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.

Very true. But I know as do you jy2 that there are some people who feel in the ITC tau are unfairly picked on because of their lack of usable LOW, Myself included. While every imperial player has the Knight, we are stuck with the Orca and the base Tigershark(because it "Might" ignores cover). While Eldar can bring an Apoc blast that ignores cover and 2 d weapons.
But that is my opinion.

We understand the concerns about not getting to use the awesome new Tau model (and it is awesome) in normal play. We go through this every time, and have players wanting to use things like their Reveneant, Scorpion, Warhound, Daemon Lords, etc. It's nothing new for us.

We have no control over which models get released, reach out to FW and ask them to come out with a reasonable Tau LoW. Also, I am willing to bet the new Tau codex has a LoW in it as all of the 7th ed books have had. That new Tau missile suit will likely be a super heavy, but that's just a guess.

At any rate, feel free to vent, we're used to it, but please keep in mind Tau are getting treated the same as everyone else in this regard.

Not venting at all, just putting in my .02 like anyone else regarding whether it's in need of banning, but I think banning might not be the only option.

How are you defining a reasonable LOW? Is it a set of criteria, or? (Genuine question I can't recall what you guys use to allow/disallow) If it's just the fact that it includes ranged blast-D I get that as well. And note - I am agreeing that depending on how the codex interacts with the tau titan, it may need modifications (up to and including banning).

But off the cuff:
-The tau titan has ignores cover AP3. So does the lord of skulls, which is allowed. It's ignores cover AP3 is also rather meh I'll point out. It has no ignores cover ap2.
-The tau titan is 600 points, there are plenty of allowed choices in the mid 500's, and some well over 600 (Lord of Skulls again as an example)

But a fix for the Tau titan (again have to see the Tau book) might be as simple as saying "Tau'Nar doesn't get to interact with other tau models" to preclude any whacky ethereal aura interactions, or markerlight use, etcetc."

 Reecius wrote:
We understand the concerns about not getting to use the awesome new Tau model (and it is awesome) in normal play. We go through this every time, and have players wanting to use things like their Reveneant, Scorpion, Warhound, Daemon Lords, etc. It's nothing new for us.

We have no control over which models get released, reach out to FW and ask them to come out with a reasonable Tau LoW. Also, I am willing to bet the new Tau codex has a LoW in it as all of the 7th ed books have had. That new Tau missile suit will likely be a super heavy, but that's just a guess.

At any rate, feel free to vent, we're used to it, but please keep in mind Tau are getting treated the same as everyone else in this regard.

And we thank you for it. If tau want something so bad they can take an imperial knight or something.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Very true. But I know as do you jy2 that there are some people who feel in the ITC tau are unfairly picked on because of their lack of usable LOW, Myself included. While every imperial player has the Knight, we are stuck with the Orca and the base Tigershark(because it "Might" ignores cover). While Eldar can bring an Apoc blast that ignores cover and 2 d weapons.
But that is my opinion.

Life isn't always fair. Look at the older codices like Orks, Sisters, Astra Militarum, Dark Eldar and so on. Look at Tyranids who can't have any allies at all. Look at armies with no Psychic presence. You make do with what you have if you love your army. Otherwise, you bring in allies.

On the bright side, the Tau are getting a brand new codex and they will probably kick ass.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Target wrote:

But a fix for the Tau titan (again have to see the Tau book) might be as simple as saying "Tau'Nar doesn't get to interact with other tau models" to preclude any whacky ethereal aura interactions, or markerlight use, etcetc."

That sets up a dangerous precedence. The next thing you know, why not ban psychic buffs cast on super-heavies or the Grimoire on Chaos Knights/Daemonlords or shrouded Tyranid GMC's. Why do other armies get to interact with their super-heavies but not Tau? It's a slippery slope which will get even more slippery and controversial. The next thing you know, it isn't just the Tau community complaining, but most of the armies as well. I definitely don't think we should go there.

Using slippery slope to argue against a change is a bit silly. If that was the case:

-We shouldn't change the 2+ rerollable save, because that will lead to changing other types of saves, like FNP
-We shouldn't change invisiblity, because then people may want to nerf other psychic powers

But both worked out just fine. And let's all be honest - would it really be a bad thing if armies couldn't interact with super heavies/Gargantuans in that fashion? I don't think anyone is clamoring to say "My 3 knights should be able to be invisible!" or "My wraithknight should be allowed to get fortune!".

