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.

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

Benefits won't matter anyway, depending on how you tailor the lists you can blanket the enemy in marker lights, everything will be some combination of BS 5/6, ignore cover, hitting rear armour, D-Strenght.

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

#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...

Then you start running into point issues, I was able to make an 1850 list with a min CAD (Mark'O and two squads of Strikers) with a Riptide Wing and two Stormsurges.... That was it...

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.

You are incorrect on all three counts. The ITC vote was on playing CFP as sharing special rules when using Coordinated Firepower. As such, All of those examples still provide the benefits of their associated special rules to thier attached units, but not every unit that makes a CFP shooting attack under ITC rules.

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

#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...

Two problems with this list:

1. Good luck fitting all of that into 1850 points

2. The list still isn't ITC legal, as you are only allowed one duplicate formation. Doesn't matter what source is comes from either; you cannot take more than two of one formation, and you may only have one of every other formation.

X078 wrote:

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

Benefits won't matter anyway, depending on how you tailor the lists you can blanket the enemy in marker lights, everything will be some combination of BS 5/6, ignore cover, hitting rear armour, D-Strenght.

Hitting rear armor is specific to the Optimized Stealth Cadre. The buffs that were in question came from the Command and Control Node, Multi-Spectrum Sensor Suite, and Puretide Engram Neurochip. These allows the unit the bearer was with to Ignore Cover, Twin Link, and Monster/Tank Hunter.

But honestly, I have not had a hard time utilizing a Hunter Contingent without sharing buffs. My Mark'O averages 5 Markerlights per turn which means that three units can Ignore Cover and become BS7 or BS9, which is all you'll need to drop that hardcore unit. The only thing I see us having problems with is Invisibility...

Doesn't every army?

Blasts still work though in the ITC

 Frozocrone wrote:
Doesn't every army?

Blasts still work though in the ITC

I understand that, I just wanted to impress the notion that Twin-Linked weapons help immensely while shooting at an Invisible unit.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 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

There is no loop hole anywhere except in your mind. And FYI I have BA / SM and Eldar.

To be fair the rule sharing (Without target lock sharing) make it possible to field a reasonable fluffy tau list and face for example a reasonably fluffy decurion list. It benefits smaller units and vehicles waaaay more than GMCs and MCs.

The only special rules that could be shared, really, were monster and tankhunter. Is that really that much different from the new mont'ka formation? And sure the buffmander got a pretty serious boost. But he's pretty freaking expensive and, ya know, you could kill or assault him. Or maybe stop building deathstar- or MC only lists.

I dont play ITC so w/e. But seriously how is overkilling a single unit once a turn for as long as a commander lives more broken than blanket 4+++ all the time. I just dont get it. Meanwhile me and my mate are having a blast he doesnt feel bad for fielding decurion and I finally get to field other stuff than triptides and not get tabled.

Well I doubt that anyone who spend money on a deathstar or MC using list would also think what ever, if tau worked RAW.

Makumba wrote:
Well I doubt that anyone who spend money on a deathstar or MC using list would also think what ever, if tau worked RAW.

Incorrect. Some of us just want to play RAW, regardless of any perceived inbalance.

SJ

Makumba wrote:
Well I doubt that anyone who spend money on a deathstar or MC using list would also think what ever, if tau worked RAW.

It is definitely easier to ban something than adapt to it

Makumba wrote:
Well I doubt that anyone who spend money on a deathstar or MC using list would also think what ever, if tau worked RAW.

What kind of pay to win argument is that. Stop building stupid one trick pony cheeselists.

This ruling didnt make sense in a tournament setup because all the rule wouldve done was change the meta. It doenst make sense from a fluffy perspective because the rule actually benefitted a fluffy list most.

If Tau win a big tournie soon it'll be just like everyone else by abusing big unkillable GMCs with big guns. So gj on making the game less interesting for everyone

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...

