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.

Im starting this thread to address the ITC voting system, and also to bring other alternative things to light we as players who use their system might also like to see adjusted with warranted changes. If you have something you would like to add to the list which will be submitted after 2 weeks time for review, please feel free to add your idea and WHY specifically it warrants a review and possibly a vote for adjustment. Now I am sure most of the things that I feel warrant change will be covered by others, so in the interest of impartiality, I myself will refrain from adding any units/formations/rules myself as I would really like to see the communities thoughts over mine. I may even be suprised by what others come up with and agree/disagree. Again with simple majority voting for their system it should be fair and balanced.

Please post your thoughts. Please keep sour grapes posts and trolls to yourself. If we want actual positive change then it has to be done in a serious manner.

Also if you could limit yourself to a single issue you feel most strongly about rather than making it sound like a laundry list of vendettas it would go farther in along it sound credible. And in sure your other ideas will be presented by others.

EDIT

There are alot of good boards with suggestions avaiable out there, I have decided to expand the questionnaire to other boards as well. The ones I am thinking about to start off with are:
Warseer
Bolter and Chainsword
The mek's garage
advanced tau tactica.

warseer has a grace period before you can post, but you can see my sincerity in my introduction post here. http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?415376-Hello-long-time-player-returning&p=7574301#post7574301

keep the websites coming.
if you know of more who would be interested in contributing feel free to leave a name or link.

What is your involvement with the ITC?

What is the purpose of this post? Are you actively trying to overthrow the ITC? Or are you just mad because they voted on something and you didn't like the end result?

 Scott-S6 wrote:
What is your involvement with the ITC?

Someone who's local area uses the rules. Anyone can submit suggestions, and often do on front line Gaming's podcasts for example. This is just an attempt to gather ideas for future voting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:
What is the purpose of this post? Are you actively trying to overthrow the ITC? Or are you just mad because they voted on something and you didn't like the end result?

It's not a monarchy, there is nothing to overthrow. Just trying to gather a list of desirable changes, of which I refrained from posting my own to remain impartial. There are legitimate issues with the game that could be addressed further.

 Orock wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
What is your involvement with the ITC?

Someone who's local area uses the rules. Anyone can submit suggestions, and often do on front line Gaming's podcasts for example. This is just an attempt to gather ideas for future voting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:
What is the purpose of this post? Are you actively trying to overthrow the ITC? Or are you just mad because they voted on something and you didn't like the end result?

It's not a monarchy, there is nothing to overthrow. Just trying to gather a list of desirable changes, of which I refrained from posting my own to remain impartial. There are legitimate issues with the game that could be addressed further.

I'm just going based off your other post, where you ranted and raved against the ITC.

OT, nothing. I think they've been doing a fine job moderating their tournament.

Well that's certainly a constructive post. And if they all go that way there will be very little to submit. But I feel there will be some, hence the request. And keeping my own personal feelings out is the most realistic way to get honest constructive feedback for real positive suggestions.

 Orock wrote:
Someone who's local area uses the rules. Anyone can submit suggestions, and often do on front line Gaming's podcasts for example. This is just an attempt to gather ideas for future voting.

What's the purpose of the gathering?

Anyone can simply submit suggestions.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Someone who's local area uses the rules. Anyone can submit suggestions, and often do on front line Gaming's podcasts for example. This is just an attempt to gather ideas for future voting.

What's the purpose of the gathering?

Anyone can simply submit suggestions.

To gather other ideas the community may come up with, many clever or commonly overlooked. Something more than one man could accomplish on his own. Also many may have ideas but not want to bother suggesting them on outside channels for the hastle. I'm offering to bring their concerns without more than a response here needed for them.

i would suggest a toned down version of the superheavy rule for gorkanauts and morkanauts. they receive all the benefits of being superheavies except for the ability to stomp.

while i understand that this isnt so much as a clarification of rules or even a proposed nerf, but instead the addition of a rule to a model, i think it would help balance the game.....at least in regards to gmorkanauts costing roughly the same as an imperial night and not having any of the benefits of super heavy walkers.

