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.

What an interesting thread!

It looks pretty obvious that the 50 vote guy was trolling.

To be serious, 40K never was a very good tournament ruleset, it has only got worse in the last two editions, and people probably ought not to put too much faith in it, especially if the rules are going to be subject to change by anonymous public email voting.

As a couple of people have mentioned earlier, it's only a game of toy soldiers.

Naw wrote:
I am sorry for you guys if you don't get it. Here is an example:

Q: Shall we nerf IoM?
IoM votes NO

Q: Shall we nerf Eldar?
IoM votes YES

There you go, have fun.

Except y'know, The eldar nerf votes didnt go through.
But have fun in your fantasy land. Must be fun there.

 Bulldogging wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can seperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.

Wouldn't that have made it a balance poll then?

I thought it was a rules clarification. I can't view the poll anymore.

Does anyone have the exact question saved somewhere?

If it was for clarification, then it needed to happen before a single tournament is played..otherwise it is a disagreement waiting to happen depending on the judge. Which is what the ITC is supposed to prevent.

Question 2: How do you wish to play the Tau Coordinated Firepower rule in regards to contributing Tau units sharing special rules?

emphasis mine

Putting on my Mod hat for a moment, let's keep the real world politics out of the game, and also everyone needs to be polite.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Naw wrote:
I am sorry for you guys if you don't get it. Here is an example:

Q: Shall we nerf IoM?
IoM votes NO

Q: Shall we nerf Eldar?
IoM votes YES

There you go, have fun.

Except y'know, The eldar nerf votes didnt go through.
But have fun in your fantasy land. Must be fun there.

In my fantasy land only the dictator has voting rights. Voting anything based on popularity is a slippery slope. I really am sorry for you if you don't see that.

And FYI, the flag next to my name should tell you that I really am not moved by anything ITC decides.

Naw wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Naw wrote:
I am sorry for you guys if you don't get it. Here is an example:

Q: Shall we nerf IoM?
IoM votes NO

Q: Shall we nerf Eldar?
IoM votes YES

There you go, have fun.

Except y'know, The eldar nerf votes didnt go through.
But have fun in your fantasy land. Must be fun there.

In my fantasy land only the dictator has voting rights. Voting anything based on popularity is a slippery slope. I really am sorry for you if you don't see that.

And FYI, the flag next to my name should tell you that I really am not moved by anything ITC decides.

Then stop complaining and trying to change it.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Naw wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Naw wrote:
I am sorry for you guys if you don't get it. Here is an example:

Q: Shall we nerf IoM?
IoM votes NO

Q: Shall we nerf Eldar?
IoM votes YES

There you go, have fun.

Except y'know, The eldar nerf votes didnt go through.
But have fun in your fantasy land. Must be fun there.

In my fantasy land only the dictator has voting rights. Voting anything based on popularity is a slippery slope. I really am sorry for you if you don't see that.

And FYI, the flag next to my name should tell you that I really am not moved by anything ITC decides.

Then stop complaining and trying to change it.

Can you please stop trolling and point out where I have wanted to have a revote? On the other hand I can copy your comment where you admitted wanting to nerf an army just because you had issues with some of the Tau players.


Also in case you have forgotten what the topic is I happen to agree with it.

The eldar players are enjoying their popcorn. I reallg can't take itc seriosly until scatbikes and wk are both banned or points adjusted.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Putting on my Mod hat for a moment, let's keep the real world politics out of the game, and also everyone needs to be polite.

sorry.

 Bulldogging wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can seperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.

Wouldn't that have made it a balance poll then?

I thought it was a rules clarification. I can't view the poll anymore.

Does anyone have the exact question saved somewhere?

