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.

 Orock wrote:
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.

You should also not include anything based on newer rulings. This isn't me being smart, it's me being honest. I know you're one of the people salty about the tau ruling. However, it's new, and should remain valid for awhile before being brought back up. I firmly believe your only reasoning behind making this is in hopes of having enough players saying they are sad about the ruling, so you can mail it in, in hopes for a change. In which case I honestly think you'll fail

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Orock wrote:
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.

You should also not include anything based on newer rulings. This isn't me being smart, it's me being honest. I know you're one of the people salty about the tau ruling. However, it's new, and should remain valid for awhile before being brought back up. I firmly believe your only reasoning behind making this is in hopes of having enough players saying they are sad about the ruling, so you can mail it in, in hopes for a change. In which case I honestly think you'll fail

No, they have already addressed this. Only non related things will be sent in. No reason to tear something down trying to improve the game when we can expand it instead.

Since ITC already touched on the Allies matric (not allowing Come the Apocalypse), I suggest they change Battle Brothers to be Allies of convenience only for ALL faction. That should reduce a lot of the shenanigans that happens.

Tautastic wrote:
Since ITC already touched on the Allies matric (not allowing Come the Apocalypse), I suggest they change Battle Brothers to be Allies of convenience only for ALL faction. That should reduce a lot of the shenanigans that happens.

Good luck with that. You'd be making militarum Tempestus, grey Knights, inquisition, imperial Knights, cult mechanicus, skitarii, adeptus sororitas, assassins and such majorly nerfed. That, if it even was offered as a vote, would fail

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I actually think the tau need another look for the formation that some players feel allows vehicles to be brought back?

May I suggest you start a thread on this in YMDC and give reasoning to your interpretation of the rule?

We need a vote to ensure they know it does not

No, we don't. You come out as a troll.

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

This is definitely an incorrect forum to affect any rulings with ITC. My advice is to ignore their events and rulings and just enjoy the game. Rulings should not be based on a popularity vote.

Naw wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I actually think the tau need another look for the formation that some players feel allows vehicles to be brought back?

May I suggest you start a thread on this in YMDC and give reasoning to your interpretation of the rule?

We need a vote to ensure they know it does not

No, we don't. You come out as a troll.

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

This is definitely an incorrect forum to affect any rulings with ITC. My advice is to ignore their events and rulings and just enjoy the game. Rulings should not be based on a popularity vote.

If you don't like itc that's fine. Don't go to most tournies (hosted by them) or any game stores that use their faqs. Majority of people, use their faqs

The arrogance of that statement is astounding. I know of few places in the uk or Europe that touch it with a 10' barge pole

I just wish they'd label flat out rule changes - such as changing FMC hard to hit - as such. Just be honest.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The arrogance of that statement is astounding. I know of few places in the uk or Europe that touch it with a 10' barge pole

I just wish they'd label flat out rule changes - such as changing FMC hard to hit - as such. Just be honest.

They lead, we follow.... Murica!!!!

Do any UK tourneys even use ITC?

 Formosa wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The arrogance of that statement is astounding. I know of few places in the uk or Europe that touch it with a 10' barge pole

I just wish they'd label flat out rule changes - such as changing FMC hard to hit - as such. Just be honest.

They lead, we follow.... Murica!!!!

Do any UK tourneys even use ITC?

You're insulting my country for what reason now?

wow, a lot of "way off the zoggin topic" on this thread.

i would suggest the change of the codex ork: cybork body to be a +1 to fnp. this will work like stealth, at the absence of fnp, cybork body will confer a 6 up fnp.

this will justify this upgrade in the book, allowing for big meks and warbosses to have better saves when accompanied by a painboy. it will make sence of why mad dok grotsnik has both fnp and cybork body (and other named characters). and this might even make the nobz viable again since they are the only non independent characters who can take it.

and just to add my two bits to the whole itc thing.....why are you guys complaining! they are makeing houserules...on a larger scale. they are not working for gw, so its not changes to the core game. use it or not. these guyz are trying to bring order to this highly unbalanced game...but its like polishing a turd, no matter what its still crap...and people will still complain about it. this forum post was made for suggestions, http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/671828.page this is where the majority of recent itc complaints are....go there. have an honest to goodness request then make a post. then maybe you can add a rant after your suggestion like some smart sguiq git
hey, wait a second...

UK and by extension Europe follow the ETC mainly.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Naw wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I actually think the tau need another look for the formation that some players feel allows vehicles to be brought back?

May I suggest you start a thread on this in YMDC and give reasoning to your interpretation of the rule?

We need a vote to ensure they know it does not

No, we don't. You come out as a troll.

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

This is definitely an incorrect forum to affect any rulings with ITC. My advice is to ignore their events and rulings and just enjoy the game. Rulings should not be based on a popularity vote.

If you don't like itc that's fine. Don't go to most tournies (hosted by them) or any game stores that use their faqs. Majority of people, use their faqs

I don't ever plan to, I just don't agree with any nerfs the way this was done, ie. by popularity vote.

And as you conveniently ignored your own comment of the Tau Piranha formation, feel free to check YMDC for the thread and let us know why you think the rule doesn't say what it says.

Naw wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Naw wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I actually think the tau need another look for the formation that some players feel allows vehicles to be brought back?

May I suggest you start a thread on this in YMDC and give reasoning to your interpretation of the rule?

We need a vote to ensure they know it does not

No, we don't. You come out as a troll.

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

This is definitely an incorrect forum to affect any rulings with ITC. My advice is to ignore their events and rulings and just enjoy the game. Rulings should not be based on a popularity vote.

If you don't like itc that's fine. Don't go to most tournies (hosted by them) or any game stores that use their faqs. Majority of people, use their faqs

I don't ever plan to, I just don't agree with any nerfs the way this was done, ie. by popularity vote.

And as you conveniently ignored your own comment of the Tau Piranha formation, feel free to check YMDC for the thread and let us know why you think the rule doesn't say what it says.

That's futile. Honestly. The thing about ymdc is that regardless of any arguments thrown a tau players way, even with rules quotes etc etc, the tau player will try and loop hole. You may honestly think I'm being a jerk here, but I argued and argued with people on ymdc about the stormsurge and tidewall in the very beginning of it all, and seriously had tau players basically telling me I was a fetching idiot because the stormsurge never really moves, and even had a guy try and tell me that the BATTLEFIELD moves under the tidewall, moving everything else (buildings, ruins, enemy models) closer to it. Even with my rules quotes and etc. I've given up on tau players, they have seriously ticked me off, home my anger towards them, and the reason I will now always vote against them. Call it what you will, maybe if the tau group wasn't trying to find a way to be in OP status like eldar, I wouldn't hate them so much

For what it's worth, I don't see rules support for the SS+Tidewall combo. That said, you come out as a jerk. The reason you want nerfs to Tau is because you don't like the players. Dismissing CF from this discussion, you keep claiming that Piranha Firestorm Wing is played incorrectly by Tau despite the rules being very clear on this, going on the record saying that you hope for an ITC vote on it so it can also be nerfed.