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.

First Aun'Va died, then some random people voted to remove Hunter Contingent from North America. Truly friends, we are in the end times.

Not sure if this question merits a new thread, but is the Gladius really on par with Decurion and other like detachments?

I don't follow the tourney scene much and have never actually played any major formations or detachments so I'm honestly ignorant.

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
First Aun'Va died, then some random people voted to remove Hunter Contingent from North America. Truly friends, we are in the end times.

So one particular formation was reduced in effectiveness from a purely competitive standpoint. So What? Tau still have plenty of options to be competitive from their other formations.

Is Space Pope really dead? If yes, my angry Elf soul might just be happy. Overjoyed, even!

I don't suppose that there is a compendium of the ITC rulings? I looked at the page on frontline and there is nothing there.
edit - never mind found it. for others curious:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NkfW26mcJHaqDKlaZyA3PB-prM0k17-DuTifGv2mOG4/pub

 TheNewBlood wrote:
If you're expecting internet comments on any article to be intelligent and edifying, you clearly haven't been on the internet very long.

Internet comments often aren't much different from random writings on men's room walls. Saw a video on an American humor site about it. It's a little too... crass? to be posted in polite company. Especially since they bleep their curse words on a seemingly random basis.

I like how people complain that Tau got nerfed into the ground over an ambiguously worded rule and its potential to share USR rules. At full potential it could result in every unit "shooting at a target" but you would see a lot of target lock to spread all those USR enhanced shots at a lot of different targets. It effectively would of been buffmander buffing most of the army. Nearly everything having TL, Ignore Cover, Tank/Monster hunter, maybe throw in -1 Toughness with Darkstrider. Instead now you can have your units combine their shooting for increased BS and sharing the markerlights spent. Even this is a buff compared to what Tau had before so Tau are still stronger than before (ignoring every other formation bonus they have which is a lot). Personally I would love to see things like the Fire Blade or Darkstrider benefitting multiple units of Fire Warriors but what it would of ended up being is every single Suit unit using target lock to gain the benefits of combined fire but shooting at other units.

Also don't forget that Tau in the ITC have multiple GMCs with their Stormsurge being taken in a squadron which initial playtests have shown them being incredibly powerful and actually very deadly in CC (potentially 9 stomps is crazy strong). Tau now has the tools to handle the big threats in the meta and the full power Coordinated Fire would of just been oppressive for a lot of MSU armies to deal with.

I don't see how it's a nerf, just a conservative ruling on a rule that even not all tau players agree on.

Though it really only seemed silly once split fire is involved(the most liberal reading).

I just don't understand why they felt the need to nerf CF without any tournament level testing at all. There are so many other super strong things out there, and they just decide before Tau can go to a single major ITC event that they're going to cut their best formation off at the knees.

And I'm sorry but I'm not a fan of making simple majority rules votes a way in which we dictate how this game works at the tournament level. And they worded the question on CF to be how you "wanted" it to be, not how it's actually written. Which is just complete horse ----. of course every player of the other army types "wants" the tau rule to be less powerful. Why in the world wouldn't they?

This should never have gone to a vote without proper testing in the tournament environment for 64+ person tournaments. All this poll is going to do is help cement the list that were already winning by huge margins. Waste of time.

If anyone's curious, I personally voted to allow CF rules to share, and then voted with my heart (against the RAW) for the target lock rules sharing and the ork stompa - not allowing rules to be shared via CF for Target Lock'd shots and to allow the Orks to get their cheap stompa. In both cases the rules don't support them, but I figure what the hell if we're already threatening to take away the strongest rules my army gets, I should at least throw others a bone. And the Ork's deserve any help they can get.

GreyDragoon wrote:
I just don't understand why they felt the need to nerf CF without any tournament level testing at all. There are so many other super strong things out there, and they just decide before Tau can go to a single major ITC event that they're going to cut their best formation off at the knees.