If it was for clarification, then it needed to happen before a single tournament is played..otherwise it is a disagreement waiting to happen depending on the judge. Which is what the ITC is supposed to prevent.

it was NOT a rules clarification. The poll question was specifically worded "how do you wish to play....", NOT "is this how the rule works". It was basically the equivalent to the scatter bike poll

Honestly this rule sounds like a good candidate for the ban hammer as well.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Naw wrote:
I am sorry for you guys if you don't get it. Here is an example:

Q: Shall we nerf IoM?
IoM votes NO

Q: Shall we nerf Eldar?
IoM votes YES

There you go, have fun.

Except y'know, The eldar nerf votes didnt go through.
But have fun in your fantasy land. Must be fun there.

Because there are about 3 times as many elder players as tau players.

Game design is not a democracy. Voting on nerfs/buffs/changes will almost always end up with people voting to their favourites to at least some degree. If ITC wants to be serious, just sit down, have a pass at every single unit and re-jig them as they see fit, then open it up for testing prior to accepting it in tournaments (or just using their tournaments as the test bed to get data, with fair warning to all players, of course).

notredameguy10 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Naw wrote:
I am sorry for you guys if you don't get it. Here is an example:

Q: Shall we nerf IoM?
IoM votes NO

Q: Shall we nerf Eldar?
IoM votes YES

There you go, have fun.

Except y'know, The eldar nerf votes didnt go through.
But have fun in your fantasy land. Must be fun there.

Because there are about 3 times as many elder players as tau players.

QFT, in fact that was the vote where AFTER reece said they were thinking about taking the votes private because they suspected ballot stuffing.

I wouldnt bother trying to have discussion with Pain, he was QQing up the FLG stream hardcore last night about Tau, wanting to nerf them further.

His bias is extreme and wont result in any productive conversation.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
The one later used several names... so if the came up in the vote without a matching ITC rank.... its proven...

Negative. Him popping up once only proves he voted once. You need to find and prove he used at least one other name. Him saying he did is not proof

Positive: Several name of that list poping up would mean that eighter he has the data of the votes.. or he entered said names. interesting that you speak of ONE name and i said several nameS. i used plural

You obviously don't understand English very well. To prove that he voted more than once, you'll have to find multiple names that lead back to his IP address. As I doubt he put George or whatever everytime he voted with a new email address if he even did what he says he did. Therefore. You need to find multiple emails and names all leading back to the same cpu in order to have a case that he possibly voted more then once. You then need to prove that multiple people didn't use that same cup to vote. See how impossible it's getting?

This sounds VERY suspicious, ESPECIALLY when taken into context with this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
If its not a hoax and if this was not regocnized by the itc then this poll is ivalid

Negative. Did reecius himself say this? Do you control itc? It's already been stated how impossible it is? It is a hoax. If a revote happens, guess I'll call on my friends to make sure same results apply.

among other things



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Naw wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

Tautastic wrote:
That is true if the vote was limited to ranked ITC players but it was open to the public and all you needed was a name and an e-mail. So it is possible since it was opened to the public.

That's odd... because when I voted on this, it asked for my ITC rank. I thought it was internal only. Double-checking; Yes, this was an internal-poll only. They did only limit their voting to ranked ITC players;

Say what? From the quote provided by you below:

And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet

How do you deduce from this that only those who have participated got to vote? By providing your (imaginary) name and email, no need for rank, you were counted as a voter.

Please don't try and act as if it's even possible that it was fixed

What "friends" are you talking about pain? Mabye Mister Lister?

@killkrazy: how do you know it was a troll?

 Orock wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
The one later used several names... so if the came up in the vote without a matching ITC rank.... its proven...

Negative. Him popping up once only proves he voted once. You need to find and prove he used at least one other name. Him saying he did is not proof

Positive: Several name of that list poping up would mean that eighter he has the data of the votes.. or he entered said names. interesting that you speak of ONE name and i said several nameS. i used plural

You obviously don't understand English very well. To prove that he voted more than once, you'll have to find multiple names that lead back to his IP address. As I doubt he put George or whatever everytime he voted with a new email address if he even did what he says he did. Therefore. You need to find multiple emails and names all leading back to the same cpu in order to have a case that he possibly voted more then once. You then need to prove that multiple people didn't use that same cup to vote. See how impossible it's getting?

