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.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/11/29/3rd-quarter-mid-season-itc-update-poll-results/#comments

Well I got to say I am pretty disappointed with the results, but it is what it is. What is the dakka's community thoughts in regard with the results?

I'm a fan of all of this.

Tau doesn't need co-ordinated to be super powerful to be effective, so really they don't miss out on anything. And Orks get to bring a super cheap stompa, which makes it about as good as the current LoW Super-Heavies and GCs. All-in-all, this is a great ruling and should help to fix the problems we've seen with the game as so far.

The Stompa thing is somewhat odd, as that was an issue FW addressed on their facebook page back when they had one, and it was never supposed to be the cheap buy that it was printed as, it was just one of those things that got missed in editing.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Stompa thing is somewhat odd, as that was an issue FW addressed on their facebook page back when they had one, and it was never supposed to be the cheap buy that it was printed as, it was just one of those things that got missed in editing.

At the time this might have been true, but as time goes on we generally see a point reduction in codices, whether direct reductions or potential reductions like Fire Warriors being 5 man instead of 6 base, meaning you can invest less points in mandatory troops if you so desired. It's just one of those things that was ahead of its time, back then it was wrong, but now it's actually not that bad since things have changed.

When that came out, how prominent were formations and detachments anyway? Wasn't it only recently Decurion style formations took off in how powerful they were?

Not what I voted for, but after seeing the Dawnblade Contingent's benefits and how it measured up compared to how powerful I interpreted the Hunter Contingent's benefits to be, I can appreciate people's discomfort towards it.

Definitely boots that detachment out of the running for me, though. I'll be keen to hear how Tau do in the tourney scene with the more conservative ruling.

I'm more annoyed with the Tank Shock ruling, honestly.

Really close voting, but in the end Tau got rightfully nerfed. Orks even got a bone thrown to them. Now they have a decently costed superheavy.

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Stompa thing is somewhat odd, as that was an issue FW addressed on their facebook page back when they had one, and it was never supposed to be the cheap buy that it was printed as, it was just one of those things that got missed in editing.

At the time this might have been true, but as time goes on we generally see a point reduction in codices, whether direct reductions or potential reductions like Fire Warriors being 5 man instead of 6 base, meaning you can invest less points in mandatory troops if you so desired. It's just one of those things that was ahead of its time, back then it was wrong, but now it's actually not that bad since things have changed.

When that came out, how prominent were formations and detachments anyway? Wasn't it only recently Decurion style formations took off in how powerful they were?

I'd still think a 12HP Superheavy for just a hair over a Knight is far too cheap, but it actually was a 5E book (looong before formations & detachments were ever a thing, and years before the current Ork codex). It's pretty clearly a typo, and FW addressed it as such in the past.

I really don't like taking advantage of typos and editing errors to address game balance, that feels very...wrong.

Gotta say, I'm a little disappointed by this round of voting.

The Tank Shock thing I agree with, the other way would just make Tank Shocking way too powerful, and honestly would probably force any army playing a mech list (Guard, SM, etc.) to basically just go cruising speed and flat out the entire time to try and Crunch! as many models a possible before getting stopped. Would've turned tanks into battering rams that maybe shoot guns worse than Orks at times, rather than versatile vehicles that occasionally run people over.

Coordinated Firepower. I understand why people don't like it. I do. But not liking something is not a justifiable reason for nerfing it. CF was strong, but limited. It required 3+ units all shooting at one target to make the most of it. With special rules being shared, it meant that, usually every single Tau unit in range of the target was shooting at it. While that unit was most likely dead, the rest of your army would be able to move around the board and claim objectives uncontested. I'll be honest, I don't believe this vote was due to Tau hate. I think it was due to people being afraid of the meta shifting. The ITC meta currently heavily favors death starts, which CF is pretty clearly designed to hard counter. With CF allowing special rule sharing, the meta was going to swing away from death stars, as Tau would be able to crush them in a turn or two. And people were afraid of that, and didn't want to have to adapt to a new meta and create new lists. So instead of adapting, they voted to nerf the thing that would change the meta. (That is my read on the situation, just opinion, not fact. Feel free to disagree with me).

Not allowing CF benefits to be shared along TLs is the right call. That certainly would push CF into OP territory. Good call was made here.

This one is a bit trickier, but again I feel the right call was made. Darkstrider, much like Sky Rays (in terms of how many you can access), were left out of the Hunter Contingent for a reason; with CF they simply would become auto-take.

And finally, Orks. As much as I want to be happy for you guys getting an affordable SHV, I'm seeing people say that it is clearly a typo and has been ruled as such by FW in the past. If that's the case, that's BS. It's one thing to agree to use the lowered point cost of a unit when you have conflicting points values. It's another thing entirely to take advantage of a typo for your own benefit. That feels very close to cheating to me. I'm glad Orks got a buff, I am. But there has to be a better way of doing it without using typos and editing errors.

