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.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Reece has stated he would be happy to debate anyone on the Podcast about rules changes. Let him know you would like to do so about the next vote. Or if you don't want to, don't go to their tournaments and tell him why you won't. The ITC only has the power you let them have. Don't like it, don't use it.

What if you live in a region where all the tournaments are ITC? What if you live in a region where seeing your name on some ranking list is most important? What is a player to do than, do not attend any tournaments? I haven't given anyone power over me it has been taken!

What I find most ironic about some of the responses is that some are saying people get to vote on the issue your opinion matters but when someone says something and gives their opinion about the process and its flaws they are essentially told to be silent, "don't go, don't use their rules, don't attend their tournaments". I wish it was that simple but I literally have to travel several states to attend tournaments that are not using ITC rulings, who's wallet am I hurting again?

I would like to chime in on the Piranha conversation. I don't think the formation should be altered mainly because they are non-scoring and non-contesting units. I feel a free OSC drop pod that sits on an objective the entire game is more valuable. The offensive firepower that the 3 units can put out I believes averages out to be 6-7 str 5 hits. Lets say you create 3 of these units you are looking at 18-21 str 5 hits. Let me add the one piranha, you paid a minimum of 400 points for 19-23 str 5 hits on turn one, except they will most likely not be in range of anything due to the requirement of being within 6 of a board edge so their firepower on the turn they are created is obsolete. To kill the entire unit it takes 12 saves, but how many does it take to make the unit harmless? (If you consider 6 str 5 hits a threat)

Next turn they create more drones at this point you are looking at 480 points worth of drones! Sounds daunting doesn't it but wait its not really you are truly only looking at 240 points worth of free drones because the first wave do not count! If I bought that many piranhas without the formation I would get those original drones. So at this point I have 240 points worth of free drones but the formation cost 400 points. So at this point I have not gotten a return on my investment for the formation.

Turn 3 I now have 480 points worth of free drones and I have a return of 80 points on my investment since the piranhas cost 400 points. So by turn 3 in order for my opponent to make my formation have a negative return all he has to do is kill one of the drone units, which has a value of 72 points! Mind you I do have several non-scoring and non-contesting units on the board that is putting out a lot of inaccurate str 5 hits, that can delay my opponent! However how hard is it to kill these guys in cc or with shooting?

Now the main weakness of this formation besides the fact that you are paying entirely to much for units that cant contest or score and are easily killed is that by creating all of these drones the tau player is setting himself up for multi-charges all over the place. You have 6 drones next to your riptide, crisis suits, or broadsides your opponent will charge both units kill the drones than run down the other unit.

Because the drones are non scoring and non contesting in order for them to make back their points back they must either kill stuff or delay your opponent from reaching your army so the rest of your army can shoot them to bits. Quite frankly they are incapable of doing either regardless of how many there are especially when they have to come in by waves. Do you think drones can do 400 points of damage? With 400 points you could buy 2 riptides or a stormsurge, which would you rather see 3 units of drones coming at you or 2 riptides or a stormsurge shooting at you.

However the way it will most likely be ruled will ironically force players to play the formation the way it should be played! The true terror is not drones but seeker missiles, you should shoot your seeker missiles, next turn move closer than let your drones off than leave come back with more seeker missiles that will have more of an impact than a drone farm, especially considering the missiles can have tank-hunter.18 seeker missiles has a value of 148 points now add that with 240 your looking at 388 points out of 548 but the difference is the seeker missiles are going to be destroying units a rhino is 35 points a drop pod is 35 a bike squad with no save, now we are talking power!

EDITED
I just looked you can buy 5 piranhas a squad which means squads of 10 drones but your looking at 640 points for the formation. At that point a third of your army is drone farm you have to buy units to grab objectives and kill stuff it simply will not work. You would have to make a army themed around the drones.

DCannon4Life wrote:

GreyDragoon wrote:

So I clearly let lack of sleep and super long work hours this week get the better of me before I replied on the nearby Adepticon, but my major concerns remain.
...
If the Adepticon rule is any guide (and they copied the coordinated firepower one verbatim from the itc) then yes, it also restricts the formations recovery when off the board to hullpoints lost and not lost piranhas from the unit.

