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.

 somerandomidiot wrote:
I played Jonathan Camacho at the LVO, and he was using them as 180 degree firing arcs (which allowed him to fire 2 at a single target, or 3 if it was large enough, like my Imperial Knights), and that seemed reasonable. I believe he said that he'd been told to play them as 180 degrees, but I don't remember specifically. You can submit the question via the ITC rules submission form (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1W8A22qTts0p9CIkhxZIefmicHr7J2RoWlJmPqGQFiZo/viewform).

I played Jonathan at Texas Wargamescon, and he was using them as 180 degree firing arcs then as well. It worked pretty good. I think it is a pretty reasonable way to go.

We were officially responding to Tesla Sphere fire arc questions that they could measure 45 degrees from any point of the spheres, treating the entire thing as the barrel. We'll add it to the FAQ.

The new vote will be ready to rock at the end of the week, we will be going over a lot of ground, there's a lot of new material in there including the Tau Ghostkeels, the Piranha formation some Corsairs stuff, format issues with points levels for large events, etc. It will be bigger than most of our votes typically are.

Sounds great, looking forward to it . Cheers for the responsiveness on all the requests lately!

No worries! I enjoy hanging out and talking to everyone here, just the last 3 months have been brutally busy. Didn't have any time.

I actually didn't mean that to come across as "You weren't around earlier" just that it's really evident that as soon as you guys recovered from LVO you've jumped on the issues people wanted to see addressed, which is awesome!

Reece: have you guys thought about adding this format as the maelstrom aspect of the missions:

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/04/06/the-mediocre-gamer-presents-the-mediocre-tournament-format/

It has a strategic deck building aspect, the "mission" can't get away from you in one turn, it gives each faction a way to achieve goals that are based on its play style.

The last part of that resonates the most with me as I play IG. My army is hugely disadvantaged with objectives like "score enemy's objective" as I'm not likely to get there. However if my army is supposed to issue an order to get a point, I can certainly do that. Mobility is still very important for a lot of the card missions, but at least I'm not out of it completely from the word "go".

Yeah, sit and shoot armies need help IMO

 Reecius wrote:
The new vote will be ready to rock at the end of the week, we will be going over a lot of ground, there's a lot of new material in there including the Tau Ghostkeels, the Piranha formation some Corsairs stuff, format issues with points levels for large events, etc. It will be bigger than most of our votes typically are.

That is awesome. We really appreciate all of the work you do, and for me personally (running a GT in a couple months), it is super helpful that this vote happens so quickly.

Neutral wording and keeping to attempting to clarify rules would be wise given the reaction to recent developments. (Ie. The backlash against the use of "how would you like X played")

 Eldarain wrote:
Neutral wording and keeping to attempting to clarify rules would be wise given the reaction to recent developments. (Ie. The backlash against the use of "how would you like X played")

I echo this sentiment. The most recent ITC polls have felt too intrusive into the rules and game mechanics for my liking.

@RiTides

Happy to help!

@bogulabov

We will take a look at that. We're listening to all feedback about restructuring the missions at this point in time.

@tag883

Happy to help, man. Running a 40k event without some type of help is a daunting proposition at this point in time. If we work together, it's a lot easier to do.

@Eldarain

No matter what we do, no matter how we word the questions, accusations of bias/unfairness/etc. will fly. It is unavoidable and I simply accept it will never be perfect, although we always try to do things in as transparent and fair of a way as possible.

@Overwatch

You're just sore that the Tank Shock thing didn't go the way you wanted it to, buddy! haha

Has there been any thought on how powerful going 2nd is in the current objective driven game? Where someone who can effectively be getting stomped all game can just last minute on to objectives for a win? Perhaps scoring Maelstrom at the end of each player turn instead of game turn?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Has there been any thought on how powerful going 2nd is in the current objective driven game? Where someone who can effectively be getting stomped all game can just last minute on to objectives for a win? Perhaps scoring Maelstrom at the end of each player turn instead of game turn?

At end of player turn sucks, because it means there is no rebuttal for either player. Makes maelstrom too easy, IMO. The better solution, IMO, is to have players score them at the beginning of their turn, beginning turn 2 (similar to what NOVA does with its progressive mission scoring). I'd highly recommend this route as it means that both players will get the opportunity to react to their opponent.