And I'm sorry but I'm not a fan of making simple majority rules votes a way in which we dictate how this game works at the tournament level. And they worded the question on CF to be how you "wanted" it to be, not how it's actually written. Which is just complete horse ----. of course every player of the other army types "wants" the tau rule to be less powerful. Why in the world wouldn't they?

This should never have gone to a vote without proper testing in the tournament environment for 64+ person tournaments. All this poll is going to do is help cement the list that were already winning by huge margins. Waste of time.

If anyone's curious, I personally voted to allow CF rules to share, and then voted with my heart (against the RAW) for the target lock rules sharing and the ork stompa - not allowing rules to be shared via CF for Target Lock'd shots and to allow the Orks to get their cheap stompa. In both cases the rules don't support them, but I figure what the hell if we're already threatening to take away the strongest rules my army gets, I should at least throw others a bone. And the Ork's deserve any help they can get.

Again, isn't this all a bit much? What if Tau go on to still sweep the ITC? They're still fairly powerful with this nerf and I think they can do well. And I think this nerf was needed, before Tau became the new cheese. Now I think they're a still powerful army, but without some of the gamebreaking stuff. Also, I'm sorry you hate democracy?

a lot has been said about the tau changes...so i wont comment about that. what i do want to talk about is the 300 pt big mek stompa. has anyone here ever played with it? was it a decent super heavy walker for its original point cost? is this an auto include in any ork army now? does the itc ruleing for non ork allies prevent orks from takeing another faction as allies and also takeing this cheep stompa?
just some questions i have in my head....might be convinced to host one in the future at a tounament.
also, i just realized what this could mean....the morkanuat now is a superheavy!!!!
let me explain.
the morkanaut with kff is a wopping 280pts, and hardly the most effective walker in the game. while for just 20 pts extra (not includeing the mek buzzgob tax) you get a super hevay walker with better weapons. now i know that a kff and powerfileds arent the same thing, but my thinking is that use your expensive, cool looking, morkanaut as a counts as bigmek stompa! for me its seems like an unatended itc fix to the gmorkanaut. what are your thoughts and opnions? can i reasonably substitue the rules of the bigmek stompa onto my morkanaut model?

 jreilly89 wrote:

GreyDragoon wrote:
I just don't understand why they felt the need to nerf CF without any tournament level testing at all. There are so many other super strong things out there, and they just decide before Tau can go to a single major ITC event that they're going to cut their best formation off at the knees.

And I'm sorry but I'm not a fan of making simple majority rules votes a way in which we dictate how this game works at the tournament level. And they worded the question on CF to be how you "wanted" it to be, not how it's actually written. Which is just complete horse ----. of course every player of the other army types "wants" the tau rule to be less powerful. Why in the world wouldn't they?

This should never have gone to a vote without proper testing in the tournament environment for 64+ person tournaments. All this poll is going to do is help cement the list that were already winning by huge margins. Waste of time.

If anyone's curious, I personally voted to allow CF rules to share, and then voted with my heart (against the RAW) for the target lock rules sharing and the ork stompa - not allowing rules to be shared via CF for Target Lock'd shots and to allow the Orks to get their cheap stompa. In both cases the rules don't support them, but I figure what the hell if we're already threatening to take away the strongest rules my army gets, I should at least throw others a bone. And the Ork's deserve any help they can get.

Again, isn't this all a bit much? What if Tau go on to still sweep the ITC? They're still fairly powerful with this nerf and I think they can do well. And I think this nerf was needed, before Tau became the new cheese. Now I think they're a still powerful army, but without some of the gamebreaking stuff. Also, I'm sorry you hate democracy?

Except they haven't had a chance to see if this actually could sweep the ITC. And it's super unlikely anything will change for Tau this season with this removed unless the FS related book adds another fantastic Formation. Which thankfully if this is any guide we'll just lose again to another crappy community vote.