Two problems with this list:

1. Good luck fitting all of that into 1850 points

2. The list still isn't ITC legal, as you are only allowed one duplicate formation. Doesn't matter what source is comes from either; you cannot take more than two of one formation, and you may only have one of every other formation.

1. Yeah it is tight on the points but I am just showing that is is possible, not that they are optimal lists.

2. As far as I know in ITC you can use 3 sources and only 2 can be duplicates. Using Hunter Contingent with auxiliaries counts as 1 with 2 to spare.

X078 wrote:
The wording used was that sharing of Special Rules are not allowed in CF when when firing at the same target, Drone Controller and Target Locks etc are all Special Rules thus affected. Unless there is more info somewhere that have missed. So the Commander with DC and another unit of Drones can outside of ITC join for CF thus becoming 1 unit even if they seperated and thus allowing the DC to work with the drones using the commanders BS.

...So we can't agree on what the ITC ruling affects?

X078 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

X078 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
That's if you get first turn. Honestly, you could tell me one counter n I tell you another. This won't get anywhere. Also, list tailor? Really? Spoken like a true fish

Yeah, list tailor in the sense that you optimize your lists, not that you write them specifically for one adversary lol

It's hard for me, personally, to justify building a take-all-comers list when I know for a fact that there will never be a plethora of enemy vehicles to target.

One of the problems that comes with playing games at home with a single opponent who uses my models.

Yeah, still the OSC is pretty versatile. Works on its own without much support and quite good against flyers also. Can always exchange it for Crisis units or more Riptides etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:

X078 wrote:
The wording used was that sharing of Special Rules are not allowed in CF when when firing at the same target, Drone Controller and Target Locks etc are all Special Rules thus affected. Unless there is more info somewhere that have missed. So the Commander with DC and another unit of Drones can outside of ITC join for CF thus becoming 1 unit even if they seperated and thus allowing the DC to work with the drones using the commanders BS.

...So we can't agree on what the ITC ruling affects?

If there is more info regarding this vote it would be nice to read. So far what I have seen only mentions that Special Rules are not shared amongst units when combining for CF, but I could be wrong.

The ruling regarding target locks and CFP had nothing to do with affecting the original squads rules. They obviously get their special rules even if they use target locks, like they always have been able to. That ruling/question was in regards to if the first rule got past (rules are shared amongst multiple units), THEN would Target Locks in those additional squads who got the rules added to their unit work.

The ruling regarding target locks and CFP had nothing to do with affecting the original squads rules. They obviously get their special rules even if they use target locks, like they always have been able to. That ruling/question was in regards to if the first rule got past (rules are shared amongst multiple units), THEN would Target Locks in those additional squads who got the rules added to their unit work.

OK got it, that just leaves the drone controller issue then.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Makumba wrote:
Well I doubt that anyone who spend money on a deathstar or MC using list would also think what ever, if tau worked RAW.

Incorrect. Some of us just want to play RAW, regardless of any perceived inbalance.

SJ

This rule is ambiguous the way it was worded so RAW doesn't really mean anything here.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Makumba wrote:
Well I doubt that anyone who spend money on a deathstar or MC using list would also think what ever, if tau worked RAW.

Incorrect. Some of us just want to play RAW, regardless of any perceived inbalance.

SJ

This rule is ambiguous the way it was worded so RAW doesn't really mean anything here.

You get a lot of tau players thinking it's clear as day. They'll argue it to their death bed. Just as in the beginning they attempted to argue that the stormsurge could anchor on a tidewall, and the tidewall move, and it still fire twice. All I've seen since release from the tau community are two things. Attempted loop holes, and crying when said loop holes are denied

If have read so many "facts" that would make CF in the USR sharing version unplayable or would break the game itself. up to now there was never a valid point. ( balancing is NEVER a RAW argument btw)
on the other side there are people who treat shots as units themself and so on.

on top of this there are tha many " Yeah Tau deserved that nerf" post. Wich is realy funny caus we had a RAW diskusion right? or wait... this was not a diskussion about RAw is was more abaut fear and such things nd that myth called ballancing.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Makumba wrote:
Well I doubt that anyone who spend money on a deathstar or MC using list would also think what ever, if tau worked RAW.

