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.

 CrownAxe wrote:

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

I believe they did, they left the section where you could prove participation but it was not a mandatory field, I voted first day and they did not require it then. They found some other ways to prevent multiple votes from a single person so they rescinded the requirement.

I feel bad for the people who really don't like this ruling, I personally agree with it, but it's never fun to have your army nerfed.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

Markerlights says all models firing at the target get the benefit and when a unit fires at it you can choose to use the markerlights. As coordinated firepower adds the shooting from other units into the shooting attack it still meats the critera of how markerlights work which is different than a unit sharing USRs and Buffmander buffs. Buffmander requires them to be in the same unit. Markerlights benefit models shooting at the target and it is the counters on the target that is giving the benefit. Because Coordinated Firepower is resolving all the shooting from multiple units as if it was one unit's shooting then the markerlights being consumed would benefit every model shooting at it because its happening at the same time and being resolved together. Again the rules do not clearly state if the units count as a single unit for purposes of rules sharing (tankhunter for example). Markerlights do not require all the shots to come from a single unit but they all must happen at the same time or else the markerlight counters spend on one shooting attack are spent and unavailable to benefit the next shooting attack. If you read the rules for markerlights then its clear they operate somewhat differently than C&C node, USRs, and Multispec Sensor.

 _ghost_ wrote:

 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.

"Resolving their shots as if they were a single unit". That is RAW and what you wrote is a different because that would leave no ambiguity. What is RAW does leave ambiguity because it doesn't say that the units are combined but that the shots being combined to be resolved as if its from a single unit (which allows markerlights to benefit multiple units shoot at it at the same time). Again I have said this a bunch but I voted in favor of combining special rules but I know the rules are unclear on the matter. That is why its up for a vote because its an interpretation.

Well I am surprised the Hunter Contingent got the bat. RAW seemed fairly clear to me or at least HIWPI.

I am pretty thankful Orks got a buff. We need anything we can get.

I think that writing things like "Reece" nerfed this or "ITC" buffed that, is not helpful and not honest.

These were VOTES on how one particular tourney circuit will play controversial rules. Your vote would've counted the same as Reece or Frankie or mine. They aren't hard and fast rules. GW is all about "house rules" and agreements prior to games.

@Vandraken

These units must...resolving their shots as if they were a singel unit."

There is no ambiguity. sorry. but who is resolging the shots? the shots itself? i dont think so. the shots are not combined. look at it. "resolving" belongs to "these units" thats simply english. anything else is ... well....

If they were counted as the same unit, wouldn't they be out of coherency?

I'm not good with rules though...

Nah, coherency only matters during the movement phase, and the cease to be treated as a single unit after they shoot.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Nah, coherency only matters during the movement phase, and the cease to be treated as a single unit after they shoot.

So if a single unit were taken out of coherency during their own shooting phase, say by a bad blast scatter from a friendly vehicle, they'd still be able to shoot?

I can't check my rulebooks - they've been in boxes since June.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Nah, coherency only matters during the movement phase, and the cease to be treated as a single unit after they shoot.

So if a single unit were taken out of coherency during their own shooting phase, say by a bad blast scatter from a friendly vehicle, they'd still be able to shoot?

I can't check my rulebooks - they've been in boxes since June.

In the movement phase you must try to restore coherency. In the shooting phase, if you Run, it must be to restore coherency.

Even then, by the time all the models are one big unit, the time to declare running (or even targets) is passed.

I'll continue following the rules and ignoring the farce that is ITC and every other "organization" who pretends they can dictate how people play.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Nah, coherency only matters during the movement phase, and the cease to be treated as a single unit after they shoot.

So if a single unit were taken out of coherency during their own shooting phase, say by a bad blast scatter from a friendly vehicle, they'd still be able to shoot?

I can't check my rulebooks - they've been in boxes since June.

In the movement phase you must try to restore coherency. In the shooting phase, if you Run, it must be to restore coherency.

Even then, by the time all the models are one big unit, the time to declare running (or even targets) is passed.

Gotcha, thanks. : D

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I'll continue following the rules and ignoring the farce that is ITC and every other "organization" who pretends they can dictate how people play.

If you don't play in a store/tournament that mandates using the ITC rules by all means don't follow them as there is nothing saying you have to. Since GW doesn't FAQ anymore play it however your group decides to and the way you have fun. As far as ITC tournaments and stores that use there rules go it is not a farce those are the rules for the tournaments and organizations that use ITC rulings, but if your group doesn't then just ignore the ITC rulings and forget they exist. Nobody is telling you that it is how you have to play the game.

As an example my friends and I have decided rather than using the ITC invisibility we just wont use it at all and if you roll it you just re-roll in our group we are happy with that, I am going to a tournament soon and there I will have to use the ITC version of the rules as that is what the tournament has decided to go with, if I don't like that I can accept it or just not go to the tournament. .

So I guess since we are treating them all as different units.... That somehow share marker lights, if one of them is forced to snap shoot at a ghost keel, the others are not. Wait let me guess, tau can KEEP the negative parts of shooting.

I would be fine with giving them snapfire only on the models that are forced to snap shoot, seems only fair.

 doktor_g wrote:
Your vote would've counted the same as Reece or Frankie or mine.

This is incorrect. Because MY vote did not have a public backing behind it. My vote did not have me spewing my personal bias toward a fan base who follows me on multiple media formats. They stated very clearly actually IMPLORING people to vote the way they did for what THEY considered "balance".

So no, my vote did not count the same. And it shows. Even if they swayed just 10 people.

I honestly feel as if the coordinated firepower rule, RAW, should allow special rules to be shared.

