ITC Vote Results!

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.

**Tinkrr**

Pouncey wrote:
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.

Then why be against playing another game? Doesn't it give you more bang for your buck if you can play two games with your 40k investment instead of one? Every purchase of 40k, comes with a free ITC thrown in

And I'm not sure how legit this is, but: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ff-xiv-mod-support-in-the-works-could-get-xv-cross/1100-6425730/

**Pouncey**

Tinkrr wrote:
Pouncey wrote:
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.

Then why be against playing another game? Doesn't it give you more bang for your buck if you can play two games with your 40k investment instead of one? Every purchase of 40k, comes with a free ITC thrown in

And I'm not sure how legit this is, but: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ff-xiv-mod-support-in-the-works-could-get-xv-cross/1100-6425730/

Maybe they want to play 40k, and not some other game.

Also, neat.

**Tinkrr**

Pouncey wrote:
Tinkrr wrote:
Pouncey wrote:
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.

Then why be against playing another game? Doesn't it give you more bang for your buck if you can play two games with your 40k investment instead of one? Every purchase of 40k, comes with a free ITC thrown in

And I'm not sure how legit this is, but: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ff-xiv-mod-support-in-the-works-could-get-xv-cross/1100-6425730/

Maybe they want to play 40k, and not some other game.

Also, neat.

That's their choice, all good games have multiple formats for diverse play. It's when they start calling one a farce or whatever is that I take a problem with it, especially when that "farce" can only dictate how players play because it's popular in the community via grassroots means.

**Mulletdude**

Tinkrr wrote:
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.

Um. Why don't you just go to their analysis of the event? Tau had a 48% win rate. Lower than CSM.

http://www.torrentoffire.com/7287/nova-2015-recap wrote:Also, for the first time in three years, Tau came in with a losing record, and were actually outperformed by Chaos Space Marines.

**TheNewBlood**

Mulletdude wrote:
Tinkrr wrote:
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.

Um. Why don't you just go to their analysis of the event? Tau had a 48% win rate. Lower than CSM.

http://www.torrentoffire.com/7287/nova-2015-recap wrote:Also, for the first time in three years, Tau came in with a losing record, and were actually outperformed by Chaos Space Marines.

Two things that are missing from your analysis:

1. I doubt anyone was taking mono CSM to that event. CSM scored highly because they were taken as allies for Daemons.

2. NOVA Open was not an ITC event. 2+ re-rollable was left untouched, and Tau (and most other armies) don't have a good answer to that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm copying Reecius's response to Orock in another thread in this post, because it bears repeating:

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.

**niv-mizzet**

People calling it a targeted nerf need to remember that it didn't make it onto a vote because of its power. It made it onto a vote because you could get 10 different people in a room and ask them how it works, and not only would they would all answer differently, but most would claim their interpretation was correct by RAW with no margin of error.

We never had the issue of 10 different people thinking the wraithknight costs 10 different price points. Therefore: no vote on it. It's that simple.
(Although tbh I wouldn't be opposed to the almighty WK taking a hit with the bat.)

**Naw**

What people are not realizing is that the Hunter Contingent was restrictive. You paid tax for troops that you didn't really want. Now that the only reason to play the Hunter Contingent in ITC is not there, people will look elsewhere, such as these:

X078 wrote:
I'm guessing people playing with these restrictions might aswell get used to facing one of the following lists.

#1
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD
Heavy Retribution Cadre 2 SS 1 GK
Riptide Wing 3 Riptides

#2
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD
Heavy Retribution Cadre 2 SS 1 GK
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK

I also expect to see the Piranha factory in use, to support the big suits.

Ah well, I'm sure that will also be nerfed as who cares of the rules when you can vote whatever you feel like.

**notredameguy10**

niv-mizzet wrote:
People calling it a targeted nerf need to remember that it didn't make it onto a vote because of its power. It made it onto a vote because you could get 10 different people in a room and ask them how it works, and not only would they would all answer differently, but most would claim their interpretation was correct by RAW with no margin of error.

