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.

PanzerLeader wrote:
@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.

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 [b]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.[/b]

There are 2 distinct clauses here - if all of the surviving models are within 6" of a table edge (yes no), the unit is what returns to play at full strength, since the subject of "it" is the noun "unit". If "return at full strength" referring to "the unit" didn't mean to replace dead models, it wouldnt need to specify you also repair damage and replace drones/seeker missiles. They've also used language like this before, for instance with the conscript units that you used to be able to pick up and bring back on from your board edge.

I'm in agreement that if this is a frequently asked question it should be included, but with the propensity lately for tau items to come up and even if clear turn into "well lets decide how we want to play it not how it is", I'm concerned in how these are being handled. The YMDC thread is refreshingly clear/one-sided. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/671108.page



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Reece - "Gonyo Rule" - Seems fair, at least I'll be infamous?

Haha, exactly!

And as for the full strength thing on the Pirhanas, someone sent me an earlier version of that rule from Apoc where it actually specifically states they do all come back, even if destroyed.



We will have to confirm this, of course, but that is a strong case for that reading of the rule.

Also, I think part of this sentiment at present form Tau players is that they had a bunch of stuff come out at once, the Supremacy Suit, Codex and Supplement so a lot of FAQ calls had to be made which if you disagree with them, can feel like an attack when it isn't intended as such.

Reece I'm just glad you aren't backing down to the tau cult.

Ah, it's not like that, really. The thing is I 100% understand why people get mad. And, honestly, it sucks being the bearer of bad news. We want people to be happy about everything we do, of course, but that's not possible. We do our best to be diplomatic and fair, but anytime you disagree with someone that feels strongly about something, they can react emotionally and look for ways to undermine what you are doing, or what have you.

The thing I tell myself when folks get nasty is that they are actually motivated by a love for the game. They are just upset in the short term. It isn't personal and we have to strive not to take it that way.

Ultimately, we want to make something fun for people to do and get excited about, that's all. And the fact that people react so strongly to it actually encourages us to a degree. If people didn't give a rat's ass, then we'd be doing something wrong, lol. Just have to roll with the punches a bit.

 Reecius wrote:
Ah, it's not like that, really. The thing is I 100% understand why people get mad. And, honestly, it sucks being the bearer of bad news. We want people to be happy about everything we do, of course, but that's not possible. We do our best to be diplomatic and fair, but anytime you disagree with someone that feels strongly about something, they can react emotionally and look for ways to undermine what you are doing, or what have you.

The thing I tell myself when folks get nasty is that they are actually motivated by a love for the game. They are just upset in the short term. It isn't personal and we have to strive not to take it that way.

Ultimately, we want to make something fun for people to do and get excited about, that's all. And the fact that people react so strongly to it actually encourages us to a degree. If people didn't give a rat's ass, then we'd be doing something wrong, lol. Just have to roll with the punches a bit.

This is a great response, which is exactly why I can't wait for lvo. Keep on rocking, dude

I'm still pretty sure all the votes are purposely rigged to slowly move towards what Reece has wanted all along... for the dreaded Ork MSU Deathstar list to conquer all.

 Reecius wrote:


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.

.

LoL, I must be getting tired of writing. Stupid paper on Las Vegas
But I think one thing we all have to remember is that people are gonna hate. I know you gain nothing because, between you and frankie, you probably play every army Bar sisters. But some people feel as if that alot of the OP stuff like WK, Free points, and other absurd formation benefits are never voted on, but this is?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Reecius wrote:


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.

.

LoL, I must be getting tired of writing. Stupid paper on Las Vegas
But I think one thing we all have to remember is that people are gonna hate. I know you gain nothing because, between you and frankie, you probably play every army Bar sisters. But some people feel as if that alot of the OP stuff like WK, Free points, and other absurd formation benefits are never voted on, but this is?

Things like the war convocation aren't itc legal anyway so why vote for it

Reece, to try and explain better, here is what I think the current FAQ approach is suffering from, and to be honest unlike silly rumors/posts I sometimes see in these threads, I honestly don't think it's some sort of weird reece-conspiracy to get his way or rigged votes or other nonsense. I do think you do these with the best intentions to try and provide the best product to ITC-users.

However, while I know you have to provide events using your system a response, and in a timely fashion, the way the Tau ones have been handled has a key flaw. If you go with the non-raw, or conservative approach off the bat, no one will ever test the other approach, nor will you be able to (without uproar) reverse a ruling from a vote that was done prior to testing. IE, if you begin at most restrictive, its hard if not impossible to ever loosen it up - as no one has more than the sky is falling reaction we all get when a new codex drops to go on as "why that is the way it is".