Couple of things (disagree if you will, I won't argue it. I'm just laying out the thought process behind the decisions):

1) The AdeptiCon faq ruling on Coordinated Firepower, despite its similarities in print, is not merely a copy/paste from the ITC faq. The committees driving the 'ITC' and AdeptiCon faqs no longer share members (until recently, they did), and the process by which the AdeptiCon faq committee arrived at its decision did not involve offering a 'vote' to players. Essentially, the following abilities/allowances are expressly made by Coordinated Firepower: Ignore restriction of shooting with one unit at a time. Ignore restriction of markerlights only benefitting one unit (at a time). Gaining a (conditional) +1BS against a nominated target. That is all.

ITC Version:
Use the following clarifications for the Coordinated Firepower command benefit:
Signature Systems, wargear and other special rules that alter the way that a unit fires (e.g., Skyfire) do not apply to other units using the Coordinated Firepower command benefit.
Special rules that allow a model to fire at different target than the one generating benefits from Coordinated Firepower (e.g., Split Fire) function normally.
If a model fires at a unit other than the one generating the benefits from Coordinated Firepower then that model does not receive any of the benefits (though they may still receive benefits applying to the unit from other sources as normal).
The +1 BS from the Coordinated Firepower command benefit does not apply to Snap Shots.

Adepticon Version:
• Use the following clarifications for the Coordinated Firepower command benefit:
o Signature Systems, wargear and other special rules that alter the way that a unit fires (e.g., Skyfire) do not
apply to other units using the Coordinated Firepower command benefit.
o Special rules that allow a model to fire at different target than the one generating benefits from
Coordinated Firepower (e.g., Split Fire) function normally.
o If a model fires at a unit other than the one generating the benefits from Coordinated Firepower then that
model does not receive any of the benefits (though they may still receive benefits applying to the unit
from other sources as normal).
o The +1 BS from the Coordinated Firepower command benefit does not apply to Snap Shots.

Sure looks like a copy and paste job to me. Unless you're seeing something I'm not here. Same dumb rule references as the ITC version, same notations, etc.

I believe the ITC took Adepticon's language. At the time Adepticon's was written they were not the same (I don't think the ITC had a ruling yet).

It doesn't really matter. The original point that they're different groups using different methods stands.

The writers for the ITC and Adepticon (and I suspect NOVA) read each others stuff all the time. It just makes sense to copy each others language if we have the same intent.

Thanks as always for the feedback, everyone, it is appreciated.

We are always looking to improve and to make the process more educational for everyone, we plan to even have debates for the next round of votes after the LVO. We do want everyone to have a voice, that's the point.

And in some cases, language between different FAQs is similar because we do all communicate with one another, yes.

So thanks again for the feedback!

Thanks for taking the time to read this thread and respond, Reecius

Yeah, no worries! I would have jumped in sooner, but the last two days have been bananas. We're in the Red Zone for the LVO so everyone is going full tilt, plus we have some side projects that we're really excited about the require attention, too.

All the concerns and comments (even the mean ones, lol) here are noted and valid. We want the ITC to be a format that allows for a relatively level platform from which to empower players to attend and TOs to run events. A lot of folks seem to forget that it is essentially "open source" and that they can modify any aspect of it if their local group wants to see some tweaks to meet their desires. We're not trying to dictate, we're trying to assist. But, its all good.

Anyway, we have some really exciting stuff coming up for next year with the ITC! Can't wait to share it with everyone.

 CKO wrote:


I haven't given anyone power over me it has been taken!

That statement is a bit melodramatic.

The greatest accomplishment of the ITC is that it has helped bring the community together. That also means that you need to interact with other people and occasionally accept their point of view. If you disagree with a ruling, submit your question through the ITC rule question. If enough people submit, a question will be re-evaluated. If you still don't like the ruling you can keep talking about it to whoever is willing to listen. However I think it's easier to accept that you're participating in a community of players and that requires abiding by the consensus.

 CKO wrote:

Wall of text about the rules and how this unit is not that bad

@RiTides
See, if you care about the specifics of each ruling and its justness you get this drawn out conversation each and every time. I personally don't want to have this conversation. To me it's boring and unavoidably becomes confrontational. Allow endless drones, don't allow endless drones. I don't care. I just want a ruling so that I don't have to talk about it. For me, the benefit of a bright line in the murky depth of GW rules far outweighs the correctness of any one interpretation.

 jifel wrote:

 Fishboy wrote:
Now the ATC is using ITC and several regional events are as well so now I am paying attention to the voting.

Quick side-question, where was it said that the ATC would be following ITC rules? I was planning on attending this year but haven't heard any format rules yet. This would be interesting.

I talked with Shane a few weeks ago so I could start on my list and he stated they were using ITC army construction rules. I took that to mean the FAQ as well but this just points to my dilemma...which interpreted rules set do I build my army to so I can have fun but remain competitive.