As for do I hate democracy? Well in fact - Yes I hate simple majority rules rule making. Especially in a game like this when everyone is essentially a minority. With this many races split up, of course any one race gets something great the other will vote against it if the intent is circuit based competitive play. So in this context, yes simple majority rules votes are complete horse ----.

After having a bit of time to think and let the salt wash away, I agree with what a lot of people are saying here and what I said earlier. This vote happened way too fast. Tau dropped less than a month ago, and already we voted on whether or not to nerf it? How? I could understand if a major tournament had happened and Tau had dominated it, I could see a vote being necessary. But we haven't had time to properly play test an unnerfed version of CF yet. How something looks on paper and how it actually works on the table are two very different things. In just a few weeks the community is expected to have played with CF enough on the table, figured out the best combos with it, figured out how easily it is broken, and figured out the counters to it to make an accurate and informed vote on whether or not to nerf it? Impossible. People can argue 'what if Tau had completely overtaken ITC?', but that's just it, you're asking a 'what if' question. You don't know. I don't know. No one knows how Tau with unnerfed CF would have done in ITC. They could have dominated, or they could have had no change at all in their standings. We don't know, and now we'll never know.

And again, I am really worried about the precedent this sets. Is voting on whether or not to nerf the new thing, the new army, the new Decurion, whatever, before any real playtesting can be done gonna become a standard thing, or at least more common thing, in ITC? I don't know, but I can see that as a path available to us. Its one thing to vote to nerf an army after it has been proven to dominate tournaments after an update, or to nerf an army that is already the best in the game when it gets unneeded buffs. It's another to nerf an army what, 2 weeks after it comes out before any real playtesting can be done.

One thing I am VERY interested in is how the other major tournament rulings (ETC, NOVA, Adepticon, etc.) will rule on CF, and if they rule it differently than ITC, how Tau rank in both. What happens if, after significant playtesting and some time has passed, unnerfed CF proves to not really improve Tau power in any meaningful way? What happens if Tau in ETC or NOVA (for example) with unnerfed CF (if they rule it that way) are placing the same as in ITC in the standings? Would ITC consider doing another vote to bring CF back up? How would the playerbase react?

As I have said before, if Tau prove to be truly meta breaking and conquer the top standings in ITC even with the nerf, I will change my opinion, but until that happens, I'm gonna say this was a mistake.

I just read through the ITC doc, and with the new rulings, Tau are fine. The Stormsurge is the big winner as it is immune to Tank Shock.

SJ

Can we please stop saying this is a nerf. This is a rules interpretation on a listed rule that isn't very clear with no correct answer. The wraithknight being criminally underpriced is unfortunate but its clear as day the cost and rules for it are intended. The Coordinated Firepower rule is not and doesn't describe clearly how rules interact with it (such as buffmander) so the ruling is to determine which way its going to be played. Same for the Tank Shock rules with its semi ambiguous mechanics due to wording. A decision needed to me made on it because its a major rule in the Hunter Contingent and each event would require a judge to make a ruling on it at the event. Not knowing ahead of time on how your Hunter Contingent would play until the day of would make it really frustrating for Tau players trying to make their battleplan.

Now if GW came out with an official FAQ saying how Coordinated Firepower interacts with Buffmander, Darkstrider, a Fire Blade, or anything else then the ITC ruling would most likely be changed to whatever GW FAQed it to. Again I don't think its the ITCs aim to nerf or buff individual codexes but to try to clarify rules and at most tone down broken game mechanics.

 Vankraken wrote:
Can we please stop saying this is a nerf. This is a rules interpretation on a listed rule that isn't very clear with no correct answer. The wraithknight being criminally underpriced is unfortunate but its clear as day the cost and rules for it are intended. The Coordinated Firepower rule is not and doesn't describe clearly how rules interact with it (such as buffmander) so the ruling is to determine which way its going to be played. Same for the Tank Shock rules with its semi ambiguous mechanics due to wording. A decision needed to me made on it because its a major rule in the Hunter Contingent and each event would require a judge to make a ruling on it at the event. Not knowing ahead of time on how your Hunter Contingent would play until the day of would make it really frustrating for Tau players trying to make their battleplan.

