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.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Principal rules design? Awful idea. Secondary rules design? i.e. clarification and FAQs? Pretty good idea, I think. Better than one or two TOs making house rules and pretending their own biases aren't entering the equation. (Genuine answer, BTW.)

Seems secondary design is better left to designers responding to closed/open playtesting rather than gamers voting on the internet. That said, it would have been wise in this case to only count the votes from ITC members, which amounts to closed playtesting, albeit in a backwards way.

notredameguy10 wrote:

Manchu wrote:
Genuine question: who really thinks rule design by democracy is a good idea?

Says the guy living in America

Actually, we are a representative democracy. We don't vote on our laws, our representatives do. We rely on them to know what they are doing, and vote for what they believe to be the best choice.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Manchu wrote:
Genuine question: who really thinks rule design by democracy is a good idea?

Says the guy living in America

Actually, we are a representative democracy. We don't vote on our laws, our representatives do. We rely on them to know what they are doing, and vote for what they believe to be the best choice.

Sort of true, but there are plenty of laws that we vote on individually as well, although most of those are local laws.

I play Tau and Orks. I decided to take orks to the LVO after the vote. I disagreed with the Tau ruling, but I don't think the hunter contingent was super buffed, as I couldn't seem to make it work well with my models. I have oodles of broadsides, and my lists generally don't benefit from twin linked as a result. FBC already had tank hunter (oldex).

I was surprised the ork option was even on there. I was stoked, I must say though.

The polls are great IMO, but cheating/fraud has always been a concern of mine. This /tg/ guy, if true, is a cheater. If he needs to cheat.... That's his problem. Not my problem. This is the way I play. He cheats to win... well, that's his decision. Everyone knows his victory is hollow. From Lance Armstrong to Tonya Harding. He is TFG.

If true... A re-vote is a must.

I'm playing with toy soldiers. He's playing with his honor.

My $.02

My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can sperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Manchu wrote:
Genuine question: who really thinks rule design by democracy is a good idea?

Says the guy living in America

Actually, we are a representative democracy. We don't vote on our laws, our representatives do. We rely on them to know what they are doing, and vote for what they believe to be the best choice.

Sort of true, but there are plenty of laws that we vote on individually as well, although most of those are local laws.

However regardless of us being allowed to vote on local laws, if our state or county does not like the outcome they are subject to changing it.

Not too stretch the analogy too thin here but laws and rules/regulations are different. Laws are generally about what should be done while rules and regs are generally about how what should be done is going to get done. Rules and regs are generally created by committees of experts rather than by democratic vote.

IME games designers are not just gamers with lots of experience. Being good at playing games is not enough to qualify you as a design expert. But the insight of experienced, skillful gamers is tremendously important to designers. That said, it's important for designers to make sure the insight they are using is actually from experienced, skillful gamers rather than just anybody, such as internet trolls.

The question is, how do you get that insight into a useful format? I guess one way is to distill possible designs into options that (a select group of) gamers can vote on.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
However regardless of us being allowed to vote on local laws, if our state or county does not like the outcome they are subject to changing it.

not really. what is our President's job? Enforcing the laws on the books. has he done so? (a Rhetorical question)
If he wants to change the laws, he should have asked the Congress to change the laws that he has problems with, not choosing not to enforce them. They are on the books, his Constitutionally mandated job is to ensure the enforcement of the laws on the books. He should have been impeached the moment he didn't fire Eric Holder for choosing not to enforce any law on the books.

 carldooley wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
However regardless of us being allowed to vote on local laws, if our state or county does not like the outcome they are subject to changing it.

not really. what is our President's job? Enforcing the laws on the books. has he done so? (a Rhetorical question)
If he wants to change the laws, he should have asked the Congress to change the laws that he has problems with, not choosing not to enforce them. They are on the books, his Constitutionally mandated job is to ensure the enforcement of the laws on the books. He should have been impeached the moment he didn't fire Eric Holder for choosing not to enforce any law on the books.

I said state and county, not country. I also like how you added rhetorical questions

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can sperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.

Not only did they NOT test it, but at this exact convenient time he announces the first public poll in their history of the ITC. It's one hell of a coincidence or there is some serious shenanigans going on there. It's not impossible a public vote was held because they gambled and knew the public had a strong chance to vote in favor of nerfing Tau with no idea of the rules. This whole public vote thing was suspicious the second it was announced. I want a separate poll that they hold only for their tournament players and with more stringent security measures taken. If the votes turn out the same I'll accept it, but right now? This whole thing is too suspicious.

Then again this person could be kicking up salt to get a revote. It's hard to say. At this point no matter whats going on something suspicious happened and I think a new vote should be held. A closed one like they used to do.