If you start at the version that you believe is purely the "correct" way to rule it based on the wording for your preliminary answer to events, you can then see if it's a problem. If it is, then you can do a vote on how people would prefer to play it. Everyone is at this point, as much as they ever will be, knowldgeable of the impact of how the rule works. They can then vote with a more reasoned approach, and players of the codex won't feel as put out as if they never had a chance.

To give an example using the recent Tau faqs.

1) The Tau'Nar - before the model is released, was decided to not be legal. Instead, you could have released a statement saying "we feel this is a bit over the top, and will be using it on a probationary basis - in one month we will revisit whether it will be used based on feedback you provide, here's a link/email/to provide feedback. This would have still been done in plenty of time for LVO, and would be finished prior to today at the very least (I don't recall when its rules came up but it was over a month ago I think).

2) The Coordinated Firepower Rule. Prior to this getting more then a week or two of shelf life, it was put to a "how do you want it played" vote. Instead, you could have said "by the rules, here's how we read it". The likely interpretation here is that it works, but that target locks don't function with it since it states it must be at the primary target. Same as above, you then ask folks to test for a month, submit their feedback, and based on that you'll decide if a vote is required.

3) Scat lasers - geoff mentioned this and I completely had forgotten it - same story, go with raw, tell people you're soliciting feedback for one month to determine if a vote is needed. If so, issue vote.

You still resolves issues quickly, but you make sure that things actually get run to ground before coming out. If issues come up too close to an event, you play the un-voted, less restrictive (presumably raw but we all know that isn't always the case) version at the event. This has happened a ton in past years and events haven't suffered. We all survived through 5th ed when nothing was changed really, through NOVA with Ovesastar, we're all currently surviving eldar (or not really but we're at least okay with it i guess?), through the events that have un-nerfed invis and un-nerfed 2++, etc. But by changing these before they're given a fair shake, player bases feel targeted or disenfranchised unfairly.

Also yes I'm realizing this should have been my first post

Target, I see where you are coming from, and even though your statement was not to me I have a question for you. Are you making this suggestion for any future polls and decisions that itc will be making, or are you saying you'd like the current newest tau results, maybe even the taunar to be looked at again? To be honest, I hope it's the former. As if it's the latter, it comes at looking as if because it affected an army you collect/love and you are a big influence, that you're using that influence to try and support the army you use/love and that wouldn't set well with other users such as myself. I completely agree with your entire statement, but only if this is a "from here on out" and not a "let's redo this really quick"

The basic truth is there are far more eldar players, and they had more of an impact on the vote, closest in history for itc voting I believe. Not as many people play tau as hate them, so due to simple mob rule the Nerf we have now. What IS hypocritical is to pretend that it couldn't have been worded how do you feel the rule should function. Instead they asked what in the end could be simplified down to "do you want tau to have access to the whole benefit of coordinated firepower, or just some of the intended benefits"? If this had been a space marine ruling it would have gone into their favor, and to pretend it was anything over than a popularity vote is disengenus. But the worse crime is not even having a discussion, let alone vote, on the other things that are more broken like necron decursion or marine gladius. Because as much as it might hurt attendance to have to play tau with full rules, outlawing 500+ points of free marine razorbacks would devastate attendance. Me and everyone I know not sitting squarely in the marine campaign groan when our opponent plops down ultra marines gladius with its 3 tactical doctrines a game and 2300 point list compared to our 1850. But I guess the minorities can go get stuffed, just like in real life.

Pain4Pleasure, Target owes you nothing. The FAQ it's in entirety should be up for debate every 3-6 months. Can you look back at your comments and honestly not come off as enjoying Tau players anguish?

@Reece,

What does the ruling mean for Fireteam rules and Dronecontroller interaction with CF? Neither are USRs.

To be clear I'm asking can I combine a Coldstar and two separate Riptides for a +1 BS or a Commander with two separate drone units for a BS 5 for the drones?

Thanks.

 thejughead wrote:
Pain4Pleasure, Target owes you nothing. The FAQ it's in entirety should be up for debate every 3-6 months. Can you look back at your comments and honestly not come off as enjoying Tau players anguish?

@Reece,

What does the ruling mean for Fireteam rules and Dronecontroller interaction with CF? Neither are USRs.