all this rule amendment of mine would do is assure that the gmorkanut cant be popped from simple explodes results, or outright destroyed if another superheavy happen to roll good on the stomp table. other benefits would be the ability to carry multiple different units within its transport capacity, and the increased movement of a super heavy walker.
this rule could be justifiable in regards to a recent itc ruling as well. the new bigmek buzzgob cheap 300pt bigmek stompa is a superheavy at 300pts. just 20 pts more expensive then a morkanaut with kff. that cheap bigmek stompa wont be made irrelevant with this change to morkanauts since the rule i propose is to not have stomps on their profile, something the bigmek stompa would have over them, thus making it still seem like a special addition to the army besides the psuedo super heavy gmorkaanuts.
this rule change will help justify the purchases of those who really liked the gmorkanaut kit. it will also seem as threatening as it is in the fluff (this is an effigy of the almighty gork and mork, it just has to be tough! ).

now i know it is difficult to request this while other factions suffer from over costed units that are hardly ever used in the game, but this is my own passionate opinion on the matter since my commitment to playing orks this edition.

geargutz wrote:
i would suggest a toned down version of the superheavy rule for gorkanauts and morkanauts. they receive all the benefits of being superheavies except for the ability to stomp.

while i understand that this isnt so much as a clarification of rules or even a proposed nerf, but instead the addition of a rule to a model, i think it would help balance the game.....at least in regards to gmorkanauts costing roughly the same as an imperial night and not having any of the benefits of super heavy walkers.

all this rule amendment of mine would do is assure that the gmorkanut cant be popped from simple explodes results, or outright destroyed if another superheavy happen to roll good on the stomp table. other benefits would be the ability to carry multiple different units within its transport capacity, and the increased movement of a super heavy walker.
this rule could be justifiable in regards to a recent itc ruling as well. the new bigmek buzzgob cheap 300pt bigmek stompa is a superheavy at 300pts. just 20 pts more expensive then a morkanaut with kff. that cheap bigmek stompa wont be made irrelevant with this change to morkanauts since the rule i propose is to not have stomps on their profile, something the bigmek stompa would have over them, thus making it still seem like a special addition to the army besides the psuedo super heavy gmorkaanuts.
this rule change will help justify the purchases of those who really liked the gmorkanaut kit. it will also seem as threatening as it is in the fluff (this is an effigy of the almighty gork and mork, it just has to be tough! ).

now i know it is difficult to request this while other factions suffer from over costed units that are hardly ever used in the game, but this is my own passionate opinion on the matter since my commitment to playing orks this edition.

Personally I like it. The fact it can be one shot right off the board by a single lascannon is depressing. I dont think rating it as a LoW, even possibly giving it stomp, would be bad. The only problem I see is then it invalidates the dreadmob, since you can only have one LoW, and that is a very fun list to run. But I will pass it along.

 Orock wrote:

geargutz wrote:
i would suggest a toned down version of the superheavy rule for gorkanauts and morkanauts. they receive all the benefits of being superheavies except for the ability to stomp.

while i understand that this isnt so much as a clarification of rules or even a proposed nerf, but instead the addition of a rule to a model, i think it would help balance the game.....at least in regards to gmorkanauts costing roughly the same as an imperial night and not having any of the benefits of super heavy walkers.

all this rule amendment of mine would do is assure that the gmorkanut cant be popped from simple explodes results, or outright destroyed if another superheavy happen to roll good on the stomp table. other benefits would be the ability to carry multiple different units within its transport capacity, and the increased movement of a super heavy walker.
this rule could be justifiable in regards to a recent itc ruling as well. the new bigmek buzzgob cheap 300pt bigmek stompa is a superheavy at 300pts. just 20 pts more expensive then a morkanaut with kff. that cheap bigmek stompa wont be made irrelevant with this change to morkanauts since the rule i propose is to not have stomps on their profile, something the bigmek stompa would have over them, thus making it still seem like a special addition to the army besides the psuedo super heavy gmorkaanuts.
this rule change will help justify the purchases of those who really liked the gmorkanaut kit. it will also seem as threatening as it is in the fluff (this is an effigy of the almighty gork and mork, it just has to be tough! ).

now i know it is difficult to request this while other factions suffer from over costed units that are hardly ever used in the game, but this is my own passionate opinion on the matter since my commitment to playing orks this edition.

Personally I like it. The fact it can be one shot right off the board by a single lascannon is depressing. I dont think rating it as a LoW, even possibly giving it stomp, would be bad. The only problem I see is then it invalidates the dreadmob, since you can only have one LoW, and that is a very fun list to run. But I will pass it along.

im just a little confused. i dont see any mention of only one LOW allowed in the itc rules addendum. and since its a formation wouldn't it ignore the fact if it was a low since formations have allowed multible superheavies (codex imperial knights).
i guess my intention was to have the gmorkanaut still count as a heavy support slot, but i could undertsand if most would want it to be a low...is that a rule i dont know about, do super heavies and gmc automatically become low?

