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.

 Reecius wrote:
@Naw

You think the Tau didn't stand a chance? Huh, I was sweating bullets all the way through his round of interceptor fire. Had he seized, I probably get pwnd. Had he killed both units of Vanguard with interceptor? Buffmander is never locked in combat on turn 1 and he lights me up like a Christmas tree.

It feels like a lopsided game (and it was) because literally everything went my way in the opening play. If we played that game 5 times in a row, I bet money Raven Guard don't win all 5 times.

@Castellan Alaric

Yeah, we get that questions a ton with Skyhammer, too. For one, the IC doesn't have the special rule to assault from reserves that the formation has (they both reference models in the formation). But, you can attach a character to them if you want, they just lose some of their special bonuses.

Also, it's a bit much. For example, if you played that the formation special rules transferred to ICs, you would see people first turn assaulting out of reserves with characters like Draigo and such attached to each 5 man assault unit. It would not be fun for the other player at all.

Or Ovesa back in sixth.

But that is exactly how in YMDC IC's joining Skyhammer was agreed to work. The formation bonuses do not stop working and the IC would tag along. I would not play it that way, so house ruling is also something we do here. GW should have made it more clear with the formations rules, though.

Reecius, I didn't get that feeling from the batrep, maybe it was a closer game. I just thought you had too many bodies too quickly in his face for him to stand a chance and the misdeployment just made it worse.

Even with a free buffmander he would have had to nominate three units to kill one and you didn't exactly have high value targets in your army.

Once he was boxed in there was no way he could have gotten the objectives. Tau is still very weak in that kind of game.

@Naw

Yeah, some people read ICs joining to work, which is fine, but we don't play it that way in the ITC as we read it the other way and we feel it's downright no fun.

But good point about the Tau having to chew through a bunch of MSU units, that can be tough for them when it isn't vehicles. And it just takes a few Marines making it into a unit of Tau to typically beat them up or at least stop them from shooting. The Riptide was the only thing giving me trouble and to be fair, he made way more saves than he should have. He held onto that last wound with a fury, lol.

Thanks for the diligent play testing guys! I think this may be the first time in history a tourney organizing group has managed to play test a new army, get absolutely wrecked all of both tests with said army, and STILL convince their public they need a double fisted Nerf, all in less than a month. Hey, do you think when we get the nid leaks, we can put them in their place before the book even releases? That way nobody has to be dissapointed when they have to change their rules around for the 5 marine players who think your army is "OMG op". Really you would be doing them a solid. We can dub it ITC Pre approved.

But joking aside, I am sorry you don't agree with the ITC ruling, however, instead of ranting and railing at me, please consider that the decision was a community decision and that a majority of people did not want to go with the more aggressive interpretation of the Coordinated Firepower rule. I could only speculate as to each person's motivations and you are free to draw your own conclusions, but I think in this instance it was simply considered to be too much.

It is still very powerful. In our games, once we got the hang of the new Tau, we've been crushing people with the conservative reading of Coordinated Firepower. I wouldn't be concerned about your ability to compete as a Tau player. Plus, the new Mont'Ka detachment and formations are very, very powerful. Probably better.

At any rate, it always sucks when someone isn't pleased with a ruling, but that is unavoidable. Had it gone the other way, instead of you yelling at me, it would be someone else. It's just the nature of the beast.

Question 2: How do you wish to play the Tau Coordinated Firepower rule in regards to contributing Tau units sharing special rules?

That does not sound like how do you INTERPERET the rule. That sounds like "hey bro, dem tau rules right? Should we nerf em?"

There is a world of difference between that and "according to RAW, where every unit shooting together at the same terget COUNTS as a single unit for fireing purposes, would special rules be used for everyeone I.E. things like twin linked, ignores cover, ect."

The answer is yes.

And your wrong if you think I am salty about a nerf to my codex. I am pissed because SOOOO much other total bs was NOT, and some much more deserving. In that case, you dont have enough salt to represent my level.

I understand your frustration, Orock, truly. I understand why you can feel like this is unfair, or what have you.

And yes, you are correct. We DID word the question to indicate how players want to play the rule, not what they think it actually says. What is clearly RAW to you is not so clear to other players. When I first read the rule, RAW was clearly the conservative reading. I actually laughed the first time someone suggested they shared every rule of every model contributing to the coordinated firepower attack because it seemed so far fetched to me. You can go back and watch my reaction, it was live on air.