It's not like you'll find anyone (hardcore tourney veteran or more casual gt-goer) going "man that was a fun game against that (insert example from above)"

Target wrote:
Using slippery slope to argue against a change is a bit silly. If that was the case:

-We shouldn't change the 2+ rerollable save, because that will lead to changing other types of saves, like FNP
-We shouldn't change invisiblity, because then people may want to nerf other psychic powers

But both worked out just fine. And let's all be honest - would it really be a bad thing if armies couldn't interact with super heavies/Gargantuans in that fashion? I don't think anyone is clamoring to say "My 3 knights should be able to be invisible!" or "My wraithknight should be allowed to get fortune!".

It's not like you'll find anyone (hardcore tourney veteran or more casual gt-goer) going "man that was a fun game against that (insert example from above)"

I would frankly encourage just obliterating major psychic buffs of any kind, including on SH/GC. I'd probably join in on that with NOVA if ITC went that direction, frankly.

Andrew's point, that last one .... other than those playing them, there are very few who are going to argue that Invisibility is totally legit and key to the game's balance and design, and just the most fun thing ever to play against. Which is of course the slippery slope side of any of these arguments - while "fun" is subjective, there are many items about which the vast majority share the same subjective opinion.

Personally, I am against changes that affect just the army itself.

Changing Invisibility and changing re-rollable 2+'s (and D weapons) affects a design mechanism that isn't fun to play against at all. And while it is mainly abused by certain armies back then (Eldar and Daemons), it wasn't designed to unfairly target a particular army itself.

Outing the Tau'nar to not be able to interact with the rest of its army while other super-heavies can is unfairly targeting the Tau IMO.

And while I am not saying that I advocate banning, to ban the Tau'nar would not be an unfair practice, as other more powerful super-heavies from other races have been banned as well. It is consistent to what the ITC has been doing.

 jy2 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Very true. But I know as do you jy2 that there are some people who feel in the ITC tau are unfairly picked on because of their lack of usable LOW, Myself included. While every imperial player has the Knight, we are stuck with the Orca and the base Tigershark(because it "Might" ignores cover). While Eldar can bring an Apoc blast that ignores cover and 2 d weapons.
But that is my opinion.

Life isn't always fair. Look at the older codices like Orks, Sisters, Astra Militarum, Dark Eldar and so on. Look at Tyranids who can't have any allies at all. Look at armies with no Psychic presence. You make do with what you have if you love your army. Otherwise, you bring in allies.

My Grandma used to say that, and my response always was "Doesnt mean we shouldnt try to make it fair" using the "Life isnt Fair" is just an excuse to not act on something because it might be unpopular, but goes the way of making things fair.
And the ITC has always been about making things fair, when other armies has supplements and others didnt they allowed the(blatently against the rulese btw) rule of allying with yourself, in order to make it fair.

Let the Tau have their cake!

Also I'm curious as to what your criteria are for LoW non-inclusion

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Very true. But I know as do you jy2 that there are some people who feel in the ITC tau are unfairly picked on because of their lack of usable LOW, Myself included. While every imperial player has the Knight, we are stuck with the Orca and the base Tigershark(because it "Might" ignores cover). While Eldar can bring an Apoc blast that ignores cover and 2 d weapons.
But that is my opinion.

Life isn't always fair. Look at the older codices like Orks, Sisters, Astra Militarum, Dark Eldar and so on. Look at Tyranids who can't have any allies at all. Look at armies with no Psychic presence. You make do with what you have if you love your army. Otherwise, you bring in allies.

My Grandma used to say that, and my response always was "Doesnt mean we shouldnt try to make it fair" using the "Life isnt Fair" is just an excuse to not act on something because it might be unpopular, but goes the way of making things fair.
And the ITC has always been about making things fair, when other armies has supplements and others didnt they allowed the(blatently against the rulese btw) rule of allying with yourself, in order to make it fair.