Overall, little disappointed. Part of it is certainly me being kinda salty that after several armies get rather powerful bonuses to their "thing" they're known for (Necrons and their survivability, Eldar and their speed, Khorne and their need to see things die, Space Marines and their METAL BAWKSES) Tau get hit with the nerf bat when their "thing" (working together to maximize the effect of their shooting) gets a boost. But the other part of me is sad because this just doesn't seem right from a game balancing standpoint. This was a kneejerk reaction vote, I mean there haven't been any major tournaments since Tau dropped, right? Without seeing how Tau perform in a major GT, how can we really know how powerful they are? Things on paper are always under- and over-estimated by the community, we can't know how good something is until it makes a debut at a GT. In addition, I am afraid of the precedent this might set. I don't wanna see armies get new toys and rules just to see them nerfed because they're new and people haven't figured them out yet. I truly do think this was due to people not wanting to see the meta shift and voting accordingly. I do believe this was a mistake, but I am open to being proven wrong. If, when the next big tournament comes around, Tau dominate the top 5/top 10 spots, I will change my opinion on the matter accordingly. I just wish that this vote had waited until a tournament proved that that would be the case with CF+special rules.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Stompa thing is somewhat odd, as that was an issue FW addressed on their facebook page back when they had one, and it was never supposed to be the cheap buy that it was printed as, it was just one of those things that got missed in editing.

This. That Stompa ruling is just plain stupid. Why is ITC turning a blatant typo, especially a typo that was acknowledged by FW as one, into an official rule? This really takes away a lot of respect I might have had for ITC.

Super happy with the tau nerfs n ork buffs

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Stompa thing is somewhat odd, as that was an issue FW addressed on their facebook page back when they had one, and it was never supposed to be the cheap buy that it was printed as, it was just one of those things that got missed in editing.

At the time this might have been true, but as time goes on we generally see a point reduction in codices, whether direct reductions or potential reductions like Fire Warriors being 5 man instead of 6 base, meaning you can invest less points in mandatory troops if you so desired. It's just one of those things that was ahead of its time, back then it was wrong, but now it's actually not that bad since things have changed.

When that came out, how prominent were formations and detachments anyway? Wasn't it only recently Decurion style formations took off in how powerful they were?

I'd still think a 12HP Superheavy for just a hair over a Knight is far too cheap, but it actually was a 5E book (looong before formations & detachments were ever a thing, and years before the current Ork codex). It's pretty clearly a typo, and FW addressed it as such in the past.

I really don't like taking advantage of typos and editing errors to address game balance, that feels very...wrong.

The thing is the rule for the Buzzgob's Big Mek Stompa is in the Dread Mob PDF file for 6th edition. If it was a typo in the update for 6th then why didn't they just edit the PDF file with the correct price. Its not like the PDF was a published book release. I haven't seen the 5th edition book to know whats printed there but it seems odd that if it was a misprint that they didn't fix it in the update PDF.

Although I'm not, necessarily, opposed to the rulings, some of them do strike me as less "this is badly worded or unclear, and we need conformation" and much more "I want to nerf X".

It's scary how close we were to having killer rhinos.

I hope the ork specific buff sets some precedent of trying to boost other weak armies like pure dark eldar and blood angels while not buffing their allies.

 Vankraken wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Stompa thing is somewhat odd, as that was an issue FW addressed on their facebook page back when they had one, and it was never supposed to be the cheap buy that it was printed as, it was just one of those things that got missed in editing.

At the time this might have been true, but as time goes on we generally see a point reduction in codices, whether direct reductions or potential reductions like Fire Warriors being 5 man instead of 6 base, meaning you can invest less points in mandatory troops if you so desired. It's just one of those things that was ahead of its time, back then it was wrong, but now it's actually not that bad since things have changed.

When that came out, how prominent were formations and detachments anyway? Wasn't it only recently Decurion style formations took off in how powerful they were?

I'd still think a 12HP Superheavy for just a hair over a Knight is far too cheap, but it actually was a 5E book (looong before formations & detachments were ever a thing, and years before the current Ork codex). It's pretty clearly a typo, and FW addressed it as such in the past.

I really don't like taking advantage of typos and editing errors to address game balance, that feels very...wrong.

The thing is the rule for the Buzzgob's Big Mek Stompa is in the Dread Mob PDF file for 6th edition. If it was a typo in the update for 6th then why didn't they just edit the PDF file with the correct price. Its not like the PDF was a published book release. I haven't seen the 5th edition book to know whats printed there but it seems odd that if it was a misprint that they didn't fix it in the update PDF.