But, a lot of other people read it the other way and I was forced to acknowledge that hey, my reading of the rule was not necessarily the right reading of the rule. I asked 4 of my friends, whom I consider to be 40k experts, what they thought the rule said, they each gave me a different answer! Lol, it is about as clear as mud.

So, the only conclusion I could draw was that we had to simply let everyone choose how they wanted to play it. We presented the questions in a way to allow for a wide range of possible outcomes, from most powerful to least and everything in between, and the result we got was the will of the ITC community.

I am very sorry to hear you disagree with it. Seriously. I know how frustrating that can be. I have had to change several of my own armies as a result of that occurrence. But, the alternative is chaos, where every tournament has a different format and different rules. Compromise is the nature of the beast when it comes to a standardized format. We all have to concede on certain points.

It is still very, very powerful. And, you have a plethora of new tools with Mont'Ka. Tau can still absolutely compete. And do other factions have weird, or powerful rules? Yes, they do. We do out best to try and provide a fun, level playing field for the 40k community to come together and play this game without arguing for an hour about 20 different rules interpretations every game. The ONLY way to do that, is to make tough calls on contentious issues. When that happens, some folks agree, some don't. Some folks are happy, some are pissed, as you are now.

The wheel will turn around your way though, bear that in mind. The nerf to the 2+ reroll save arguably benefits Tau the most. Tau also got units of Stormsruges. Tau also got all of their experimental Suits. You've gotten a LOT from the ITC as a Tau player, try to remember that and not just focus on what you feel has been taken away from you.

Anyway, again, sorry you are mad. We hate it when that happens, but that is simply the nature of the game. Hopefully when you have had a chance to cool down you will realize you can still have a great time playing your army.

 Reecius wrote:
I understand your frustration, Orock, truly. I understand why you can feel like this is unfair, or what have you.

And yes, you are correct. We DID word the question to indicate how players want to play the rule, not what they think it actually says. What is clearly RAW to you is not so clear to other players. When I first read the rule, RAW was clearly the conservative reading. I actually laughed the first time someone suggested they shared every rule of every model contributing to the coordinated firepower attack because it seemed so far fetched to me. You can go back and watch my reaction, it was live on air.

But, a lot of other people read it the other way and I was forced to acknowledge that hey, my reading of the rule was not necessarily the right reading of the rule. I asked 4 of my friends, whom I consider to be 40k experts, what they thought the rule said, they each gave me a different answer! Lol, it is about as clear as mud.

So, the only conclusion I could draw was that we had to simply let everyone choose how they wanted to play it. We presented the questions in a way to allow for a wide range of possible outcomes, from most powerful to least and everything in between, and the result we got was the will of the ITC community.

I am very sorry to hear you disagree with it. Seriously. I know how frustrating that can be. I have had to change several of my own armies as a result of that occurrence. But, the alternative is chaos, where every tournament has a different format and different rules. Compromise is the nature of the beast when it comes to a standardized format. We all have to concede on certain points.

It is still very, very powerful. And, you have a plethora of new tools with Mont'Ka. Tau can still absolutely compete. And do other factions have weird, or powerful rules? Yes, they do. We do out best to try and provide a fun, level playing field for the 40k community to come together and play this game without arguing for an hour about 20 different rules interpretations every game. The ONLY way to do that, is to make tough calls on contentious issues. When that happens, some folks agree, some don't. Some folks are happy, some are pissed, as you are now.

The wheel will turn around your way though, bear that in mind. The nerf to the 2+ reroll save arguably benefits Tau the most. Tau also got units of Stormsruges. Tau also got all of their experimental Suits. You've gotten a LOT from the ITC as a Tau player, try to remember that and not just focus on what you feel has been taken away from you.

Anyway, again, sorry you are mad. We hate it when that happens, but that is simply the nature of the game. Hopefully when you have had a chance to cool down you will realize you can still have a great time playing your army.

Exalted. Also, I hope you don't mind, but I'm copying this and putting it in the General Discussion thread about the ITC ruling.

I agree with Orock on the matter of what could be learned from the game.