We never had the issue of 10 different people thinking the wraithknight costs 10 different price points. Therefore: no vote on it. It's that simple.
(Although tbh I wouldn't be opposed to the almighty WK taking a hit with the bat.)

Sorry that is literally no interpretation of the rule. Anyone who says there is is just trying to nit pick and try to find anyway of nerfing it.

"shoot as if one unit"
its pretty simple lol

**_ghost_**

Thats it. In different discussions online and offline most of the people who argued how ambigous this iscame up with some balancing issues and how OP this rule is. Everybody did that.

Thats what it makes me feeling that this was never realy a debate how clear the rule is written.

Regarding the vote. Well it was to early, the wording of the questions were weak and so on.

I just dont see why there was the given option to vote for : Rule sharing but not with TL.

Of cours someone could argue that this was possible but how? everyone who fearded rulesharing AND Targetlock allowed hat do choose the restricting alternative just to be sure to do the best preventing USR sharing with TL.

**Pouncey**

_ghost_ wrote:
Thats it. In different discussions online and offline most of the people who argued how ambigous this iscame up with some balancing issues and how OP this rule is. Everybody did that.

Thats what it makes me feeling that this was never realy a debate how clear the rule is written.

Regarding the vote. Well it was to early, the wording of the questions were weak and so on.

I just dont see why there was the given option to vote for : Rule sharing but not with TL.

Of cours someone could argue that this was possible but how? everyone who fearded rulesharing AND Targetlock allowed hat do choose the restricting alternative just to be sure to do the best preventing USR sharing with TL.

Personally, I chose not to vote because I'm not experienced enough (despite playing 40k off and on for around 14 years now) to know what the right interpretation is. I also don't have access to any of my rulebooks, and don't even have the current Tau Codex to look up the actual rule's text.

But I can easily imagine interpretation difficulties. I once ran into a player in real life who thought he was doing me a lenient favor by letting me use a Space Marine Sergeant with a Power Fist in 3e. I tried feebly to explain the subtle but meaningful difference between, "Only models in Terminator Armor can purchase items marked with a *" and "Models in Terminator Armor may only purchase items marked with a *" and was very glad to avoid that whole thing when he said he'd let me use it anyways.

The difference being that with the first, unless the model has Terminator armor, they can't purchase those items. With the second, models in Terminator Armor can purchase those items, but not any other items, and it has no bearing at all on models that are not in Terminator Armor.

**X078**

Further issues this vote creates for anyone using the ITC rules:

Commander with Drone Controller (Special Rule) Coordinating fire with a separate unit of drones that uses Commanders BS, will not work per ITC rules.

**Pain4Pleasure**

X078 wrote:
Further issues this vote creates for anyone using the ITC rules:

Commander with Drone Controller (Special Rule) Coordinating fire with a unit of drones does not work per ITC rules.

Buffmander in a unit of Crisis with Target Locks (Special Rule) firing as one of several units in Coordinated Fire cannot even use their own "native" buffs with Target Locks at another target.

Actually any 2+ units using ITC CF cannot benefit from Target Locks (Special Rule) in anyway.

This is good news.

**notredameguy10**

X078 wrote:
Further issues this vote creates for anyone using the ITC rules:

Commander with Drone Controller (Special Rule) Coordinating fire with a unit of drones does not work per ITC rules.

Buffmander in a unit of Crisis with Target Locks (Special Rule) firing as one of several units in Coordinated Fire cannot even use their own "native" buffs with Target Locks at another target.

Actually any 2+ units using ITC CF cannot benefit from Target Locks (Special Rule) in anyway.

The first and third are correct, but the second isn't (if i am understanding you correctly)

A squad of of crisis with buffmander has always been able to use target locks and still use the buffmanders rules. with the ITC ruling they will not get the +1BS using a target lock and shooting a different target then their unit.

