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.

Thanks to everyone for voting as usual! And drama ensues, as usual, lol.

@Orock & Grey Dragon

Sorry you guys feel that way. If you want a refund, feel free to do so up until 30 days from the event, no questions asked. Within 30 days, the tickets become non-refundable.

As for quitting because you don't like a ruling, that is a bit of an overreaction, IMO. The event itself is about having fun playing games with friends, not just a single rule interpretation. But, if you truly think you won't have any fun due to that one issue, that is your choice to make. Besides, I honestly think the Mont'Ka Tau detachment is better and lacks the ambiguity of the Hunter Contingent, but that's just me.

Either way, you guys are welcome to come and have fun or do you own thing. Just bear in mind, we had to make a call on it one way or the other and regardless, someone was going to get upset by it.

@Overwatch

Haha, come on, my friend, you are certainly overreacting on this one. You guys in Pasadena are honestly some of the only folks I know that play the more aggressive reading of Tank Shock. That was actually shocking to see by most other players (eh, see what I did there! haha). Just pop into YMDC to see the well reasoned arguments on both sides of the line.

And you may see it as a nerf, but there is a strong case to be made for RAW either way. I don't see that one as a nerf at all but a clarification of the ruling, or a choice as to which interpretation to go with.

And, I can tell you from seeing multiple tournaments where folks are hit with the aggressive reading of Tank Shock that aren't used to it, it isn't pretty. If you built a list around that mechanic you probably wouldn't have had a very enjoyable experience as you had to go through what it did with the majority--if not all of--your opponents.

And again, a call had to be made on that. Whether by a poll or by a judge call, we had to choose how to go with it. And with any contentious issue, some folks would be pleased, some not when you choose one path or another. It's just the way it goes.

@Blackmoor

Your point of view is entirely valid, but in the ITC with as many as 6+ events per weekend, every week we wait to make a call on something hurts the events that fall into that limbo zone. Time is very valuable, we can't wait months to take action on things, it simply isn't an option for us. Plus, with new rules coming out every week, we'd quickly fall so far behind that it would become a mess.

Plus, if you had your way, we still wouldn't be using Forgeworld! haha

@Thread

Thanks again for your participation, we look forward to seeing you all at the next ITC event.

How penalized are we for not having the minimum 3 colors. Due to school I might not be able to get it all done in time. Can I still play?

Primer counts as a color buddy, so really, it should be easy.

And if you army contains models that are not 3 colors, you are ineligible for prize support.

I might not get that done LOL
But I agree with you on the Montk formation. with a better core, funner Aux its gonna be fun.

Can you confirm the DZC events are sold out? I hesitated since, well, last year flying across country for a 6 person event was very disappointing...looks like this year I may have waited too long?

@Piper

Yeah, I can understand your reasons for hesitating. The event this year will be much bigger than last year, but won't be gigantic, just to give you a fair assessment.

It is sold out-ish. We have some wiggle room with the floorplan, if you want to make the trip I can make it happen for you. Let me know: Contact@FrontlineGaming.org

Reecius, in regards to the Stompa issue, was this ever examined further than just what the PDF stated? FW addressed the issue in the past when they were still allowed to have public interaction, and have answered several people's emails on the issue, with it being very clear that the low points cost was never intended (and the option to take it specifies Apocalypse games in the first place), it would appear that all the vote did was erroneously affirm an avowed mistake that FW simply never re-updated (as GW appears to have a policy of simply changing anything once "published").

That particular outcome just felt wrong to me. I get people want to boost Orks, but it would seem that hamfisting in Knight-priced Stompas based on a typo is a very, well, poor method of achieving that goal.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Reecius, in regards to the Stompa issue, was this ever examined further than just what the PDF stated? FW addressed the issue in the past when they were still allowed to have public interaction, and have answered several people's emails on the issue, with it being very clear that the low points cost was never intended (and the option to take it specifies Apocalypse games in the first place), it would appear that all the vote did was erroneously affirm an avowed mistake that FW simply never re-updated (as GW appears to have a policy of simply changing anything once "published").

That particular outcome just felt wrong to me. I get people want to boost Orks, but it would seem that hamfisting in Knight-priced Stompas based on a typo is a very, well, poor method of achieving that goal.

I'm actually quite happy for the orks. See, I use to play, and emailed forgeworld more than once about this very thing. Half of them said mistake, the other half said the price was right. But you'll only hear the nah Sayers come out, of course. Like the tau, who now have to play appropriately instead of using loosely worded rules to their utmost benefit.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Reecius, in regards to the Stompa issue, was this ever examined further than just what the PDF stated? FW addressed the issue in the past when they were still allowed to have public interaction, and have answered several people's emails on the issue, with it being very clear that the low points cost was never intended (and the option to take it specifies Apocalypse games in the first place), it would appear that all the vote did was erroneously affirm an avowed mistake that FW simply never re-updated (as GW appears to have a policy of simply changing anything once "published").