Tau have always suffered being pressed early, and the Raven Guard force seems to be tailor-made to do exactly that. The EWOs on the Broadsides (that couldn't ignore Marine armour anyhow) and on the Riptide mitigates that glaring weakness slightly, but they're really only effective against single units trying to alpha, not (as this was) an entire army.

I do feel that the threat presented by EWOs is somewhat overblown - and that's from experience playing as and against Tau players. There are a lot of hoops the Riptide has to jump through in order to provide effective counterfire, and they'll be firing a blast weapon at their basic BS, which has a significant probability of scattering.

Also, if the Tau player knew they were facing Raven Guard, I wonder if they would have modified their list to somewhat mitigate the more egregious effects of the alpha strike. Others have mentioned it already, but it was surprising that the Tau list failed to include some buffering units of Kroot, especially since the Strike squads were token size anyway.

On the matter of the ITC ruling, I was disappointed with it not because it disadvantages Tau (I play too many armies to care overmuch about rulings made against any particular one), but because it was defined by the community. I might be in the minority, but the community should never be used as a source of clarity on fuzzy rules issues. There's just far too much opportunity for bias, with those who are negatively affected by it far more likely to vote in their own favour. In addition, many voters likely didn't apply the level of scrutiny I would think necessary for such an issue. Lastly, although I'm sure many would be, a lot of the voters may well not be involved in the tournament scene or only involved in a minor way, and I don't believe their opinion on the matter should be given much weight.

I would've much preferred some kind of panel affair, a group of perhaps 10 individuals who plan and run ITC events and are heavily involved in the tournament scene having an open discussion and coming to their own conclusion. Basically, I trust FG far more than the general 40k-playing public

It would be interesting to see if a fuzzy rule appears for a more popular army, one that dominates the tables, whether the public ruling would fall a different way. I believe it would, which is another reason why having an 'experts panel' would've been a better idea.

That said, it is great to see Raven Guard getting a set of formations that represents their modus operandi far better than those in the basic SM dex, and seeing them in action just reaffirms my choice to use them for my own Chapter. The battle report was, as always, entertaining and informative, and I hope you continue to produce them in the future.

Finally, I hope you don't take my comments in a derogatory manner, I don't mean them to be. I don't think you would, but it's always best to clarify what tone you intend your statements to be read in on the internet.

Great work, and keep it up!

 Reecius wrote:
I understand your frustration, Orock, truly. I understand why you can feel like this is unfair, or what have you.

And yes, you are correct. We DID word the question to indicate how players want to play the rule, not what they think it actually says. What is clearly RAW to you is not so clear to other players. When I first read the rule, RAW was clearly the conservative reading. I actually laughed the first time someone suggested they shared every rule of every model contributing to the coordinated firepower attack because it seemed so far fetched to me. You can go back and watch my reaction, it was live on air.

But, a lot of other people read it the other way and I was forced to acknowledge that hey, my reading of the rule was not necessarily the right reading of the rule. I asked 4 of my friends, whom I consider to be 40k experts, what they thought the rule said, they each gave me a different answer! Lol, it is about as clear as mud.

So, the only conclusion I could draw was that we had to simply let everyone choose how they wanted to play it. We presented the questions in a way to allow for a wide range of possible outcomes, from most powerful to least and everything in between, and the result we got was the will of the ITC community.

I am very sorry to hear you disagree with it. Seriously. I know how frustrating that can be. I have had to change several of my own armies as a result of that occurrence. But, the alternative is chaos, where every tournament has a different format and different rules. Compromise is the nature of the beast when it comes to a standardized format. We all have to concede on certain points.

It is still very, very powerful. And, you have a plethora of new tools with Mont'Ka. Tau can still absolutely compete. And do other factions have weird, or powerful rules? Yes, they do. We do out best to try and provide a fun, level playing field for the 40k community to come together and play this game without arguing for an hour about 20 different rules interpretations every game. The ONLY way to do that, is to make tough calls on contentious issues. When that happens, some folks agree, some don't. Some folks are happy, some are pissed, as you are now.

The wheel will turn around your way though, bear that in mind. The nerf to the 2+ reroll save arguably benefits Tau the most. Tau also got units of Stormsruges. Tau also got all of their experimental Suits. You've gotten a LOT from the ITC as a Tau player, try to remember that and not just focus on what you feel has been taken away from you.