To be clear I'm asking can I combine a Coldstar and two separate Riptides for a +1 BS or a Commander with two separate drone units for a BS 5 for the drones?

Thanks.

Did I ever state he owes me anything at all? I even said I was asking him a question. Don't come at me like you're better than me at all. News flash, you aren't. We are all human. End of story. Now, unless you are contributing to this convo, deuces.

So why does it need to be he former? Don't come out like you have no bias here. Like you said we are Human. humans have bias, seems you have one.

First off, target made the wording for the tau polls in the first place. Second, the poll is done. Let it be, reevaluate it at q later date. Not a day later. Like you said, roughly 6 months

I certainly do not want a re vote this early. Target's approach should be something that should be embraced. And CF should be evaluated in 6 months.

The only issue we have now is we will never know its true impact. I get why only two options were put in the poll, I would have voted for the middle option if it existed, but we are here alas.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Don't come at me like you're better than me at all. News flash, you aren't. We are all human. End of story. Now, unless you are contributing to this convo, deuces.

This kind of language / tone is not acceptable on Dakka Dakka - if you cannot make your argument in a reasonable fashion then please refrain from posting.

This is a useful thread / discussion so no further impolite comments, please - thanks all.

Edit: Brotherkreose ran a light-hearted post by me - if he posts it, please don't take it seriously . In the end it's a lot of fun to discuss these things, and a lot can be learned, too. Just need to keep it polite is all!

First:
I have personally heard Reece laugh evilly about nerfing this and that (while rubbing hands together). He really hates Space Marines, Tau and good quality beer. But I'm not scared. Who can be scared of that? Or even take it seriously? His evil-nerf schemes come out of a can of Pabst.

Second:
More rage quitting! Let's encourage that!
OverWatchCNC? C-ya!
Target? Spread the word and take those Nanavatti and PJ guys with you!
Jy2?
Foster, Sisk?
Brett somebody?
Room for plenty in the Quitters club!

The more Top Dogs drop, the better the chance of Me and HotSauceMan squaring off for all the beans, Table 1, Sunday!

@Reece
Luv u


@hotsauceman
You and me, Table 1, on Sunday. It's destiny, man. So dry brush some white over the primer black, paint the guns and be ready for prize support.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
First off, target made the wording for the tau polls in the first place. Second, the poll is done. Let it be, reevaluate it at q later date. Not a day later. Like you said, roughly 6 months

Just to clarify it was said that Reece didn't use the exact questions that Target provided. He made it more opinion based than rule based which has a large impact.

I really couldn't agree more with Gonyo on this one. Just really the whole thing in its entirety.

ITC is supposed to assist in shepherding players of a variety of skill levels through competitive/circuit games in a fun and well managed fashion by helping to set ground rules. Clearly the ITC exists as a part of Frontline for a profit, but I don't begrudge them that at all. And normally this works fine, and has worked fine for some time now. The basic FAQs are something every league has. And over time, when ITC has seen certain mechanics, be they 2+/2++ rerollables or invis really muscle out everything else in the scene they have decided to level the playing field in some fashion. I personally enjoy playing the purist version, but I can see where they are coming from - in both cases there was plenty of existing tournament results to show us those two were impacting the national meta in a significant way and the community had been clamoring for change. So be it.

With the recent Tau releases though, ITC did not wait to see any results in any meaningful GTs based on the changes these rules had bought about. They seem happy to edit or remove Tau mechanics and models before they see the light of day in the competitive environment. It leaves a god awful taste in the mouths of those who enjoy playing Tau, and even if we were not talking about Tau - do you really think we'd be happy seeing Necrons or Space Marines take a similar kick to the face if their core Decurion style detachment rules had similarly been altered?

On a personal level, I think Reecius, Frankie, and the rest of his gaming group do have the best interests of everyone at heart. And I do not think he or they would be childish enough to lash out at a single race simply because they disliked them getting fun new toys. However this entire vote was handled in a way that felt crappy to anyone with a pony in the race here. Reecius multiple times put his own viewpoint on these rules forward before a vote occurred. You decided to write a little op-ed piece on your website and Bell of Lost Souls specifically about these rules - noting at the end of it that a vote would have to be done. I won't get into the specifics of what you stated there, I thought it a very poorly thought out argument, but it's over and done with. However, in doing so you basically went out of your way to setup a vote based on not a shred of actual information on prior competitions with those rules in place. You also tossed in a vote on tank shock and on a little used/known ork stompa item, both of which have been kicking around forever, and neither of which had been causing any actual issues in the competitive scene, nor would have or will likely impact the meta. You simply put them forward I presume to make it so this wasn't a single vote on a single race for a single core rule to their new book.

