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.

So the guys who make the rules up for the ITC events are going to or have already had a vote on the new rules for the Tau combining special rules scenario. Their arguement is it isnt "fun" for people to play against it RAW. Also that the RAW is somewhat ambiguious and leaves room for imterpretation. Mostly though they seek to balance it for what they see as the good of the game. And thats fine with me. I understand the invis nerfs they have done in the past and applaud them. But there are two things that bother me with this whole system.

Who decides what is fun/fair?

How they think it dosent affect anyone outside their tournament circle.

I will address the second statement first. It does. It absolutley does. Me and my friends have never been to an ITC event, HOWEVER, we find the rules more fair and balanced than basic GW, and its generally easy to agree on with even pick up games, and they have many clever changes for the better, such as improved malestrom. These changes dont come without issues however. Reece even said over in england where they dont use ITC, things like marine gladius forces arent nearly as dominating, as many of the random effects in malestrom work to keep them in check, like multiple small units and vehicles and characters being present to make the opponents points scoring that much more reliable.

Now I play tau, and found the new rules a big boon to the army. I am often hard countered by a MSU drop army, or just by bad luck when my opponent gets the outflank warlord trait (most times people will roll on that chart, since they tend to be superior to the book warlord traits). This rule gives alot back to the army. Now you could argue and say that you can still now better deal with the major issue tau was facing, being nearly immortal death stars, but I think thats more of the addition of the stormsurge than say tank hunters all around the board. Those wolf riders and necron lord retinues and screamerstars dont care about tank or monster hunters, and since markerlights share across all units regardless twin linked isnt such a big deal when all of a sudden everyone is BS 8. And while split firing to take out rhinos in a gladius is powerful with tank hunters from a buffmander, thats not my point. Which brings me to my first point.

Who decides what is fun/fair?

How did they come to the conclusion that THIS particular set of rules was the straw that broke the camels back.

Here is what I dont think is fair. i dont think necron wraiths with no previous access to reanimation protocals should for no extra points cost be granted access to them, literally doubling their survivability. Where is the ITC vote to tone down decursion so that only units that ALREADY had reanimation have it? I think this rule is unfun and absolutley breaks the game open for necrons, one of my regular opponents uses 18. Before he used 6 max. Does it sound like a change he made for fun?

Where is my ruling that eldar jetbikes can still only use one in three heavy weapons? You can flood the board with T4, str 6 4 shot fast jinking jetbikes that if they ARE forced to jink, can simply zoom 36!! inches away to say an objective and still be useful. In groups as small as three. And they have objective secured. That is unfun to me.Where is the vote on that?

I think that marine drop pods having objective secured is crap. THEY ARE IMMOBILE! HOW DO THEY SECURE ANYTHING? What about when their bolter gets blown off. What do they do? Smack you with their door ramps if you get too close? Yell at you in zeroes and ones to stay away from that pile o gubbins? Gladius strike force makes them free. FREE. You can plop down 9+ drop pods, spread 2 or 3 out to every objective on the board, and tell your opponent "ok, now blast every one of these off the board while also taking out my dangerous stuff that will remove your units or you lose the game automatically". I actively HATE this army. It couldnt BE less fun to play. Where is my vote to get rid of obsec on drop pods?

Where is the vote that using ITC rules, the wraithknight player has to pay 100 extra points for his wraithknight? Its unfun for me when my stompa that cost 2.5 times as much is removed turn one by one. Frontline gaming is always going on about how undercosted it is? Why not put it up to the community to vote on?

Im not trying to make reece or the guys at frontline or anyone else involved with ITC angry. They make some good generalized universally army effecting changes like blast templates on FMC or invis nerfs. But calling out specific armies without equal slap on the wrists us unfair.

And it affects me greatly. Me and my friends use their rules. Now I am told I cant play my army the way its written in the book, by the necron hypocrite with 18 unkillable wraiths.

How is this fair/fun?

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

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??

Don't play against the 18 wraith army. And also in your gaming group you are free to change what ever rules you want if you feel they are unfair, I understand you wish to play ITC but if you find there rules a bit unfair on somethings then it's upto you to change them in your own gaming group so everyone can have a good time. As for ITC events if you plan on going to those then that's a different story.