I think this would help balance out going 1st/2nd, youd still have an advantage going 2nd (final say on objectives) but it wouldnt be as obvious a choice. I know Reece and ITC mostly seems to think that going 1st/2nd is fairly balanced, but its not at all. All armies i've been playing against recently in ITC choose to go 2nd, especially now that there are super efficient ways to protect against alpha strikes (void shield...).

Agreed with above. I think scoring your maelstrom points at the start of your following turn would be much more balanced. Also, second player rolls to begin his turn, not game turn, to mitigate first turn getting two turns to counter their opponent's maelstrom point.

It's definitely amusing that the BC vs BC battles pretty much entirely came down to who went second. I went first (playing BC) vs one and pretty much barely clawed my way to a tie with insane luck (made 8 3++ saves?). My opponent then proceeded to face another BC, went first and promptly lost.

tag8833 wrote:

 somerandomidiot wrote:
I played Jonathan Camacho at the LVO, and he was using them as 180 degree firing arcs (which allowed him to fire 2 at a single target, or 3 if it was large enough, like my Imperial Knights), and that seemed reasonable. I believe he said that he'd been told to play them as 180 degrees, but I don't remember specifically. You can submit the question via the ITC rules submission form (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1W8A22qTts0p9CIkhxZIefmicHr7J2RoWlJmPqGQFiZo/viewform).

I played Jonathan at Texas Wargamescon, and he was using them as 180 degree firing arcs then as well. It worked pretty good. I think it is a pretty reasonable way to go.

Glad for the clarification. Thanks a bunch!

Now I just need to save for the bloody thing.

Yeah, Eldar vs. Eldar, or reserve army vs. reserve army often comes down to who goes second regardless of format. The real issue is the IGOUGO format more so than anything, but that is obviously not easily fixed.

We are open to altering the mission structure (and plan on doing it, actually). Any ideas and feedback are appreciated. We've been looking at exactly the change described, actually, of pushing back the scoring a player turn to give both players time to counter the other player.

I also ask how are you gonna deal with the VSG? that thing is way to prevalent and just breaks the game

Really all you need for the vsg is to say it only covers models partially within its' bubble, not the whole squad. I myself got hit with a 36inch conga-line of a deathstar that was fully covered by a vsg.

Though even saying "partially" brings up toe-in which is another area of silly, though probably a more contentious one. We could start by just making MCs/GMCs be treated like vehicles and keep troops as is. Dunno.

I would love to see toe in cover come to a vote this poll.
But hopefully the question seperate a gmc and mc. it would effectively hurt most MC to much imho. Most GMC on the other hand could use the nerf. Maybe remove the extra VP for GMC and SH if toe in cover is removed.

Id also like to see hunter contingent Come to a vote again.

See army point sizes revote to be reduced. 1750 or 1500. I prefer 1750

I think a large ITC vote is needed this time to address a lot of recent changes.

Love to see some of the mission changes there are some great mission ideas out there like etc or even the new GW card ideas coming next week.

I don't do ITC but i read up on some of the stuff that was "voted" on and a lot of it seems really weird or downright wrong, so here goes:

Void Shield Generator
If anything needs to change consider that the VSG rule should apply to models under the shield, not units, to prevent absurd congalines etc.

Ranged D
Revoke, that nerf has run its course.

Invisibility
Revoke it, why not? Nova, Stomps, HoW, Barrage, Culexus etc there are numerous ways to handle it. Shooty armies suffer the most from Invis so e.g. Tau which people seems to have crazy bias against anyway so here's a tool for you

Tau
Revoke Hunter Contingent nerf.
Revoke Ghostkeel nerf
Revoke Piranha Firestream nerf
Revoke change to Stormsurge tank shock. It is irrelevant due to Unstoppable, Gargantuan Creature rule.
Revoke Markerlights not hitting units when shooting through a Void Shield nerf.

Torrent Hellstorm Weapons
Allow, because why not?

ForgeWorld
Just allow it all, there is no Experimental or 40K approved stamp anymore, it's all "Legal".

I also ask how are you gonna deal with the VSG? that thing is way to prevalent and just breaks the game

We treat it like a vehicle / building. So all special weapon types and rules work against it - haywire, melta, gauss, tank hunter etc. That's how it used to be run until the ITC faq made a ruling on it. It remains a powerful defensive choice but now there are ways for opponents to deal with it.