This sounds VERY suspicious, ESPECIALLY when taken into context with this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
If its not a hoax and if this was not regocnized by the itc then this poll is ivalid

Negative. Did reecius himself say this? Do you control itc? It's already been stated how impossible it is? It is a hoax. If a revote happens, guess I'll call on my friends to make sure same results apply.

among other things



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Naw wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

Tautastic wrote:
That is true if the vote was limited to ranked ITC players but it was open to the public and all you needed was a name and an e-mail. So it is possible since it was opened to the public.

That's odd... because when I voted on this, it asked for my ITC rank. I thought it was internal only. Double-checking; Yes, this was an internal-poll only. They did only limit their voting to ranked ITC players;

Say what? From the quote provided by you below:

And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet

How do you deduce from this that only those who have participated got to vote? By providing your (imaginary) name and email, no need for rank, you were counted as a voter.

Please don't try and act as if it's even possible that it was fixed

What "friends" are you talking about pain? Mabye Mister Lister?

Internet Sherlocks ahoy!

@Pain: are you saying it's definitely a hoax or that we can't prove it either way?

How can you be an inter Sherlock when that isn't me? Also, when did I mention anything about a friend?

And yes. This is a hoax, probably by a tau player to attempt another vote

Edit: ah I see. Yes, since the tau community is attemting to force a revote, I would a revote of the revote if in favor of tau

@Pain: How do you know it's a hoax? Just conjecture? Logic? Elucidate please... Respectfully please. I mean no harm. Just curious.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
How can you be an inter Sherlock when that isn't me? Also, when did I mention anything about a friend?

And yes. This is a hoax, probably by a tau player to attempt another vote

Edit: ah I see. Yes, since the tau community is attemting to force a revote, I would a revote of the revote if in favor of tau

If a revote happens, guess I'll call on my friends to make sure same results apply.

Are you saying someone hacked your account and wrote that? Are you going back on what you wrote in this thread? I have never seen someone more angry at tau, and whoever wrote that on 4chan said confession time. That tells me its a person who cant contain the excitement of what he has done. And you couldnt BE more excited for this ruling. Then you claim that its a tau supporter trying to get a revote. If it is why worry about it? They can just send out a letter to every email that voted asking for a confirmation on their vote. That would only be bad for a hoax if they dident bother to write down their original emails, or used fake ones that would get a "message not recieved". If they get 30 or 40 "message not recieved" or similar lack of responses from one specific camp of voters, then we know something is up.

 doktor_g wrote:
@Pain: How do you know it's a hoax? Just conjecture? Logic? Elucidate please... Respectfully please. I mean no harm. Just curious.

How do you know it's not? Also no harm. In all honesty, the itc has been doing polls for awhile. They are a well respected organization that creates faqs and lays their reputation on the line. Reece is a good guy who does a lot for the 40k community. I do not see him allowing such a slip up. Furthermore, I see this guy on 4chan or whatever as a troll. Either tau hater troll, or tau troll that wants to stir controversy for a revote. Best course of action? Ignore him and keep the results as is. Come back to them at a later date, after eldar has been brought back into light first.

Edit: orock did you not see my edit? I take nothing back. I am very happy for this ruling. And I would try n get all my 40k buddies to vote. THATS not cheating.

I want a revote of their top players. feth the public. Don't let them in. When I have some guarantee its a closed vote of their top whatever players they want I'll be content. Even if it turns out the exact same. As it was the public vote has called into question its validity.

redthirst wrote:
Can't play Riptide Wing in the ITC?

You can, but you only get one duplicate formation/detachment. Tau only get to bring six Riptides at 1850 points!

Gamgee wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can sperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.

