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.

The only things that strikes me as funky about the polls is the person posting them opining on them beforehand to the target audience that will vote on them, and the opening of the polls up to anyone who wants to participate (which will inherently include players who have 0 interest in tournaments).

If I posted in a NOVA newsletter that I Thought something was broken or that it read a certain way, then sent a poll in the following newsletter on that question, the results would be different than if I simply put the information and question out first without opinion. I'm not sure how different, however. I'm not sure this is a bad thing, though. The FLG guys should feel comfortable ruling how they perceive the game should be played, sometimes in opposition to popular opinion, as they run good events that are well-liked. The masses in this hobby don't *always* know the vote that will yield the best balance or fun, only the one that seems the most popular (I think more often than not the majority is right, however).

I think people will critique just about any wording, though. Hard to get away from that, and no reason to spend too much energy trying to satisfy all the masses. At least Reece is actually putting up polls and asking people. That has a fair bit of value.

Though presuming I continue to be able to make LVO (I have travel and hotel tickets already paid up), I'll probably be playing the best balanced and tightest rules game on the market right now (heh), rather than 40k this year. So no dog in the particular fight.

Yeah that of course is the case Mike but these guys run a podcast and are personalities in our scene.. I wouldn't have it any other way. There are also other people arguing the other side / same side to these issues but we all just agree Reece has the most reach so somehow a bunch of people make the argument that he brainwashes people then runs polls.. it's a bit silly. I personally disagree with Reece on a number of rulings and when the polls come out I don't even for a second go "Well Reece wants this..." but I guess the fear is people do?

The entirety of people posting in this thread, as an example, do not represent really even a fraction of those who participate in the polls / read the blogs, I imagine. I've learned through NOVA over the years that while there are plenty of contrarians and independent thinkers and the like, there are also plenty (quite a few) of people who have a lot of faith in those who lead and run good events, and in the absence of a very strong opinion of their own, will put their votes where their faith lies.

I think this is a good thing, mind you - per my post above, I think oftentimes an event organizer or group of organizers knows best about their own events and how they should be best run and ruled. So, I'm not sure it's actually bad that a fair # of voters will simply go "you know, I thought Reece made some good points and I agree." It's not as if someone with the same overall name recognition (really, none of the FLG guys outside of Reece have his level of name rec, for better or worse) is being given a simultaneous counter-opinion piece within the same posts as Reece's, and it's not as if Reece is arguing both sides when he opines. But again, not really sure this is bad. That said ...

It does give credence to some of his detractors, and this is where I find it funky ... why fuel a fire when you don't need to, I figure. So, my comment is less "I object to this way of doing it," and more "I'm not sure that way of doing it is doing the ITC any favors."

What I mean is: If it has an impact, that's probably not good for the PR front, because it's crediting the idea that Reece directly influences the polls without an equally weighted counterpoint, and thus tinges the democratic experience as not really all that democratic. Whether it is or isn't, my point is it gives *credence* to his opponents, which seems pointless to do. If it doesn't have an impact, then it doesn't need to be done prior to posting the polls. Hence, it's a potential lose-lose to weigh in as the lead poster / best known name / etc., and probably only a win-win to hold off on well-read opinion posts and podcasting until after the voting is done.

Just my $.02, and meant as constructive / helpful, not destructive. Reece and I have partnered increasingly well on things over the past years, and I'm a big fan of you guys.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Made some edits for clarity

As always, the input and feedback is appreciated, everyone.

So, again, just to clarify:

Yes, we 100% did word the question intentionally. Yes, we worded as preference, not as interpretation (although the two are typically tied together).

Why?

Because if we simply worded the question:

"Do you want to play Coordinated Firepower as RAW?"

Yes?

No?

The question would be meaningless as their is no consensus on what RAW is. Some of you reading this may feel you know what RAW is, but the issue is that others feel the same way with a different reading of it.

Almost everyone I talked to about this--and I do consult a lot of bright 40k players about these things--gave me a different interpretation of the rule. RAW is simply unclear.

So, instead of going down the rabbit hole of trying to interpret RAW, we simply provided the questions in a way that would produce a possible spectrum of responses and asked quite simply how folks wanted to play it, as at the end of the day, that is actually more important than what it says. I know some of you disagree with that, particularly if you didn't get the result you want, but that is the stance we take here at FLG at this point in time. We find that more people get enthused and have fun in that type of environment.

The trick, as stated many times, is to only approach the game that way in very specific circumstances so as not to go overboard. Where that line in the sand is varies from person to person, though.

And we go through this every time. With Eldar it was the same, with Marines it was the same, etc. etc. It's just a new group that speaks out when it is their turn to face community judgement/TO rules calls. I totally get it.