That particular outcome just felt wrong to me. I get people want to boost Orks, but it would seem that hamfisting in Knight-priced Stompas based on a typo is a very, well, poor method of achieving that goal.

I'm actually quite happy for the orks. See, I use to play, and emailed forgeworld more than once about this very thing. Half of them said mistake, the other half said the price was right. But you'll only hear the nah Sayers come out, of course. Like the tau, who now have to play appropriately instead of using loosely worded rules to their utmost benefit.

You are the only person I've heard who has ever claimed that FW said it was the appropriate price. When they had an FW page, they posted on there it was incorrect, I've just never seen anyone claim otherwise.

Not saying it couldn't happen, same way that Rapier Laser Destroyers are AP1 in some books and AP2 in others and FW just says "well...use whatever the book you're using says...we dunno", but I've just never seen an affirmative response on the pricing being appropriate, it's almost certainly a bad copy-paste of naked IA-8 "make you own Stompa" options.

Ultimately, it's hard to see where they really meant a 12HP superheavy walker to be as cheap as they made it, and even if they did, the rule pretty clearly states it's an option for Apocalypse, not just any game.

 Vaktathi wrote:
You are the only person I've heard who has ever claimed that FW said it was the appropriate price.

FWIW, FW has no more interest than GW prime in generating "official" answers or FAQs in a timely manner. And for the record, when I inquired about the Stompa in question they told me that I should play it with whatever price I thought was appropriate with my friends and that it was "a bit cheap... but [the other listing] seems a bit expensive." WTF? This really has turned into cool models, not tight rules. Which basically invalidates any argument that starts with RAW while we're at it.

If you'll recall the frustration expressed over the Brass Scorpion, which was clearly allowed in Chaos Daemon armies prior to IA13. When pressed for a ruling so that those of us who play in an organized manner can all be on the same page they said:

"...quick fire resolution would be go unbound, the next would be find some new gaming friends as you have bought this model and want to use it and your friends will not let you.

A question I would ask is would you allow it? We cant really offer you any official advice as any official word will come through our designers and in due time but I would say that this is a hobby and we have designed it to be as inclusive as possible, essentially we encourage you to do what ever you want in your hobby, play any games, any models in your hobby and enjoy it."

So, to give any deference to what FW may or may not have claimed as appropriate or otherwise is giving them more credit than is deserved.

Just out of curiosity, when was that that you contacted them? Do you know if it was after they shut down their FB page? IIRC that happened right about the time 7th launched, and basically GW as a whole stopped any sort of rules support relatively shortly thereafter and FW seems to have basically just reverted to "just use whatever is printed on whatever thing you happen to be using" (as with the Rapier Laser Destroyers and their constantly changing AP values).

That may be the point of disconnect methinks.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Just out of curiosity, when was that that you contacted them? Do you know if it was after they shut down their FB page? IIRC that happened right about the time 7th launched, and basically GW as a whole stopped any sort of rules support relatively shortly thereafter and FW seems to have basically just reverted to "just use whatever is printed on whatever thing you happen to be using" (as with the Rapier Laser Destroyers and their constantly changing AP values).

That may be the point of disconnect methinks.

My contact on the Brass Scorpion was in the last 9 months. On the Stompa was probably about a year ago. I wasn't picking you out, but rather commenting on the fact that everyone here is taking this so very seriously when the game designers have stopped treating the rules they right as a serious and legitimate ruleset. How can any of us argue with an ferocity the merit of either "Rules as Written" or "Rules as Intended" when the companies that support said rules no longer actually care about the words that they use or the effect of those words on a common gaming experience. We've been joking about Rule #1 for years, but that is exactly how GW sees these issues. Dice it off and move on.

I personally think that this is very bad for the game. A tight rule set in no way negatively impacts the casual player. It only helps the game by making it more universally understandable. However, since GW and FW have abandoned their customer base post-sale (they have our dollars and provide no support once the transaction is concluded) we're left to either dice off every time (not feasible for organized play) or house rule these issues. While I disagree with some of the rulings that have come out of the ITC, and I feel that the FAQ council needs to be revived to deal with FAQs (errata are another matter), this process isn't much worse (or better) than other options.

Reece, on your recent podcast you stated considering changing the Piranha formation - to be as polite as possible, the Tau nerfs occurring are getting out of hand, and are frustrating me on a personal level, both for the fact that it's the army I play, and the fact that you're markedly changing a codex which is going to create a meta that isn't representative. None of the items were even allowed to see the table top and be tested thoroughly prior to voting, and as someone who has a long history in competitive play (10 ish GT wins I think?), none of them (with the exception of allowing target locking and coordinated firepower to work together) would have impacted the scene in a meaningful way.

To try and preempt some of the new Podcast discussion, the wording on the Piranha formation is crystal clear, and I'd urge you to not nerf it/attempt to change it before letting it see play. Piranhas and Drones are generally one of the most laughed at, weakest, non-fielded units in the game, and they finally got a formation worth using - I can't even see the motivation for changing them beyond a knee jerk "oh that sounds too good!".