Furthermore, you cannot honestly expect us to believe you think of this as a "rule FAQ" or a "Conservative reading of the rule" when you asked everyone to vote based on what they "want" to play it as. The moment you ask people to vote based on anything other than what they believe the RAW are, you pull it well out of the realm of a rule FAQ, and turn it into an attempt to shift the meta. Which is fine if that's what you intend and there feels like a need for it, but don't try and sell it as something that it's not to us. I was more than willing to cede the middle ground to folks and not share the USRs that were unit-wide across this temporary unit for shots against other enemy units shot at via TL/GMC rules unless they would have had them without CF - even though we can all fully agree that's not even remotely RAW. Simply because it would tamp down the fevered pitch on this and allow for some real testing of the rules in a GT. I expected us to at least find out how the rules played out first! Instead we now have gutted the CF rules, and in the ITC environment we'll never see if they might have allowed the Tau to compete against the now common top-table meta with it.

The problem with all of this is that we 100% expect better than this if the ITC is going to attempt to continue positioning itself as an impartial and worthy steward of our hobby in a rules and competitive fashion. Alienating one of the larger race play groups out there before they've even had a chance to enjoy their new models/rules is complete nonsense. And don't tell me you did it to save us money before we buy our models, are you kidding yourself? The community as a whole doesn't buy models simply because ITC sanctions it, nor should you ever get yourselves in a place where that's the case. If that is happening, something is massively wrong. Major rule changes that exist for the purpose of correcting the meta should happen after a season is completed before the new one starts unless an absolute emergency occurs where we can see GTs getting absolutely dominated by a single rule.

We can also all agree that GW should resurrect its rules committee ASAP and get back to it so ITC, ETC, NOVA, etc. can all go from a more robust common core. In its absence though, if you want the role, you guys have to do a better job treating the rules and any rule disputes better than this. Yes you had people asking you about these rules from the day they were leaked on the internet before the book ever was in a person's hand. You know what I expect you to say? That the ITC is going to put its big boy pants on, see how the rules play out for a period in smaller GTs, and then put to a vote changes if they are deemed to be necessary. I have respected you guys for a while now and have been happy to play in small ITC ruled groups and big ones. But if the way ITC is going to resolve online angst about new rules is in this fashion going forward, I'm not going to spend my time and money with them or with Frontline - a place I happily bought my recent mats, some Terrain, and my two Stormsurges.

As to Andrew's issue about people being prepared for ETC (where a purist gameplay/rules system is much more entrenched) I get where he's coming from and in simple terms I'm sure he's quite right about it. A little poorly worded on the implied "threat" but as a statement of fact he's right. If you spend all year playing by ITC rules alone, you are going to be caught horribly off guard by the more RAW approach that middle america, the east coast, and (more significantly) the ETC takes with this hobby.

Goofery aside:

A reminder, events can score ITC points, and be Not-At-All ITC ruled.

I'll be persuading the Pasadena Game Empire crew to not bother with the Tank Shock vote. None of our RTTs have been won by Tank Shocking One-Trick-Ponies, and having no real impact in the last several months, needs not nerfed. Dunno about the Tau yet.

If nothing else, games stores can host ITC *ruled* events and then host an uber cut-throat, RAW as rules get, event. Like the No Know Mercy GT.

We're forgetting one of the main rules:
Play as you want, leading to, have events ruled as you want.

On the udder hand:
I'm not forgetting what Mr. Gonyo referenced about LVO. It's the 800 Pound Gorilla on the West Coast and will bring top talent, a great opportunity for the players I mocked above to *really* test their mettle ... after wading through mediocre talent like me.

Perhaps, the LVO organizers might consider an additional event (at the next BAO?) :
along with Team matches and Highlander, why not a Cut-Throat (perhaps Invitational?) event for ETC caliber dudes, the kind of thing Mr. Gonyo referenced? Open up FW, loosen up on the banned list, maybe even 2++/2++? I dunno what could be worked out, as that's the Adult Table while I'm still relegated to the kiddie table by the TV.

 Brothererekose wrote:



@hotsauceman
You and me, Table 1, on Sunday. It's destiny, man. So dry brush some white over the primer black, paint the guns and be ready for prize support.