Now if GW came out with an official FAQ saying how Coordinated Firepower interacts with Buffmander, Darkstrider, a Fire Blade, or anything else then the ITC ruling would most likely be changed to whatever GW FAQed it to. Again I don't think its the ITCs aim to nerf or buff individual codexes but to try to clarify rules and at most tone down broken game mechanics.

I don't know, it's pretty clear. They act as if they are one big unit. Thus anything the effects units effects all of the "unit". It's not complicated. Powerful? Yes. OP? Possibly. Unclear? Not at all.

So yes, it is a nerf. That's why it was written "How do you wish to play the Tau Coordinated Firepower rule in regards to contributing Tau units sharing special rules?" not "How does the Tau Coordinated Firepower rule work in regards to contributing Tau units sharing special rules?"

I love how the angry people are still viewing it as a nerf. As if it's been settled that the rule covers USRs/Wargear carrying over when using CF.

I don't want this comment to turn this into a rules debate. I've read the threads on various boards, and there is a really good amount of bullying going on that treats all units participating in CF as a single entity for ALL purposes. I don't understand why it's so difficult for people to sit back and say there are 2 ways the RAW can go? We all agree that it is poorly worded, and we've all accepted that it is just one possible outcome. It is not the only interpretation on the RAW.

What this result shows me is 2 things.
1) Not everyone thinks that USRs/Wargear carryover. It doesn't matter if they voted because they interpret the RAW differently, or if they feel that it shouldn't be played that way. I find it difficult to believe that the rule was voted down because ALL players agree that the USRs are shared and THEN voted against it. I'm glad there are a good number of people are like me, and voted because the RAW doesn't allow the rules to transfer over.

2) Just like ANY rule or army, it's still up to the player to abuse the rule. This is vote is pretty close to how my various Tau friends feel. Some won't use it because the rule doesn't allow them to. Others are adamant that they can and/or should. All but two still think that their army is just fine, and will still do well. Only 1 thinks that the rule should be allowed, but he'll never use it that way. Which is pretty much what I'm seeing here.

Either way, I'm glad of this outcome because regardless of my views on it, I no longer have an uphill battle when it comes to explaining to players why I won't play against it, or allow it in my events. I'm not the only one who feels that it's just stupid to think that USRs/Wargear carryover with no permission to do so. If they're butt hurt about it they won't show, which is a win for me. Just like those who won't go to the ITC because of this is a win for them.

 Vankraken wrote:
Can we please stop saying this is a nerf. This is a rules interpretation on a listed rule that isn't very clear with no correct answer. The wraithknight being criminally underpriced is unfortunate but its clear as day the cost and rules for it are intended. The Coordinated Firepower rule is not and doesn't describe clearly how rules interact with it (such as buffmander) so the ruling is to determine which way its going to be played. Same for the Tank Shock rules with its semi ambiguous mechanics due to wording. A decision needed to me made on it because its a major rule in the Hunter Contingent and each event would require a judge to make a ruling on it at the event. Not knowing ahead of time on how your Hunter Contingent would play until the day of would make it really frustrating for Tau players trying to make their battleplan.

Now if GW came out with an official FAQ saying how Coordinated Firepower interacts with Buffmander, Darkstrider, a Fire Blade, or anything else then the ITC ruling would most likely be changed to whatever GW FAQed it to. Again I don't think its the ITCs aim to nerf or buff individual codexes but to try to clarify rules and at most tone down broken game mechanics.

Of course this is a nerf. What in the world are you talking about?

And remember, this poll only asked people what they want. It did not ask people to actually vote based on how the rule actually worked. It was worded in a crummy biased fashion, and its result was a completely foregone conclusion based on the wording.