Again I want to state I appreciate everything that Reece and company are trying to do and the effort put into it but it seems very biased in the end result for things that don't need FAQ's. I agree with Target...how can you even discuss Tau formations when the Space Marine detachments go unnuetered? In progressive objective missions (which many events have 2/3 of the missions) it is an auto win against many armies and over powered yet not questioned?!? It's straight up bias and ruines the game for anyone not playing an imperial army.

bogalubov wrote:

 CKO wrote:


I haven't given anyone power over me it has been taken!

That statement is a bit melodramatic.

I agree with you that comment I should have never made it has little meaning.

bogalubov wrote:
The greatest accomplishment of the ITC is that it has helped bring the community together. That also means that you need to interact with other people and occasionally accept their point of view. If you disagree with a ruling, submit your question through the ITC rule question. If enough people submit, a question will be re-evaluated. If you still don't like the ruling you can keep talking about it to whoever is willing to listen. However I think it's easier to accept that you're participating in a community of players and that requires abiding by the consensus.

I don't have a problem with any particular ruling, I have a problem with the process its not a major issue its just there are certain things that can be fixed that I believed will make it better.

 CKO wrote:

Wall of text about the rules and how this unit is not that bad

I don't recall saying this!

bogalubov wrote:
@RiTides
See, if you care about the specifics of each ruling and its justness you get this drawn out conversation each and every time. I personally don't want to have this conversation. To me it's boring and unavoidably becomes confrontational. Allow endless drones, don't allow endless drones. I don't care. I just want a ruling so that I don't have to talk about it. For me, the benefit of a bright line in the murky depth of GW rules far outweighs the correctness of any one interpretation.

Yes, I agree with you that is one of the benefits of the ITC. I don't have a problem with iTC I have a problem with the voting process it can be fixed my original post I point out those things, each thing that is brought up for voting should have a thread dedicated to it so the voters can have multiple view points.

All I want is there to be a way that the voter can be more informed before they make their vote. If not they will read one article and vote a certain way or if they don't play that army they will vote against it.

Reecius , keep up the great work. Most of us have full time jobs that preclude us from playing as much as we would like too. I'm a TO for my LGS and we have switched to ITC. Here's why , I'm a police officer with a rotating schedule . Lucky to get in my weekly game. So my play testing for events is very limited. Reecius and those guys do it as a living. Which means they have plenty of time to both play test and play , which benifits all of us. I watch their bat reps and have to say that they seem pretty squared away.
Do I agree with everything from ITC? NO I don't. I think LOW's skewer the game , physic phase is overpowering and formations are broken. However I believe Reecius and company have gotten us as close to a decent , unified tournament format as we are going to get.
Well done and kudos to Frontline Gaming.

Haldir wrote:
Reecius , keep up the great work. Most of us have full time jobs that preclude us from playing as much as we would like too. I'm a TO for my LGS and we have switched to ITC. Here's why , I'm a police officer with a rotating schedule . Lucky to get in my weekly game. So my play testing for events is very limited. Reecius and those guys do it as a living. Which means they have plenty of time to both play test and play , which benifits all of us. I watch their bat reps and have to say that they seem pretty squared away.
Do I agree with everything from ITC? NO I don't. I think LOW's skewer the game , physic phase is overpowering and formations are broken. However I believe Reecius and company have gotten us as close to a decent , unified tournament format as we are going to get.
Well done and kudos to Frontline Gaming.

Yep, I agree. I have never been to a tournament where I agree with every ruling, but I would rather go in knowing it's not going my way and have e consistency in list building rather than having to change it constantly and message every tournament organizer for their FAQ. Makes the game a lot more laid back as well as helps build towards a more centralized community which I think is the most important thing for the health of the game.

 CKO wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Reece has stated he would be happy to debate anyone on the Podcast about rules changes. Let him know you would like to do so about the next vote. Or if you don't want to, don't go to their tournaments and tell him why you won't. The ITC only has the power you let them have. Don't like it, don't use it.

What if you live in a region where all the tournaments are ITC? What if you live in a region where seeing your name on some ranking list is most important? What is a player to do than, do not attend any tournaments? I haven't given anyone power over me it has been taken!

What I find most ironic about some of the responses is that some are saying people get to vote on the issue your opinion matters but when someone says something and gives their opinion about the process and its flaws they are essentially told to be silent, "don't go, don't use their rules, don't attend their tournaments". I wish it was that simple but I literally have to travel several states to attend tournaments that are not using ITC rulings, who's wallet am I hurting again?