X078 wrote:
I don't do ITC but i read up on some of the stuff that was "voted" on and a lot of it seems really weird or downright wrong, so here goes:

I love the ITC's more tempered approach to things. In my local tournaments and in my gaming group, I found it made things more competitive and there was a better sense of balance in the game. Personally, I think they are taking the right direction in most things and it has definitely helped out my local scene.

X078 wrote:
Ranged D
Revoke, that nerf has run its course.

Who is the only one with ranged D? Eldar... How has this nerf run its course? The tournaments are full of Eldar. Can you imagine how much less army diversity there would be if they revoked the D nerf?

X078 wrote:
ForgeWorld
Just allow it all, there is no Experimental or 40K approved stamp anymore, it's all "Legal".

I think allowing FW experimental rules are already in the works. I love FW, just like the next guy, but I really hope they don't go through with allowing experimental rules. Some experimental units are just too rediculously good. They invalidate other army options. :S

X078 wrote:
I don't do ITC but i read up on some of the stuff that was "voted" on and a lot of it seems really weird or downright wrong, so here goes:

Void Shield Generator
If anything needs to change consider that the VSG rule should apply to models under the shield, not units, to prevent absurd congalines etc.

Ranged D
Revoke, that nerf has run its course.

Invisibility
Revoke it, why not? Nova, Stomps, HoW, Barrage, Culexus etc there are numerous ways to handle it. Shooty armies suffer the most from Invis so e.g. Tau which people seems to have crazy bias against anyway so here's a tool for you

Tau
Revoke Hunter Contingent nerf.
Revoke Ghostkeel nerf
Revoke Piranha Firestream nerf
Revoke change to Stormsurge tank shock. It is irrelevant due to Unstoppable, Gargantuan Creature rule.
Revoke Markerlights not hitting units when shooting through a Void Shield nerf.

Torrent Hellstorm Weapons
Allow, because why not?

ForgeWorld
Just allow it all, there is no Experimental or 40K approved stamp anymore, it's all "Legal".

The void shield specifically says units
Range d is already unnerfed except for a 6 roll doesn't cause max 12 wounds/hull and only 6 instead hardly a nerf.
Invis is still the most broken ability in game.
There is no revoking it's votes and ghostkeel and piranha are being voted on
storm surge is pretty clear rule wise and marker lights are a shooting atk but your bias is pretty clear when your example is remove it just because you don't like it.

To be fair I don't know enough about torrent hellstorm units to care.

Forgeworld including experimental are already allowed regardless of what you think is "legal"

 The Everliving wrote:

I also ask how are you gonna deal with the VSG? that thing is way to prevalent and just breaks the game

We treat it like a vehicle / building. So all special weapon types and rules work against it - haywire, melta, gauss, tank hunter etc. That's how it used to be run until the ITC faq made a ruling on it. It remains a powerful defensive choice but now there are ways for opponents to deal with it.

I agree with this. VSG is way too ubiquitous otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Invis isn't really anymore or less broken with ITC modifier. Those units are still all but invincible and should never be engaged. The Invis nerf does not change my strategy for engaging those sorts of units In the slightest. I def. don't see the point of the nerf on that or rerolls of 2+.

With regard to considering a point reduction vs. implementing incentives (and dis-incentives) for timely play, perhaps it is time to introduce the concept of the 'Reserve' section of a tournament. Since we've already looked at chess clocks, let's look at how chess tournaments are organized. A chess tournament of any decent size has two sections: Open and Reserve. Reserve players are grouped with other players in their rating range where players in the Open are in the mix with everyone (Grandmasters and U1400 alike). Yes, the Reserve is divided into even smaller subsections, but let's ignore that aspect as it doesn't translate to 40K.

The winner of the Open is the tournament champion. The winner of the Reserve section is the reserve section champion.... Prize support is awarded accordingly. When you sign up, you choose which section you want to play in. Perhaps the Open is 1850 with strict incentives/dis-incentives (and clocks/timers) while the Reserves is 1500 points. Games are scheduled for the same amount of time, whether in the Open or in the Reserves. If you choose to play in the Open section, you are accepting a higher standard of play (efficiency-wise, etc.). If you are a newer or more casually minded player, you are encouraged to play in the Reserve section.