Right, thanks for reminding me, that's where the error is. In the original book, it wasn't an option to just swap him like that, it just gave a custom-build Stompa option for Apocalypse games, it was the PDF that introduced that option in question, which was where they swapped away to just using the Apocalypse Big-Mek Stompa instead and borked the cost in their PDF and never fixed it...because ...who knows why, GW in general just does not correct errors or do any sort of Errata at all anymore. Same reason we have Rapier Laser Destroyers that have different AP values depending on which book you're reading (some have AP1, some have AP2...)

That said, the rules in the PDF also state that the option is for "In games of Warhammer 40,000: Apocalypse, or other large scale battles", not just any nilly-willy game.

 Vankraken wrote:
The thing is the rule for the Buzzgob's Big Mek Stompa is in the Dread Mob PDF file for 6th edition. If it was a typo in the update for 6th then why didn't they just edit the PDF file with the correct price. Its not like the PDF was a published book release.

Because GW/FW sucks at updates, and this happened around the time that FW shut down their facebook page, stopped interacting with the community outside of formal events, and stopped publishing FAQs.

I haven't seen the 5th edition book to know whats printed there but it seems odd that if it was a misprint that they didn't fix it in the update PDF.

It worked differently in the book. You got a custom Stompa that started cheap but didn't have any guns yet, and buying upgrades to make it a relevant unit brought its price up to the normal level. The typo happened in the update pdf where someone got confused about exactly which unit the rule was supposed to give him, and ended up with the point cost of the "no guns yet" Stompa but the rules of the similarly-named Stompa in the Escalation book which has all of its weapons already.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Super happy with the tau nerfs n ork buffs

Can't wait to nerf your armies next time a vote comes up! Seeing as by your own accord you voted to nerf Tau simply because you do not like them.

That's a lot of armies to nerf so good luck.

Zero playtesting.

Every nerf for tau got passed lol. I always wondered what the itc was , but after reading reecuis butcher the rules on CFP in the editorial for BOLS , totally not surprised, glad i never used the ITC rules to begin with

Oh dear god that Tau nerf makes no sense. Like i play csm and I don't even use death stars but the Hunter Contingent Dosent even bother me. To Nerf Tau like that is wrong imho. It sounds like ITC wants unkillable Death Stars ran in its tournament

I think if we're relying on a single new, relatively absurdly overcapable ability to put the chops to a single aspect of the metagame, you're just creating one problem to (poorly) solve another.

The ITC has the tools and means to put a stop to deathstars if they really want to, relying on a single special rule from one army to do it is probably a poor choice, so I don't think there's anything wrong with the way they went from that aspect at least.

The ITC also makes stupid rulings ie allowing the vindicator squadrons yet not allowing the Typhon

They also make necessary nerfs, changing things to how gw should of made them. ie: tau

GI_Redshirt wrote:Gotta say, I'm a little disappointed by this round of voting.

The Tank Shock thing I agree with, the other way would just make Tank Shocking way too powerful, and honestly would probably force any army playing a mech list (Guard, SM, etc.) to basically just go cruising speed and flat out the entire time to try and Crunch! as many models a possible before getting stopped. Would've turned tanks into battering rams that maybe shoot guns worse than Orks at times, rather than versatile vehicles that occasionally run people over.

I agree; the last thing we needed was to turn 40k into the tabletop version of Carmageddon. Tank shock is powerful enough as is with the prevalence of Gladius, due to the ability to force models to be removed as casualties. IF you want to make Tank Shock better, give armies more vehicles that are cheap enough to reliably perform it.

Coordinated Firepower. I understand why people don't like it. I do. But not liking something is not a justifiable reason for nerfing it. CF was strong, but limited. It required 3+ units all shooting at one target to make the most of it. With special rules being shared, it meant that, usually every single Tau unit in range of the target was shooting at it. While that unit was most likely dead, the rest of your army would be able to move around the board and claim objectives uncontested.

There was nothing "limited" about being able to have a massive chunk of your army, including the standout units of that faction, fire at one target with +1 BS, Ignores Cover, re-rolls to hit, and Tank Hunter/Monster Hunter. If you have enough Crisis Suits and Riptides, that level of firepower will obliterate any unit in the game, especially though the ITC nerfs to Invisibility and 2+ re-rollable. If your opponent did not present you with a suitable unit, you could just use Multitrackers and Target Locks to split the shooting around.

Tau have lacked a definitive anti-deathstar option for a while. Coordinated Firepower sharing special rules was just overkill. The way the ITC will play it, it will still be powerful, but not a guaranteed kill.