Piranha Firestorm Wing, Rearm and Refuel special rule:
If all of the surviving models from a unit in this Formation are within 6" of a table edge at the end of their Movement Phase, the unit can enter Ongoing Reserves. When it returns to play, it does so at full strength with any damage repaired and Drones and seeker missiles replaced.

It is completely clear that they can:
1) Enter play, disembark drones, and then leave play in the same turn you discussed as "i think obviously they cant". While there are examples of other units not doing this, there are literally a million examples of other units being able to do things that others cannot. It would be akin to saying "why cant my piranhas skyleap, if they can't skyleap, hawks cant!". The rules are clear on this - you move on at the start of the movement phase, you disembark during the movement phase, and if you are within 6" of a table edge at the end of a movement phase, you can enter ongoing reserves. There is no reason to change this unless you're trying to nerf piranhas. Which sounds similar to trying to nerf ratlings - they're already a forgotten unit.

2) "Full strength". You state in your podcast you "don't think if a piranha was destroyed and the unit returned, the dead piranha would come back" (paraphrased). This is also a clear rule - if a unit of conscripts last edition returned at "full strength", would we say that dead conscripts didn't come back to life, because that's not what "full strength" means? A unit at "Full Strength" is very clear, there's no need to over think this one. In the recycling gargoyles of nids, if they return at "full strength" do we not return the gargoyles that died?

The issue you need to handle regarding the piranha formation is the following situation: If a unit of piranha immobilize a member, the rest of the squad can abandon it, and it becomes a "new unit". In the case this happens you need to decide whether that piranha (which exists still on the table) comes back when the rest of the unit leaves. By rules it's clearly, the original unit comes back at full strength and we now have a duplicate piranha - and in game play, it's not meaningful, as you randomly can create another unit, an immobilized open topped av11/10 1hp left skimmer (?woo?). The part where this can be an issue is people can think the immobilized piranha, if within 6 inches of the board edge, can create an entirely new full strength unit - this one should be clarified to not be allowed as it's a "new unit" and as such is no longer part of the formation, so doesn't share the same abilities. Beyond that the formation has no rules to work through.

As Captain of the ETC team, I want to use all events as qualifiers to make sure that the entire countries playerbase is represented - it can become hard to justify this when you make changes to specific books, which creates a situation where players winning events aren't under the same stressors they would be at for the ETC - the Tau players can't use lists they might use in representing America in Europe, nor are the other players used to facing those Tau lists. I'm fully aware this isn't your problem or concern, but it's something I feel is worth mentioning.

On a personal level, as a Tau player, I think honestly this change would be the last straw for me on attending events using the ITC changes, so if a change or ruling is going to be made, I'd request it be done with enough time left for me to get a refund and drop from LVO. I could still have a great time in Vegas, so having booked the trip itself isn't a concern for me.

Andrew Gonyo
Captain America

I feel as though this was never intended to bring back the entire squad, but using each pirahna separately. So no, it isn't crystal clear. Change away Reece.. Change away

To be fair gonyo using ITC/not ITC to determine who joins team america hasn't mattered yet so that isn't much in the way of a threat. It also isn't in any way a legitimate complaint. ITC or "Reece" as you refer to it also nerfed Eldar when their codex came out but I don't recall you zipping in threatening to block his events from qualifying for team east coast I mean america.

You play Tau and you were upset when the Tau'Nar was rejected for legal play.. it was laughable to see you hate on LoW but then be upset that the most OP of them all (at that price point) couldn't be considered for 1850 ITC play. Now you are upset because the vote didn't go your way on army wide ignores cover/twin linked/monster hunter etc etc.. I mean come on?

You have won 10 GT's and are one of the best players in the world. Never have you played a competitive game that DIDN'T have some changes / restrictions / nerfs to that format. It's how we play. Being upset because your race was nerfed and then threatening with everything you have is embarrassing.

iNcontroL wrote:
To be fair gonyo using ITC/not ITC to determine who joins team america hasn't mattered yet so that isn't much in the way of a threat. It also isn't in any way a legitimate complaint. ITC or "Reece" as you refer to it also nerfed Eldar when their codex came out but I don't recall you zipping in threatening to block his events from qualifying for team east coast I mean america.

You play Tau and you were upset when the Tau'Nar was rejected for legal play.. it was laughable to see you hate on LoW but then be upset that the most OP of them all (at that price point) couldn't be considered for 1850 ITC play. Now you are upset because the vote didn't go your way on army wide ignores cover/twin linked/monster hunter etc etc.. I mean come on?

You have won 10 GT's and are one of the best players in the world. Never have you played a competitive game that DIDN'T have some changes / restrictions / nerfs to that format. It's how we play. Being upset because your race was nerfed and then threatening with everything you have is embarrassing.

I'd have to agree. Let's be sure we keep the emotions in check and address our concerns in a direct and respectful manner.

With regards to the piranha formation, I will say I agree that it is completely clear that as long as one model remains in the unit, the unit will return from reserve "at full strength" meaning with full numbers and compliments.