Anyway, again, sorry you are mad. We hate it when that happens, but that is simply the nature of the game. Hopefully when you have had a chance to cool down you will realize you can still have a great time playing your army.

Sorry, but your wording of the questions 100% told people which one you wanted them to pick.

The poll question should have been:
Coordinated Firepower- "Whenever a unit from a Hunter Contingent selects a target in the shooting phase, any number of other units from the same Detachment who can still shoot can add their firepower to the attack. These units must shoot the same target, resolving their shots as if they were a single unit - this includes the use of markerlight abilities. When 3 or more units combine their firepower, the firing models add 1 to their ballistic skill."

Does this mean that rules, that one unit has, may be shared with any other units participating in the coordinated firepower? As the rule says "resolving shots as if one unit" and special rules are shared throughout a unit?.

If you would have put that instead 100% chance it would have passed. But no, you put super long, convoluted sentences that make it seems like Tau players are trying to pull all these buffs out of their butts with no background information.

I have yet to hear 1 single valid argument as to why RAW rules are not shared (coherency does not affect this, as you tried to go in depth with in an article). You simply did not want this rule and skewed all voting to get that.

Dr. Delorean, had FLG made the call themselves though there would have been outcry of "elitism!" They can't win, so have to appeal to the majority.

That said, I wasn't a fan of the leading questions and I'm certainly not a fan of the 50% +1 system. I would have liked to have seen it play tested in tournaments before a vote was put on it. Preferably a new vote for Q1 2016 considering how close it was.

Always remember though, the ITC, however good or bad you think the rulings are, are essentially house rules. Feel free to mix it up in your own metas.

notredameguy10 wrote:


Sorry, but your wording of the questions 100% told people which one you wanted them to pick.

The poll question should have been:
Coordinated Firepower- "Whenever a unit from a Hunter Contingent selects a target in the shooting phase, any number of other units from the same Detachment who can still shoot can add their firepower to the attack. These units must shoot the same target, resolving their shots as if they were a single unit - this includes the use of markerlight abilities. When 3 or more units combine their firepower, the firing models add 1 to their ballistic skill."

Does this mean that rules, that one unit has, may be shared with any other units participating in the coordinated firepower? As the rule says "resolving shots as if one unit" and special rules are shared throughout a unit?.

If you would have put that instead 100% chance it would have passed. But no, you put super long, convoluted sentences that make it seems like Tau players are trying to pull all these buffs out of their butts with no background information.

I have yet to hear 1 single valid argument as to why RAW rules are not shared (coherency does not affect this, as you tried to go in depth with in an article). You simply did not want this rule and skewed all voting to get that.

It has nothing to do with RAW. I don't believe it was ever a vote on what the RAW is. It was a vote on how to play it for balance purposes. I don't like the end result at all. But it was never meant to be a vote on which interpretation is correct.

Median Trace wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:


Sorry, but your wording of the questions 100% told people which one you wanted them to pick.

The poll question should have been:
Coordinated Firepower- "Whenever a unit from a Hunter Contingent selects a target in the shooting phase, any number of other units from the same Detachment who can still shoot can add their firepower to the attack. These units must shoot the same target, resolving their shots as if they were a single unit - this includes the use of markerlight abilities. When 3 or more units combine their firepower, the firing models add 1 to their ballistic skill."

Does this mean that rules, that one unit has, may be shared with any other units participating in the coordinated firepower? As the rule says "resolving shots as if one unit" and special rules are shared throughout a unit?.

If you would have put that instead 100% chance it would have passed. But no, you put super long, convoluted sentences that make it seems like Tau players are trying to pull all these buffs out of their butts with no background information.

I have yet to hear 1 single valid argument as to why RAW rules are not shared (coherency does not affect this, as you tried to go in depth with in an article). You simply did not want this rule and skewed all voting to get that.

It has nothing to do with RAW. I don't believe it was ever a vote on what the RAW is. It was a vote on how to play it for balance purposes. I don't like the end result at all. But it was never meant to be a vote on which interpretation is correct.

It was a combination of RAW and how to play. That was the problem. Frontline gaming believed RAW was that it did not share and they said as much, so people believe them.

