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.

Didn't see this posted yet.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/03/26/itc-2015-40k-guideline-poll/

The new ITC poll is up for this season. I voted, my only crusade is for three sources and toned down D (Basically I just want Look Out Sir)

How would you vote?

3 sources yeah! Screw the ranged D. Just say No!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and CtA allies is fine with me.

I said 0-1 unlimited sources, CtA is good with me, and no ranged D but I would take it one step farther and no Super Heavy/Garg Creature Lords of War.

I don't know, I'm torn. D- weapons are a serious advantage if your particular army doesn't have access to it. It kinda sucks that only a few key armies/codex can capitalize. Obviously with the new data sheets on khorne daemons, GW isn't shying away from them.

That being said, looking at the results of adepticon and the popular builds being used, unkillable units are and have been the new black. 2++ rerollables don't have many efficient, one-stop-shop counters. D - weapons are their cooler. Hence, the existential dilemma.

IMO the problem with d-weapons isn't the d-weapons, it's specific units with d-weapons. A 500-point Shadowsword with a single d-weapon shot is much less powerful than a 750-point Warhound with four times the d-weapon firepower. And the ~700-point railgun Tigershark with a single non-blast d-weapon is almost a joke. So the way to fix d-weapons is to modify the titans that cause 99% of the problems with d-weapons, not to ban a bunch of weaker units that aren't a balance issue.

Also, I strongly object to the idea of banning ranged d-weapons but allowing melee d-weapons. If I can't take a Shadowsword then my opponent shouldn't be able to take multiple knights that are capable of running up and cutting a superheavy in half in a single assault phase.

Oh, for criminy sake. I voted yesterday and got distracted before I could write 'em down.

**concentrates**
**tries to recall survey**

Okay, I think I voted on the middle button for most items.

If that helps.

And Jim knows how valuable and well informed *my* opinions are.

 Peregrine wrote:
IMO the problem with d-weapons isn't the d-weapons, it's specific units with d-weapons. A 500-point Shadowsword with a single d-weapon shot is much less powerful than a 750-point Warhound with four times the d-weapon firepower. And the ~700-point railgun Tigershark with a single non-blast d-weapon is almost a joke. So the way to fix d-weapons is to modify the titans that cause 99% of the problems with d-weapons, not to ban a bunch of weaker units that aren't a balance issue.

Also, I strongly object to the idea of banning ranged d-weapons but allowing melee d-weapons. If I can't take a Shadowsword then my opponent shouldn't be able to take multiple knights that are capable of running up and cutting a superheavy in half in a single assault phase.

Have you started attending GTs using the ITC rules?

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
IMO the problem with d-weapons isn't the d-weapons, it's specific units with d-weapons. A 500-point Shadowsword with a single d-weapon shot is much less powerful than a 750-point Warhound with four times the d-weapon firepower. And the ~700-point railgun Tigershark with a single non-blast d-weapon is almost a joke. So the way to fix d-weapons is to modify the titans that cause 99% of the problems with d-weapons, not to ban a bunch of weaker units that aren't a balance issue.

Also, I strongly object to the idea of banning ranged d-weapons but allowing melee d-weapons. If I can't take a Shadowsword then my opponent shouldn't be able to take multiple knights that are capable of running up and cutting a superheavy in half in a single assault phase.

Have you started attending GTs using the ITC rules?

To be fair, lot of smaller tournaments end up using rules like these even if players don't attend very large events. Things like this set the bar for local events. For example, when I still lived in San Diego for instance, whatever the Broadside Bash did, our local events did.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
IMO the problem with d-weapons isn't the d-weapons, it's specific units with d-weapons. A 500-point Shadowsword with a single d-weapon shot is much less powerful than a 750-point Warhound with four times the d-weapon firepower. And the ~700-point railgun Tigershark with a single non-blast d-weapon is almost a joke. So the way to fix d-weapons is to modify the titans that cause 99% of the problems with d-weapons, not to ban a bunch of weaker units that aren't a balance issue.

Also, I strongly object to the idea of banning ranged d-weapons but allowing melee d-weapons. If I can't take a Shadowsword then my opponent shouldn't be able to take multiple knights that are capable of running up and cutting a superheavy in half in a single assault phase.

Have you started attending GTs using the ITC rules?

To be fair, lot of smaller tournaments end up using rules like these even if players don't attend very large events. Things like this set the bar for local events. For example, when I still lived in San Diego for instance, whatever the Broadside Bash did, our local events did.