The formation specifically identifies as well, full damage repair and all missiles and drones replaced, which if arguing a ridiculously RAW argument, damage results on the unit including wrecks and explodes are "damage" that can be "repaired" but I don't think going that deep is necessary.

Also, as far as intention goes, "full strength" via the military almost always refers to unit numbers; boots on the ground.

Oh and let's be clear, as a fellow Tau player, the Tau'nar should NEVER be allowed into the ITC, unless it receives a huge point increase. It is so grossly overpowered, it sets the forgeworld stigma to a whole new level

@Andrew

Dude...what?

Someone asked us our opinion of that rule on the podcast, and we gave it--off the cuff--stating emphatically and multiple times that we had not even read the rule yet, lol, nor that anything we said was official. We were simply engaging in a discussion with everyone, casually.

So, your reaction to that is to publicly make veiled threats about ETC qualification for ITC events? Damn, dude. That is extremely disappointing, I thought much more of you than that. Beyond the fact that your logic is flawed (you would then exclude every event that didn't use the ETC format form qualification, which is almost 100% North American events) it is also grossly unethical. The army YOU play might get a ruling you don't like so you try to use the power you have to threaten a system that represents thousands of gamers...just think about that for a second. That is definitely an abuse of power and when you calm down a bit and reflect on this rationally, you should feel shame for even thinking about pulling that card.

Why would you choose to make this statement publicly? We talk privately, and as you are well aware of, you helped me write the ITC Tau poll questions. Lol, you had a direct hand in this, you KNOW I am willing to listen to you and consider your opinion, as I am willing to listen to everyone that provides feedback, but you more than most. You could have emailed me, texted me, skyped me, hit me up on FB and provided your feedback on this specific rule interpretation and I would have been more than happy to hear what you had to say...but you choose to go on Dakka...

Look man, if you want your money back, I will PayPal it to you right now and wish you a good day. I am just so completely disappointed you would choose to behave in this way, it's actually a bit shocking.

There are more important things than the ETC selection process imo. I doubt it is intended for free drones coming in every turn of the game.

iNcontroL wrote:
To be fair gonyo using ITC/not ITC to determine who joins team america hasn't mattered yet so that isn't much in the way of a threat. It also isn't in any way a legitimate complaint. ITC or "Reece" as you refer to it also nerfed Eldar when their codex came out but I don't recall you zipping in threatening to block his events from qualifying for team east coast I mean america.

You play Tau and you were upset when the Tau'Nar was rejected for legal play.. it was laughable to see you hate on LoW but then be upset that the most OP of them all (at that price point) couldn't be considered for 1850 ITC play. Now you are upset because the vote didn't go your way on army wide ignores cover/twin linked/monster hunter etc etc.. I mean come on?

You have won 10 GT's and are one of the best players in the world. Never have you played a competitive game that DIDN'T have some changes / restrictions / nerfs to that format. It's how we play. Being upset because your race was nerfed and then threatening with everything you have is embarrassing.

Big +1 on that.

The ITC format isn't intended for the top .1% of players to "practice" for the ETC.

 Reecius wrote:
@Andrew

Dude...what?

Someone asked us our opinion of that rule on the podcast, and we gave it--off the cuff--stating emphatically and multiple times that we had not even read the rule yet, lol, nor that anything we said was official. We were simply engaging in a discussion with everyone, casually.

So, your reaction to that is to publicly make veiled threats about ETC qualification for ITC events? Damn, dude. That is extremely disappointing, I thought much more of you than that. Beyond the fact that your logic is flawed (you would then exclude every event that didn't use the ETC format form qualification, which is almost 100% North American events) it is also grossly unethical. The army YOU play might get a ruling you don't like so you try to use the power you have to threaten a system that represents thousands of gamers...just think about that for a second. That is definitely an abuse of power and when you calm down a bit and reflect on this rationally, you should feel shame for even thinking about pulling that card.

Why would you choose to make this statement publicly? We talk privately, and as you are well aware of, you helped me write the ITC Tau poll questions. Lol, you had a direct hand in this, you KNOW I am willing to listen to you and consider your opinion, as I am willing to listen to everyone that provides feedback, but you more than most. You could have emailed me, texted me, skyped me, hit me up on FB and provided your feedback on this specific rule interpretation and I would have been more than happy to hear what you had to say...but you choose to go on Dakka...

Look man, if you want your money back, I will PayPal it to you right now and wish you a good day. I am just so completely disappointed you would choose to behave in this way, it's actually a bit shocking.

Reece - stuck in a meeting now, so this is going to only be a partial reply, but the intent wasnt to inply itc events wouldnt be qual events. The way i do etc qual necessitates that every event must be included, but to point out that changes like this make it very difficult to ensure people who make the team have the requisite experience with/against things as they will be played at the etc. There is no plan to remove etc qual status from any itc event, nor can there be or the qual system doesnt represent the country.