What I mean by "life is not fair" is that the game of 40K is just so unbalanced that there is no way to really balance it out short of writing a whole new ruleset. Is that the responsibility of the ITC? No. They're just trying to patch up holes in the ship. You might not like some of their "fixes" but you can still do something about it. Petition them. Convince your friends to email them or to vote on their polls. Frontline has reversed their decisions before and people's beliefs change over time. Don't think that their houserules are set in stone or that their minds cannot be swayed. As long as enough people voice out their opinions, the TO's will listen.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Let the Tau have their cake!

Also I'm curious as to what your criteria are for LoW non-inclusion

Personally, I don't really care if they are allowed or not in tournament play. But what I do agree is that an organization should be consistent in its rulings. The Tau'nar does not belong in the same class as the wraithknight, the Imperial Knight, the baneblade or the hierodules. He is much stronger and belongs in the class of the Warhounds, the Revenants, the bio-titan and the Daemonlords. As long as Frontline is being consistent. If they don't allow the Warhound-class titans, then the Tau'nar shouldn't be allowed. Otherwise, allow them all in the game (not Reaver-class titans or higher though).

That's not a criteria Jy2. That's opinion. Which is fine. I was just curious if they had a structure or criteria other than "feels like..."

Personally with the D nerf and the lack of ignore cover on the model it's not even in the same realm as a Wrathknight that is dirt cheap.

That's my issue with the ITC restrictions... I can't really see how they are arrived at. I think this one item isn't the way it's done anymore, but when polls used to be taken of event attendees, it seemed like it would skew results a lot. I.e., should you nerf my opponent's army? Why yes, of course you should...

As long as people view it as only one way to play 40k and not as "THE" format that other formats should adhere to, then I think it's fine. But regarding casual players as discussed at the bottom of last page - a lot of folks probably don't care about the Tau LOW (it'd be kind of cool to face in some ways) but rather about the standard spam builds or normal things like Wraithknights, as mentioned.

 Hulksmash wrote:
That's not a criteria Jy2. That's opinion. Which is fine. I was just curious if they had a structure or criteria other than "feels like..."

Personally with the D nerf and the lack of ignore cover on the model it's not even in the same realm as a Wrathknight that is dirt cheap.

Right, unless the question wasn't directed at me, you asked me for "my" criteria. You didn't ask what I thought "their" criteria was. In any case, my criteria isn't important. It's not my event and I don't make the rules for it. However, this is what I think their criteria is (this is just my opinion and not any official ITC policy):

No more than 2 D blasts.
No Torrent Hellstorm templates.
No flying GMC's.
No Super-heavy flyers that shoots D weapons.
No D blasts bigger than 5".
No blasts bigger than 5" that ignores cover.
No Warhound-class titan (or similar level).

 jy2 wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
That's not a criteria Jy2. That's opinion. Which is fine. I was just curious if they had a structure or criteria other than "feels like..."

Personally with the D nerf and the lack of ignore cover on the model it's not even in the same realm as a Wrathknight that is dirt cheap.

Right, unless the question wasn't directed at me, you asked me for "my" criteria. You didn't ask what I thought "their" criteria was. In any case, my criteria isn't important. It's not my event and I don't make the rules for it. However, this is what I think their criteria is (this is just my opinion and not any official ITC policy):

No more than 2 D blasts.
No Torrent Hellstorm templates.
No flying GMC's.
No Super-heavy flyers that shoots D weapons.
No D blasts bigger than 5".
No blasts bigger than 5" that ignores cover.
No Warhound-class titan (or similar level).

I'd guess you generated those criteria by looking at what they allow, and I don't think (and this isn't a dig) they really follow a 100% checklist set of criteria. I don't think that's ever been their approach or intent with their list. Sidenote - the Lord of Skulls is clearly above or at a Warhound Class, and has an instant death, ignores cover, hellstorm and 9hp + iwnd and a 5+ invul.)

Remembering back, I believe originally it began as kind of ideas being kicked around, most of which revolved around them wanting to stop ranged D, ignores cover D, and even str 10 ap 2 ignores cover (of the above 5" variety) which is why things like the hellhammer got the boot. They tested ranged D from my memory and allowed it at LVO, Lynx's were pretty well disliked, and then there was a period where ranged D was going to (or did briefly?) get the boot. Then the eldar book came out, and turned that somewhat on it's head, because ranged D (and ignores cover D from the D-scythes) was kind of all over, and ranged D got something of a pass again.