 Gamgee wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can sperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.

Not only did they NOT test it, but at this exact convenient time he announces the first public poll in their history of the ITC. It's one hell of a coincidence or there is some serious shenanigans going on there. It's not impossible a public vote was held because they gambled and knew the public had a strong chance to vote in favor of nerfing Tau with no idea of the rules. This whole public vote thing was suspicious the second it was announced. I want a separate poll that they hold only for their tournament players and with more stringent security measures taken. If the votes turn out the same I'll accept it, but right now? This whole thing is too suspicious.

Then again this person could be kicking up salt to get a revote. It's hard to say. At this point no matter whats going on something suspicious happened and I think a new vote should be held. A closed one like they used to do.

For future votes sure. These recent ones? Keep how they are. Stop demanding a revote. Deal with it for a few months. Revisit.

 Gamgee wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can sperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.

Not only did they NOT test it, but at this exact convenient time he announces the first public poll in their history of the ITC. It's one hell of a coincidence or there is some serious shenanigans going on there. It's not impossible a public vote was held because they gambled and knew the public had a strong chance to vote in favor of nerfing Tau with no idea of the rules. This whole public vote thing was suspicious the second it was announced. I want a separate poll that they hold only for their tournament players and with more stringent security measures taken. If the votes turn out the same I'll accept it, but right now? This whole thing is too suspicious.

Then again this person could be kicking up salt to get a revote. It's hard to say. At this point no matter whats going on something suspicious happened and I think a new vote should be held. A closed one like they used to do.

They wouldn't even need to do a revote for that. they already have all data of what ITC ranked people voted from this last poll. Id be curious to see what the percentages were from registered voters.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can sperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.

Not only did they NOT test it, but at this exact convenient time he announces the first public poll in their history of the ITC. It's one hell of a coincidence or there is some serious shenanigans going on there. It's not impossible a public vote was held because they gambled and knew the public had a strong chance to vote in favor of nerfing Tau with no idea of the rules. This whole public vote thing was suspicious the second it was announced. I want a separate poll that they hold only for their tournament players and with more stringent security measures taken. If the votes turn out the same I'll accept it, but right now? This whole thing is too suspicious.

Then again this person could be kicking up salt to get a revote. It's hard to say. At this point no matter whats going on something suspicious happened and I think a new vote should be held. A closed one like they used to do.

For future votes sure. These recent ones? Keep how they are. Stop demanding a revote. Deal with it for a few months. Revisit.

Uh no. It's too suspicious. I'll meet you half way and say have a revote, but play it like it is currently until they find out what the security flaw is or are ready to make the change over to the second votes rules. Give them some time to cool down, but we definitely need a revote and some actions taken.

Edit
I would be very interested in those percentages as well Notre.

 Gamgee wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can sperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.

Not only did they NOT test it, but at this exact convenient time he announces the first public poll in their history of the ITC. It's one hell of a coincidence or there is some serious shenanigans going on there. It's not impossible a public vote was held because they gambled and knew the public had a strong chance to vote in favor of nerfing Tau with no idea of the rules. This whole public vote thing was suspicious the second it was announced. I want a separate poll that they hold only for their tournament players and with more stringent security measures taken. If the votes turn out the same I'll accept it, but right now? This whole thing is too suspicious.

Then again this person could be kicking up salt to get a revote. It's hard to say. At this point no matter whats going on something suspicious happened and I think a new vote should be held. A closed one like they used to do.

For future votes sure. These recent ones? Keep how they are. Stop demanding a revote. Deal with it for a few months. Revisit.

Uh no. It's too suspicious. I'll meet you half way and say have a revote, but play it like it is currently until they find out what the security flaw is or are ready to make the change over to the second votes rules. Give them some time to cool down, but we definitely need a revote and some actions taken.

Edit
I would be very interested in those percentages as well Notre.

Luckily we don't make those decisions huh? Reece does. I don't see him revoting

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
For future votes sure. These recent ones? Keep how they are. Stop demanding a revote. Deal with it for a few months. Revisit.

the problem with that being that people like you would say when it gets revisited, 'they let it stand, why revisit it or change it now.' or as Hillary Clinton said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpQ6X4ojHws

 carldooley wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
For future votes sure. These recent ones? Keep how they are. Stop demanding a revote. Deal with it for a few months. Revisit.

the problem with that being that people like you would say when it gets revisited, 'they let it stand, why revisit it or change it now.' or as Hillary Clinton said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpQ6X4ojHws

First off, ew Hillary, second off nah, I wouldn't. Let it be for now. No one is demanding scatter bikes get revisited, only tau players wanting tau cheese

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 carldooley wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
For future votes sure. These recent ones? Keep how they are. Stop demanding a revote. Deal with it for a few months. Revisit.

the problem with that being that people like you would say when it gets revisited, 'they let it stand, why revisit it or change it now.' or as Hillary Clinton said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpQ6X4ojHws

First off, ew Hillary,

At least we agree on one thing

realy interesting. we are debating about possibly manipulated votings and you come araund with " woooo those filthy Tau how dare they!"