We've spoken privately a couple times and would appreciate doing it more so on faq issues, ...and kicking back into meeting, will finish in an hour or two but wanted to clear up the etc qual status right away, since the way i wrote it before definitely was worded poorly and gave the wrong perception

y'know. My Tau army was gonna be a contingent with an allied darkstrider. for ignore cover tank hunter monsterhunter at -1T for my whole army. this nerfed that, and y'know what, I dont care, because in the end I suck and i would have gotten nowhere with it.
But I do agree that tau nerfs are getting out of hand.
I know that some tau players Reece feel as if for quite some time you have picked on tau alot because you loose to them(I dont believe that) But tau always seemed to be targets of nerfs. After the first LVO, after serpent spam won with seercouncil, you proposed nerfing.......buffmander.
You cited the Firebase support cadre as the reason you where not gonna allow formations.
I play 2 other armies, and I feel they get nothing near the amount of targeted hate tau do.
But that is just like, my opinion man.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
y'know. My Tau army was gonna be a contingent with an allied darkstrider. for ignore cover tank hunter monsterhunter at -1T for my whole army. this nerfed that, and y'know what, I dont care, because in the end I suck and i would have gotten nowhere with it.
But I do agree that tau nerfs are getting out of hand.
I know that some tau players Reece feel as if for quite some time you have picked on tau alot because you loose to them(I dont believe that) But tau always seemed to be targets of nerfs. After the first LVO, after serpent spam won with seercouncil, you proposed nerfing.......buffmander.
You cited the Firebase support cadre as the reason you where not gonna allow formations.
I play 2 other armies, and I feel they get nothing near the amount of targeted hate tau do.
But that is just like, my opinion man.

You gotta remember that at the time when formations were not allowed, there were not very many formations, and none of them were really that good, except the Firebase Support Cadre, which was pretty absurd at the time. While I'm pretty much against banning anything (except the Tau'nar, because seriously...), it was totally understandable at the time.

While I disagree with some of the result of the rules that were voted on, it is simply a voted on interpretation of a rule that can be taken many ways. Personally, I think all rules should be shared, but nothing can split fire, but instead the voted on interpretation actually lets you still split fire (so you're not forced to over-commit), though at the expense of shared buffs from the buffmander. To play devil's advocate, if all special rules were shared, we would see Tau the same way we see Marines, where it feels like 99% of the players play the same build to maximize a silly formation rule, which is frankly boring to play with and against.

I don't think Reece "hates" any army, his lively hood relies on selling these little plastic toys, or to say it in Warhammerese, "Reece cares not from whence the cash flows, only that it flows."

If there was any problem with the poll, it was simply that in my experience (as someone who works with a lot of user studies) asking opinion based questions instead of fact based questions can yield very different results (can, not guaranteed). While Reece is a masterful plasticrack slinger, he is a journeyman at best in the world of conducting user studies, which I don't think he'd deny, and there is absolutely no problem with that.

Wow, I read a reasoned argument and polite discussion. You guys read it as an implied threat. That's impressively defensive to me.

My thoughts on the piranha's;

Allow psychic units to only summon every other turn and I'm good with changing the piranha formation....

The formation, at max, generates 32 drones per turn for 640pts.

2 Librarius Conclaves generate (on average) 2xPrimaris Summoned units (one that can create more units) and generally 2 more Incursions/GD's/Heralds for 570pts.

32 drones is 448pts and 32 wounds
20 Lesser Daemons (Tzeentch) and a Tzeentch Herald, and a unit of incursion models is around 375pts and 31 wounds and more sources to generate more models next turn.

That's not even counting the "free points" of other Decurion style detachments or the recyclable Nids. Or comparing some of the Decurion boosts to the ones that the tau get (doom on one unit a turn vs. everything get +1 to not die or all obsec).

Overall I, as a person who doesn't play tau, feel like the nerfs for tau could be going way overboard. But that's just my opinion

Responding in order now that I'm at an actual PC

iNcontroL wrote:
To be fair gonyo using ITC/not ITC to determine who joins team america hasn't mattered yet so that isn't much in the way of a threat. It also isn't in any way a legitimate complaint. ITC or "Reece" as you refer to it also nerfed Eldar when their codex came out but I don't recall you zipping in threatening to block his events from qualifying for team east coast I mean america.

You play Tau and you were upset when the Tau'Nar was rejected for legal play.. it was laughable to see you hate on LoW but then be upset that the most OP of them all (at that price point) couldn't be considered for 1850 ITC play. Now you are upset because the vote didn't go your way on army wide ignores cover/twin linked/monster hunter etc etc.. I mean come on?

You have won 10 GT's and are one of the best players in the world. Never have you played a competitive game that DIDN'T have some changes / restrictions / nerfs to that format. It's how we play. Being upset because your race was nerfed and then threatening with everything you have is embarrassing.