And yes, I openly and unapologetically state my opinions on these issues. I always have and I always will. I am not a robot, and pretending like I don't have an opinion on these matters would be lying. I prefer to talk openly about these things as for one, I enjoy talking nerd with everyone, and for two, it puts my biases right out in the open. I care about the game just like you guys do.

EDIT: Although! It would be great fun to have someone representing the counterpoint come on the show to share their points of view and have a fun, spirited debate. I always love a debate!

However, I gain NOTHING but "getting my way" so to speak, as I (unfortunately) don't really get to participate in the ITC in anything more than a supporting role and occasionally as a player. But, I can't win anything, I can't take home any glory as a player like I once used to try to do. For me, the fun is seeing other people have fun at this point, so I strive to advocate for what I see as fair, fun, and conducive to the total group's enjoyment of the game. I have taken that approach to every faction, even my own armies (my poor Revenant will probably never see the light of day outside of Apoc).

You guys may disagree with my opinions on things from time to time, but that is totally cool! Debate and such are fun when done maturely. I disagree with other people's points of view all the time, lol, but I can still go to their events and have a blast playing 40k with my friends, anyway. One or two rulings that I don't agree with aren't going to spoil my fun.

I also go out of my way, especially lately, to tell people hey, this is my opinion think about this for yourself. Like on this last poll, Frankie and I clearly stated how we would vote (he and I often disagree, too) but encouraged everyone to go play at least one game with the Tau and Tank Shock and to try to play with the Stompa too, to have an informed opinion so they could vote intelligently. We tried to present pros and cons to all the possible outcomes, too. We try to be as fair as possible but at the end of the day, we're all human and a perfectly fair way of gathering information--especially when using language as the medium of exchange--isn't possible.

So, anyway, thanks for the feedback everyone, we really do listen and are always trying to improve. Looking forward to TSFHT and LVO and Adepticon and NOVA and all of the other awesome events!

Well the SM players were able to successfully lobby against the nerf to battle brothers and chapter tactics thank the Emprah which could explain why this one was abrupt.

Quite Frankly, im thinking Battle Brothers is getting out of hand and all should be treated like Allies of Convinance.
This will solve like, 90% of all tournament problems.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Quite Frankly, im thinking Battle Brothers is getting out of hand and all should be treated like Allies of Convinance.
This will solve like, 90% of all tournament problems.

I dunno if you're being sarcastic or not, but honestly I would be so happy if this happened. There's a lot of perfectly fine stuff out there that suddenly feels like a load of bullpoop as soon as BB is taken into account.

I mean sure, it's fluffy and people have made really interesting forces out of BB lists, but it's a bit silly in some instances.

Since we are wishlisting I would like to see all SD removed from the game .

850ish votes on the latest poll? I thought a twitch cast said 10000ish email sent, and publicized on a few sites/boards.

It was sent 2 days prior to thanksgiving and tallied 2 days after? Seems like 850votes doesn't capture the communities views...

It dont matter much to me, Ill play either way at events that play it X or Y way. Just wonder why such a low voting turnout.

Well yeah, it is wishlisting, but as an army without BBs, I think I get to complain a little bit

On to the topic at large, I think part of it comes down to how people perceive organizations like the ITC.

On one hand, you have people who think they're there to just interpret the rules. Be the "final say", so to speak, on the sort of arguments that gamers get in over rules. And they do, as anyone who's played the game knows.

On the other, you have the group of people who think that ITC (and other similar organizations) are there to "patch" the rules, since GW is clearly not in the market of doing so. People who think that the organization is there to, in a way, change the game to make it more competitive.

So when something like this poll happens, you have two different types of people who are upset for two similar but somewhat different reasons. People from Group A are upset because RAW is fickle like that and their reading didn't get the final say. People from Group B are upset because in their minds, it's ITC "putting out a patch" that directly nerfs their army. Cue cries of "Blizz/Rito please".

In the end, while the polling isn't a perfect system, I think people need to realize that it's the one we have and deal with the results or organize a proper submission to have the results looked at/voted on again in the next poll cycle. I mean, who knows, maybe by the next poll, people will be less gunshy and scared by it, and vote to let Tau have all the fun toys at the same time.

You are the one that started the wishslisting ... well actually it was saucy but I think you get the gist it is annoying.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
You are the one that started the wishslisting ... well actually it was saucy but I think you get the gist it is annoying.

I just agreed with the guy above me, I have no standing complaints with the way ITC (or in fact, most tournament organizations) are set up and run their events.