Yes for Itc rules. And they only allow one per army, the exceptions being knight armies and allies, and tau stormsurges in squads (at least at the writing of this)

I think that if the Iron Hands CT applies to all vehicles, regardless of the CT rule (as it does in ITC) then similarly all CT should apply to SM vehicles if by general rules it makes sense.

For example, the Salamanders CT lets them reroll wounds and glancing/pen hits on vehicles with Flamer weapons. Why not allow all their vehicles that are equipped with such weapons not be allowed to do so?

Same thing with Imp. Fists. Why not let all vehicle mounted bolter weaponry reroll misses of 1 to hit?

Allow csm armies which have purchased the veterans of the Long war rule to give models with this rule their chosen traitor Legions legions tactics from the FW legion rules

I'm all for clarification to ambiguous rules, as it will reduce time wasted on arguing during a game. However, I'm against changing the rules in and of themselves. Not to say GW writes a perfect rules set, just that the rules as written are available to everyone, while a list of clarications is an handy aid to working interpretations pre-game without losing too much time. Rule change just make the game less pick-up friendly.

Just my $0.02.

SJ

Guys, they have a question submission form. No need to be salty. Go the their site, to the form and submit you suggestion/rules clarification.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I'm all for clarification to ambiguous rules, as it will reduce time wasted on arguing during a game. However, I'm against changing the rules in and of themselves. Not to say GW writes a perfect rules set, just that the rules as written are available to everyone, while a list of clarications is an handy aid to working interpretations pre-game without losing too much time. Rule change just make the game less pick-up friendly.

Just my $0.02.

SJ

Aye, very much my view on it also. Any House-Rule / Comp system should strive to only have FAQ's which clarifies already existing rules, never change, restrict or ban stuff unless one comes upon an obvious error in said books.

I would hate to see things that were recently put into affect via voting to change already. We haven't had time to test out how the tau rules actually work, since itc is making sure tau players must use the rules as intended and written. Now, if you're talking about some itc rules that have been around for months or so, that's fine. I actually think the tau need another look for the formation that some players feel allows vehicles to be brought back? We need a vote to ensure they know it does not.

Basing off your other post OP, get over it. Itc is doing a fantastic job. This stab at them is poor taste

Personally, I think other competitive games do just fine with restricted/banned lists (including other miniature games), and I don't think a little more of that would go amiss.

I love the ITC FAQs, even if I don't agree with every decision they make. (HemhemPsychicShriekhemhem) I would like to see them be a little broader in scope; a player run governing body for the competitive scene appears to be the only option, since Games Workshop is apparently quite serious about abdicating all responsibility for their rules.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I would hate to see things that were recently put into affect via voting to change already. We haven't had time to test out how the tau rules actually work, since itc is making sure tau players must use the rules as intended and written. Now, if you're talking about some itc rules that have been around for months or so, that's fine. I actually think the tau need another look for the formation that some players feel allows vehicles to be brought back? We need a vote to ensure they know it does not.

Basing off your other post OP, get over it. Itc is doing a fantastic job. This stab at them is poor taste

That is how I see this thread too .

 Jimsolo wrote:
Personally, I think other competitive games do just fine with restricted/banned lists (including other miniature games), and I don't think a little more of that would go amiss.

I love the ITC FAQs, even if I don't agree with every decision they make. (HemhemPsychicShriekhemhem) I would like to see them be a little broader in scope; a player run governing body for the competitive scene appears to be the only option, since Games Workshop is apparently quite serious about abdicating all responsibility for their rules.

Well said. Someone had to pick up the mantle. Itc is perfect for the job. Now if we could get itc rules and faqs into more game stores and tournies, everyone would be a lot happier. Minus the few that, quite frankly, don't matter

I think that the ITC is doing a fine job. If you don't like it, then don't use it, don't attend ITC events and don't support ITC event sponsors. Vote with your wallet and your feet! If your participation and revenue actually matters, eventually, they'll come around.

Or, you could play something besides Tau...

It is honestly up to the store owners and tournament organizers whether they use ITC, another FAQ source, or maybe even just come up with their own tournament rulings.

Some people like the ITC and want to use the FAQ for their tournaments, and they definitely can, but by the same token a store/tournament should make the descision on what the majority of the players seem to want rather than a vocal minority pressuring them.