Those running local events are much more likely to listen to the guy standing in front of them than the guy on the internet. Even if the guy on the internet shows up for events. It is far more effective, and appropriate, to lobby for your personal preference in small tournaments to the local TO rather than in a thread on Dakka with a much wider audience and scope. Not to mention the majority of TOs running local events that use the ITC amend the ITC to fit their local meta and player needs and desires, so why lobby the entirety of the online community for changes you'd like locally which can be much more effectively lobbied for locally.

Hence my question about whether he has begun to attend the larger events his post is really speaking to.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Have you started attending GTs using the ITC rules?

The answer to that question doesn't matter. You can address the substance of my comments without turning it into an argument over my personal qualifications or motives for posting. If you can't then please don't post here anymore.

 Peregrine wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Have you started attending GTs using the ITC rules?

The answer to that question doesn't matter. You can address the substance of my comments without turning it into an argument over my personal qualifications or motives for posting. If you can't then please don't post here anymore.

An auto-mechanic weighs in on a patient's x-ray and MRI. Points to a lump and says, "Yep, it's cancer."

The Oncologist looks at the mechanic with an eyebrow raised. "Uhm, no. That's not a tumor. That's his spleen."

- - - - - - - - - - - -

The oncologist gives his opinion on how the new Porsche is going to perform in the next race. The race car driver asks the oncologist how often he's raced, which Porsche he has driven, etc. The oncologist does not own a Porsche and doesn't race.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Qualifications matter.

With only 6 or so GTs under my belt, and doing poorly at most (usually 1/5), I feel it helps other players weigh or gauge my opinion on the subject, thus my self-deprecating post about Jim Yeh knowing me and my qualifications. Jim Yeh, who has won a couple GTs, and regularly attends most of them, west of the Rockies, is a guy who I will carefully listen to.

Someone who does not attend GTs is perfectly free to post her/his opinion here, too. Just know, Peregrine, that no one will take that opinion seriously, and are likely to say, "Shut up, BrotherErekose. Your best Win Loss (4/2) is due to losing game 1 (to Grant GTA, #1 ITC guy at that time)**, and thus being sent to the kiddie pool with Serpent Spam and then kicking around the other baby-seals."

Or, "Dude, you don't attend GTs, so your opinion on rules for them isn't quite so relevant."

Asking for someone for their qualifications isn't flamage nor inappropriate for competitive play discussion.

**Name Dropping!

 Brothererekose wrote:
An auto-mechanic weighs in on a patient's x-ray and MRI. Points to a lump and says, "Yep, it's cancer."

The Oncologist looks at the mechanic with an eyebrow raised. "Uhm, no. That's not a tumor. That's his spleen."

Then do the equivalent of that and explain why my opinions are wrong (if you disagree with them and you're not just arguing for the sake of arguing). Don't hijack a perfectly good thread into a discussion of who has the right to offer an opinion.

My choices:

3 Detachments

No to dup formations but yes to multiple CAD or primary style detachments.

Count each sub-formation within a Formations as a detachment towards the detachment limit.

CtA allies are fine.

Ranged D weapons are fine.

Yes to custom bonus points in tertiary missions.

Yes to maelstrom and DoW missions being 4pts in each mission.

 Brothererekose wrote:

Someone who does not attend GTs is perfectly free to post her/his opinion here, too. Just know, Peregrine, that no one will take that opinion seriously,

I have has the same arguments with them in the past. Everyone wants to tell the people on the other side of the country what the rules to their tournaments should be even though they will never play in them.

 Blackmoor wrote:
I have has the same arguments with them in the past. Everyone wants to tell the people on the other side of the country what the rules to their tournaments should be even though they will never play in them.

And some people who shall remain nameless have more interest in complaining about who has a right to have an opinion than participating in constructive discussion. Either address the substance of the comments I posted or get out of the thread.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
I have has the same arguments with them in the past. Everyone wants to tell the people on the other side of the country what the rules to their tournaments should be even though they will never play in them.

And some people who shall remain nameless have more interest in complaining about who has a right to have an opinion than participating in constructive discussion. Either address the substance of the comments I posted or get out of the thread.