The more we talk on this, the more I wonder if a ban list wouldn't be better served by the way they handled eldar jetbike scatter lasers and other rules changes - just have a checklist for people to vote on of models they're okay with seeing, and ones they're not. Establish some sort of threshold beforehand (doesn't even have to be majority) of what will make a model legal. IE, any model with 30% of respondents or above not wanting it in the game isn't allowed (I obviously made the threshold up, it could just be 50%). Might be interesting to see how people feel about all of these at the very least, who knows, maybe more would get the boot, maybe (this is my hunch) a bunch would get added back in - and I'm fully aware the Tau'Nar would in all likelihood still not be among them

Yes, that sounds about right. There never was a published criteria list, but the ITC is more critical of ranged D or cover-ignoring firepower and flyers than they are of footslogging close-combat D. That's why units such as the big Khorne robot or the Stompa was left basically untouched. With the CC-supers, you could potentially A) kill them before they can actually do any real damage, B) screen them out with sacrificial 50-pt units, C) try to tarp it them, D) play catch-me-if-you-can with them or E) throw your own death star into cc with them. With the cc-supers, there is basically much more interaction with them and they hardly ever make their points back against a lot of armies.

There is no need for selective banning. There game, after all, is inherently unbalanced. It's actually very simple. Tons of people complain, then they set out to do something about it, whether it be a ban or rules change. For the Tau'nar, he just happens to fall into a class of units that are already banned. Thus, banning him as well isn't an exception. It's actually a norm. To allow him in tournament play would be the exception. Then FLG would have to justify why He is allowed and the Warhound or Revenant isn't.

We know that 2++ re rollable was the intent of the developers with the release of the Dark Angels codex. It is really good for them but when you think about it there is actually a fair amount of Ignore Cover...

Astra Militarum - Orders and Sanctioned Psykers
Necrons - Tomb Blades
Tau - Markerlights
Many armies - Divination

Every time a rule is modified it changes the game dynamics. Everyone has their pet peeves. I'm not really knocking anyone but at some point you've got to say where willit end. There are things I really don't like for whatever reason but I finally decided to just go with "Bring it." I have to deal with it.

 jy2 wrote:
Yes, that sounds about right. There never was a published criteria list, but the ITC is more critical of ranged D or cover-ignoring firepower and flyers than they are of footslogging close-combat D. That's why units such as the big Khorne robot or the Stompa was left basically untouched. With the CC-supers, you could potentially A) kill them before they can actually do any real damage, B) screen them out with sacrificial 50-pt units, C) try to tarp it them, D) play catch-me-if-you-can with them or E) throw your own death star into cc with them. With the cc-supers, there is basically much more interaction with them and they hardly ever make their points back against a lot of armies.

There is no need for selective banning. There game, after all, is inherently unbalanced. It's actually very simple. Tons of people complain, then they set out to do something about it, whether it be a ban or rules change. For the Tau'nar, he just happens to fall into a class of units that are already banned. Thus, banning him as well isn't an exception. It's actually a norm. To allow him in tournament play would be the exception. Then FLG would have to justify why He is allowed and the Warhound or Revenant isn't.

I think the last bit is where we disagree, I see what they're doing AS selective banning. I'd say there is no class of units that are already banned by FLG.

Hellhammer banned for Str 10 Ap2 Ignores Cover pie plate? Vindicator formation is allowed.
Warhound (750) which has 9 HP and can shoot Str D 5 inch blasts? Revenant (900) which fires D 5" blasts? Lynx fires two of those for half the cost (and has the sonic option which is selectively banned, same as the revenant), and the Lord of Skulls costs more (888+65), is significantly more survivable (9hp with an invul and IWND), and has a Str 9 Ap 3 Instant death hellstorm.

The thing is I don't have an issue with a lack of criteria, but I disagree that you can write off banning the Tau'Nar as "see, you can expect it to be banned, it's XYZ type" when there are exceptions abound. Which is why a superheavy ban list vote would actually be kind of cool, then it'd be defined by what the masses are/aren't okay with seeing.