Since you ignored the first part of my statement. To reiterate: Talk to Reece directly to express your point of view. Talking at him indirectly doesn't always work. You lucked out he saw the thread.

Edited by RiTides - Rule #1 of Dakka is "be polite"

Crimson Devil don't be so mean bra chill out we are just talking about ways to improve a voting process. I apologize I said some people not you I am sorry you feel that way.

No name calling in this thread, guys - we're all adults here. Further inflammatory posts will be edited / deleted. Thanks

Crimson Devil, that's actually the point, imo. Right now, I don't think the process for directly submitting rules for consideration is clear enough. It sounds like they've got some great things planned, so I'm hoping improving on that is among them!

GreyDragoon wrote:
Same dumb rule references as the ITC version....

You've stated this before. I think you're mistaken (not about the references being the same, about their being dumb). A Skyfire Nexus (Mysterious Objectives) gives Skyfire to a unit. If one of the units participating in a Coordinated Firepower shooting attack controls a Skyfire Nexus, and the units fire 'as if' they are one unit, then there is a legitimate question about whether or not Skyfire propagates from the specific unit controlling the Skyfire Nexus to the other units utilizing CF. So, not a 'dumb rule reference'.

As for the other 'dumb rule reference': I haven't looked into it and don't plan to.

Cheers!

My point is if you actually read the ITC rules is one of the very first lines states "these rules are a guideline". There is no reason you should have to use them if you don't want. If you and your group don't agree with a ruling then do the opposite.

Dude, what are you talking about? The people in this thread are talking about tournaments and at tournaments the rules are not optional. They are the official rules being used at the tournament in question.

 ChainswordHeretic wrote:
Dude, what are you talking about? The people in this thread are talking about tournaments and at tournaments the rules are not optional. They are the official rules being used at the tournament in question.

This is true, but the TOs/ Event Organizers are free to amend the rules to fit their own event.

 ChainswordHeretic wrote:
Dude, what are you talking about? The people in this thread are talking about tournaments and at tournaments the rules are not optional. They are the official rules being used at the tournament in question.

TOs are free to use their own missions and to amend the FAQ however they want. The No Mercy GT had no limits on LoWs or invisibility for example. Their missions were not standard ITC missions either. If you're a TO, you are free to mess with the format however you want.

More than that, if both players in a given round want to agree to disregard some portion of the FAQ, go ahead and do it.

All these rules are optional as long as you get agreement from your opponent.

bogalubov wrote:
More than that, if both players in a given round want to agree to disregard some portion of the FAQ, go ahead and do it.

All these rules are optional as long as you get agreement from your opponent.

I don't think that's necessarily the case at all tournaments - I know yakface was a proponent of this idea, too, but I think it opens up a whole can of worms like what you (bogalubov) wanted to avoid. For example, if a tournament allows this, now as a player I have to plan whether I want to consider changing any specific part of the rules... and even allowing someone to ask could result in a situation where a player agrees to a rules change as a favor to their opponent, without truly realizing its impact.

Personally, I don't think this should be done at tournaments - although certainly in club games and the like, folks should change anything they don't like. But that's kind of the point of tournament rules - that the games at that event are all being played using those same rules.

 RiTides wrote:

bogalubov wrote:
More than that, if both players in a given round want to agree to disregard some portion of the FAQ, go ahead and do it.

All these rules are optional as long as you get agreement from your opponent.

I don't think that's necessarily the case at all tournaments - I know yakface was a proponent of this idea, too, but I think it opens up a whole can of worms like what you (bogalubov) wanted to avoid. For example, if a tournament allows this, now as a player I have to plan whether I want to consider changing any specific part of the rules... and even allowing someone to ask could result in a situation where a player agrees to a rules change as a favor to their opponent, without truly realizing its impact.

Personally, I don't think this should be done at tournaments - although certainly in club games and the like, folks should change anything they don't like. But that's kind of the point of tournament rules - that the games at that event are all being played using those same rules.

The second party always has the option to say "No thanks, I prefer to play as described in the rules packet." This still allows me to point to the bright line drawn by the rules packet and not be involved in a protracted rules discussion.

The most common instance of this happening in my experience has been in regard to mysterious objectives. They are part of the ITC rules, but most people forget about them. Out of 20 or so games I've played in ITC tournaments I think mysterious objectives have been used once. Both parties acknowledged that they did not want to bother keeping track of the objectives so their mysterious nature was never used. No TO ran over and demanded that we actively use that option.