**X078**

A squad of of crisis with buffmander has always been able to use target locks and still use the buffmanders rules. with the ITC ruling they will not get the +1BS using a target lock and shooting a different target then their unit.

No actually the vote specifically points out that Special Rules are only shared if you fire at the CF Target. So if you participate in CF with your buffmander + crisis unit then his abilities will not be usable by his native unit models with Target Locks if they fire at something else, since you are part of CF.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/coordinated-firepower-and-split-fire.png

**notredameguy10**

X078 wrote:
A squad of of crisis with buffmander has always been able to use target locks and still use the buffmanders rules. with the ITC ruling they will not get the +1BS using a target lock and shooting a different target then their unit.

No actually the vote specifically points out that Special Rules are only shared if you fire at the CF Target. So if you participate in CF with your buffmander + crisis unit then his abilities will not be usable by his native unit models with Target Locks if they fire at something else, since you are part of CF.

Oh yeah i guess if they are part of CFP yeah.

I thought you meant just normally in a unit lol

**Pain4Pleasure**

notredameguy10 wrote:
X078 wrote:
A squad of of crisis with buffmander has always been able to use target locks and still use the buffmanders rules. with the ITC ruling they will not get the +1BS using a target lock and shooting a different target then their unit.

No actually the vote specifically points out that Special Rules are only shared if you fire at the CF Target. So if you participate in CF with your buffmander + crisis unit then his abilities will not be usable by his native unit models with Target Locks if they fire at something else, since you are part of CF.

Sorry not true at all lol. I have played Tau since 3rd edition and that is how it always works and the ITC vote does NOT change that.

Changes everything. No one should play tau any other way

**notredameguy10**

X078 wrote:
A squad of of crisis with buffmander has always been able to use target locks and still use the buffmanders rules. with the ITC ruling they will not get the +1BS using a target lock and shooting a different target then their unit.

No actually the vote specifically points out that Special Rules are only shared if you fire at the CF Target. So if you participate in CF with your buffmander + crisis unit then his abilities will not be usable by his native unit models with Target Locks if they fire at something else, since you are part of CF.

That is taken out of context. That question was specifically there to further clarify the previous question. i.e. if the vote allowed sharing of special rules, THEN how would target lock work. The intention of that question was to allow for different possibilities if rule sharing was allowed.

**X078**

That is taken out of context. That question was specifically there to further clarify the previous question. i.e. if the vote allowed sharing of special rules, THEN how would target lock work. The intention of that question was to allow for different possibilities if rule sharing was allowed.

So by Special Rules they only mean the Marker Lights and +1BS?
Maybe the questions themselves had more information to go by that clarified that.

**Makumba**

Almost 25% support. To be honest am suprised about it considering there are more non tau players then tau players, and no one who plays tau in a tournament would vote pro other faction.

**Naw**

So by Special Rules they only mean the Marker Lights and +1BS?
Maybe the questions themselves had more information to go by that clarified that.

As we can see, not all special rules are special rules for the voters. There's just no excuse here other than wanting to nerf something in fear of your own army losing some advantage.

**AlmightyWalrus**

notredameguy10 wrote:
niv-mizzet wrote:
People calling it a targeted nerf need to remember that it didn't make it onto a vote because of its power. It made it onto a vote because you could get 10 different people in a room and ask them how it works, and not only would they would all answer differently, but most would claim their interpretation was correct by RAW with no margin of error.

We never had the issue of 10 different people thinking the wraithknight costs 10 different price points. Therefore: no vote on it. It's that simple.
(Although tbh I wouldn't be opposed to the almighty WK taking a hit with the bat.)

Sorry that is literally no interpretation of the rule. Anyone who says there is is just trying to nit pick and try to find anyway of nerfing it.

"shoot as if one unit"
its pretty simple lol

Does the rule actually say "shoot as if one unit", or does it say to "resolve the shooting attack as if they were one unit"? If it's so easy to understand, why do you have to change the wording?