1) I typed up a poorly worded, misleading response as I mentioned above regarding ETC. My intent was not to state ITC events wouldn't qualify - by nature of the qual system I wrote it all falls apart if I do this. The problem is ITC is not a one off event, its a widely adopted system which means it has far reaching impacts. And this is great for unity, but my goal was to express the difficulties that presents when trying to prepare a team for play without many rules changes when they are becoming commonplace *prior* to any testing being done. That was why I tried to state that I know it isn't his problem, but I felt it was worth mentioning. In saying it's hard to justify, I'm trying to say the purpose of the system (getting a representative team together to prepare for europe) starts to fall apart - I don't have a choice in whether I include everything, whether I personally like an event or not.

Also, I know it was just a bit of a jab, but consider that the team is not East Coast by design, it just is presently. The team was qualified through a circuit that included more west coast events than east coast. It just happens that last year, the first team created by the new qual circuit, the majority of the major events in the country were won by East Coast/Mid West players, including LVO. I created the system specifically to remove any bias of it being as "east coast" centric. FYI, you're in 7th this year (Top 5 qual for the team automatically, below that become the stable of alternates we look at based on what they play). Right now the top 5 include 3 Mid-west players and 2 east coast. Last years team had a much larger east coast representation, but again, I can't control who wins events.

2) I was and am upset the Tau'Nar was rejected for legal play, as I still feel there were no grounds for it to be rejected. I would prefer to have no SH/GC in the game if it were purely me, but it's not, and SH/GC are in - but if they're going to be in, there is no basis to reject the Tau'Nar versus the other SH/GC's. Look at the recent Ork buy - 12 HPS, power shields, crazy guns, D CCW's, and a guy who takes it for a 530 point discount? Look at wraithknights. If anything the Tau'Nar should have been handled on a trial basis, and my issue is the trend of moving towards shoot first, ask questions later with these issues.

There were easy fixes for the Tau'Nar if, after testing, it was a concern. Namely "The Tau'Nar cannot benefit from markerlight or signature system abilities". Done. But it never got the chance to see if we could perform tweaks before just excising it.

3) My point of referencing my record was just to state "yes, I know competitive play, I've been in it a while, and in my (qualified by experience) opinion, none of these things we're working with were actually going to be that impactful to the game. If they aren't, why are we changing them? These aren't faq questions, these are nerfs prior to testing. I could name a ton of better players than myself, so this wasn't meant to come off as it probably did - apologies on that. While every format has had some changes/restrictions/nerfs, I've never seen a format with so many, and so many that occurred prior to any testing in the open circuit. That's my major issue. If it were one event, I could probably suck it up, but ITC is much more than one event at this point.

To Reece's post, beyond what I responded to above already regarding the ETC qual status:

 Reecius wrote:
@Andrew

Dude...what?

Someone asked us our opinion of that rule on the podcast, and we gave it--off the cuff--stating emphatically and multiple times that we had not even read the rule yet, lol, nor that anything we said was official. We were simply engaging in a discussion with everyone, casually.

So, your reaction to that is to publicly make veiled threats about ETC qualification for ITC events? Damn, dude. That is extremely disappointing, I thought much more of you than that. Beyond the fact that your logic is flawed (you would then exclude every event that didn't use the ETC format form qualification, which is almost 100% North American events) it is also grossly unethical. The army YOU play might get a ruling you don't like so you try to use the power you have to threaten a system that represents thousands of gamers...just think about that for a second. That is definitely an abuse of power and when you calm down a bit and reflect on this rationally, you should feel shame for even thinking about pulling that card.

Why would you choose to make this statement publicly? We talk privately, and as you are well aware of, you helped me write the ITC Tau poll questions. Lol, you had a direct hand in this, you KNOW I am willing to listen to you and consider your opinion, as I am willing to listen to everyone that provides feedback, but you more than most. You could have emailed me, texted me, skyped me, hit me up on FB and provided your feedback on this specific rule interpretation and I would have been more than happy to hear what you had to say...but you choose to go on Dakka...

Look man, if you want your money back, I will PayPal it to you right now and wish you a good day. I am just so completely disappointed you would choose to behave in this way, it's actually a bit shocking.

1) I took it as more than just an off the cuff response on your pod cast, and perhaps that was in error. I did this because I heard you read the rule verbatim, in rewatching it appears you're reading what was provided to you in the comment box, which since it was the actual rule itself, made me believe you were making your preliminary ruling on it with eyes wide open as to what it said.

2) Qual status - as stated before and directly above, that's my bad. I worded it extremely poorly and ended up saying something I didn't even intend to. My intent was to make you aware of the difficulty these rules changes bring to selecting a team. As i mentioned above in my reply to Geoff, in saying it's hard to justify, I'm trying to say the purpose of the system (getting a representative team together to prepare for europe) starts to fall apart - I don't have a choice in whether I include everything, whether I personally like a ruling/change at an event or not - I just have to, the team has to be equally open to the whole country.