However if someone said "I would like to use the book version of invisibility" I would tell them "no thanks".

Shameless plug but it sounds like you guys could use these

And yeah, that makes sense - I guess I was thinking of something more drastic that would benefit one player over another (whereas mysterious objectives should have an equal impact on both players) but you can obviously say "No". I just don't think that can really be an official policy for a tournament, even though in practice that's how players operate on things like that.

Again, thanks for the feedback.

Some of our friends Ben Mohlie and Goatboy said it very well: I don't agree with everything in the ITC, but I'd rather play ITC format than not.

That sums it up quite well. None us us got everything we wanted but it's better to have a baseline for play than not. That requires compromise, the nature of which is giving ground o things you don't agree with. It just is what it is.

But again, thanks for the feedback everyone, we really do listen and constantly try to improve.

Now, back to LVO prep!!

The most common instance of this happening in my experience has been in regard to mysterious objectives. They are part of the ITC rules, but most people forget about them. Out of 20 or so games I've played in ITC tournaments I think mysterious objectives have been used once. Both parties acknowledged that they did not want to bother keeping track of the objectives so their mysterious nature was never used. No TO ran over and demanded that we actively use that option.

You are comparing a rule that is a mission parameter in the BRB, that effects both players equally, and there is no debate on how it works, with one opponent being able to spawn units with no way of stopping them or being able to place 700 pts. of free transports on the table as basically the same thing !?! Not even in the same ball park. If two opponents that are both ambivalent to a rule, forget to use it, and it affects them equally, I agree let them have at it. I have never been to a tournament where the players did not know that the rules packet were the official rules for that tournament and I can not think of anyone asking to play them differently unless they were trying to get an advantage.

Collusion to not play by the rules means they should both forfeit.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Collusion to not play by the rules means they should both forfeit.

Eh I don't agree. war hammer isn't silly rigid like competitive magic like that. If a pair of tau players want to do full power hunter contingent for their game, even in a tournament where the rule is set otherwise, what's the harm? It's essentially a gentlemanly affair where it's up to the two of them to decide how rules work, and who wins the game, and a judge is only called in dire situations.

Compare that to tourney magic where ANY odd situation requires a judge. Players in that game are ONLY empowered to play the game, not resolve any situations.

At a tournament, one may expect the players to follow *ALL* of the rules, BBB or house.

 ChainswordHeretic wrote:

The most common instance of this happening in my experience has been in regard to mysterious objectives. They are part of the ITC rules, but most people forget about them. Out of 20 or so games I've played in ITC tournaments I think mysterious objectives have been used once. Both parties acknowledged that they did not want to bother keeping track of the objectives so their mysterious nature was never used. No TO ran over and demanded that we actively use that option.

You are comparing a rule that is a mission parameter in the BRB, that effects both players equally, and there is no debate on how it works, with one opponent being able to spawn units with no way of stopping them or being able to place 700 pts. of free transports on the table as basically the same thing !?! Not even in the same ball park. If two opponents that are both ambivalent to a rule, forget to use it, and it affects them equally, I agree let them have at it. I have never been to a tournament where the players did not know that the rules packet were the official rules for that tournament and I can not think of anyone asking to play them differently unless they were trying to get an advantage.

My opponent has almost nothing but flyers and I have no skyfire options in my list. Does the refusal to play with mysterious objectives affect us equally?

This is a past time where the investment of money and time on making your army far outweighs any potential winnings. People should feel free to ask their opponent to change a rule interpretation. Their opponent should feel just as free to refuse if the interpretation does not jive with the tournament rules.

JohHwangDD wrote: Collusion to not play by the rules means they should both forfeit.

Haha, ok. I'll report myself for not using mysterious objectives to the nearest Inquisition outpost.

To be honest, for how complex 40k has become, I'd be surprised if every game could be played exactly correctly.

There's things I dislike about the ITC faq, and there are things I like about it.

Overall the best feature of something like its wide adoption is that you can have a general idea of how certain contentious rules will be ruled, and certain aspect of the game which reduce competitiveness, or might deter people from wanting to play the game (2++ rerollable saves, unbound WK armies etc.) won't be something you need to consider despite them being RAW.

In many ways, imo, the evolution of 6th-7th feels like GW responding to its on rules which are not good for competitive play with new rules to try and balance them by slapping them with a D-Hammer.

After all GW is a miniatures company, not a game company, so to think their rules alone should be good enough for most people to play is probably silly