Glad to know you get to decide who should post, and what they should post in the threads on a site you don't own, aren't a mod for, nor a thread you created. That type of argument isn't surprising given you're also attempting to sway rulings and decisions for events you don't participate in, don't run, or are otherwise unaffiliated with. Your posts have no substance as they are merely academic. If you want to discuss and debate from a merely academic stance there are plenty of threads, particularly in the OT that would be far more appropriate. I am not saying you don't have a right to an opinion. I am pointing out that as a non-participant your opinion carries less weight. If you'd rather I not point that out when it is relevant that's too bad. If you feel I should stop posting in the thread you're welcome to press the yellow triangle of friendship on any post you feel is offensive but maintaining the stance that I need to sit down and shut up is rude, I have an opinion too and I am expressing it. You are asking me to not express mine, nowhere in any of my statements have I said you should not be posting your opinion.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Pointless complaining.

Good to see that you have nothing to offer beyond "STOP HAVING AN OPINION".

PS: "I refuse to participate in your stupid credentials debate" is not the same thing as "I have no involvement in tournaments".

 Peregrine wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Pointless complaining.

Good to see that you have nothing to offer beyond "STOP HAVING AN OPINION".

PS: "I refuse to participate in your stupid credentials debate" is not the same thing as "I have no involvement in tournaments".

That's not what I said at all.

I have thoughts to offer on the survey, having taken it because it is relevant to my playing in ITC events. My not having anything to offer in response to your posts isn't from a lack of something to offer, it is from a lack of caring to respond to a post that has little bearing. I asked a simple question to clarify, for myself and any other like-minded posters, if I needed to respond to your assertions regarding the survey. You made a mountain out of a mole hill here, my question was simple and had simple intentions. Your combative, rude, and argumentative responses aren't my fault. I never once asked you to not post in the thread or to stop having an opinion, you however have asked me to stop posting in the thread more than once.

I apologize to Tasty for my part in pulling his thread off topic.

I want multiple sources, including multiple CAD.
No ranged D.
Maelstrom Missions to be swapped in and out as primary not just as secondary.

That's all I felt was relevant, most of the rest I have no strong opinion on.

Jeez Overwatch, way to antagonize!

For the sake of the thread, since it's relevant to everyone, from TOs like me to regular tournament players to spectators,

1. 3 sources. Yes, the 'cherry-picking' argument is valid, but I think if we get too comfortable with only 2 sources, as we move forward into 7th with a lot more lists designed around the factional / detachment-build format, then we're going to get stymied and see build options stagnate. The wonkiest stuff is older 6th-ed stuff anyway, such as Be'lakor and Coteaz, which, presumably, will be brought in line sooner or later.

2. multiple CAD / Codex-specific detachment, no duplicate formations. Any more restrictive and we're basically playing 6th, and we all know how well that was going.

3. Decurions count as your entire allotment. We don't know what stuff we're going to see with these things in the future, we've only seen two so far but it looks like we're going to see one per release going forward. Making the whole thing a single source is too lenient, making it count by component has no foresight (it may be much more viable for some decurion-style detachments to exist within that restriction that others, and we're trying to be inclusive). So make it eat up your whole army for now, until there's more of them and we can make a better decision.

4. No CtA. It's dumb and only potentially abusive, sorry.

5. No Ranged D. Again, only potential for abuse. Shadowswords are fine, really, but splitting hairs banning specific stuff gets clunky, fast, so it's easier to just say no. Melee D is fine, since the Knights (and now the Foam-Dome of Khorne, the Lord of Skulls) are vehicles that have to get to you and there's plenty of ways to kill vehicles at ranged, and then in melee. Plus, everyone seems to think that I1 makes the new Ragethirster suck , so win-win.

6. Alterations to tertiary objectives. We've been doing the Big 3 for a long time. We can come up with some new options.

7. Alternate Maelstrom and Eternal. Making primary and secondary the same points is bothersome, not the least reason for which is that it negates the concept of having a 'primary' and 'secondary' objective. Further, it just means that the tertiary stuff, presumably the *least* important of the mission parameters, are the only things that really matter unless the game is a blowout one way or the other. Whoever doesn't get first blood races to slay the warlord and hope for the best on linebreaker, #funtimes.

Really #6 and #7 are difficult to answer as presented, since changing one alters how the other could or should be changed, if at all.

Finally, the "No Opinion" options give me a rash, and Overwatch, remind me to give you a hard time for picking them. You should know better. Answers like that just cloud the results and either make the final decision harder to make or allow the decision makers to justify pre-existing positions through an ambiguous response to their questions.

Make a man choose between two fields and he'll go stand in one of them. Give a man a fence, and he'll sit on it all day long.

I didn't actually respond with no opinion to the others. I just listed the ones I felt strongly about. To be fair that isn't how my post reads at all so the ration I get Tuesday will be deserved

I did forget about Decurion style detachments. I too voted for it fills the allotment. I do feel strongly about that, thanks for the reminder. I'll see if I have the email with my responses still so we can compare.