Not only did they NOT test it, but at this exact convenient time he announces the first public poll in their history of the ITC. It's one hell of a coincidence or there is some serious shenanigans going on there. It's not impossible a public vote was held because they gambled and knew the public had a strong chance to vote in favor of nerfing Tau with no idea of the rules. This whole public vote thing was suspicious the second it was announced. I want a separate poll that they hold only for their tournament players and with more stringent security measures taken. If the votes turn out the same I'll accept it, but right now? This whole thing is too suspicious.

Then again this person could be kicking up salt to get a revote. It's hard to say. At this point no matter whats going on something suspicious happened and I think a new vote should be held. A closed one like they used to do.

This was not the first public poll in the history of the ITC. There have been previous quarterly updates, as well as the public vote on nerfing Scarbikers (which failed by five votes).

I'd prefer a public poll to Reecius simply unilaterally deciding how to play CFP. I'd be willing to bet there would be a lot ore complaints in that case.

One month is more than enough time for people to digest the new Tau and realize how overpowered CFP could be. You don't have to hold a tournament to know how absolutely broken Tau sharing special rules with CFP would be. It would just lead to more spamming of even more broken mechanics and combos, which is not in the best interest of the game.

Technically, only tournament players could cast actual votes in the poll. You needed to supply an ITC number linked to one name and email address, and the only way to get one of those is to attend an ITC event. Unless the poster in the 4chan thread managed to clone himself and attend multiple ITC events under different names in the months before the Tau vote with the foreknowledge of exactly how powerful Tau would be, Occam's Razor dictates that there is no vote-rigging or conspiracy to stuff the vote.

Martel732 wrote:The eldar players are enjoying their popcorn. I reallg can't take itc seriosly until scatbikes and wk are both banned or points adjusted.

Under ITC rules, Eldar can only take one Wraithknight. Scatbikers are overpowered, sure, but there are plenty of other overpowered things that are also allowed in the ITC. Case in point: hexaflyrants.

Blacksails wrote:Game design is not a democracy. Voting on nerfs/buffs/changes will almost always end up with people voting to their favourites to at least some degree. If ITC wants to be serious, just sit down, have a pass at every single unit and re-jig them as they see fit, then open it up for testing prior to accepting it in tournaments (or just using their tournaments as the test bed to get data, with fair warning to all players, of course).

Game design isn't, but balancing and FAQing the game can be.

Again, the margin of passing the measure to nerf CFP passed by only eight votes. There was a definite split in how the community wanted this, which is why we're still having this conversation.

The ITC could sit down and rebalance the entire game, but at that point you might as well just design a whole new game system.

The new year will bring new tournaments, and the BAO and LOV follow ITC rules. I'm sure that we'll get another update poll based on new releases and the takeaways from those tournaments.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

redthirst wrote:
Can't play Riptide Wing in the ITC?

You can, but you only get one duplicate formation/detachment. Tau only get to bring six Riptides at 1850 points!

No you can take 9 riptide in one riptide wing lol (3x3)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Gamgee wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can sperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.

Not only did they NOT test it, but at this exact convenient time he announces the first public poll in their history of the ITC. It's one hell of a coincidence or there is some serious shenanigans going on there. It's not impossible a public vote was held because they gambled and knew the public had a strong chance to vote in favor of nerfing Tau with no idea of the rules. This whole public vote thing was suspicious the second it was announced. I want a separate poll that they hold only for their tournament players and with more stringent security measures taken. If the votes turn out the same I'll accept it, but right now? This whole thing is too suspicious.

Then again this person could be kicking up salt to get a revote. It's hard to say. At this point no matter whats going on something suspicious happened and I think a new vote should be held. A closed one like they used to do.

This was not the first public poll in the history of the ITC. There have been previous quarterly updates, as well as the public vote on nerfing Scarbikers (which failed by five votes).

I'd prefer a public poll to Reecius simply unilaterally deciding how to play CFP. I'd be willing to bet there would be a lot ore complaints in that case.

