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.

Clarification poll posted regarding ranged D weapons in the ITC https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/08/10/itc-2015-clarification-question-poll/

See the results, here: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/08/07/itc-2015-season-quarterly-update-results/

For those of you who participate in the ITC, or are considering it, here is the Quarterly update for the 2015 season. Jump in and cast your vote to help shape the event!

Thank you very much to everyone that participates.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/07/31/itc-2015-quarterly-update-poll/#comment-423851

Like that it feels like it is at the fine-tuning phase of the ITC FAQ.

Someone mentioned the toe in cover annoyance and was wondering if the future incarnations could include something like "Swooping FMC and Gargantuan creatures do not benefit from Toe in Cover." in the next poll.

I agree with most of the decisions you make, and hope I can make it to LVO this year(work kicked me in right before last year). Tried to vote what I thought was right, rather than what benefited me.

Thanks for your participation! Yeah, we try to go with changes or rulings that are best for the game as a whole. It's tough to do as everyone has different ideas on what that may be. Glad you like it, though.

We hope to see you at the LVO, also! And thanks for voting with your conscience and not personal interests.

Time for the Tyrannocyte ruling to go awayyyyyy.

The super heavy maelstrom question is a tough one.

On one hand, Knights aren't exactly doing super-hot. My buddy runs a baronial court and gets thrashed a lot. He went 3-2 with terrible tiebreakers at wgc and 2-4 at Iron Halo GT. (As an aside, it's hilarious when people whine about facing 3 knights and then blow them out of the water.)

On the other hand, the maelstrom bonus hurts wraithknights ever so slightly, and they desperately need to be hurt. You can't throw a rock at a big itc event without hitting a wraithknight.

@gigasnail

Yeah, I was really surprised at how many folks felt strongly about that ruling. Seemed so niche, but I get asked about it a lot. We'll see how the poll goes.

@ni-mizzet

Yeah, that's the rub of it, isn't it? Some LoW need the hit, for others, it makes them a serious liability (looking at you, Baneblade!).

Thankfully, though, we limit Wraithknights to a max of 1 in an army as it gets really silly when you have more than that. Some folks enjoy that style of play, and I do too, at times. But for a general tournament, no thanks.

It's niche, unless you actually want to use the unit, then it's not so niche. The ruling makes them pretty lackluster. no twin linking or ignores cover makes them heinously overcosted once their shooting is nuetered. If they're made *just* delivery systems, then lower their points to 45 as well or you're really not going to see a lot of them used.

Case in point =) Some people feel quite strongly about it.

And I totally get it, no worries. We're trying to shape the ITC to be the event folks feel most closely represents the type of 40k they want to play, which is why we're tweaking it here and there with questions like this to come closer to hitting the mark.

Bring it!

Good job Reecius !!!

get those votes in!

Thanks for the support, fellas!

I voted!

I even want the D weapon restored back to it's original wording.

On the duplicate detachments, I was mostly okay with it until I thought about multiple canoptek harvests, skyhammers, and firebase support cadres, and threw up in my mouth a little. :/

Exercised my right as a citizen, just like 12% of Americans do.

 whembly wrote:
I voted!

I even want the D weapon restored back to it's original wording.

I was hoping that would be an option on the poll. Instead I voted for the most powerful D allowed.

I like the majority of the questions, a lot of the format army comp ideas seems to bring the format a little closer to nova comp aka losing the limit on formation detachments, because honestly they are not all that bad.

Also the more I think about it, the more I like different missions as they keep the game from going stale, and brining both sides of the countries army comps closer makes it easier to transition from 1 format and back to the other. Might make more itc events using the itc packet on the east coast a possibility!

I look forward to the results!

 whembly wrote:
I voted!

I even want the D weapon restored back to it's original wording.

I agree 100%, let be what it is written as. Get rid of the COMP. I believe the purposes of an FAQ is to help make the confusing rules clear so everyone is on the same page. I do not think that the purpose of a FAQ is to Change the rules.

 Eiluj The Farseer wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I voted!

I even want the D weapon restored back to it's original wording.

I agree 100%, let be what it is written as. Get rid of the COMP. I believe the purposes of an FAQ is to help make the confusing rules clear so everyone is on the same page. I do not think that the purpose of a FAQ is to Change the rules.

The vast majority of what's presented here is not a FAQ, though, and they don't make any claims that it is one.

ITC is a tournament format, and a fair portion of what it does is change the rules, by design. Some of this is more or less by necessity (removing Unbound, limiting detachments) and some of it is based on localized balance decisions (nerfing re-rollable saves or Invisibility), but virtually all of it is a rules change one way or the other.

