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.
Or should I still play it rules as written? I've done a few Google searches and not found much along the lines of news of an FAQ. I would very much like to know if I should go rules as written for coordinated firepower or not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/14 20:29:57
Jaxler wrote: So I could in theory have my buffmander buff everyone that's used in the coordinated firepower squad?
Yep, that's exactly how it works.
And the ITC ruling is NOT a clarification, no matter how many times they try to pretend that it is. Nothing was at all ambiguous in the CF rules, some people just didn't like how powerful it was and decided to nerf it and hide behind the "it's a clarification" excuse in a desperate attempt to keep other players from following the logic of the CF nerf and thinking about nerfing their armies in return. Now, you can make the argument that CF as-written is too powerful, but at least be honest enough to admit that you're making a house rule to nerf it.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
if it was a rule released after January 2015 and isn't the Ravenwing Strikeforce formation rule, NOPE. We haven't gotten an actual faq in a loooong time.
Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!
Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.
When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: if it was a rule released after January 2015 and isn't the Ravenwing Strikeforce formation rule, NOPE. We haven't gotten an actual faq in a loooong time.
Nah, they were old FAQs rehosted on GW's site is all.
They had them hidden on the black library site for a while, then just put them back where people expected to find them.
ITC is house rules for the tourney series that uses their rules, nothing more. Many tournaments have house rules like this. If you don't like them don't play in their events.
I'm OVER 50 (and so far over everyone's BS, too).
Old enough to know better, young enough to not give a ****.
That is not dead which can eternal lie ...
... and yet, with strange aeons, even death may die.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: if it was a rule released after January 2015 and isn't the Ravenwing Strikeforce formation rule, NOPE. We haven't gotten an actual faq in a loooong time.
We got some last month...
v------ What this guy said.
chromedog wrote:Nah, they were old FAQs rehosted on GW's site is all.
They had them hidden on the black library site for a while, then just put them back where people expected to find them.
ITC is house rules for the tourney series that uses their rules, nothing more. Many tournaments have house rules like this. If you don't like them don't play in their events.
It's why I used the qualifier "actual"
Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!
Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.
When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do.
Jaxler wrote: So I could in theory have my buffmander buff everyone that's used in the coordinated firepower squad?
Yep, that's exactly how it works.
And the ITC ruling is NOT a clarification, no matter how many times they try to pretend that it is. Nothing was at all ambiguous in the CF rules, some people just didn't like how powerful it was and decided to nerf it and hide behind the "it's a clarification" excuse in a desperate attempt to keep other players from following the logic of the CF nerf and thinking about nerfing their armies in return. Now, you can make the argument that CF as-written is too powerful, but at least be honest enough to admit that you're making a house rule to nerf it.
Too bad they voted on how they would like to play it rather than the actual intent. WHO could have guessed a majority might vote to nerf a minority army because they did not want tough matches???????
warhammer 40k mmo. If I can drive an ork trukk into the back of a space marine dread and explode in a fireball of epic, I can die happy!
Orock wrote: Too bad they voted on how they would like to play it rather than the actual intent. WHO could have guessed a majority might vote to nerf a minority army because they did not want tough matches???????
It was a nerf and direct one but the ITC has toned down several other abilities and combos such as invisibility and 2 plus rerolls or changing the D chart. While these arn't as army specific but they do poke some armies in the eye pretty hard.
The funny thing is there was a recent tournament that allowed both the unnerfed version of the rule and Ta'unars and a Tau player came second. Neither the Taunars or the "op" hunter contingent rules were big factors in the top tau players in the tournaments lists.
Wow its almost like there's Tau hate and bias in the ITC like I said months ago. In regards to the rule nerf not the Ta'unar which is banned because of the global ruled on d blasts. It's almost like they didn't test the rules, it's almost like Reccius forced down a vote by making it conveniently public to sway the voters, and it's like they didn't satisfactorily answer my questions when I wanted answers in an email about this suspicious conduct. Now a rule has been nerfed prematurely and for no good reason all because of Tau bias. Lovely.
As a new player to Warhammer 40k they have lost a lot of credibility. They also lost credibility in our entire group of players. I haven't seen a tournament scene bungle themselves this bad since I was in the early days of MechWarrior Onlines First tournament and the subsequent cheating fiasco.
So a strong army lost to another strong army? This does nothing to dispel that the top four is Eldar, Necrons, Space Marines, and Tau. And then there is everyone else
Jaxler wrote: So I could in theory have my buffmander buff everyone that's used in the coordinated firepower squad?
Yep, that's exactly how it works.
And the ITC ruling is NOT a clarification, no matter how many times they try to pretend that it is. Nothing was at all ambiguous in the CF rules, some people just didn't like how powerful it was and decided to nerf it and hide behind the "it's a clarification" excuse in a desperate attempt to keep other players from following the logic of the CF nerf and thinking about nerfing their armies in return. Now, you can make the argument that CF as-written is too powerful, but at least be honest enough to admit that you're making a house rule to nerf it.
That's some top notch tin foil hat material.
It's accurate somewhat ITC is not a clarification and we'll likely never get clarification.
You should play it as your gaming group agrees to it. ITC is an FAQ list that a lot of places adopt, simply because its convenient and stops them from having to do more work.
That tournament report was dope. Losing turn one to Soul Blaze is forging the narrative at its best.
8k points
3k points
3k points