I'll bow out now and drop it (regardless of response, not trying to get the last word!) and appreciate the good discussion Jy2, and the leeway Reece/thread owners allowed for the discussion/derailment to continue today. Thanks guys, can't wait to see everyone at LVO (with or without Tau'Nars!)

If nothing else, ban the thing so we don't have to listen to:

a. Israel Sanchez crow about how great he painted it
and
b. MikeFox complain (which I will get the most direct ear-full) about how great Israel painted it.

The funny part about all this, when people see what kinds of list the top tau players bring to lvo, they are going to wish that titan was allowed, because I'm sure there will be better ways to spend 600 points in the new tau book then this guy. (I am in the I don't care either way if this thing is banned camp, I just want cta llies back).

Still was nice to read a civil debate, made me happy I logged into dakka for once!

 krootman. wrote:
The funny part about all this, when people see what kinds of list the top tau players bring to lvo, they are going to wish that titan was allowed, because I'm sure there will be better ways to spend 600 points in the new tau book then this guy. (I am in the I don't care either way if this thing is banned camp, I just want cta llies back).

Still was nice to read a civil debate, made me happy I logged into dakka for once!

If everything goes well, and as most players who aren't... Tau... Hope, then no, they would wish they had this 600 point model.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 krootman. wrote:
The funny part about all this, when people see what kinds of list the top tau players bring to lvo, they are going to wish that titan was allowed, because I'm sure there will be better ways to spend 600 points in the new tau book then this guy. (I am in the I don't care either way if this thing is banned camp, I just want cta llies back).

Still was nice to read a civil debate, made me happy I logged into dakka for once!

If everything goes well, and as most players who aren't... Tau... Hope, then no, they would wish they had this 600 point model.

So that's what everyone said about eldar, anddddd look what happened.

 krootman. wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 krootman. wrote:
The funny part about all this, when people see what kinds of list the top tau players bring to lvo, they are going to wish that titan was allowed, because I'm sure there will be better ways to spend 600 points in the new tau book then this guy. (I am in the I don't care either way if this thing is banned camp, I just want cta llies back).

Still was nice to read a civil debate, made me happy I logged into dakka for once!

If everything goes well, and as most players who aren't... Tau... Hope, then no, they would wish they had this 600 point model.

So that's what everyone said about eldar, anddddd look what happened.

If the tau get even the ork treatment, Imma hope tournies nerf em quite a bit. Fluff wise they are the most miniscule of the armies. It should be represented.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 krootman. wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 krootman. wrote:
The funny part about all this, when people see what kinds of list the top tau players bring to lvo, they are going to wish that titan was allowed, because I'm sure there will be better ways to spend 600 points in the new tau book then this guy. (I am in the I don't care either way if this thing is banned camp, I just want cta llies back).

Still was nice to read a civil debate, made me happy I logged into dakka for once!

If everything goes well, and as most players who aren't... Tau... Hope, then no, they would wish they had this 600 point model.

So that's what everyone said about eldar, anddddd look what happened.

If the tau get even the ork treatment, Imma hope tournies nerf em quite a bit. Fluff wise they are the most miniscule of the armies. It should be represented.

Can I assume as an avid and long time ork player you have a long standing hatred of tau, and maybe a bias against them being competitive?

Also in a competitive setting you should not take fluff into consideration. There are other events (like the narrative) that do that, it should be all about game balance.

MVBrandt wrote:

Target wrote:
Using slippery slope to argue against a change is a bit silly. If that was the case:

-We shouldn't change the 2+ rerollable save, because that will lead to changing other types of saves, like FNP
-We shouldn't change invisiblity, because then people may want to nerf other psychic powers

But both worked out just fine. And let's all be honest - would it really be a bad thing if armies couldn't interact with super heavies/Gargantuans in that fashion? I don't think anyone is clamoring to say "My 3 knights should be able to be invisible!" or "My wraithknight should be allowed to get fortune!".