Tautastic wrote:
I am curious, how did SM/Eldar/Necrons do?

In the Nova Open? I'd have to look at the full results list and add it up manually, since I don't like how they list Tau as 48% win rate because they counted the 2nd place list that was 62% Tau as an Eldar list. That also makes it a lot harder to figure out exact numbers too, but as far as Tau goes the majority of Tau lists were above 50% individually, the best one being 6-2 in pure lists and 7-1 with 2nd place over all being 62% tau 37% Eldar. The worst pure tau list was 0-5 drop, being the only pure tau list under 50% , the only other list that had Tau and did worse than 50% win rate was allied with CSM and went 3-5, I don't know the breakdown of % tau to % chaos since the list itself wasn't published.

notredameguy10 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 carldooley wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
For future votes sure. These recent ones? Keep how they are. Stop demanding a revote. Deal with it for a few months. Revisit.

the problem with that being that people like you would say when it gets revisited, 'they let it stand, why revisit it or change it now.' or as Hillary Clinton said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpQ6X4ojHws

First off, ew Hillary,

At least we agree on one thing

I exalted this. Hate her that much.

 Tinkrr wrote:

Tautastic wrote:
I am curious, how did SM/Eldar/Necrons do?

In the Nova Open? I'd have to look at the full results list and add it up manually, since I don't like how they list Tau as 48% win rate because they counted the 2nd place list that was 62% Tau as an Eldar list. That also makes it a lot harder to figure out exact numbers too, but as far as Tau goes the majority of Tau lists were above 50% individually, the best one being 6-2 in pure lists and 7-1 with 2nd place over all being 62% tau 37% Eldar. The worst pure tau list was 0-5 drop, being the only pure tau list under 50% , the only other list that had Tau and did worse than 50% win rate was allied with CSM and went 3-5, I don't know the breakdown of % tau to % chaos since the list itself wasn't published.

there is only 1 Tau player in the top 20 ITC rankings. Elder, for example, are ranked 2, 3, 9, and 15

Cheating with hubris. Check out his post. One of his aliases: "Mister Lister S.F."


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

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

Tautastic wrote:
I am curious, how did SM/Eldar/Necrons do?

In the Nova Open? I'd have to look at the full results list and add it up manually, since I don't like how they list Tau as 48% win rate because they counted the 2nd place list that was 62% Tau as an Eldar list. That also makes it a lot harder to figure out exact numbers too, but as far as Tau goes the majority of Tau lists were above 50% individually, the best one being 6-2 in pure lists and 7-1 with 2nd place over all being 62% tau 37% Eldar. The worst pure tau list was 0-5 drop, being the only pure tau list under 50% , the only other list that had Tau and did worse than 50% win rate was allied with CSM and went 3-5, I don't know the breakdown of % tau to % chaos since the list itself wasn't published.

there is only 1 Tau player in the top 20 ITC rankings. Elder, for example, are ranked 2, 3, 9, and 15

What's the number of Tau players in comparison to Eldar players?

Additionally, remember that Tau just received massive buffs in new units and formations, so the results haven't necessarily adjusted for that and the large majority of them are for the old codex. The LVO will be the first large scale event with the new codex.

 Gamgee wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can sperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.

Not only did they NOT test it, but at this exact convenient time he announces the first public poll in their history of the ITC. It's one hell of a coincidence or there is some serious shenanigans going on there. It's not impossible a public vote was held because they gambled and knew the public had a strong chance to vote in favor of nerfing Tau with no idea of the rules. This whole public vote thing was suspicious the second it was announced. I want a separate poll that they hold only for their tournament players and with more stringent security measures taken. If the votes turn out the same I'll accept it, but right now? This whole thing is too suspicious.

Then again this person could be kicking up salt to get a revote. It's hard to say. At this point no matter whats going on something suspicious happened and I think a new vote should be held. A closed one like they used to do.

For future votes sure. These recent ones? Keep how they are. Stop demanding a revote. Deal with it for a few months. Revisit.