So our planto get all the good players to rage quit so its only me an you is gonna work than?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:
@hotsauceman
You and me, Table 1, on Sunday. It's destiny, man. So dry brush some white over the primer black, paint the guns and be ready for prize support.

So our planto get all the good players to rage quit so its only me an you is gonna work than?

 Orock wrote:
The basic truth is there are far more eldar players, and they had more of an impact on the vote, closest in history for itc voting I believe. Not as many people play tau as hate them, so due to simple mob rule the Nerf we have now. What IS hypocritical is to pretend that it couldn't have been worded how do you feel the rule should function. Instead they asked what in the end could be simplified down to "do you want tau to have access to the whole benefit of coordinated firepower, or just some of the intended benefits"? If this had been a space marine ruling it would have gone into their favor, and to pretend it was anything over than a popularity vote is disengenus. But the worse crime is not even having a discussion, let alone vote, on the other things that are more broken like necron decursion or marine gladius. Because as much as it might hurt attendance to have to play tau with full rules, outlawing 500+ points of free marine razorbacks would devastate attendance. Me and everyone I know not sitting squarely in the marine campaign groan when our opponent plops down ultra marines gladius with its 3 tactical doctrines a game and 2300 point list compared to our 1850. But I guess the minorities can go get stuffed, just like in real life.

Please do come to the LVO. You can follow Reece around all day yelling "Tau Lives Matter".

I think the problem with people arguing that it's a Tau nerf, is that they're missing the whole point of the vote. This isn't a Nerf, they aren't changing the rules, they took a community poll on how people interpret the rule. I'm sorry if you disagree with it, I actually do too (I believe it reads allowing sharing all rules but not allowed to split fire by any means), but a majority of the players interpreted it the way the vote went. This is absolutely nothing like the Invisibility or 2++ reroll nerf, where its a deliberate change to the rules.

Is that true though - you think it was a vote on their genuine interpretation of the rules for most people, not opinion on whether it should be buffed / debuffed?

Just talking for myself here, I usually base my opinion on the latter to be quite honest! Thus it's easier to vote up an ork rule and vote down a tau one - it's just human nature, really. Every system is going to have drawbacks and that's one with this one - at least being able to revisit decisions later would be helpful. This would keep it from being an immediate, permanent death sentence for certain units / builds in this format.

And even if you're not able to give the unit time to be played on the circuit to start with (although I think that should be an open question), you at least get to see data without it and can revisit if the debuffing was really needed.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Target, I see where you are coming from, and even though your statement was not to me I have a question for you. Are you making this suggestion for any future polls and decisions that itc will be making, or are you saying you'd like the current newest tau results, maybe even the taunar to be looked at again? To be honest, I hope it's the former. As if it's the latter, it comes at looking as if because it affected an army you collect/love and you are a big influence, that you're using that influence to try and support the army you use/love and that wouldn't set well with other users such as myself. I completely agree with your entire statement, but only if this is a "from here on out" and not a "let's redo this really quick"

P4P - I think your question in and of itself suffers from the flaw you're attempting to see whether I have. You're worried I just want this in order to have a book I play (I play multiple by the way), Tau, benefitted. But in your post you're clearly concerned heavily that even if we change how we do things, we make sure it doesnt benefit tau, a book for some reason you heavily dislike.

I would like this to be looked at for all votes, including Tau. From an organizational level I don't feel revotes on what has been done are productive, even if I disagree with the outcome/how they were handled. As much bad blood as the Tau votes may have garnered, we're beginning to move past it in all likelihood, by going back and "fixing" them, I think we just create more problems, as the seed is already there from people who feel cheated by the first vote being overturned. IE, for the already voted Tau items, we are where we are, as unfortunate (imo) as it is. My real concern is going forward we try to learn from what's been happening with the Tau items and dial back the readiness to change things until we're sure it's needed/wanted.

As someone who's been in the game a long time, I think it's pretty rare to find a codex that dropped and wasn't met with OMG THE GAME IS GOING TO BREAK GET TO YOUR BUNKERS at least to some extent on the internet. And in pretty much all cases cooler heads have prevailed and people haven't felt nerfs were necessary, after testing. Where would we be if this same sentiment/outcome was done for all new books of the current 7th ilk, and not just really starting now with Tau? We likely wouldn't have necron decurions, SM gladius, SM librarius conclaves, we probably wouldn't have eldar seer councils/scat bikes, flyrants def. would have seen some hate/restriction, etc. The game would just be vastly different, which oddly enough, doesn't need to be - in general 40k is in a pretty darn good place right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 minionboy wrote:
I think the problem with people arguing that it's a Tau nerf, is that they're missing the whole point of the vote. This isn't a Nerf, they aren't changing the rules, they took a community poll on how people interpret the rule. I'm sorry if you disagree with it, I actually do too (I believe it reads allowing sharing all rules but not allowed to split fire by any means), but a majority of the players interpreted it the way the vote went. This is absolutely nothing like the Invisibility or 2++ reroll nerf, where its a deliberate change to the rules.

