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 we have a duals 1250 tourney coming up, my partner is space marines dual demi for obsec and im running the contingent for firepower, this is what i've come up with.

Buffmander - Multispectrum Sensor Suite, Command & Control Node

3 Crisis suits w/ missile pods
1 Riptide w/ Ion Accelerator, SMS, EWO
1 Ghostkeel w/ Ion Raker, TL Burst Cannon

1 Pathfinder Team of 4

1 Stormsurge w/ TL Fragmentation Projector, PUlse Driver Cannon, EWO, Target Lock, Velocity Tracker


3x 5 man strike teams w/ pulse rifles

1x Drone Network (Marker Drones)

I originally did not have the riptide in but I dropped a few upgrades like Target Locks on almost everything as well as 4+ invul on the Stormsurge. Looking for C&C

Don't bother with the Hunter Contingent in ITC. Their house-ruling makes it quite weak. Go Formations and/or CAD.

optrgrow wrote:
Buffmander - Multispectrum Sensor Suite, Command & Control Node

3 Crisis suits w/ missile pods

How are you going to use the Buffmander, that is, who is he going to join?

optrgrow wrote:
1 Riptide w/ Ion Accelerator, SMS, EWO

Instead of SMS, I like the TL Fusion for that often needed melta application.

X078 wrote:
Don't bother with the Hunter Contingent in ITC. Their house-ruling makes it quite weak. Go Formations and/or CAD.

lol I'd bet monies it'll be in the top 16 at LVO.

axisofentropy wrote:

X078 wrote:
Don't bother with the Hunter Contingent in ITC. Their house-ruling makes it quite weak. Go Formations and/or CAD.

lol I'd bet monies it'll be in the top 16 at LVO.

Tau, yes. Tau Hunter Contingent not so much.
That is why i would recommend OP to look into other Detachments such as the Dawnblade contingent and the various other standalone formations.

axisofentropy wrote:

X078 wrote:
Don't bother with the Hunter Contingent in ITC. Their house-ruling makes it quite weak. Go Formations and/or CAD.

lol I'd bet monies it'll be in the top 16 at LVO.

Well 1 getting top16 doesn't mean much for it's competitiveness. By that rating Chelsea are competitive in the PL . Anyway ITC bowl nerfs the things that the organisers don't play and buffs the things they do. It isn't Warhammer 40,000 that's for sure and the Hunter Contingent is effectively written out with their ludicrous ruling...

 FlingitNow wrote:
Anyway ITC bowl nerfs the things that the organisers don't play and buffs the things they do. It isn't Warhammer 40,000 that's for sure and the Hunter Contingent is effectively written out with their ludicrous ruling...

I will take exception to this FiN. You're wrong.

One:
It's not the organizers. It's voted on by the community. And not the whole of the internet, but e-mailed to attendees of the GTs, BAO and LVO. I should know. I'm one of them.

The ruling you are referring to was actually :

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/11/29/3rd-quarter-mid-season-itc-update-poll-results/

... a split of 7 votes.

Two:
The organizers of ITC *do* play those armies. They have a Tuesday Night game they put on the Internet, playing all kinds of armies. Frankie, in particular, plays Tau (for the most part, those guys play nearly every army in the game).

ITC provides a few elements to use:

a. Player standings that in February, can earn prizes for the year 2015. Independent tourneys (non-FrontlineGaming) can send in their results to an earned point system for those prizes FrontLineGaming hands out.
b. a tournament format and set of FAQ rulings ... which the ITC organizers always say, that at your event, you can use fully, partially or not at all. All to make the current 40k 7e, more tourney usable.

My FavoriteLocalGameStore uses some ITC rulings, but not all. We play the stronger Tank Shock: Crunch! and Coordinated FirePower, going against the poll's results.

And at the BAOs and LVOs, it is most assuredly, 40k. I've attended 3 and 2 of those, respectively, and will go again in three weeks.


- - - - - - - - - -
And back on Topic:

@optrgrow
How about that Buffmander's assignment?

Sorry but I'm guessing that the Tau players that voted had just bought a supremacy suit. If this was a genuine attempt to play 40k the ruling would never have been in contention (ditto for other ludicrous rulings like Daemonkin BTs). If it was a genuine attempt to balance 40k they'd be playing Maelstrom as primary and they would take the same attitude to other similar powered stuff. So the WKs would be 395pts, you'd need to go 10 man squads to get free transports for Gladius, etc etc etc. This was the latest in a long line of terrible rulings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heck look at the campaign to force through this vote with Reecius' ludicrous article on it.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Sorry but I'm guessing that the Tau players that voted had just bought a supremacy suit.

I don't have the supremacy suit. And I voted for the stronger application, which doesn't matter much, as only one enemy unit suffers and is destroyed.

Target Locks are a different story,

 FlingitNow wrote:
If this was a genuine attempt to play 40k the ruling would never have been in contention (ditto for other ludicrous rulings like Daemonkin BTs).

And you're wrong if you think it's that clear on which way to rule. When 1200 voters split the vote 51% to 49%, that speaks volumes of how "It is *not* clear."

 FlingitNow wrote:
If it was a genuine attempt to balance 40k they'd be playing Maelstrom as primary and they would take the same attitude to other similar powered stuff. So the WKs would be 395pts, you'd need to go 10 man squads to get free transports for Gladius, etc etc etc. This was the latest in a long line of terrible rulings.

Which, again, my store does not play. And you're bringing in a lot more items that can run for 4 pages of discussion.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Heck look at the campaign to force through this vote with Reecius' ludicrous article on it.

Campaign? No. Article and pre-vote write-up? Yes.

I'll advise that on the next such poll, that he either phrase the Q as neutrally as possible or have two persons write a short (like 6 sentences) Pro/Con argument for either interpretation.

The rule is very clear just complex, popaganda confused the issue for casual observers. If Reecius' article wasn't part of a campaign to push his chosen vote through then he has no clue about any of the rules of 40k as his article included so many basic rules inaccuracies it was unbelievable. Add in the way he pushed one side claiming that the other interpretation required making up when the units count as 1 unit and when not, despite the fact that that is only true for his made up rules.

Yes this was a biased vote run as a campaign with a clear agenda from the get go. An unbiased article would have stated the rules are clear and unambiguous that both the RaW and RaI support the buffs spreading to all units joining a CF attack regardless of use of target locks however that he felt that was too powerful and needed to be changed. That however was not how the propaganda campaign was run...