 Orock wrote:

 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??

Why can't you vote? Everyone can vote in it.

They have house rules for their tournaments. You can make your own house rules for your tournaments/meta.

ITC =/= RAW.

They're voting on it because it's unclear, and it has a big impact on how powerful something is. They often don't vote on smaller things because those things don't really impact the game. For example, the rules are somewhat unclear on how you place a flamer template when shooting at models in a building. Most people put the template so that it's "touching" the shooting model in a top-down view, but do not physically touch the model shooting the template. Some feel that you do need to physically touch the model with the template, then angle the template to go "up" and THEN determine what is "under" the template.

Which was is correct? Well, there's room for debate. Will it have a massive impact on the types of lists people play or the results of those games? Likely not. It's s niche scenario that could come up often enough, but not always, and it's not a powerful enough thing that people are going to design lists with this in mind.

In the case of the Tau "combined firing" special rules, this ambiguity is a rather big deal. Chances are that most Tau players in most of their games will encounter this issue, AND this will significantly affect the power and design of their lists. It's a big deal which way it is to be played, and there is ambiguity to it! As such, putting it to a vote makes sense.

Comparatively, it's very clear that Jetbikes can each take a Scatter Laser. Yeah, it's powerful, and its existence will change how people make lists, but there's no ambiguity to it.

 pretre wrote:

 Orock wrote:

 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??

Why can't you vote? Everyone can vote in it.

NOT ANYMORE. Only people who can prove they have played in one of their tournaments are allowed to vote anymore.

If you are already using these rules as standard atop 40k's core rules, then you've clearly got a situation where players are willing to discuss and if necessary alter the game to make it more enjoyable. Why not get together and draw up your own lists of further modifications?

That way, you get around both of your issues; you get to decide what's fair and unfair, and it only affects the people you're playing with. The rules you come up with are no more or less official than the ITC ones, so I suggest you (As a group) work on producing something you all prefer. If and when new players join the group, just hand them a printout of the changes you've all agreed on, maybe revisit the collection of rulings as a whole once per year as things change, and you're good to go.

 Frozocrone wrote:
They have house rules for their tournaments. You can make your own house rules for your tournaments/meta.

ITC =/= RAW.

That was the reason to try the ITC rules, so we wouldnt HAVE to argue rules, there would be a set. But that was back when the most changes made were on universal sets of rules, like 2+ rerollable being 4+ at best.

 Orock wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Orock wrote:

 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??

Why can't you vote? Everyone can vote in it.

NOT ANYMORE. Only people who can prove they have played in one of their tournaments are allowed to vote anymore.

Can you show where they said that because that has not been the case for they're most recent vote

 Paradigm wrote:
If you are already using these rules as standard atop 40k's core rules, then you've clearly got a situation where players are willing to discuss and if necessary alter the game to make it more enjoyable. Why not get together and draw up your own lists of further modifications?

That way, you get around both of your issues; you get to decide what's fair and unfair, and it only affects the people you're playing with. The rules you come up with are no more or less official than the ITC ones, so I suggest you (As a group) work on producing something you all prefer. If and when new players join the group, just hand them a printout of the changes you've all agreed on, maybe revisit the collection of rulings as a whole once per year as things change, and you're good to go.

Here is the issue with that. The 5 people I regularly play with pissed and moaned when the book was released, and gave me gak eating grins when ITC decided to hold a vote. Do YOU think they are going to be up for discussion. People are competative in nature. If something CAN give an advantage, they will take it.

 Orock wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
If you are already using these rules as standard atop 40k's core rules, then you've clearly got a situation where players are willing to discuss and if necessary alter the game to make it more enjoyable. Why not get together and draw up your own lists of further modifications?

That way, you get around both of your issues; you get to decide what's fair and unfair, and it only affects the people you're playing with. The rules you come up with are no more or less official than the ITC ones, so I suggest you (As a group) work on producing something you all prefer. If and when new players join the group, just hand them a printout of the changes you've all agreed on, maybe revisit the collection of rulings as a whole once per year as things change, and you're good to go.

Here is the issue with that. The 5 people I regularly play with pissed and moaned when the book was released, and gave me gak eating grins when ITC decided to hold a vote. Do YOU think they are going to be up for discussion. People are competative in nature. If something CAN give an advantage, they will take it.