Again, this never should have come up to a vote this early. It should have been played with IN tournaments, with various ITC-linked GTs playing it, and then we would have known if it was something that needed changing for the good of the game. If this sort of bs mob rule voting had happened back when knights came out we'd never have seen IKs hit the table. Of course a few GTs in everyone realized it actually wasn't a big deal, and we moved on. Now we never get a chance to see if this is the case with the new Tau.

Can we please stop saying this is a nerf. This is a rules interpretation on a listed rule that isn't very clear with no correct answer.

But then how will whiny, entitled tau players complain about how persecuted they ate?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
Can we please stop saying this is a nerf. This is a rules interpretation on a listed rule that isn't very clear with no correct answer. The wraithknight being criminally underpriced is unfortunate but its clear as day the cost and rules for it are intended. The Coordinated Firepower rule is not and doesn't describe clearly how rules interact with it (such as buffmander) so the ruling is to determine which way its going to be played. Same for the Tank Shock rules with its semi ambiguous mechanics due to wording. A decision needed to me made on it because its a major rule in the Hunter Contingent and each event would require a judge to make a ruling on it at the event. Not knowing ahead of time on how your Hunter Contingent would play until the day of would make it really frustrating for Tau players trying to make their battleplan.

Now if GW came out with an official FAQ saying how Coordinated Firepower interacts with Buffmander, Darkstrider, a Fire Blade, or anything else then the ITC ruling would most likely be changed to whatever GW FAQed it to. Again I don't think its the ITCs aim to nerf or buff individual codexes but to try to clarify rules and at most tone down broken game mechanics.

I don't know, it's pretty clear. They act as if they are one big unit. Thus anything the effects units effects all of the "unit". It's not complicated. Powerful? Yes. OP? Possibly. Unclear? Not at all.

So yes, it is a nerf. That's why it was written "How do you wish to play the Tau Coordinated Firepower rule in regards to contributing Tau units sharing special rules?" not "How does the Tau Coordinated Firepower rule work in regards to contributing Tau units sharing special rules?"

The way its written it states to resolve their shots as if there where one unit, it doesn't clearly state if the models acts as being one unit or if your just resolving the shooting rolls like you would a mixed unit and that a set of markerlights can benefit all those shots. Buffmander benefits models in his unit but the rule doesn't state if the models join together as a single unit. It also states the units must shoot the same target so would target lock invalidate that requirement and prevent the Coordinated Firepower from working? These are how the rules are unclear and up to interpretation. Also there are questions about how Independent Characters can't join units that contain Vehicles and Monstorus Creatures so if they can join together to share rules then would it prevent an Independent Character from joining a Hammerhead or Riptide's shooting? Again unclear rules because GW made rules but don't fully explain the details of how it works.

 Vankraken wrote:
Can we please stop saying this is a nerf. This is a rules interpretation on a listed rule that isn't very clear with no correct answer.

It is no such thing. There is no ambiguity about it RAW: all shots are resolved as a single unit, so buffs apply to all units, and unit-wide buffs apply to the whole unit even if some models shoot at a different target. The problem is not that something was uncertain here, it's that people wanted it to be ambiguous because they didn't like how powerful the ability was as-printed. If you want to argue that it's too powerful and needed to be nerfed then that's a valid argument to make, but don't try to pretend that your blatant nerf is somehow resolving a rules debate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vankraken wrote:
It also states the units must shoot the same target so would target lock invalidate that requirement and prevent the Coordinated Firepower from working?

No, because the unit is still shooting at the original target even if some models within the unit split their fire.

Also there are questions about how Independent Characters can't join units that contain Vehicles and Monstorus Creatures so if they can join together to share rules then would it prevent an Independent Character from joining a Hammerhead or Riptide's shooting?

Of course not. The shooting is resolved as if the models are a single unit, they do not actually join. And even if they did count as joining it would simply be a case of a specific rule taking priority over a general one. ICs can not join vehicle units, unless a rule says "this IC joins a vehicle unit".