**Frozocrone**

'...resolving their shots as if they were a single unit - this includes the use of markerlight abilities...

**niv-mizzet**

notredameguy10 wrote:
niv-mizzet wrote:
People calling it a targeted nerf need to remember that it didn't make it onto a vote because of its power. It made it onto a vote because you could get 10 different people in a room and ask them how it works, and not only would they would all answer differently, but most would claim their interpretation was correct by RAW with no margin of error.

We never had the issue of 10 different people thinking the wraithknight costs 10 different price points. Therefore: no vote on it. It's that simple.
(Although tbh I wouldn't be opposed to the almighty WK taking a hit with the bat.)

Sorry that is literally no interpretation of the rule. Anyone who says there is is just trying to nit pick and try to find anyway of nerfing it.

"shoot as if one unit"
its pretty simple lol

Apparently it isn't as simple and clear as you think it is. Otherwise it wouldn't have come up as a vote.

**Pain4Pleasure**

niv-mizzet wrote:
notredameguy10 wrote:
niv-mizzet wrote:
People calling it a targeted nerf need to remember that it didn't make it onto a vote because of its power. It made it onto a vote because you could get 10 different people in a room and ask them how it works, and not only would they would all answer differently, but most would claim their interpretation was correct by RAW with no margin of error.

We never had the issue of 10 different people thinking the wraithknight costs 10 different price points. Therefore: no vote on it. It's that simple.
(Although tbh I wouldn't be opposed to the almighty WK taking a hit with the bat.)

Sorry that is literally no interpretation of the rule. Anyone who says there is is just trying to nit pick and try to find anyway of nerfing it.

"shoot as if one unit"
its pretty simple lol

Apparently it isn't as simple and clear as you think it is. Otherwise it wouldn't have come up as a vote.

To him and naw, their tau shortly being places as OP was a gift from the GW gods. The fact that we all are forcing them to use the actual ruling shows their anger in being knocked down to the appropriate power level, instead of living in loop hole city

**Co'tor Shas**

niv-mizzet wrote:
notredameguy10 wrote:
niv-mizzet wrote:
People calling it a targeted nerf need to remember that it didn't make it onto a vote because of its power. It made it onto a vote because you could get 10 different people in a room and ask them how it works, and not only would they would all answer differently, but most would claim their interpretation was correct by RAW with no margin of error.

We never had the issue of 10 different people thinking the wraithknight costs 10 different price points. Therefore: no vote on it. It's that simple.
(Although tbh I wouldn't be opposed to the almighty WK taking a hit with the bat.)

Sorry that is literally no interpretation of the rule. Anyone who says there is is just trying to nit pick and try to find anyway of nerfing it.

"shoot as if one unit"
its pretty simple lol

Apparently it isn't as simple and clear as you think it is. Otherwise it wouldn't have come up as a vote.

It came to a vote for the exact same reason scatter-bikes came up, not unclear rules, but a preceived OPness. You can even see this in the wording. It was not "how does this work" is was "how do you wish to play". This was "is X powerful enough for us to nerf it?" Now that's not a bad thing, in fact I'd posit it as a good thing, but I would have liked a more measured response, as to the knee-jerk reaction we got. We have no idea is this would have been as powerful as people believe. If it turned out to be massively OP sweeping through tournaments, then yes, nerf it, but time was required to know the appropriate response.

**DirtyDeeds**

Naw wrote:
What people are not realizing is that the Hunter Contingent was restrictive. You paid tax for troops that you didn't really want. Now that the only reason to play the Hunter Contingent in ITC is not there, people will look elsewhere, such as these:

X078 wrote:
I'm guessing people playing with these restrictions might aswell get used to facing one of the following lists.

#1
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD
Heavy Retribution Cadre 2 SS 1 GK
Riptide Wing 3 Riptides

#2
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD
Heavy Retribution Cadre 2 SS 1 GK
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK

I also expect to see the Piranha factory in use, to support the big suits.