I think the taxes a "Decurion" style detachment impose means it should be, as it's labeled, a single detachment. What kind of "brokenness" are people seeing out of the current Decurion? Genuinely curious because it seems like CAD + Formation is far, far, better and doing better so far.

I would argue for a middle ground on the Decurion-style formation of formations regarding detachment limits. For example, let's say 3 detachments are allowed. If my Decurion consists of only two formations (Reclamation Legion and a unit of Deathmarks, for example), why should that "fill" all three detachment slots that are available? I would suggest that a Decurion can go over the detachment limit, so long as your entire army is a Decurion. and if your Decurion consists of less than the detachment limit, then you can take additional detachments to reach that limit.

It is something to think about, as it looks like the new codexes from now on will be using the multiple formations style of army construction.

I think Disdainful pretty soundly lays out why, for now, the Decurion style detachments should fill the allotment.

Edit: I think this illustrates the strength of the ITC. We can make decisions on things as we go and amend when necessary. I like that we can try out different things and the ITC crew supports player based decisions. That's why I think Disdainful is correct on the Decurion style detachments, go conservative at first and progress further as warranted or desired by the community.

They've already shown that they'll basically change rules for things they don't like so why do you need to go conservative? They can just change it if they don't like. The two "Decurion" style detachments both have significant taxes included. If there is one that doesn't at some point they can just change the rules again

 Hulksmash wrote:
They've already shown that they'll basically change rules for things they don't like so why do you need to go conservative? They can just change it if they don't like. The two "Decurion" style detachments both have significant taxes included. If there is one that doesn't at some point they can just change the rules again

It's probably because of the meta we come from. The So Cal meta has changed quite a bit since you last played down here. We are much more laid back these days despite maintaining a good competitive event for the last 8-10 years once a month without missing a month. We bring out the cheese when preparing for specific events but mostly play what seems fun. We have also erred traditionally on,the least powerful interpretation of a rule or least powerful possibility until it proves unnecessary. It's an approach to the game that has served us well through the waining days of 4th to the present.

SoCal was pretty laid back when I was still there in late 5th. That said it could have gotten more laid back. I don't know. A

My issue is that there really isn't an "Interpretation" to how a Decurion works It's a detachment.

But we'll see how it works out. I'm not sure even half of people know how a Decurion actually works so for me it's a bit early to be putting out a poll on it

 Hulksmash wrote:
My issue is that there really isn't an "Interpretation" to how a Decurion works It's a detachment.

But we'll see how it works out. I'm not sure even half of people know how a Decurion actually works so for me it's a bit early to be putting out a poll on it

My tau just got tabled by a Decurion detachment (turn 6).

Though it don't mean nothing much until I have played against it a few more times and with different builds. And to where I skip dealing with the 2 Monos and the Obelisk and focus on killing the Spider in the back field pumping out scarabs who were my opponent's A+ performers (Read: I made some target Priority mistakes, dice were average on both sides).

However, the 4+ Resurrection Protocol rolls are an immense buff and opponent kept many units within the 12" reroll s bubble. Both were a factor in the game. For the moment, I'm not going to run around waving my arms hollering, "Broken!"

It was a fun game. Particularly when FWs wielding EMPs multi-assault a Mono and Immortals, gain a 8 point penalty against the Immortals on the Morale Check (4 glances, 3 pens minus two FWs). Immortals fail the check and then the FWs Sweep the unit.

Results are in:
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/03/30/itc-2015-season-policy-guideline-poll-results/

Leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Going with a less than 1% plurality and the stealth Decurion restriction both make me feel like the survey was nothing but a pretense.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Results are in:
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/03/30/itc-2015-season-policy-guideline-poll-results/

Leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Going with a less than 1% plurality and the stealth Decurion restriction both make me feel like the survey was nothing but a pretense.

I don't see why it should. They gave option and people pick what they wanted. They never said they would add up different option to beat others.
It doesn't matter if it won by 1 vote or by 100. They will likely make some adjustments in a few months if people complain about the Necrons detachment thing. With the newer books coming out with more of that style thing will be adjusted in time.

A survey is to get the feel for the will of the responders. It is not a vote or an election. Looking at the results of the detachment question, it's obvious that a majority wanted at least 3 detachments. The fact that he later grouped responses (oddly, I might add) makes it even stranger.

And yes, the difference between a margin of victory on a survey of 1 or 100 is very significant!