Well I would like to think they'd be up for discussing it and making a better game for all involved if they're already accepting changes presumably created with that exact goal in mind. But if they're just accepting the stuff that benefits them while trying to screw up everyone else's army, then they're probably not the sort of people worth playing with in the first place in my opinion. The key to getting 40k to work best for everyone is communication and compromise, if they're not willing to make that effort then there's probably not a lot that can be done.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Orock wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Orock wrote:

 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??

Why can't you vote? Everyone can vote in it.

NOT ANYMORE. Only people who can prove they have played in one of their tournaments are allowed to vote anymore.

Can you show where they said that because that has not been the case for they're most recent vote

They said it on the recent podcast.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Orock wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Orock wrote:

 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??

Why can't you vote? Everyone can vote in it.

NOT ANYMORE. Only people who can prove they have played in one of their tournaments are allowed to vote anymore.

Can you show where they said that because that has not been the case for they're most recent vote

They said it on the recent podcast.

Hmm, interesting. I did not know that.

edit: I posted to ask about that.

 Yarium wrote:
They're voting on it because it's unclear, and it has a big impact on how powerful something is. They often don't vote on smaller things because those things don't really impact the game. For example, the rules are somewhat unclear on how you place a flamer template when shooting at models in a building. Most people put the template so that it's "touching" the shooting model in a top-down view, but do not physically touch the model shooting the template. Some feel that you do need to physically touch the model with the template, then angle the template to go "up" and THEN determine what is "under" the template.

Which was is correct? Well, there's room for debate. Will it have a massive impact on the types of lists people play or the results of those games? Likely not. It's s niche scenario that could come up often enough, but not always, and it's not a powerful enough thing that people are going to design lists with this in mind.

In the case of the Tau "combined firing" special rules, this ambiguity is a rather big deal. Chances are that most Tau players in most of their games will encounter this issue, AND this will significantly affect the power and design of their lists. It's a big deal which way it is to be played, and there is ambiguity to it! As such, putting it to a vote makes sense.

Comparatively, it's very clear that Jetbikes can each take a Scatter Laser. Yeah, it's powerful, and its existence will change how people make lists, but there's no ambiguity to it.

The rule is 100% clear. People are just trying to pick apart every individual word to try and find a way to not make it work. They fire "as if one unit". If they are firing "as if one unit", all USR are shared as the rules normally say for a unit. I don't know how it can be anymore clear...

 Orock wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
If you are already using these rules as standard atop 40k's core rules, then you've clearly got a situation where players are willing to discuss and if necessary alter the game to make it more enjoyable. Why not get together and draw up your own lists of further modifications?

That way, you get around both of your issues; you get to decide what's fair and unfair, and it only affects the people you're playing with. The rules you come up with are no more or less official than the ITC ones, so I suggest you (As a group) work on producing something you all prefer. If and when new players join the group, just hand them a printout of the changes you've all agreed on, maybe revisit the collection of rulings as a whole once per year as things change, and you're good to go.

Here is the issue with that. The 5 people I regularly play with pissed and moaned when the book was released, and gave me gak eating grins when ITC decided to hold a vote. Do YOU think they are going to be up for discussion. People are competative in nature. If something CAN give an advantage, they will take it.

Well the problem here is you view everyone is competitive in nature and will abuse everything as much as possible for their own gain. That is pretty disingenuous about 40k players and people in general. A lot of people aren't looking to make the best list possible and are just trying to have fun. You are making an absurdly large assumption that no one would be willing to not be selfish and play fair.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Orock wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Orock wrote:

 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??

Why can't you vote? Everyone can vote in it.

NOT ANYMORE. Only people who can prove they have played in one of their tournaments are allowed to vote anymore.

Can you show where they said that because that has not been the case for they're most recent vote

I CAN actually. In their last weeks signals from the frontline.

http://www.twitch.tv/frontlinegaming_tv/v/26122620 skip to 49:25

What's the big deal? If you're playing in the ITC tournies, then vote or deal with the rules. If you're not, fething talk about whatever issues you're having beforehand with your opponent. Is there something I'm missing, or is this another thing of people blowing things out of proportion?