But that is how it is. Tau players wanted to be on top, so said they had all these special rules when they really don't. Tau players tried their hardest to find the most loop holes they could, and are upset that they were quickly caught

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
But that is how it is. Tau players wanted to be on top, so said they had all these special rules when they really don't. Tau players tried their hardest to find the most loop holes they could, and are upset that they were quickly caught

Oh hi again troll!

Best you got? Once again, no actual contribution, discussion, or evidence to back up anything you say. Its always just "i hate tau", "i love my imperium", "I'm awesome"

ITC went with the most conservative ruling. I agree there was a lot of Tau players demanding that all the loop holes should be allowed rather than go for the middle ground.

notredameguy10 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
But that is how it is. Tau players wanted to be on top, so said they had all these special rules when they really don't. Tau players tried their hardest to find the most loop holes they could, and are upset that they were quickly caught

Oh hi again troll!

Best you got? Once again, no actual contribution, discussion, or evidence to back up anything you say. Its always just "i hate tau", "i love my imperium", "I'm awesome"

Why say to you what's already been said a thousand times? People have tried explaining it to you and naw, yet both of you choose to continue to only believe your way is correct and any other way is impossible cause "I love fish" "look my fish are good" "awe fish got nerfed rage"

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
But that is how it is. Tau players wanted to be on top, so said they had all these special rules when they really don't. Tau players tried their hardest to find the most loop holes they could, and are upset that they were quickly caught

Oh hi again troll!

Best you got? Once again, no actual contribution, discussion, or evidence to back up anything you say. Its always just "i hate tau", "i love my imperium", "I'm awesome"

Why say to you what's already been said a thousand times? People have tried explaining it to you and naw, yet both of you choose to continue to only believe your way is correct and any other way is impossible cause "I love fish" "look my fish are good" "awe fish got nerfed rage"

f
\

HAHAHA you make me laugh. Reread every single thread you posted in regarding this. YOU were the only person say that CFP DOESNT share. more than 90% of the people all agreed and not one single person, including you, gave any sort of argument against it.

notredameguy10 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
But that is how it is. Tau players wanted to be on top, so said they had all these special rules when they really don't. Tau players tried their hardest to find the most loop holes they could, and are upset that they were quickly caught

Oh hi again troll!

Best you got? Once again, no actual contribution, discussion, or evidence to back up anything you say. Its always just "i hate tau", "i love my imperium", "I'm awesome"

Why say to you what's already been said a thousand times? People have tried explaining it to you and naw, yet both of you choose to continue to only believe your way is correct and any other way is impossible cause "I love fish" "look my fish are good" "awe fish got nerfed rage"

f
\

HAHAHA you make me laugh. Reread every single thread you posted in regarding this. YOU were the only person say that CFP DOESNT share. more than 90% of the people all agreed and not one single person, including you, gave any sort of argument against it.

I'm the only one yet it got voted away? You sir make me laugh. Have fun at most tournies, which use itc ruling. I hope we get the chance to nerf your vehicle shenanigans too. They DONT come back if that dumb formation of destroyed

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
But that is how it is. Tau players wanted to be on top, so said they had all these special rules when they really don't. Tau players tried their hardest to find the most loop holes they could, and are upset that they were quickly caught

Oh hi again troll!

Best you got? Once again, no actual contribution, discussion, or evidence to back up anything you say. Its always just "i hate tau", "i love my imperium", "I'm awesome"

Why say to you what's already been said a thousand times? People have tried explaining it to you and naw, yet both of you choose to continue to only believe your way is correct and any other way is impossible cause "I love fish" "look my fish are good" "awe fish got nerfed rage"

f
\

HAHAHA you make me laugh. Reread every single thread you posted in regarding this. YOU were the only person say that CFP DOESNT share. more than 90% of the people all agreed and not one single person, including you, gave any sort of argument against it.

I'm the only one yet it got voted away? You sir make me laugh. Have fun at most tournies, which use itc ruling. I hope we get the chance to nerf your vehicle shenanigans too. They DONT come back if that dumb formation of destroyed

It got voted away only because people did not want to play it, NOT because it isn't RAW

notredameguy10 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
But that is how it is. Tau players wanted to be on top, so said they had all these special rules when they really don't. Tau players tried their hardest to find the most loop holes they could, and are upset that they were quickly caught

Oh hi again troll!