Requizen wrote:
In the end, while the polling isn't a perfect system, I think people need to realize that it's the one we have and deal with the results or organize a proper submission to have the results looked at/voted on again in the next poll cycle. I mean, who knows, maybe by the next poll, people will be less gunshy and scared by it, and vote to let Tau have all the fun toys at the same time.

But it's a system that's Really easy to change... I don't know, I guess I think I'd actually prefer the ITC to just make the decisions they think are best for the game, informed by discussion with as many involved parties as possible. I've voted in a few of these (missed this last due to Thanksgiving) but it doesn't really seem to be the best approach (in my opinion) since it is so open to being influenced (the BB vote compared to this one is interesting).

So, I think it is great to see Reece / Gonyo / etc having a spirited discussion about the system here but I would love to see it modified for future decisions.

 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.

For the last time it absolutely was not a rule interpretation question. Go back and read it. It was a how would you like to play it question. The follow up questions were interpretation questions, like do you think according to raw target locked firing models benefit from this rule.

 RiTides wrote:

Requizen wrote:
In the end, while the polling isn't a perfect system, I think people need to realize that it's the one we have and deal with the results or organize a proper submission to have the results looked at/voted on again in the next poll cycle. I mean, who knows, maybe by the next poll, people will be less gunshy and scared by it, and vote to let Tau have all the fun toys at the same time.

But it's a system that's Really easy to change... I don't know, I guess I think I'd actually prefer the ITC to just make the decisions they think are best for the game, informed by discussion with as many involved parties as possible. I've voted in a few of these (missed this last due to Thanksgiving) but it doesn't really seem to be the best approach (in my opinion) since it is so open to being influenced (the BB vote compared to this one is interesting).

So, I think it is great to see Reece / Gonyo / etc having a spirited discussion about the system here but I would love to see it modified for future decisions.

Well, if they just "made up their mind", I could see the outcry against Reese and the rest immediately. At least with the poll the blame isn't all on the people just trying to make a decent format.

But it is interesting. As you say, comparing it to the BB Space Marine vote and it's nearly completely opposite. SM ended up getting the ability to share rules that are insane multipliers, while that was denied from Tau who don't even pull it off through shenanigans like multiple detachments.

But, in the end, it's a rules interpretation. It doesn't really affect me because I play neither Imperials nor Tau, just something that I need to plan for.

 Orock wrote:

 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.

For the last time it absolutely was not a rule interpretation question. Go back and read it. It was a how would you like to play it question. The follow up questions were interpretation questions, like do you think according to raw target locked firing models benefit from this rule.

RAW I think that models with target locks can't even target a different unit (as the more specific detachment rules would override the generic wargear rules), nor can GMC for that matter (same reason), but I do think that all the buffs are shared across the whole formation. The vote didn't go that way, it's how I voted. Fortunately, while the vote did go with the more conservative ruling about sharing rules, you're still allowed to split fire, making it a lot less likely that you'll overkill your target. People voted the way that they thought it should be played, which is fine, as there seems to be a dozen or so different ways to read it. I'm sorry the most OP interpretation didn't win, and somehow still getting a buff over the previous book is a nerf.

Requizen wrote:
Well, if they just "made up their mind", I could see the outcry against Reese and the rest immediately. At least with the poll the blame isn't all on the people just trying to make a decent format.

But it is interesting. As you say, comparing it to the BB Space Marine vote and it's nearly completely opposite. SM ended up getting the ability to share rules that are insane multipliers, while that was denied from Tau who don't even pull it off through shenanigans like multiple detachments.

But, in the end, it's a rules interpretation. It doesn't really affect me because I play neither Imperials nor Tau, just something that I need to plan for.

Yeah, just noting it's a risk when "opening it up to the masses". I think it might also give a little bit of a false sense of fairness, and while having the ITC guys just make their own decision wouldn't be as "democratic", it might end up being a bit fairer / less arbitrary on what is buffed / debuffed / etc. Just food for thought, and having the discussion might help with considering things next time around...

But definitely, as Target said, when you have the masses' reaction to any new book being "OMG OP BROKEN!", having a vote soon after release can be dangerous just because of that kneejerk reaction people have (if opening it up to a public vote). Whereas things that are (imo) actually somewhat OP but we're all used to, don't get quite the same reaction

It was a popularity contest and nothing more. If it was voting on allowing hell drakes 360 degree fire arc again, even if it was to help a super down in the dumps army, it would fail. Because marines would not like their saves taken away.

If we are voting on how people would like to play things, where is the vote for allllll the other op combinations?

The Ork stompa was definitely due to lobbying.

@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.