Their rulings influence alot of game groups. And I think its unfair to vote on one specific army when there are so so so many broken things out there. Its either impartial universal changes, or dont try and fix one thing without every other horrible offender addressed.

 Orock wrote:
Their rulings influence alot of game groups. And I think its unfair to vote on one specific army when there are so so so many broken things out there. Its either impartial universal changes, or dont try and fix one thing without every other horrible offender addressed.

Um, they have done that several times. They voted to nerf Scat PAcks, No it didnt pass.
They voted to whether or not blood angels can assault from deep strike. Yes they can
They vote for alot of armies by themselves. ITs not that odd TBH.

1. I saw the "people will just vote for personal interests" argument come up AGAIN. It comes up about every ITC vote. I've seen every ITC vote. The scatbike vote, the stormsurge unit vote, the BA angel's fury vote, marine chapter tactics during battle bro-ing with offshoot marines...ALL of those votes went to the favor of their particular army. I can't even recall an army-specific vote EVER debuffing the army. I do recall scatbikes were hilariously close though.

2. No one is forcing you to use all of any part of ITC rulings. They say that about 8 billion times. If your club is using them, it's because they probably find them more fair and clear than the normal book rules. If you don't like them, talking to anyone else except your club dudes is wasting your breath. Convince them to have their own votes if you want. If you're having problems with specific opponents and not having fun, tell them. Don't whine. Complement them on their competitive list and say "hey, your normal list is a bit above me, mind trying with something a bit lower on the power scale to see what it takes for me to pull out a win?" As long as neither of you are TFG's, this is a perfectly reasonable request. To clarify, DON'T brag that you beat him afterwards. Thank him for running something less optimal to give you a chance. People respond well to humility. This game has a big social contract. If you suck at being social, you end up in odd situations.

3. If you don't go to events, why does it matter? Does your club track your W/L/D record or something? Are you unable to comfortably live without being recognized as an "awesome" 40k player? Keep calm and have fun pushing around the plastic. See #2 for what to do if you would like some more even games.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Their rulings influence alot of game groups. And I think its unfair to vote on one specific army when there are so so so many broken things out there. Its either impartial universal changes, or dont try and fix one thing without every other horrible offender addressed.

Um, they have done that several times. They voted to nerf Scat PAcks, No it didnt pass.
They voted to whether or not blood angels can assault from deep strike. Yes they can
They vote for alot of armies by themselves. ITs not that odd TBH.

He went on to say that their votes have been tainted in the past by people making dozens of fake accounts to swing the vote their way. So how do we call any of those decisions legit. And now we swing to the other extreme, where a select few make the decisions that affect more than just themselves, by probably many times over.

My point was they claimed it wouldnt affect anyone but those who are voting, which is absolutley false.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
If you don't go to events, why does it matter?

Because other events have been known to use their rules because they've done all of the hard work for them instead of putting together their own rules.

 Ghaz wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
If you don't go to events, why does it matter?

Because other events have been known to use their rules because they've done all of the hard work for them instead of putting together their own rules.

So only go to non-ITC events? Or talk to the Tourney organizer about the specific issue with their rulings? Or get over it, it's a damn game?

With the void that GW's FAQ support has left, something has to fill in the gaps of ambiguous and unfair rules. And in the U.S., at least, more people seem to be holding ITC as an impartial ruling.

So, yes, I can see how people don't like ITC rulings, because even if you don't play ITC tournaments, people still use them as a fair ruleset. Having said that, I do feel as if the ITC does encourage fair and reasonable play, and complaining about one potential change to a book as powerful as tau appear to be seems to be a little.......well, whiny, for want of a better word.

Thing is, too, if there's a rule you think is patently unfair or unreasonable, there's a tab in the ITC page to submit a rules FAQ request - perhaps only being able to bring one copy of a formation, like the canoptek harvest, would be a fair modification without rewriting the necron codex.

Lastly, as of about 5 minutes ago, there's nothing in the ITC FAQ that addresses coordinated firepower. I have heard that the FLG guys have strong opinions on CP, but I haven't heard anything 'official' yet, nor seen a vote.