3) We've only spoken a couple of times privately, and I believe our discussion was primarily me providing you an unprompted "here's what we're doing on the ETC faq council" and you saying thanks for the info. I didn't feel we had the relationship to just chum it up off the books as I'm not a part of your FAQ group. While I provided you the information and the writing, which you used some of/leaned on, you turn it from a FAQ question, which it should have been since it hasn't been tested at all yet, to a "how do you want it played" which isn't a FAQ question, it's a nerf/rules change. I feel strongly that you need to flow through:
A) What is the rule, if it's not clear, discuss, and follow RAW
B) If RAW isn't clear, is there an obvious RAI to be used
C) If the above results in a ruling that is worrisome, keep track of it and see how it shakes out in RTT/GT play. If it becomes an issue, enact a vote for a rules change.

In my opinion you essentially skipped straight to C.

4) I should have likely contacted you off of Dakka, but this is the spot I see you discussing these things, so I chose to engage here - likely a poor choice. I didn't feel we had a personal relationship established for a sit down on your faq talks, and honestly when writing this didn't see this as nearly as inflammatory as it ended up being, likely because i didn't realize it would come off as a threat of etc qual status. Upon re-reading it I can definitely see how it did, which is on me.

5) The refund comment was for me as a player, not for me as public figure, and should have been a completely separate comment/post and not confused the two topics. I had a suit army planned, being built, but the changes to coordinated firepower make it not worthwhile. I have no interest in the Stormsurge lists as I just don't personally like the model, but have been a long time piranha player so started expanding on the 8 I had ready after reading the montka rules a week ago. When I hear that's the bit being potentially targeted now (and with language like, "obviously it cant..."), I throw my hands up in the air going "well whats the friggin point of updating my tau at all!". It worries me that I'll have nothing I'm interested in playing - I (player-me) want to know if it'll all be finished in time to make a decision as to whether playing in the singles itself is worth it for me.

Feel free to let me know if anything else wasn't clear and I'll do my best to respond to it, this time in a more well thought out manner, about my initial statement.

Anybody that wants an LVO refund, just send me a PM instead and I'll buy your ticket!

I can beat Reece even with all his insidious Tau nerfs.

 whitedragon wrote:
Anybody that wants an LVO refund, just send me a PM instead and I'll buy your ticket!

I can beat Reece even with all his insidious Tau nerfs.

Wow.. Kinda a rude comment. People like you are going to lvo? Ick

Pain4Pleasure, I think you missed the joke

I think it would be best for folks to take a step back and not assume people are making attacks when they're criticizing an ITC decision - open discussion is what a forum is for, after all... if we were all in agreement on everything, there wouldn't be much point in discussing!

I also think it's worthwhile to voice a concern early - there has been a lot of momentum on these ITC decisions... i.e, something is mentioned as being important to vote (or just rule) on, ruling happens, and it's open-and-shut. Any criticism after the decision seems to be ineffective... so it's definitely worth bringing something up early.

I think what the ITC is trying to do is great but I do think the decisions can be somewhat arbitrary (especially when made really early), and as we discussed in the other thread I think the statistics being used to show that people are "not voting in their self interest" do not necessarily support that conclusion (and neither does, well, life at least as it pertains to things like games / sports / rules).

So, I think it would be better to view criticism as Hulksmash says - a reasoned argument and polite discussion, not an attack on anyone or any system.

@Target: I don't think its perfectly clear that the unit returns at full strength. The rule specifies "surviving models" at the beginning of the entry. There is a good case to be made that the "surviving models" return at full strength (i.e. all hull points repaired, destroyed weapons restored, etc.) but not that previously destroyed models are regenerated. Clearly the discussion is more appropriate in YMDC but I think a healthy discussion is appropriate to generate an FAQ before the event.

 minionboy wrote:

You gotta remember that at the time when formations were not allowed, there were not very many formations, and none of them were really that good, except the Firebase Support Cadre, which was pretty absurd at the time. While I'm pretty much against banning anything (except the Tau'nar, because seriously...), it was totally understandable at the time.

While I disagree with some of the result of the rules that were voted on, it is simply a voted on interpretation of a rule that can be taken many ways. Personally, I think all rules should be shared, but nothing can split fire, but instead the voted on interpretation actually lets you still split fire (so you're not forced to over-commit), though at the expense of shared buffs from the buffmander. To play devil's advocate, if all special rules were shared, we would see Tau the same way we see Marines, where it feels like 99% of the players play the same build to maximize a silly formation rule, which is frankly boring to play with and against.

I don't think Reece "hates" any army, his lively hood relies on selling these little plastic toys, or to say it in Warhammerese, "Reece cares not from whence the cash flows, only that it flows."

If there was any problem with the poll, it was simply that in my experience (as someone who works with a lot of user studies) asking opinion based questions instead of fact based questions can yield very different results (can, not guaranteed). While Reece is a masterful plasticrack slinger, he is a journeyman at best in the world of conducting user studies, which I don't think he'd deny, and there is absolutely no problem with that.

I dont think that he hates any army, but he is vocal more about how tau ignore the rules more than most and how it sucks playing orks against them.
And lol yeah, I barely know much about writing questions, despite it being a focus of mine in school lol. but some do seem dubious. The only reason it didnt affect me cause I went into it knowing how I was gonna vote.