This is actually not true - this is a direct quote from FLG on the poll, on their website:

People have very strong feelings on this and so we intentionally worded the question as a preferential choice, not a definitive answer as to what the rule does or does not say as there are so many different interpretations of what this rule actually communicates.

 minionboy wrote:
I think the problem with people arguing that it's a Tau nerf, is that they're missing the whole point of the vote. This isn't a Nerf, they aren't changing the rules, they took a community poll on how people interpret the rule. I'm sorry if you disagree with it, I actually do too (I believe it reads allowing sharing all rules but not allowed to split fire by any means), but a majority of the players interpreted it the way the vote went. This is absolutely nothing like the Invisibility or 2++ reroll nerf, where its a deliberate change to the rules.

I get what you're saying Minion, and I can see where if the point of view is that this is a rule interpretation - then it is what it is. But the wording of the question does not support that at all. If it was a rule interpretation I would have expected something similar to the following to be the question:

"In your opinion, the interpretation of the new Tau Empire Codex "Coordinated Firepower" rule is best supported by the following proposed implementation:" (followed by 2-4 choices)

"As written in the latest Tau Empire Codex, which of the following interpretations of Coordinated Firepower do you believe best reflects the rules?"

Or something to that effect. With the rule passage in question of course shown for users who don't have the book to reference.

Instead, this didn't happen. They didn't reference the rule passage, so anyone voting who didn't have the rulebook in hand was flying blind on it from a RAW standpoint. More importantly, the question never asked the user how they thought the rule worked. It only asked us how we wanted to play coordinated firepower. These are vastly different things.

You don't have to tell me about the wording of the poll, if you've read the Frontline Blog, I was probably the loudest person about how the questions were written.

In the end though, it's still asking people to come up with a consensus about how the rule should be played in ITC events. The answer that was resolved upon may be *nearly* the strictest interpretation possible by RAW, but at the end thats how it was voted. You might disagree with it, by another totally valid by RAW interpretation, but nothing about the vote was a vote to nerf. As Reece said, it's a matter of people picking which of the equally valid interpretations they prefer.

Really, the vote means that if you went to an event, a majority of the players would disagree with you and how you want to play the rule (if that wasn't the case, you wouldn't be complaining). When that happens, your games will go longer as you and your opponent will keep arguing until someone is right, or until a judge is asked to make a snap decision that is usually about as good as rolling off or tossing a dice.

Again, I still disagree with how they worded the questions, it's quite possible that asking it a different way could yield different results. It also could have broken down into an argument about the definition and purpose of a comma in UK english.

 minionboy wrote:
You might disagree with it, by another totally valid by RAW interpretation, but nothing about the vote was a vote to nerf. As Reece said, it's a matter of people picking which of the equally valid interpretations they prefer.

Really, the vote means that if you went to an event, a majority of the players would disagree with you and how you want to play the rule (if that wasn't the case, you wouldn't be complaining).

I think what you're drawing from this isn't what was voted on - it's kind of tap-dancing around the word "nerf", but you don't dispute that other ITC votes/decisions were actually to "nerf" things, right? (I don't remember if they were just decided or voted on, but obvious ones are invisibility and the 2++ reroll).

It seems odd to me to make a distinction that this one was really choosing between RAW readings, when the rule wording wasn't shown, and the question didn't ask about what ruling the voters thought was accurate. You yourself seem to agree with this:

 minionboy wrote:
Again, I still disagree with how they worded the questions, it's quite possible that asking it a different way could yield different results.

I don't think the wording of the question here supports the idea that people were choosing between what RAW interpretation they thought was accurate - rather, they were choosing whether to buff/debuff something (you could put this wording next to similar ITC votes that were actually to implement debuffs, and it doesn't look different). You seem to agree with this!

So, there is just some room for improvement here - I think it would be great to have a discussion about it (or even for folks like Target / Reecius to do so behind the scenes) so the system could be improved a bit without hitting these "cluster" type moments that get everyone upset