However, in competitive environments, like ITC ones are used for, that would be game-breaking. I'm no tau expert, but I don't think it would be hard to win with an entire army of split-firing, -1T, twin-linked, ignore cover, monster hunter, tank hunter, storm of fire, fire blades rule, etc, etc. Someone out there would come up with the most broken ultra combo and kill anything and everything instantly.

And besides. Even disallowing special rules to affect coordinated firepower, the tau codex, rules, and formations are still FANTASTIC.

So, I voted to keep the game, you know, a game. Not just a Tau auto-win simulator.

I play orks, and I'd love to see them better, but I honestly voted against buzzgob's big mek stompa. For one, the rule says it's only for apoc or 'other large scale games', of which I don't feel 1850 - 2000 point games qualify.

For another, it's pretty damned cheap to get like a 800 point unit for like 350. Even with things like wraithknights and all the free stuff SM and AM can get, I just don't feel as if it's fair.

But was it an auto win simulator? How many events in the US did tau win, before the ITC commity changed their rules.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I'll continue following the rules and ignoring the farce that is ITC and every other "organization" who pretends they can dictate how people play.

Then you're ok with GW alone dictating how you play.

Well it is their game. We pay for models and game materials to play their game. And for that we should be getting models we like and rules that are enjoyable.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I'll continue following the rules and ignoring the farce that is ITC and every other "organization" who pretends they can dictate how people play.

they're not telling *you* or anyone else how to play, they're telling people who want to attend their events how *they* are going to play things. It's not like the Reecius is going to show up at your FLGS and berate you for playing things differently...

I find it weird people are complaining about Tau not being good anymore, considering the old Tau got second place at the Nova open, which is far more friendly to Deathstars than the ITC.

http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2nd-Brett-Perkins-NovaOpen-2015.pdf

I'm a Tau player too, so it's not like I'm trying to nerf an army I don't play.

That's one army out of many. People used the same logic at one point when one dude brought Rubric Marines and yet you still haven't seen them do anything noteworthy afterwards.

Not saying Tau are bad, but consistency is key.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's one army out of many. People used the same logic at one point when one dude brought Rubric Marines and yet you still haven't seen them do anything noteworthy afterwards.

Not saying Tau are bad, but consistency is key.

The new Stormsurge is a massive boost for the Tau and being able to take up to 3 in a single unit is incredibly powerful. That's a ruling the ITC made that greatly benefitted the Tau in their format when only Knight armies could take more than 1 Super Heavy/GMC.

Ok, here's the leaderboard for that event: http://app.torrentoffire.com/#/tournament/NOVA-Open-2015/1/leaderboard

Tau finishes:

2nd (Tau-Dar): 7-1
34th (Tau-Tau): 6-2
51st (Tau-Tau) 5-3
87th (Tau) 4-4
151st (Tau-CSM) 3-5
160th (Tau) 0-5 drop

Except for the one person, the Tau players in the entire event were all in the positive, with the only other person with a record below even was allied with CSM.

Yes, it's one event, but it's one of the largest events, and Tau did 25-20 in record, that's accounting the player who didn't even play all their games, and even if they lost all of their unplayed games Tau would still be positive. If we drop the one statistically abnormal result Tau went 25-15, which is a win rate of 62% which is insane at that level of play.


Edit: And remember, this is pre-buffs, like all the formations, the Ghostkeel, the Stormsurge, and whatever else.

 Korinov wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I'll continue following the rules and ignoring the farce that is ITC and every other "organization" who pretends they can dictate how people play.

Then you're ok with GW alone dictating how you play.

Of course. They created the game. If I didn't want to play their game, I wouldn't be playing their game.

Why does that not make sense to you?

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Korinov wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I'll continue following the rules and ignoring the farce that is ITC and every other "organization" who pretends they can dictate how people play.

Then you're ok with GW alone dictating how you play.

Of course. They created the game. If I didn't want to play their game, I wouldn't be playing their game.

Why does that not make sense to you?

Do you by chance play any video games?

 Vankraken wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's one army out of many. People used the same logic at one point when one dude brought Rubric Marines and yet you still haven't seen them do anything noteworthy afterwards.

Not saying Tau are bad, but consistency is key.

The new Stormsurge is a massive boost for the Tau and being able to take up to 3 in a single unit is incredibly powerful. That's a ruling the ITC made that greatly benefitted the Tau in their format when only Knight armies could take more than 1 Super Heavy/GMC.

For now. Personally as a tau player I would have seen a nerf to 0-1 of these much more likely, and probably more balanced.

 Tinkrr wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Korinov wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I'll continue following the rules and ignoring the farce that is ITC and every other "organization" who pretends they can dictate how people play.

Then you're ok with GW alone dictating how you play.

Of course. They created the game. If I didn't want to play their game, I wouldn't be playing their game.

Why does that not make sense to you?

Do you by chance play any video games?

Some multiplayer video games prohibit the use of mods.

Like Final Fantasy 14. : D

If they catch you using so much as a DPS meter, you're toast.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Korinov wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I'll continue following the rules and ignoring the farce that is ITC and every other "organization" who pretends they can dictate how people play.

Then you're ok with GW alone dictating how you play.

Of course. They created the game. If I didn't want to play their game, I wouldn't be playing their game.

Why does that not make sense to you?

Do you by chance play any video games?

Some multiplayer video games prohibit the use of mods.

Like Final Fantasy 14. : D

If they catch you using so much as a DPS meter, you're toast.

And some games are completely based off of mods, like any Moba, CS, TF, and many more

 Tinkrr wrote:
And some games are completely based off of mods, like any Moba, CS, TF, and many more

True.

However, there are people who insist on using actual 40k models, because without the 40k models, it's not actually 40k to them.

There could exist the opinion that without the actual 40k rules, it's not actually 40k to them, it's some other game.

And I'm surprised you didn't mention Garry's Mod.