We havenmt even started to crack into the can of worms that is, ok if a unit that has usr's is involved in a CF tries to make of them, how does that work? This ruling, Again RAW - now by ITC - says no shared rules, but it affirms that this omni unit exists. So what the hell, now if my buffmander and 9 crisis suits join in they don't get their buffmander's rules?

I can see, through the ether of the interwebs some of you rolling your eyes. Trust me I agree. But stick with me for a moment, I happily play against the rest of the folks out here competitively and you think we won't invoke this complete horse crap question if we get near final table status against a hunter cadre? Now that you've basically rewritten how the rule works, of course I'm gonna contest any sort of sharing at all when someone invokes CF, because that's what this vote just made happen. No rules are shared during a coordinated firepower, done. But no, you'll all just continue pretending raw (even rewritten raw) don't matter. Of course this vote didn't "mean" that - right?

All you did is tear a nasty hole in the rules of a decurion detachment and invite more problems. And now you'll need another bs vote to figure it out again. And don't kid yourselve's, mont'ka is sweet but it has nowhere near the strength CF afforded Tau.

This is what happens when people spend no real time thinking things through. Three to five weeks is a blink of the eye in competitive 40k. But that's all it took to gut these rules, present it as a some form of rules vote, and force it on the itc league.

 Reecius wrote:


I . . . encouraged everyone to go play at least one game with the . . . Stompa too, to have an informed opinion. . .

doktor_g: I will have Vegas back for myself! He who controls the Stompa controls the universe and what Reecius did not tell you is we have control of someone who is very close, very close, to Elvis! This person, this traitor, will be worth more to us than ten legions of Orkdaukar!

Reecius:And who will field this Stompa?

doktor_g: I won't tell you who will control the Stompa, or when we'll attack. However, the Elvis will die before these eyes and he'll know, he'll know, that it is I, Baron Vladimir doktor_g, who encompasses his doom!

What are the odds there will be anymore polls before lvo?

 RiTides wrote:

Requizen wrote:
In the end, while the polling isn't a perfect system, I think people need to realize that it's the one we have and deal with the results or organize a proper submission to have the results looked at/voted on again in the next poll cycle. I mean, who knows, maybe by the next poll, people will be less gunshy and scared by it, and vote to let Tau have all the fun toys at the same time.

But it's a system that's Really easy to change... I don't know, I guess I think I'd actually prefer the ITC to just make the decisions they think are best for the game, informed by discussion with as many involved parties as possible. I've voted in a few of these (missed this last due to Thanksgiving) but it doesn't really seem to be the best approach (in my opinion) since it is so open to being influenced (the BB vote compared to this one is interesting).

So, I think it is great to see Reece / Gonyo / etc having a spirited discussion about the system here but I would love to see it modified for future decisions.

I hear you, RiTides. I think, and I certainly don't know, but I think the reason that Reece and company use the vote is that they have a very large crowd of people that enjoy their events and they want to give their customers the opportunity to voice their opinions. From listening to his podcasts and reading their emails/reports/whatever, I also don't think that Reece is a guy that wants to have to say "Look, this rule is stupid. You guys are going to play it this way in my events. Get over it!"

Anyhow, whether I agree or not (and some rulings I don't care for), I will say that the guys are certainly comprehensive and are doing a good job of covering unclear or fuzzy rules, as well as curbing abuse of same. In the end, I actually prefer a more Dictatorship-Style "fething get it done this way", but 20 years of corporate life will institutionalize you!

First off I want to give a big shout out for the ORK players out there, the stompa will help but its still an uphill climb

But we are used to having the oldest codex by now.

Big congrats to Reese for having a fair player voting system for his events. Everyone has his or her own opinions but he is letting us lunatics run the asylum, clap clap.

Every event has there own rule interpretations and some sort of imposed comp, ADEPTICON, ITC, NOVA, ETC, TLW, FTN and All the rest.

I have been playing this silly game of toy soldiers for a long time and seen it all and had more then my fair share of success if that is how we rate what our opinions are worth, be glad that there is a clear set of rules that will be in effect rather than getting blind sided in Vegas.

If you are going all nerd rage over a ruling, just vote with your wallet and don't go, no need to take this stuff personal.

In fact I am offering to buy Reese and Frankie whatever they are drinking for all their hard work and effort they have put into this.

No better way to start a new year off then in vegas playing toy and having a good time.


marc parker

I know what you'll be bringing now.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I know what you'll be bringing now.

Whiskey, and probably beer.

I think Im gonna install a flask in my Leman Russ.
That will help me sneak in booze.

Just chug a ton in your hotel room early in the morning... If you got the stones.

I'm gonna sneak my liquor in by putting it n my stomach.