One month is more than enough time for people to digest the new Tau and realize how overpowered CFP could be. You don't have to hold a tournament to know how absolutely broken Tau sharing special rules with CFP would be. It would just lead to more spamming of even more broken mechanics and combos, which is not in the best interest of the game.

Technically, only tournament players could cast actual votes in the poll. You needed to supply an ITC number linked to one name and email address, and the only way to get one of those is to attend an ITC event. Unless the poster in the 4chan thread managed to clone himself and attend multiple ITC events under different names in the months before the Tau vote with the foreknowledge of exactly how powerful Tau would be, Occam's Razor dictates that there is no vote-rigging or conspiracy to stuff the vote. .

This is 100% incorrect. Reecius specifically said, multiple times in the comment section of the poll that EVERYONE could vote and it would count. The ITC rankings was just to collect more data.

NEW INFO! From reecius himself.. A tau player made the tau questions for this poll... So no more can the tau players QQ about the wording. It was your own brothers doing

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:
@Pain: How do you know it's a hoax? Just conjecture? Logic? Elucidate please... Respectfully please. I mean no harm. Just curious.

How do you know it's not? Also no harm. In all honesty, the itc has been doing polls for awhile. They are a well respected organization that creates faqs and lays their reputation on the line. Reece is a good guy who does a lot for the 40k community. I do not see him allowing such a slip up. Furthermore, I see this guy on 4chan or whatever as a troll. Either tau hater troll, or tau troll that wants to stir controversy for a revote. Best course of action? Ignore him and keep the results as is. Come back to them at a later date, after eldar has been brought back into light first.

Edit: orock did you not see my edit? I take nothing back. I am very happy for this ruling. And I would try n get all my 40k buddies to vote. THATS not cheating.

Except reece came right out and said the reason they were thinking of making this vote private, was because in the past there was tampering. And at the time I disagreed, because it makes more sense for everyone who it would effect, from the store level all the way up, to have a fair vote. But if they really dont even do basics like check for fake email accounts, and refuse to do so, then mabye they shouldnt change things at all. Its WAY to easy to rig.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
NEW INFO! From reecius himself.. A tau player made the tau questions for this poll... So no more can the tau players QQ about the wording. It was your own brothers doing

Again you are deflecting VERY hard. That has nothing to do with vote rigging. Why are you trying to deflect the thread to anything that has nothing to do with vote rigging. Its about what may have happened in a vote. Not about how the rules were written to be voted on.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
NEW INFO! From reecius himself.. A tau player made the tau questions for this poll... So no more can the tau players QQ about the wording. It was your own brothers doing

Good to know anybody who plays tau is part of the secret society.


And, as shocking as this might seem, some players may actually want to nerf the OP parts of their armies. I, for example, would like to nerf riptides. That's the thing. I don't think people would mind as much if it was directly communicated that this was a balance vote, instead of pretending it is a rules one. I'm fine with fixing balence issues. Now, I don't think popular vote is the way to do that, but that's another matter entirely.

notredameguy10 wrote:No you can take 9 riptide in one riptide wing lol (3x3)

Didn't know that. Thanks for the information.

notredameguy10 wrote:This is 100% incorrect. Reecius specifically said, multiple times in the comment section of the poll that EVERYONE could vote and it would count. The ITC rankings was just to collect more data.

And how much do you want to bet that the "data" the ITC were collecting from the people with ITC numbers were the votes that would actually decide the poll?

Orock wrote:
Except reece came right out and said the reason they were thinking of making this vote private, was because in the past there was tampering. And at the time I disagreed, because it makes more sense for everyone who it would effect, from the store level all the way up, to have a fair vote. But if they really dont even do basics like check for fake email accounts, and refuse to do so, then mabye they shouldnt change things at all. Its WAY to easy to rig.

The way that the ITC got around the vote-tempering issues was to link the votes that mattered to the ITC numbers. Sure, you could have a fake email account, but unless you hacked the ITC's database the email doesn't matter, only the ITC number.