted, I don't think that these changes are for the worse. If problems come up, they can be sorted out in the next round of voting at year's end.

Heh, every way I voted went the other way. I must be out of touch.

I'm sure this has been addressed but why in the Emperor's name is Buzzgobs stompa +830 rather than +300. 3 stormsurges. 3 imperial knights and stompas are still overpriced by 430 points.

Buzzgob stompa = 830 points

While:

2x Wraithknights = 790

Or

Wraithknight + 5 Scatter Bike Squads = 800 points

Or

2x Imperial Paladins = 750

Is the Stompa this powerful? Please Reece, Frankie or other (royal overlords)... give us buzzgob for +300. Please

Can we make it so immobalized drop pods cannot control or contest objectives. Its sickening watching 11 marine drip pods land near objectives with 2 5 man squads and say"OK now blow 30 objective secured units off the board or you lose."

Let's start a Wish List of things that will never happen here....

 jy2 wrote:
Let's start a Wish List of things that will never happen here....

I lol'd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orock wrote:
Can we make it so immobalized drop pods cannot control or contest objectives. Its sickening watching 11 marine drip pods land near objectives with 2 5 man squads and say"OK now blow 30 objective secured units off the board or you lose."

Oh, and then we can make it so all dedicated transports aren't obsec any more because I don't want to have to blow up all those rhinos/razorbacks.

Or we can just make the minimum number of changes necessary to make things fun and go with that. You'll note the poll results were about ADDING things to the game in two cases and only one that would remove something (and it was voted down).

I am excited that experimental rules are in! I took a Kytan to a tourney last month and felt like a jackass when someone told me it wasn't ITC legal.

et al:

At the Sacramento Know No Mercy GT, thats the way it was. 40k book rules. Buzzgob and his stompa was 400pts RAW (as it is in battle-scribe as well). No limit on LoW. Normal invis. 2++ rerollable. I thought it was awesome.

And if there is one friggin faction that needs an ITC RAW buff its the boyz. So yeah give em 3 stormsuurges 3 riptides in every slot but hamstring orks. Friggin racists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Find his FAQ here:
http://tinyurl.com/KNMGT-FAQ

Buzzgrob is not hamstring at all it's a badly worded entry and even forgeworld has clarified several times you need to pay for the big Mek Stompa as well.

Stompas are just overpriced even taking a kustom stompa and its reduced price it's still overpriced. The Ork codex is due for an upgrade soon as well as IA8. I can only presume IA8 is waiting for the Ork codex release before its reissue. And with a 12 book Orc miniseries due next year I expect next year to be the year of the Ork in 30/40k.

 doktor_g wrote:
And if there is one friggin faction that needs an ITC RAW buff its the boyz. So yeah give em 3 stormsuurges 3 riptides in every slot but hamstring orks. Friggin racists.

Lol wut?

Someone needs to take a step back.

I'm glad superfriends are here to stay, and that GW will sell 3x more Stormsurge kits in America than they otherwise would have.

I would've actually preferred not to have experimental rules allowed, since it adds a whole new list-checking hurdle for TO's where you have to make sure that the guy bringing the new hotness has the actual model AND the rules pdf AND the correct up to date version of the rules pdf. Lists aren't very thoroughly checked even at major GTs these days anyways (ain't nobody got time fo' dat!) and allowing experimental FW not found in a book puts additional onus on the players and TO's to do their due diligence in prepping for an event. Still, the new chaos knights are cool and I'll be glad to see them on the tabletop finally. I guess I've learned an important lesson: never underestimate the number of Tau players with an axe to grind.

At the storm surges current price point without additional upgrades and the fact all the fw large robots will also be available I doubt we will see many 3x Stormsurge lists.

Right now the current crop of experimental seem ok however another r'varna can pop up, but I guess we will deal wth that if it happens just like the wraithknights. The good thing is forgeworld is still 0-1 unique units in most cases.

gungo wrote:
Right now the current crop of experimental seem ok however another r'varna can pop up, but I guess we will deal wth that if it happens just like the wraithknights. The good thing is forgeworld is still 0-1 unique units in most cases.

The R'Varna is my biggest specific concern, simply because it's had multiple iterations of experimental rules and there's often nothing but the honor system stopping people from using the initial version with AP3 out the wazoo. Someone even got the okay to run it at BSB this year which is just

@pretre. Thems jokes baby. Xenos... racists.... get it?

 Loch wrote:
I'm glad superfriends are here to stay, and that GW will sell 3x more Stormsurge kits in America than they otherwise would have.

LOL. I so agree Though I dunno how good 3x Stormsurge will actually be (I suspect it's just too expensive for 1850 games), it's makes it a good excuse to buy 3 of them!

 Loch wrote:
I would've actually preferred not to have experimental rules allowed, since it adds a whole new list-checking hurdle for TO's where you have to make sure that the guy bringing the new hotness has the actual model AND the rules pdf AND the correct up to date version of the rules pdf. Lists aren't very thoroughly checked even at major GTs these days anyways (ain't nobody got time fo' dat!) and allowing experimental FW not found in a book puts additional onus on the players and TO's to do their due diligence in prepping for an event. Still, the new chaos knights are cool and I'll be glad to see them on the tabletop finally. I guess I've learned an important lesson: never underestimate the number of Tau players with an axe to grind.

Most of the experimental rules models aren't all that game-breakingly awesome, so I don't mind -- especially since some seem to have been stuck in the experimental stage forever. In our group, we play with all the experimental rules, though there's only really one guy that fields more than the occasional unit here and there.

So, you can still field 2 CADs with 6 Flyrants?

 Johnnytorrance wrote:
So, you can still field 2 CADs with 6 Flyrants?

Duplicate formations/detachments allow six Flyrants. Considering it's the only unit keeping Tyranids at top tables, I personally don't have a problem with this.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Johnnytorrance wrote:
So, you can still field 2 CADs with 6 Flyrants?

Duplicate formations/detachments allow six Flyrants. Considering it's the only unit keeping Tyranids at top tables, I personally don't have a problem with this.

+1

Basically the best build the Nids have and nothing terribly broken. In Nova missions they basically have to pick end-game mission choices because the need to land to score. Im not sure how they will perform in ITC missions with Maelstrom style missions. If they need to land then they become vulnerable.