Best you got? Once again, no actual contribution, discussion, or evidence to back up anything you say. Its always just "i hate tau", "i love my imperium", "I'm awesome"

Why say to you what's already been said a thousand times? People have tried explaining it to you and naw, yet both of you choose to continue to only believe your way is correct and any other way is impossible cause "I love fish" "look my fish are good" "awe fish got nerfed rage"

f
\

HAHAHA you make me laugh. Reread every single thread you posted in regarding this. YOU were the only person say that CFP DOESNT share. more than 90% of the people all agreed and not one single person, including you, gave any sort of argument against it.

I'm the only one yet it got voted away? You sir make me laugh. Have fun at most tournies, which use itc ruling. I hope we get the chance to nerf your vehicle shenanigans too. They DONT come back if that dumb formation of destroyed

It got voted away only because people did not want to play it, NOT because it isn't RAW

Negative. It isn't raw, so got voted away. Itc had even said this. 10 people, 10 answers difference, not raw, gone. Seriously, get over it

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
But that is how it is. Tau players wanted to be on top, so said they had all these special rules when they really don't. Tau players tried their hardest to find the most loop holes they could, and are upset that they were quickly caught

Oh hi again troll!

Best you got? Once again, no actual contribution, discussion, or evidence to back up anything you say. Its always just "i hate tau", "i love my imperium", "I'm awesome"

Why say to you what's already been said a thousand times? People have tried explaining it to you and naw, yet both of you choose to continue to only believe your way is correct and any other way is impossible cause "I love fish" "look my fish are good" "awe fish got nerfed rage"

f
\

HAHAHA you make me laugh. Reread every single thread you posted in regarding this. YOU were the only person say that CFP DOESNT share. more than 90% of the people all agreed and not one single person, including you, gave any sort of argument against it.

I'm the only one yet it got voted away? You sir make me laugh. Have fun at most tournies, which use itc ruling. I hope we get the chance to nerf your vehicle shenanigans too. They DONT come back if that dumb formation of destroyed

It got voted away only because people did not want to play it, NOT because it isn't RAW

Negative. It isn't raw, so got voted away. Itc had even said this. 10 people, 10 answers difference, not raw, gone. Seriously, get over it

I bet you just have such a great life to have to come into forums and troll. Got nothing better to do i see. awesome

I didn't know that Kindergartens had internet access.

EVERYONE - RULE #1 - ALL THE TIME.

 Frozocrone wrote:
Dr. Delorean, had FLG made the call themselves though there would have been outcry of "elitism!" They can't win, so have to appeal to the majority.

That said, I wasn't a fan of the leading questions and I'm certainly not a fan of the 50% +1 system. I would have liked to have seen it play tested in tournaments before a vote was put on it. Preferably a new vote for Q1 2016 considering how close it was.

Always remember though, the ITC, however good or bad you think the rulings are, are essentially house rules. Feel free to mix it up in your own metas.

Frankly I think it's preferable to make the decision themselves and take the shouts of 'Elitism', rather than handing a rules decision to a community that cannot be trusted with the responsibility.

That, and the recent revelation that supposedly a single individual deliberately voted 50 times using 50 different accounts just to fulfill their personal vindictive crusade against Tau, should surely show the downsides of appealing to the majority.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
But that is how it is. Tau players wanted to be on top, so said they had all these special rules when they really don't. Tau players tried their hardest to find the most loop holes they could, and are upset that they were quickly caught

Oh hi again troll!

Best you got? Once again, no actual contribution, discussion, or evidence to back up anything you say. Its always just "i hate tau", "i love my imperium", "I'm awesome"

Why say to you what's already been said a thousand times? People have tried explaining it to you and naw, yet both of you choose to continue to only believe your way is correct and any other way is impossible cause "I love fish" "look my fish are good" "awe fish got nerfed rage"

Who are these people who have tried to explain something to me and why bring me up in this thread? I'll take you seriously when you stop trolling the threads.

@Reecius: The tax in the hunter contingent is also quite heavy. I'm pretty excited about the Mont'ka ones, though. Especially the drone factory looks cool with the drone net and a riptide wing

@Naw

You think the Hunter Contingency Tax is stiff? We've been playing it a lot and like all the units, actually. Frankie has been crushing people with the Double Surge list.