Incorrect. Some of us just want to play RAW, regardless of any perceived inbalance.

SJ

This rule is ambiguous the way it was worded so RAW doesn't really mean anything here.

You get a lot of tau players thinking it's clear as day. They'll argue it to their death bed. Just as in the beginning they attempted to argue that the stormsurge could anchor on a tidewall, and the tidewall move, and it still fire twice. All I've seen since release from the tau community are two things. Attempted loop holes, and crying when said loop holes are denied

I once met a guy in 3e who thought it was clear as day that my Tactical Sergeant with a Power Fist was breaking the rules because he thought only models with Terminator Armor could take Power Fists.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Makumba wrote:
Well I doubt that anyone who spend money on a deathstar or MC using list would also think what ever, if tau worked RAW.

Incorrect. Some of us just want to play RAW, regardless of any perceived inbalance.

SJ

This rule is ambiguous the way it was worded so RAW doesn't really mean anything here.

Its not ambiguous at all when you take into account how shooting currently works in 7th, specifically shooting weapon groups. The addition of the Marklight clause makes sense to with special rules sharing, as normally a unit cannot benefit from its own Markerlights, yet Coordinatied Fire means they can. Limiting the sharing of special rules is a rules charge fir preceived balance, not a clarification.

SJ

X078 wrote:

1. Yeah it is tight on the points but I am just showing that is is possible, not that they are optimal lists.

2. As far as I know in ITC you can use 3 sources and only 2 can be duplicates. Using Hunter Contingent with auxiliaries counts as 1 with 2 to spare.

The sources that you have used are Tau Empire and the Farsight Campaign book. Even across sources, you may not have more than one duplicate formation.

_ghost_ wrote:If have read so many "facts" that would make CF in the USR sharing version unplayable or would break the game itself. up to now there was never a valid point. ( balancing is NEVER a RAW argument btw)
on the other side there are people who treat shots as units themself and so on.

on top of this there are tha many " Yeah Tau deserved that nerf" post. Wich is realy funny caus we had a RAW diskusion right? or wait... this was not a diskussion about RAw is was more abaut fear and such things nd that myth called ballancing.

Again, the RAW may not be ambiguous, but that doesn't make CFP sharing special rules any less broken. People were rightly afraid of how stupidly overpowered Tau could be if this was allowed to stand.

A game with a decent ruleset should be balanced. As 40k is not balanced RAW, it must be artificially introduced into the game via house rules and TO rulings/FAQs. The ITC in my opinion has created the most balanced ruleset so far for taming 7th edition 40k.

But more to the point, I knew for a fact how it worked. But my opponent also knew for a fact how it worked. Yet I was unable to convince him. He left the game room that day still thinking that my model was against the rules. He was similarly unable to convince me. I left the game room that day still thinking my model was totally fine.

Didn't you just peruse the rules and it would have been settled?

Anyways that is similar to the the issue with Tau and the Coordinated Fire rule. People start adding their own personal assumptions in to how it is written. "Resolving shots as if one unit" is pretty clear unless US folks got some weird interpretation of "as if". In all honesty GW could have just left that part of the sentence out if they intended for the units to fire on their own. E.g. "These units resolve their shots together - including the use of Marker Lights". But now, RAW there is now ambiguity.

Does Fire Team work with CF under the ITC rules set?

If it doesn't it makes Coldstar really useless during most of the game. As drone controller clearly is ruled out, but "Fire Team" is not a USR.

X078 wrote:

But more to the point, I knew for a fact how it worked. But my opponent also knew for a fact how it worked. Yet I was unable to convince him. He left the game room that day still thinking that my model was against the rules. He was similarly unable to convince me. I left the game room that day still thinking my model was totally fine.