As john pointed out, don't like how your store does events and want them to change, don't participate in events or vote with your wallet by supporting other local stores that do support your stance if there is one, when they are/aren't using ITC if the majority feels strongly they will change and if they don't you will have to choose to keep not participating or to play by the stores rules.

I disagree with some of the ITC rulings because they obvious changes to how specific rules work. I have no issues with specific composition restritions at ITC events, such as limits on Lords of War or 1 Scatterlaser per 3 Jetbike, as this just shifts the meta rather then changing how the game is played. An example of what I disagree with would be snap firing a Marklight guided Seeker Missile should be BS5, not BS1, because Marklights have permission to modify snap shots and permission to replace the BS with a 5. Minor and not game breaking, but still a rules change.

SJ

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I would hate to see things that were recently put into affect via voting to change already. We haven't had time to test out how the tau rules actually work, since itc is making sure tau players must use the rules as intended and written. Now, if you're talking about some itc rules that have been around for months or so, that's fine. I actually think the tau need another look for the formation that some players feel allows vehicles to be brought back? We need a vote to ensure they know it does not.

Basing off your other post OP, get over it. Itc is doing a fantastic job. This stab at them is poor taste

You can keep putting this in every single Tau thread and it doesn't change the fact that it is a lie lol.
The vote was NOT base on RAW, it was worded "do you want to play it this way'. Big difference.

notredameguy10 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I would hate to see things that were recently put into affect via voting to change already. We haven't had time to test out how the tau rules actually work, since itc is making sure tau players must use the rules as intended and written. Now, if you're talking about some itc rules that have been around for months or so, that's fine. I actually think the tau need another look for the formation that some players feel allows vehicles to be brought back? We need a vote to ensure they know it does not.

Basing off your other post OP, get over it. Itc is doing a fantastic job. This stab at them is poor taste

You can keep putting this in every single Tau thread and it doesn't change the fact that it is a lie lol.
The vote was NOT base on RAW, it was worded "do you want to play it this way'. Big difference.

My post was in support of itc. They hold great events with good faqs

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I We haven't had time to test out how the tau rules actually work, since itc is making sure tau players must use the rules as intended and written. Now, if you're talking about some itc rules that have been around for months or so, that's fine. I actually think the tau need another look for the formation that some players feel allows vehicles to be brought back? We need a vote to ensure they know it does not.

Basing off your other post OP, get over it. Itc is doing a fantastic job. This stab at them is poor taste

RAW ? RAI ? well you are eighter lying or dont know what RAW is. CF was not based on RAW it was just a mix of made up rule misreading, quoting on rules that dont belong to it ( unit coherency) and fearmongering. this resultet into a mob vote. thats it.

the formation you try to adress is absolutely clear written. there is no ambiguity there.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I would hate to see things that were recently put into affect via voting to change already. We haven't had time to test out how the tau rules actually work, since itc is making sure tau players must use the rules as intended and written. Now, if you're talking about some itc rules that have been around for months or so, that's fine. I actually think the tau need another look for the formation that some players feel allows vehicles to be brought back? We need a vote to ensure they know it does not.

Basing off your other post OP, get over it. Itc is doing a fantastic job. This stab at them is poor taste

You can keep putting this in every single Tau thread and it doesn't change the fact that it is a lie lol.
The vote was NOT base on RAW, it was worded "do you want to play it this way'. Big difference.

My post was in support of itc. They hold great events with good faqs

I agree. I love ITC rulings and support of the game since GW has basically dropped the ball on that front. In fact, I AGREE that nerfing CFP MAY have been the right thing to do. I would rather have balance in game play than have OP rules. My problem is how the voting was done. It was done way too quickly before there was any evidence from tournaments that the rule was OP and the way the questions were worded were basically "do you want to play it this way" vs "is this how the rule works".

Once again, this thread isnt to argue if the ITC is or isnt doing a good job, or to try and derail it into "your just salty" bickering. If you have a legitimate concern you would like to see them address, and mabye looking for feedback on that concern from other posters before you went and submitted something to them on their site, something someone else may help you refine, then go ahead and post it.

At the end the actual pages will be printed off, and mailed to frontline gaming, MINUS comments that have nothing to do with desired rules changes or concerns.

I would like to see them address Imperial Knights Ion Shields vs attack resolved against a side facing(but not a specified facing) weapons like a barrage hitting the rear or front armor(assuming dead center) or seeker missiles and hive guard.