It's not like you'll find anyone (hardcore tourney veteran or more casual gt-goer) going "man that was a fun game against that (insert example from above)"

I would frankly encourage just obliterating major psychic buffs of any kind, including on SH/GC. I'd probably join in on that with NOVA if ITC went that direction, frankly.

Andrew's point, that last one .... other than those playing them, there are very few who are going to argue that Invisibility is totally legit and key to the game's balance and design, and just the most fun thing ever to play against. Which is of course the slippery slope side of any of these arguments - while "fun" is subjective, there are many items about which the vast majority share the same subjective opinion.

Im going to +1 this. I think the interaction should go across all SH/GC and be done with it. this way no one faction is being picked out over another. I don't think we would find many who would argue that this is a bad thing and would be a good starting point of reference in allowing these units into the game. Once we remove the crazy interactions that can go on we can look at them more rationally.

zedsdead wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

Target wrote:
Using slippery slope to argue against a change is a bit silly. If that was the case:

-We shouldn't change the 2+ rerollable save, because that will lead to changing other types of saves, like FNP
-We shouldn't change invisiblity, because then people may want to nerf other psychic powers

But both worked out just fine. And let's all be honest - would it really be a bad thing if armies couldn't interact with super heavies/Gargantuans in that fashion? I don't think anyone is clamoring to say "My 3 knights should be able to be invisible!" or "My wraithknight should be allowed to get fortune!".

It's not like you'll find anyone (hardcore tourney veteran or more casual gt-goer) going "man that was a fun game against that (insert example from above)"

I would frankly encourage just obliterating major psychic buffs of any kind, including on SH/GC. I'd probably join in on that with NOVA if ITC went that direction, frankly.

Andrew's point, that last one .... other than those playing them, there are very few who are going to argue that Invisibility is totally legit and key to the game's balance and design, and just the most fun thing ever to play against. Which is of course the slippery slope side of any of these arguments - while "fun" is subjective, there are many items about which the vast majority share the same subjective opinion.

Im going to +1 this. I think the interaction should go across all SH/GC and be done with it. this way no one faction is being picked out over another. I don't think we would find many who would argue that this is a bad thing and would be a good starting point of reference in allowing these units into the game. Once we remove the crazy interactions that can go on we can look at them more rationally.

40K would be an amazing game if we got rid of the various things that - if it were a computer or video game with an active multiplayer - would be insta-patched as obvious abuses. Whether it's invisible titans or near-unkillable units, it shouldn't even be about discussing the killability of the things or whether good players can deal with them. "Micromanaging rules abuses" shouldn't be something any of us really care to have a discussion on in the first place. But maybe that's just me being opinionated ... just saw so much of people micro'ing where to place XYZ models from their jetstars or thunderstars or w/e that it kinda gets a lil silly when you hear people calling it a tactical wargame (and it gets even further removed from a tactical wargame when your way of earning points is to go do what the game tells you to right when it tells you to do it in the middle of a turn, i.e. book maelstrom).

 Dozer Blades wrote:
We know that 2++ re rollable was the intent of the developers with the release of the Dark Angels codex. It is really good for them but when you think about it there is actually a fair amount of Ignore Cover...

Astra Militarum - Orders and Sanctioned Psykers
Necrons - Tomb Blades
Tau - Markerlights
Many armies - Divination

Every time a rule is modified it changes the game dynamics. Everyone has their pet peeves. I'm not really knocking anyone but at some point you've got to say where willit end. There are things I really don't like for whatever reason but I finally decided to just go with "Bring it." I have to deal with it.

Intent or not is not the main issue. What is is that the mechanism of 2+ re-rollable is just plain broken. It totally discourages interaction if you don't have the tools to deal with it and many armies just do not. BTW, re-rollable 2+ isn't just limited to cover. You have re-rollable 2++ invuln's (Tzeentch) as well as 2+ armor (seer council w/Protect).

Yes, the dynamics of the game changes whenever you change the rules, but sometimes, that can be a good thing IMO. I know there is the question of "where do you draw the line" but that is something for each TO to decide for their events. Sometimes, their personal opinions influence their judgements but many times, their decisions are supported by data from their customer-base/attendees as well. And if you don't agree with one group of TO's decision, you can change it yourself and run a modified ITC ruleset. Heck, you don't even have to use their ruleset at all and still run an ITC event.