DCannon4Life wrote:
With regard to considering a point reduction vs. implementing incentives (and dis-incentives) for timely play, perhaps it is time to introduce the concept of the 'Reserve' section of a tournament. Since we've already looked at chess clocks, let's look at how chess tournaments are organized. A chess tournament of any decent size has two sections: Open and Reserve. Reserve players are grouped with other players in their rating range where players in the Open are in the mix with everyone (Grandmasters and U1400 alike). Yes, the Reserve is divided into even smaller subsections, but let's ignore that aspect as it doesn't translate to 40K.

The winner of the Open is the tournament champion. The winner of the Reserve section is the reserve section champion.... Prize support is awarded accordingly. When you sign up, you choose which section you want to play in. Perhaps the Open is 1850 with strict incentives/dis-incentives (and clocks/timers) while the Reserves is 1500 points. Games are scheduled for the same amount of time, whether in the Open or in the Reserves. If you choose to play in the Open section, you are accepting a higher standard of play (efficiency-wise, etc.). If you are a newer or more casually minded player, you are encouraged to play in the Reserve section.

Aye, this is a good suggestion.

Ranged D
Revoke, that nerf has run its course.

Invisibility
Revoke it, why not? Nova, Stomps, HoW, Barrage, Culexus etc there are numerous ways to handle it. Shooty armies suffer the most from Invis so e.g. Tau which people seems to have crazy bias against anyway so here's a tool for you

Welp, I guess I'll be quitting 40k and playing infinity then. Even with the nerfs I've had far too many games ruined by terrible mechanics like D and Invis and stomp, and I've played plenty of games with unnerfed D and Invis and they are straight up miserable.

 Reecius wrote:
@RiTides

Happy to help!

@bogulabov

We will take a look at that. We're listening to all feedback about restructuring the missions at this point in time.

@tag883

Happy to help, man. Running a 40k event without some type of help is a daunting proposition at this point in time. If we work together, it's a lot easier to do.

@Eldarain

No matter what we do, no matter how we word the questions, accusations of bias/unfairness/etc. will fly. It is unavoidable and I simply accept it will never be perfect, although we always try to do things in as transparent and fair of a way as possible.

@Overwatch

You're just sore that the Tank Shock thing didn't go the way you wanted it to, buddy! haha

Nuh Uh! (Said in whiny teenager voice)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

X078 wrote:
I don't do ITC but i read up on some of the stuff that was "voted" on and a lot of it seems really weird or downright wrong, so here goes:

Void Shield Generator
If anything needs to change consider that the VSG rule should apply to models under the shield, not units, to prevent absurd congalines etc.

Ranged D
Revoke, that nerf has run its course.

Invisibility
Revoke it, why not? Nova, Stomps, HoW, Barrage, Culexus etc there are numerous ways to handle it. Shooty armies suffer the most from Invis so e.g. Tau which people seems to have crazy bias against anyway so here's a tool for you

Tau
Revoke Hunter Contingent nerf.
Revoke Ghostkeel nerf
Revoke Piranha Firestream nerf
Revoke change to Stormsurge tank shock. It is irrelevant due to Unstoppable, Gargantuan Creature rule.
Revoke Markerlights not hitting units when shooting through a Void Shield nerf.

Torrent Hellstorm Weapons
Allow, because why not?

ForgeWorld
Just allow it all, there is no Experimental or 40K approved stamp anymore, it's all "Legal".

I agree with all of the above except the item about ranged D and Forgeworld.

I would add in a revoking of the Tank Shock ruling. What Reece? I'm not sore about it! See!?

 Reecius wrote:
Yeah, Eldar vs. Eldar, or reserve army vs. reserve army often comes down to who goes second regardless of format. The real issue is the IGOUGO format more so than anything, but that is obviously not easily fixed.

We are open to altering the mission structure (and plan on doing it, actually). Any ideas and feedback are appreciated. We've been looking at exactly the change described, actually, of pushing back the scoring a player turn to give both players time to counter the other player.

This and some other tweaks largely solved IGOUGO "who goes 2nd" for NOVA missions this most recent year, both statistically in terms of game outcome and in the survey feedback received from a vast majority of the players. Individual experience will always vary, ofc.