But, yeah, I think Mont'Ka is more powerful from everything I've read so far. We're actually looking at a CAD+Drone formation+Riptide Formation as a big winner.

 Dr. Delorean wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
Dr. Delorean, had FLG made the call themselves though there would have been outcry of "elitism!" They can't win, so have to appeal to the majority.

That said, I wasn't a fan of the leading questions and I'm certainly not a fan of the 50% +1 system. I would have liked to have seen it play tested in tournaments before a vote was put on it. Preferably a new vote for Q1 2016 considering how close it was.

Always remember though, the ITC, however good or bad you think the rulings are, are essentially house rules. Feel free to mix it up in your own metas.

Frankly I think it's preferable to make the decision themselves and take the shouts of 'Elitism', rather than handing a rules decision to a community that cannot be trusted with the responsibility.

That, and the recent revelation that supposedly a single individual deliberately voted 50 times using 50 different accounts just to fulfill their personal vindictive crusade against Tau, should surely show the downsides of appealing to the majority.

I do understand what you mean. The main rule governing for competitive Pokemon, Smogon, consistently hold suspect tests to see whether something is bad for the game. On the online simulator, you have to obtain a certain ranking on the ladder in order to be given a vote. So the vote is open to everyone, but you have to earn that voting privilege.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Reecius wrote:
@Naw

You think the Hunter Contingency Tax is stiff? We've been playing it a lot and like all the units, actually. Frankie has been crushing people with the Double Surge list.

But, yeah, I think Mont'Ka is more powerful from everything I've read so far. We're actually looking at a CAD+Drone formation+Riptide Formation as a big winner.

But isn't Frankie the greatest player the world?

 Reecius wrote:
@Naw

You think the Hunter Contingency Tax is stiff?

I don't really like the firewarriors and filling up the troops seems a bit wasteful. I'm for all suits army.

We've been playing it a lot and like all the units, actually. Frankie has been crushing people with the Double Surge list.

They seem to do the trick. Hard to remove, impossible to ignore (still waiting for the Riptide advice to "just ignore them and play for objectives") and pack a serious punch. What else is in his list?

But, yeah, I think Mont'Ka is more powerful from everything I've read so far. We're actually looking at a CAD+Drone formation+Riptide Formation as a big winner.

Have to check if I could in any way have 2 SS (both with shields and EWO, one with pulse driver cannon, the other with the blastcannon) and 2 Riptides as a formation (Ion + EWO and HBC + velocity tracker).
I also like crisis suits + buffmander, so they'd be marker light support rather than the drone net and then 2 minimum strike teams. Good for friendly games...? 2x3 Riptides in the formation will get you new friends, though.

What's your take on the Piranha Firestorm Wing? I could imagine someone playing with a full wing (16 piranhas, all but 1 with a seeker missile = 760 pts), drone net (e.g. 6x4 drones at 336 pts), still having room for 2 stormsurges with shield and EWO at 1850 pts :-)
Start producing gun drones turn 1 and profit? That's 32 gun drones when they drop their load benefiting from the drone net's +1 BS. Could have a bit of a problem with flyers, but can't have everything. Could always drop 1 SS and invest in 2 tides, one with HBC and velocity tracker, the other with Ion and EWO.

BattleScribe doesn't seem to have the Mont'ka formations yet, which is annoying.

@Frozocrone

He has been kicking my ass with his Battle Company, lately! Lol Although, he did lose 2 games to KDK with a VSG, just shut his Grav down.

He went 3-0 at the last tournament we went to with Double Stormsurge Tau, too, so he's been on a roll.

@Naw

Ah. I actually like the Firewarriors, but I like the models a lot, too. If you're all Suits then I think Mont'Ka, all the way.

He's running Double Surges in a unit, 2 Riptides, 2x2 Missilesides, Dronemander and Drones, and 3x5 Firewarriors. He's done REALLY well with it, but is looking to swap out to a CAD+Drone Formation.

I actually haven't had a chance to play the Pirhana formation yet but it looks cool. InControl played against it with his War Convocation, and was very impressed with how good it was. I look forward to giving it a go, myself.