We should all just play Malifaux. I've been told it's an awesome game.

 jy2 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
We know that 2++ re rollable was the intent of the developers with the release of the Dark Angels codex. It is really good for them but when you think about it there is actually a fair amount of Ignore Cover...

Astra Militarum - Orders and Sanctioned Psykers
Necrons - Tomb Blades
Tau - Markerlights
Many armies - Divination

Every time a rule is modified it changes the game dynamics. Everyone has their pet peeves. I'm not really knocking anyone but at some point you've got to say where willit end. There are things I really don't like for whatever reason but I finally decided to just go with "Bring it." I have to deal with it.

Intent or not is not the main issue. What is is that the mechanism of 2+ re-rollable is just plain broken. It totally discourages interaction if you don't have the tools to deal with it and many armies just do not. BTW, re-rollable 2+ isn't just limited to cover. You have re-rollable 2++ invuln's (Tzeentch) as well as 2+ armor (seer council w/Protect).

Yes, the dynamics of the game changes whenever you change the rules, but sometimes, that can be a good thing IMO. I know there is the question of "where do you draw the line" but that is something for each TO to decide for their events. Sometimes, their personal opinions influence their judgements but many times, their decisions are supported by data from their customer-base/attendees as well. And if you don't agree with one group of TO's decision, you can change it yourself and run a modified ITC ruleset. Heck, you don't even have to use their ruleset at all and still run an ITC event.

I have decided to not attend tournaments that change rules from now on. It is just getting too crazy to keep up with now. I feel that Ravenwing needs their re rollable cover save to be competitive - taking away something they are obviously meant to have is just not right imo .

Basically you are playing a bastardized version of the game skewed by someone else's opinion 'how it should be".

 krootman. wrote:
The funny part about all this, when people see what kinds of list the top tau players bring to lvo, they are going to wish that titan was allowed, because I'm sure there will be better ways to spend 600 points in the new tau book then this guy. (I am in the I don't care either way if this thing is banned camp, I just want cta llies back).

Still was nice to read a civil debate, made me happy I logged into dakka for once!

Agreed. The new Tau codex will probably have some scary stuff in there that will make you wish they brought the Tau'nar instead. With all the codices, you can build much better lists than if you included super-heavies and yet those super-heavies are still banned. Common train of thought is that codex units should be included whereas Forgeworld super-heavies are optional.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
We know that 2++ re rollable was the intent of the developers with the release of the Dark Angels codex. It is really good for them but when you think about it there is actually a fair amount of Ignore Cover...

Astra Militarum - Orders and Sanctioned Psykers
Necrons - Tomb Blades
Tau - Markerlights
Many armies - Divination

Every time a rule is modified it changes the game dynamics. Everyone has their pet peeves. I'm not really knocking anyone but at some point you've got to say where willit end. There are things I really don't like for whatever reason but I finally decided to just go with "Bring it." I have to deal with it.

Intent or not is not the main issue. What is is that the mechanism of 2+ re-rollable is just plain broken. It totally discourages interaction if you don't have the tools to deal with it and many armies just do not. BTW, re-rollable 2+ isn't just limited to cover. You have re-rollable 2++ invuln's (Tzeentch) as well as 2+ armor (seer council w/Protect).

Yes, the dynamics of the game changes whenever you change the rules, but sometimes, that can be a good thing IMO. I know there is the question of "where do you draw the line" but that is something for each TO to decide for their events. Sometimes, their personal opinions influence their judgements but many times, their decisions are supported by data from their customer-base/attendees as well. And if you don't agree with one group of TO's decision, you can change it yourself and run a modified ITC ruleset. Heck, you don't even have to use their ruleset at all and still run an ITC event.

I have decided to not attend tournaments that change rules from now on. It is just getting too crazy to keep up with now. I feel that Ravenwing needs their re rollable cover save to be competitive - taking away something they are obviously meant to have is just not right imo .

Sorry you feel that way. At least there are many tournament formats in this country so that if you didn't like a particular format, then you can always play in another format (or run the tournament yourself). In any case, happy gaming and maybe one day, I hope you give the ITC a try. Modified40K really isn't so bad.