I'll be honest, I don't believe this vote was due to Tau hate. I think it was due to people being afraid of the meta shifting. The ITC meta currently heavily favors death starts, which CF is pretty clearly designed to hard counter. With CF allowing special rule sharing, the meta was going to swing away from death stars, as Tau would be able to crush them in a turn or two. And people were afraid of that, and didn't want to have to adapt to a new meta and create new lists. So instead of adapting, they voted to nerf the thing that would change the meta. (That is my read on the situation, just opinion, not fact. Feel free to disagree with me).

If anything, the ITC is heavily favored against deathstars and toward MSU thanks to their mission design. Reecius has gone on record as saying that he thinks deathstars are bad for the game.

Again, Coordinated Fire is not something the Tau player would use every turn; they can just conduct their normal shooting to counter MSU. Even without sharing special rules, +1 BS and Ignores Cover from the right units will still be able to put a dent in a deathstar. In terms of power, it's gone from a Multi-Megaton Thermonuclear Bomb, capable of wiping out anything, to a tactical nuke, capable of killing the hardest targets while not being an instant means of tabling your opponent.

Not allowing CF benefits to be shared along TLs is the right call. That certainly would push CF into OP territory. Good call was made here.

This one is a bit trickier, but again I feel the right call was made. Darkstrider, much like Sky Rays (in terms of how many you can access), were left out of the Hunter Contingent for a reason; with CF they simply would become auto-take.

And finally, Orks. As much as I want to be happy for you guys getting an affordable SHV, I'm seeing people say that it is clearly a typo and has been ruled as such by FW in the past. If that's the case, that's BS. It's one thing to agree to use the lowered point cost of a unit when you have conflicting points values. It's another thing entirely to take advantage of a typo for your own benefit. That feels very close to cheating to me. I'm glad Orks got a buff, I am. But there has to be a better way of doing it without using typos and editing errors.

Again, the ITC will always act to protect the interests of the MSU playstyle. Giving people the ability to split fire from an anti-deathstar weapon onto anything in the game would be absolutely broken.

I definitely agree on Darstrider. -1 Toughness in a Hunter Contingent would have made Coordinated Fire even more ridiculous.

When an army is as bottom-tier as Orks currently are, they need all the help they can get. The only really obnoxious thing about a Stompa is the ability to make it repair itself, and even that cna be countered. Orks will now at least get one decent superheavy on the field.
Overall, little disappointed. Part of it is certainly me being kinda salty that after several armies get rather powerful bonuses to their "thing" they're known for (Necrons and their survivability, Eldar and their speed, Khorne and their need to see things die, Space Marines and their METAL BAWKSES) Tau get hit with the nerf bat when their "thing" (working together to maximize the effect of their shooting) gets a boost. But the other part of me is sad because this just doesn't seem right from a game balancing standpoint. This was a kneejerk reaction vote, I mean there haven't been any major tournaments since Tau dropped, right? Without seeing how Tau perform in a major GT, how can we really know how powerful they are? Things on paper are always under- and over-estimated by the community, we can't know how good something is until it makes a debut at a GT. In addition, I am afraid of the precedent this might set. I don't wanna see armies get new toys and rules just to see them nerfed because they're new and people haven't figured them out yet. I truly do think this was due to people not wanting to see the meta shift and voting accordingly. I do believe this was a mistake, but I am open to being proven wrong. If, when the next big tournament comes around, Tau dominate the top 5/top 10 spots, I will change my opinion on the matter accordingly. I just wish that this vote had waited until a tournament proved that that would be the case with CF+special rules.

Well looks like the cowards won. Time to vote on eldar, necron decursions, and gladius strike force. After all they are "no fun".

This is some serious bs.

 Orock wrote:
Well looks like the cowards won. Time to vote on eldar, necron decursions, and gladius strike force. After all they are "no fun".

This is some serious bs.

To be fair, I'd be in favor of getting rid of those in a heartbeat.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Well looks like the cowards won. Time to vote on eldar, necron decursions, and gladius strike force. After all they are "no fun".

This is some serious bs.

To be fair, I'd be in favor of getting rid of those in a heartbeat.

we should
they dont belong in the games current power level.

remove necron decursion entirely, add 100 points to wraithknight costs, 1 in 3 scatter bikers, and remove the gladius bonuses from marines. Simple, and you dont have to buff other armies to match them. and if someone says thats dumb the rules are clear cut, now we have an example of targeted nerfs, so thats fine.

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

I don't think Eldar got nerfed this fast, and if I'm not mistaken they weren't nerfed so hard, either. They can still spam scatbikes can't they? And they still get plenty of D weapons, it's just slightly weaker.

It really just feels like the Tau haters came out in force on this one. This has almost literally nothing to do with any perceived imbalance, it's just a good excuse to stick it to people you don't like because they're having fun wrong.