Uh no. It's too suspicious. I'll meet you half way and say have a revote, but play it like it is currently until they find out what the security flaw is or are ready to make the change over to the second votes rules. Give them some time to cool down, but we definitely need a revote and some actions taken.

Edit
I would be very interested in those percentages as well Notre.

Or it could be a Tau player trying to stir up controversy to force a re vote in hopes that the results will be different.

It can go either way.

They don't need to do anything. The vote is fine, there's only a controversy because tau players want there to be.

 Crazyterran wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can sperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.

Not only did they NOT test it, but at this exact convenient time he announces the first public poll in their history of the ITC. It's one hell of a coincidence or there is some serious shenanigans going on there. It's not impossible a public vote was held because they gambled and knew the public had a strong chance to vote in favor of nerfing Tau with no idea of the rules. This whole public vote thing was suspicious the second it was announced. I want a separate poll that they hold only for their tournament players and with more stringent security measures taken. If the votes turn out the same I'll accept it, but right now? This whole thing is too suspicious.

Then again this person could be kicking up salt to get a revote. It's hard to say. At this point no matter whats going on something suspicious happened and I think a new vote should be held. A closed one like they used to do.

For future votes sure. These recent ones? Keep how they are. Stop demanding a revote. Deal with it for a few months. Revisit.

Uh no. It's too suspicious. I'll meet you half way and say have a revote, but play it like it is currently until they find out what the security flaw is or are ready to make the change over to the second votes rules. Give them some time to cool down, but we definitely need a revote and some actions taken.

Edit
I would be very interested in those percentages as well Notre.

Or it could be a Tau player trying to stir up controversy to force a re vote in hopes that the results will be different.

It can go either way.

They don't need to do anything. The vote is fine, there's only a controversy because tau players want there to be.

The controversy is they put this vote up a month after the codex released (and they picked it for the vote about 2 weeks after the codex release) before it was even able to be tried in a single tournament. As well as Reecius worded the question as "do you want to play it this way" and not "is this how the rule works", which is suspicious considering he has a clear bias on how he wants the rule to work.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can sperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.

Not only did they NOT test it, but at this exact convenient time he announces the first public poll in their history of the ITC. It's one hell of a coincidence or there is some serious shenanigans going on there. It's not impossible a public vote was held because they gambled and knew the public had a strong chance to vote in favor of nerfing Tau with no idea of the rules. This whole public vote thing was suspicious the second it was announced. I want a separate poll that they hold only for their tournament players and with more stringent security measures taken. If the votes turn out the same I'll accept it, but right now? This whole thing is too suspicious.

Then again this person could be kicking up salt to get a revote. It's hard to say. At this point no matter whats going on something suspicious happened and I think a new vote should be held. A closed one like they used to do.

For future votes sure. These recent ones? Keep how they are. Stop demanding a revote. Deal with it for a few months. Revisit.

Uh no. It's too suspicious. I'll meet you half way and say have a revote, but play it like it is currently until they find out what the security flaw is or are ready to make the change over to the second votes rules. Give them some time to cool down, but we definitely need a revote and some actions taken.

Edit
I would be very interested in those percentages as well Notre.

Or it could be a Tau player trying to stir up controversy to force a re vote in hopes that the results will be different.

It can go either way.

They don't need to do anything. The vote is fine, there's only a controversy because tau players want there to be.

The controversy is they put this vote up a month after the codex released (and they picked it for the vote about 2 weeks after the codex release) before it was even able to be tried in a single tournament. As well as Reecius worded the question as "do you want to play it this way" and not "is this how the rule works", which is suspicious considering he has a clear bias on how he wants the rule to work.

Then he should be tried and burned at the stake!!

Or it's really just a damn game.

Besides if there was a revote I would flame a tau player made multiple accounts and ensured that the tau got their loop holes

what loophiles you mean? feel free to pm me

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
My main problem is the timing, they didn't even have any tournaments to see if it was powerful or not, just had a knee-jerk reaction. And, really, these things should be handed to a group of TOs allowed to make these rulings, on either interpretations or nerfs. That way it can seperate it from less popular/populous armies getting the boot, while the more popular ones get to keep their toys. A group of (relatively) impartial judges to debate on it.

Wouldn't that have made it a balance poll then?

I thought it was a rules clarification. I can't view the poll anymore.

Does anyone have the exact question saved somewhere?

If it was for clarification, then it needed to happen before a single tournament is played..otherwise it is a disagreement waiting to happen depending on the judge. Which is what the ITC is supposed to prevent.

I am sorry for you guys if you don't get it. Here is an example:

Q: Shall we nerf IoM?
IoM votes NO

Q: Shall we nerf Eldar?
IoM votes YES

There you go, have fun.