Even if you're not a huge fan of the format (I never have been, personally), when someone asks for input on their rules changes, "don't change any rules ever" isn't particularly helpful feedback. The game is unplayable at a competitive level without some sort of framework in place.

I think it can work but you have to be able to accept some of your worst fears.

I disagree that the current format does not work. I run our local group and monthly tournaments. Our group has its own FAQ that is for rules clarification only. Most of our tournaments do not limit anything besides unbound. We do have tournaments that have restrictions such as the occasional highlander tournament, but for the most part we don't have restrictions and it has not broken the game in our local meta. We are in a strong community in a decent sized city. We are not the size of NYC or San Fran, however we have decent sized turnouts up to 32 people per tournament. We have competitive players and many players that frequent events like adepticon, Indy GT, NOVA and the like.

Broken is subjective
You might not think it's broken but then again you might be fine with elder wraithspam such as the atc had were 7 out of 10 lists dominated with the most points in a field where there was a lot of variety and direct hard counter lists paired against each other.
Saying you use all the rules is also not clear do you use the extra victory points escalation rules? All forgeworld even older IA books with significantly lower points costs on units. Experimental rules? Because a lot of that is broken. The itc also doesn't make many rule changes. They make some conservative faq calls such as warp spiders and fmc blasts.

DJ3 wrote:

 Eiluj The Farseer wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I voted!

I even want the D weapon restored back to it's original wording.

I agree 100%, let be what it is written as. Get rid of the COMP. I believe the purposes of an FAQ is to help make the confusing rules clear so everyone is on the same page. I do not think that the purpose of a FAQ is to Change the rules.

The vast majority of what's presented here is not a FAQ, though, and they don't make any claims that it is one.

ITC is a tournament format, and a fair portion of what it does is change the rules, by design. Some of this is more or less by necessity (removing Unbound, limiting detachments) and some of it is based on localized balance decisions (nerfing re-rollable saves or Invisibility), but virtually all of it is a rules change one way or the other.

Even if you're not a huge fan of the format (I never have been, personally), when someone asks for input on their rules changes, "don't change any rules ever" isn't particularly helpful feedback. The game is unplayable at a competitive level without some sort of framework in place.

^this lol Reece is a smart guy, I can't see him proposing changes that would do harm to the competitive aspect of the ITC format


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eiluj The Farseer wrote:
I disagree that the current format does not work. I run our local group and monthly tournaments. Our group has its own FAQ that is for rules clarification only. Most of our tournaments do not limit anything besides unbound. We do have tournaments that have restrictions such as the occasional highlander tournament, but for the most part we don't have restrictions and it has not broken the game in our local meta. We are in a strong community in a decent sized city. We are not the size of NYC or San Fran, however we have decent sized turnouts up to 32 people per tournament. We have competitive players and many players that frequent events like adepticon, Indy GT, NOVA and the like.

While it sounds like you have good experience in running events, x working in y local meta does not usually translate to the national scene where hundreds of different local metas from all over the country converge.

When will we ever see the addition of 30k units and lists? At 1850 it's definitely in line or less powerful than their 40k counterparts. Even more so since they cannot take LoWs at those points. Just curious as to the reasoning. And it hurts if local stores run only ITC Events... Therefore cutting out part of the community, just to stay in line with your Ruleset.

 foto69man wrote:
When will we ever see the addition of 30k units and lists? At 1850 it's definitely in line or less powerful than their 40k counterparts. Even more so since they cannot take LoWs at those points. Just curious as to the reasoning. And it hurts if local stores run only ITC Events... Therefore cutting out part of the community, just to stay in line with your Ruleset.

Definitely this. One of our locals runs 30k armies. The standard 7th edition armies from necrons on are far scarier.

In the future, is there any way/plan to make the questions available so you can review them after you've already voted?

Results are in! Thanks for the feedback, everyone.

@Mortetvie

Questions have been included in the poll results. Feel free to provide any critical feedback.

I think that since people answered Question 7 before 8, they didn't have time to consider 8 fully. People were probably afraid to commit to a changed D table without some context of what it could be changed to (and likely thought you meant change it back to BRB table).

Maybe a follow-up questionnaire that asks if people want to modify the D chart as outlined in Q8 (and pick an option) or leave it as it currently is for ITC?

Personally, I think ranged D could use a slight buff as in count as S10 for ID where applicable and maybe do 3 wounds/HP on a 6 roll.

I've got a question. I read #9 as the standard 1pt per 3 wounds/HP but you said this in your response;

"A number of folks have expressed the sentiment that the +1 Maelstrom point we grant in the ITC for each HP/Wound you deal to a Super Heavy or GC LoW "

So which one is it? Just making sure there wasn't some confusion on #9.

Thanks Reece!