While I won't disagree that playing against 18 wraiths with 4+ RP is probably on the far side of fun, step back a moment and consider this:

How do you think people would feel about playing a tau gunline that all benefit from buffmander, shadowsun, fireblades +1 shot and split fire rules, markerlights, and +1 BS to boot?

An entire army of twinlinked, ignores cover, + a bunch of BS, +1 pulse shot, -1T on target, and last but not least, SPLIT FIRE.

Would that be fun for your opponent? Do you think that would be fair in a competitive environment?

YOU may not bring such a list, but you can bet that someone out there would try that in a tournament if it was allowed, especially if money was on the line, which it usually is.

 Ghaz wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
If you don't go to events, why does it matter?

Because other events have been known to use their rules because they've done all of the hard work for them instead of putting together their own rules.

That sounds like a job for direct conversation with the parties running those events. TO's like getting attendance. Let them know what they can do to make you more likely to attend. If they decide that what you want and what the majority wants are two different things, either suck it up or don't attend.

 Yarium wrote:
In the case of the Tau "combined firing" special rules, this ambiguity is a rather big deal. Chances are that most Tau players in most of their games will encounter this issue, AND this will significantly affect the power and design of their lists. It's a big deal which way it is to be played, and there is ambiguity to it! As such, putting it to a vote makes sense.

The problem as I see it is the over/under result of the vote is extremely drastic which makes it feel more like a knee-jerk reaction rather than one that can (and should!) be tested thoroughly.

The proposed alternative (that the composite unit shares markerlight tokens for purposes of buffs, gain +1 BS and do -not- share the benefits of ICs or wargear that confer bonuses to the unit or rules to one model that end up affecting the whole unit) is terrible. 4th ed Ethereal in 5th edition games levels of 'why would you ever'.

Let's say I have two units in range of an enemy. I have a choice between firing them separate or together as one. For sake of argument let's say one unit alone will only just barely wipe out the enemy unit at best, so I will probably need the combined firepower of both units if I want to wipe them out entirely.

There is no reason for me to have them shoot as one unit. Doing so is less flexible and risks wasting shots overlooking the target. There is no inherent benefit to shoot this way. So why bother?

If the benefit was supposed to just be about the markerlights then the wording would have reflected that, if it was that and the +1 BS for three or more units it would have reflected that.

That said, for sake of argument people have thrown out crazy scenarios to make it seem more ambiguous than it is. (What if I declare my target even if one or more units isn't in range? What if I use target locks to not shoot at the same unit like it says they have to?) But to say the rule requires a third party ruling while things like the Chapter Master relic stuff has been allowed to remain worded the way it is two codexes running feels dissengenuous.

When the previous Tau codex dropped people picked apart everything about it. Claiming the ability to take two non-twin-linked weapons was a missunderstanding, insisting supporting fire had any number of unspoken restrictions, assured that Tau were always supposed to be the inneffectual speed bump they we're in 5th edition. Compared to that this debate is honestly little more (but still more, I think) than the typical grumbling you see every time a decurion drops.

For my two cents, I think the rule is pretty darn clear: full buffs, still allowed to use target locks, but if the end result is you're not shooting at the same unit (therefore, always) they don't get the bonuses.

 Orock wrote:
The 5 people I regularly play with pissed and moaned when the book was released, and gave me gak eating grins when ITC decided to hold a vote.

Can't tell if you're being literal or inflammatory here. I can't see the appeal of playing regularly with people who insist on being nasty about it.

 Orock wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Their rulings influence alot of game groups. And I think its unfair to vote on one specific army when there are so so so many broken things out there. Its either impartial universal changes, or dont try and fix one thing without every other horrible offender addressed.

Um, they have done that several times. They voted to nerf Scat PAcks, No it didnt pass.
They voted to whether or not blood angels can assault from deep strike. Yes they can
They vote for alot of armies by themselves. ITs not that odd TBH.

He went on to say that their votes have been tainted in the past by people making dozens of fake accounts to swing the vote their way. So how do we call any of those decisions legit. And now we swing to the other extreme, where a select few make the decisions that affect more than just themselves, by probably many times over.

My point was they claimed it wouldnt affect anyone but those who are voting, which is absolutley false.

I severely doubt it was dozens. Most likely two or 3.

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?