It's their comp and they can do whatever they want.

I still find it hilarius that superfriends/thunderdome is a thing and this gets vetoed.

Other than that - on a technical level - I don't think that the whole 'everybody votes' was a well thought out approach since knee-jerk reactions and bandwagoning would be abundant.

Still, I don't play anywhere where the ITC comp is enforced and either way I wouldn't use a HC, so...

geargutz wrote:
a lot has been said about the tau changes...so i wont comment about that. what i do want to talk about is the 300 pt big mek stompa. has anyone here ever played with it?

I have...

was it a decent super heavy walker for its original point cost?

It's okay. The biggest benefit is really it's staying power (stuff it with meks!) and it's fearless bubble.

That's it.

Don't count on Ork shootings...

is this an auto include in any ork army now?

Not really.

does the itc ruleing for non ork allies prevent orks from takeing another faction as allies and also takeing this cheep stompa?

Looks like you can... as long as there's a valid LoW slot in the detachment.

just some questions i have in my head....might be convinced to host one in the future at a tounament.

ITC rules is pretty well crafted. Give it a shot!

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
Can we please stop saying this is a nerf. This is a rules interpretation on a listed rule that isn't very clear with no correct answer.

It is no such thing. There is no ambiguity about it RAW: all shots are resolved as a single unit, so buffs apply to all units, and unit-wide buffs apply to the whole unit even if some models shoot at a different target. The problem is not that something was uncertain here, it's that people wanted it to be ambiguous because they didn't like how powerful the ability was as-printed. If you want to argue that it's too powerful and needed to be nerfed then that's a valid argument to make, but don't try to pretend that your blatant nerf is somehow resolving a rules debate.

A. It says the shots are resolved as if it was a single unit but it doesn't state if the models count as being a single unit for the purposes of special rules sharing. In order for buffmander to share his benefits then the models need to be in the same unit as him. Again the question is are the models counted as being combined into a single unit or is the shots just being resolved together but the units are still separated. B. I voted to have the coordinated firepower to share its benefits because I believe its what its intent is but what I'm pointing out its unclear rules. Don't assume I have some agenda to nerf Tau or to be unfair to others.

 Vankraken wrote:
In order for buffmander to share his benefits then the models need to be in the same unit as him.

And they are counted as being a single unit for purposes of resolving the shots. Re-rolling dice or ignoring cover is part of resolving the shots, so the "am I in the same unit" question will be asked and answered with a "yes".

What you really need to ask here is why the buffmander doesn't apply when markerlights very clearly do. Markerlights also buff a single unit's shooting, so unless the additional units are all temporarily merged into one super-unit to resolve their shots only one unit should be able to get the benefits of spending each markerlight token. This is very clearly a case of two rules working the same way, but getting different interpretations because of power level concerns.

 Gamgee wrote:

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
LOL .....This is beyond stupid.

So you take an army that pre-buffs was doing extremely poorly at tournaments, in fact it was totally irrelevant. Then you take their new ''decurion'' and nerf it completely out of existence, with 0 playtesting, completely against the RAI and even RAW. Anybody who doesn't play Tau and who plays at ITC events will obviously vote to nerf, it's in their best interest to do so. You can just read the poor posts on dakka about it to see it isn't even majority tournament players that vote, it's primarily casual players. How are these nerfs in any way justified when compared against today's meta?

Why has Tau been so arbitrarily smashed into the ground but not Eldar? or Gladius? Necron decurion? or War Convocation? etc.

ITC is a complete farce. Thank goodness we don't use that rubbish in Europe.

RIP Tau.

This +1. This nerf feels personal and not logical. I wonder how it would have turned out if it was only registered ITC players who voted.

It was only registered ITC players who voted

 Thud wrote:
What's most annoying is how this keeps being referred to as "the most conservative reading" or "interpretation" or whatever.

If you voted for the nerfs because you think that's what the rule is, not because you just want to nerf Tau/see the world burn/misclicked, you need to go back to school.