@Whitedragon

You do have a perfect record against me, buddy, haha.

@P4P

Whitedragons was joking, that was sarcasm.

@Hot Sizzle

I had trouble reading your post, buddy, but yeah, I get accused of a wide variety of silly things as far fetched as mind control, rigging the system to benefit Deathstars, rigging the system to hurt deathstars, hating this that or the other army (all of them at this point, I think), etc. etc.

The fact of the matter is, as MinionBoy pointed out, we don't hate any army. We have opinions like anyone else, and try to be open and honest about them, but we're not out to get anybody, that would be counterproductive. We sell these models, lol, we aren't going to intentionally disenfranchise any of our customers.

We don't play in our won events, lol, so any thing we do to "fix the game in our favor" would be wasted effort.

Also, Tau have gained a lot from the ITC. Yeah, this vote went contrary to the interests of some Tau players, but that happens. They also gained all of their awesome experimental suits, units of Stormsurges, etc. People just tend to focus on what they feel is being taken away and forget about the benefits.

@Andrew

Thanks for the measured reply, I appreciate it. We get a lot of gak for doing what we do which, ironically for the people that yell at us lol, but coming from you it really felt a bit like a knife in the back. I am sure you didn't intend that, but when you make what felt like an indictment publicly using your title as Captain America to add weight to it, based off of assumptions from a casual conversation and not just come and talk to me about it, I got angry when typically I brush off the rude comments we sometimes get.

As for your rationale in regards to methodology with and FAQ, that is where the disconnect occurs. The ITC is not the ETC. We are not even pretending to be a purist format, we have moved past that as this entire thing has evolved. In 5th ed, yeah, we played the game with a purist mentality as Alessio wrote it that way...until Ward came along, lol. But I digress.

The rules for this game are not written to be taken as seriously as some of us do, especially in 7th. They aren't written with tournament gamers in mind, I know this 100% based off of correspondence with people that write the dang rules, plus it is obviously inferred from GWs actions. Therefore, we conclude that to adhere to them as if they were, is not necessarily the wisest decision. Instead of saying: let's try to determine RAW and then stick to it without deviation, we say: let's play this game in a way that is as appealing to as many people as possible. Often times, RAW is not what people actually want to play. We strive to stick to it as much as possible, of course, and not just change things willy nilly, but that is where the fine touch of it comes into play and where differences of opinion pop up.

What we have found, is that 40k "out of the box" is pretty much unplayable in an organized setting. You must alter it in some ways to make it playable without a lengthy discussion about how to play the game with each opponent. The only question that remains is to what degree do you alter things?

So, instead of dictating all of those changes, we decided to empower the players of the game to make these choices. And in many cases, what is "RAW" is less important that what a majority considers to be fun. I know you may not agree with that position, and that is fine, but that is what it is. And the point is: it works. A great number of people have adopted the ITC format because they find it to be fun to play. Almost everyone that likes the ITC will tell you the following: "I don't agree with every choice made in the ITC, but I prefer the format overall." And, as always, the first rule of the ITC is that you can alter any aspect of it.

Our events use it 100% of course, but that isn't a requirement. Lots of events modify certain aspects of it to suit their local community and that is totally cool. We aren't trying to dictate how the game is played, simply provide a common baseline for organized or casual pick-up game play.

As for timing on decisions, would we prefer to wait, gather data and make a measured decision after a lot of feedback? Yes, of course. That is obviously a wise move. However, in a practical sense, that is not a viable option. New rules come out almost every week and as you saw on the podcast, people expect us to have answers immediately--sometimes when we haven't even had a chance to read the rule in question. There are ITC events every weekend. Those TOs look to us to provide answers. And, the logistics of buying, building, painting a model and THEN getting told not to use it magnifies the gamerage by 100. So, often, expediency is required of us.

As you stated yourself, you want to know how we interpret this specific ruling with time to choose how it impacts your decision to go. So, do we not make a call on it to gather the data and then announce it 2 weeks before the event? No, obviously not. You, and other players need to know as early as possible how we will interpret a rule. Again, often we have to move quickly, there is no choice.

We will strive to answer these new questions as soon as we can, and for any new material that comes up between now and the LVO. We work hard at this, we do our best to provide a fun, fair format. It isn't easy, and we're always finding ways to improve. Feel free to reach out and talk to me in the future instead of taking action like this. It honestly doesn't help anything and felt more like you were venting than trying to communicate, but that could just be my reading of it.

As for the specific rule in question regarding the Pirhanas, I honestly have no opinion on it it as GW screwed up our order and I don't have the book yet, lol! As Frankie and I kept saying on the Podcast, we can't make a call on it as we don't have the material, but people were pressing us for some commentary on it so we gave an opinion. From now on, when people ask us for feedback on a rule we aren't ultra familiar with, we will state that the Gonyo Rule is in effect, so that they know we are simply casually discussing things and not offering up any kind of official ruling/interpretation/etc., lol.

Joking aside, we do hope to see you at the LVO of course, and that you have a fun time.