Didn't you just peruse the rules and it would have been settled?

Anyways that is similar to the the issue with Tau and the Coordinated Fire rule. People start adding their own personal assumptions in to how it is written. "Resolving shots as if one unit" is pretty clear unless US folks got some weird interpretation of "as if". In all honesty GW could have just left that part of the sentence out if they intended for the units to fire on their own. E.g. "These units resolve their shots together - including the use of Marker Lights". But now, RAW there is now ambiguity.

I opened the book and showed him what it said. He thought it proved his point.

Judging by his accent, there may have been a grammar issue between how English places words in a sentence and how French places words in a sentence. My french is pretty bad, certainly worse than his English (but the Codex was mine and in English). The difference between how I interpreted it and how he interpreted it was seriously a matter of just moving two words to after the words "models in Terminator armor" instead of before.

The sources that you have used are Tau Empire and the Farsight Campaign book. Even across sources, you may not have more than one duplicate formation.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-season-40k-tournament-format/

The Tau CAD is 1 detachment then plus 2 formations so should be valid.
The FSE one is wrong per ITC yeah, change the CAD for FSE Dawnblade Contingent using Hunter Cadre and it should work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thejughead wrote:
Does Fire Team work with CF under the ITC rules set?

If it doesn't it makes Coldstar really useless during most of the game. As drone controller clearly is ruled out, but "Fire Team" is not a USR.

Fire Team, don't know really. Depends on if the ITC vote view the CF units as 1 unit or not.
And as for the Coldstar its probably the same as with Fire Team, depends if one unit or not.

So yeah all in all we can see that RAW makes it clear that they are one unit since otherwise those two rules above would not work.

And I should add that Drone Controller Coldstar with Target Lock is also my favorite loadout

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Again, the RAW may not be ambiguous, but that doesn't make CFP sharing special rules any less broken. People were rightly afraid of how stupidly overpowered Tau could be if this was allowed to stand.

Which is my point, this was not a rules vote, this was a nerf vote.
Was it necessary? Perhaps. We didn't know yet, considering it's only been a thing for a couple weeks and have seen no tournament results. That's my bugbear in this whole thing, the knee-jerk reaction instead of a more measured response. I may not have actually buffed tau that much, we don't know yet.

Just went to a tournament with the new ITC ruleset. It was a somewhat small tournament but out of the 16 people there, 5 brought Tau!

Anyways, it was Round #2 and the 2 Tau players were playing against each other (on Table #1). They were also the 2 top players at that point. It was Paul McKelvey, the ITC #1 Tau player, playing against Jeremy Vesseire aka The French Overlord.

They then proceeded to knock each other out of the championship with a draw, thus allowing a Daemon player to win it all.

 jy2 wrote:
Just went to a tournament with the new ITC ruleset. It was a somewhat small tournament but out of the 16 people there, 5 brought Tau!

Anyways, it was Round #2 and the 2 Tau players were playing against each other (on Table #1). They were also the 2 top players at that point. It was Paul McKelvey, the ITC #1 Tau player, playing against Jeremy Vesseire aka The French Overlord.

They then proceeded to knock each other out with a draw, thus allowing a Daemon player to win it all.

Nice, any feedback on how playing ITC Tau vs RAW Tau was? And what lists did they use?

 jy2 wrote:
Just went to a tournament with the new ITC ruleset. It was a somewhat small tournament but out of the 16 people there, 5 brought Tau!

Anyways, it was Round #2 and the 2 Tau players were playing against each other (on Table #1). They were also the 2 top players at that point. It was Paul McKelvey, the ITC #1 Tau player, playing against Jeremy Vesseire aka The French Overlord.

They then proceeded to knock each other out of the championship with a draw, thus allowing a Daemon player to win it all.

That is pretty funny, I am nowhere near the caliber of player they are, but my friends and I have done that to each other before at a tournament and it was pretty funny.


i would also love to see more details from the game like the mission info and the lists used.