Also, sucks for Tau players in the ITC. Gets somewhat good rules, immediately comped. lulz

Well put! I'm delighted we don't play by ITC's rules. Sorry for the Tau players who thought they would be tournament viable again, better reroll as Eldar.

I hope any Tau players that are going to LVO demand their money back. If I wasent sure they have some clause about "the rules may change at anytime" in their tournament sign ups, I would almost claim bait and switch for anyone signing up earlier to play one way and getting forced to do another.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
LOL .....This is beyond stupid.

So you take an army that pre-buffs was doing extremely poorly at tournaments, in fact it was totally irrelevant. Then you take their new ''decurion'' and nerf it completely out of existence, with 0 playtesting, completely against the RAI and even RAW. Anybody who doesn't play Tau and who plays at ITC events will obviously vote to nerf, it's in their best interest to do so. You can just read the poor posts on dakka about it to see it isn't even majority tournament players that vote, it's primarily casual players. How are these nerfs in any way justified when compared against today's meta?

Why has Tau been so arbitrarily smashed into the ground but not Eldar? or Gladius? Necron decurion? or War Convocation? etc.

ITC is a complete farce. Thank goodness we don't use that rubbish in Europe.

RIP Tau.

This +1. This nerf feels personal and not logical. I wonder how it would have turned out if it was only registered ITC players who voted.

It was only registered ITC players who voted

They allowed non-ITC players to vote as well, they had originally announced you had to prove you were part of their tournaments to vote but later changed it.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
LOL .....This is beyond stupid.

So you take an army that pre-buffs was doing extremely poorly at tournaments, in fact it was totally irrelevant. Then you take their new ''decurion'' and nerf it completely out of existence, with 0 playtesting, completely against the RAI and even RAW. Anybody who doesn't play Tau and who plays at ITC events will obviously vote to nerf, it's in their best interest to do so. You can just read the poor posts on dakka about it to see it isn't even majority tournament players that vote, it's primarily casual players. How are these nerfs in any way justified when compared against today's meta?

Why has Tau been so arbitrarily smashed into the ground but not Eldar? or Gladius? Necron decurion? or War Convocation? etc.

ITC is a complete farce. Thank goodness we don't use that rubbish in Europe.

RIP Tau.

This +1. This nerf feels personal and not logical. I wonder how it would have turned out if it was only registered ITC players who voted.

It was only registered ITC players who voted

They allowed non-ITC players to vote as well, they had originally announced you had to prove you were part of their tournaments to vote but later changed it.

Did they change that in the middle of the vote because when I voted I had to verify my ITC participation

 Vankraken wrote:

A. It says the shots are resolved as if it was a single unit but it doesn't state if the models count as being a single unit for the purposes of special rules sharing. In order for buffmander to share his benefits then the models need to be in the same unit as him. Again the question is are the models counted as being combined into a single unit or is the shots just being resolved together but the units are still separated.

A Wrong. It says all units are treated as one single unit while their shots are resolved. And this makes then URS shareable. its as simple as is can be. Its a simple Pattern: all units count as one unit . So remembering that units are made up of models its clear; every model is treated as beeing in the same unit. This also explains why there are no extra mentions of USR sharing in the rule. its not nessecary.

Markerlight on the other side have to be explained. They are used before shots are resolved. look it up when they have to be used. right after selecting a target imediatly before shooting. so at this time every unit participating in CF is a single unit. so thats why markerlight are written out there.

So regarding Balancing. i can understand if Target Lock and CF is not allowed at the same time. ( even f this would be RAW.) but the way this vote was written and how it turned out is a shame. Without this rule sharing CF does not realy enhance the ability to kill Deathstars. so what if i dont want to buy Mont'ka ? only with my codex i have not that many options to work against death stars and the only Good Rule of my detachment is nerfed into meaningless. this just feels personal. especialy if i commpare it to Ad Mech.. SM.. or Neks. ....