Ah well, I'm sure that will also be nerfed as who cares of the rules when you can vote whatever you feel like.

You won't see those lists because ITC prevents taking more than one GMC that's not in the same squad. The Heavy Retaliation Cadre splits the Stormsurge's into two different squads.

**Pain4Pleasure**

DirtyDeeds wrote:
Naw wrote:
What people are not realizing is that the Hunter Contingent was restrictive. You paid tax for troops that you didn't really want. Now that the only reason to play the Hunter Contingent in ITC is not there, people will look elsewhere, such as these:

X078 wrote:
I'm guessing people playing with these restrictions might aswell get used to facing one of the following lists.

#1
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD
Heavy Retribution Cadre 2 SS 1 GK
Riptide Wing 3 Riptides

#2
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD
Heavy Retribution Cadre 2 SS 1 GK
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK

I also expect to see the Piranha factory in use, to support the big suits.

Ah well, I'm sure that will also be nerfed as who cares of the rules when you can vote whatever you feel like.

You won't see those lists because ITC prevents taking more than one GMC that's not in the same squad. The Heavy Retaliation Cadre splits the Stormsurge's into two different squads.

Thank goodness for that. The more I learn about the itc the happier I am with their rules and regulations

**carldooley**

so. . .
If markerlight sharing is fine by ITC. . .
allow me to fire my markerlights first, and hopefully get 9 markerlights on the coordinated fire target - which I can use coordinated fire to increase the likelihood of doing so. . .
'hey, we can share markerlight abilities but not the buffmander? that is cool, take all these resolved at BS10 & Ignores Cover!'

I was looking through the ITC ruleset:
The Shooting Phase
"If a unit elects to Run and/or Turbo-boost, then all models in the unit must forgo their shooting to do so. It is perfectly fine for some models in a unit to Run while others Turbo-boost."
I guess that 'Zephyr's Grace' and 'Ambushes and Feints' don't work?

**X078**

You won't see those lists because ITC prevents taking more than one GMC that's not in the same squad. The Heavy Retaliation Cadre splits the Stormsurge's into two different squads.

Thank goodness for that. The more I learn about the itc the happier I am with their rules and regulations

Lets me fix that for you:

#1
Tau CAD 1 Commander, 2 troops, 1 unit of 2 Stormsurges
Riptide Wing 3 Riptides
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD

#2
Tau CAD 1 Commander, 2 troops, 1 unit of 2 Stormsurges
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD

#3
Tau Hunter Contingent 1 Commander, 3 troops, 1 Elite, 1 Fast Attack, 1 Heavy Support, 1 Lord of War Unit of 2 Stormsurges
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD

#4
FSE CAD 1 Ethereal, 2 Crisis, 1 unit of 2 Stormsurges
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD
Piranha FireStream 5 Piranhas
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK

There, ITC Approved, have fun...

**Pain4Pleasure**

X078 wrote:
You won't see those lists because ITC prevents taking more than one GMC that's not in the same squad. The Heavy Retaliation Cadre splits the Stormsurge's into two different squads.

Thank goodness for that. The more I learn about the itc the happier I am with their rules and regulations

Lets me fix that for you:

#1
Tau CAD 1 Commander, 2 troops, 1 unit of 2 Stormsurges
Riptide Wing 3 Riptides
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD

#2
Tau CAD 1 Commander, 2 troops, 1 unit of 2 Stormsurges
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD

#3
Tau Hunter Contingent 1 Commander, 3 troops, 1 Elite, 1 Fast Attack, 1 Heavy Support, 1 Lord of War Unit of 2 Stormsurges
Optimized Stealth Cadre 2 SB 3 GK
Drone Net VX1-0 16 MD

There, ITC Approved, have fun...

luckily this isn't hard to deal with since those benefits are all gone