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.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
War gamers ?

First, war gamers? Really? Like we specialize in wargaming, and have no other skills or talents or knowledge outside wargaming that COULD let someone do this?

Second, what about cheaters? If the person is trying to cheat the system, they probably know how. Its kind of silly to put this out of the weelhouse of regular wargamers, because it seems like all you need to do is make up fake email accounts. Personally I have 2, one for real things and work, and one for things when I sign up will be spam. its a 2 minute sign up.

I have around 6, from a variety of different sources.

I just love to speculate about speculation.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I just love to speculate about speculation.

Know what I love? Verified voting systems, with a much higher chance of legitimacy. I voted, and recieved no email confirmation or anything. Anyone could have done this.

What about the election that Gore lost ?

What about it?

It's rude to call Tau players all those rude names.

I can guarantee people have double voted in the past. It's going to happen no matter what it's for, be it a wargame or otherwise. To think everyone that plays warhammer is saintly and wouldn't stoop to nerf another race they don't play and possibly hate...... is kind of amusing.

And I voted, but not on the ork part as I didn't understand how it was a real question.

I actually learned a lot about the tank shock question, that one I spent a while deciding how I thought it should be done. It was similar for the Ork vote, I had no idea they could get a stompa that cheap. I did still take my time and borrow a Tau codex before voting on the Tau one as well, but I knew a little more about that one going into it.

Forgeworld has publicaly stated the points are wrong for that stompa - lobbyists for duh boyz were able to capitalize... which speaks for itself.

...It was similar for the Ork vote, I had no idea they could get a stompa that cheap...

Neither did anyone else since it is Apocalypse only

X078 wrote:

...It was similar for the Ork vote, I had no idea they could get a stompa that cheap...

Neither did anyone else since it is Apocalypse only

Yeah I ended up having to look that one up, I had never heard anything about the stompa being a misprint and I didn't want to just blindly vote on it.

There was some people posting a lot on the FGL comment sections begging for that stompa over and over again .

I can't believe people are getting so worked up about this. I have it from an inside source that the outcome of nerfing tau was already predetermined and that the public voting was just to troll the community. What i appreciate most about this knowledge is that it's so outrageous it will never be believed. Meanwhile everyone is up in arms about one troll poster on 4-chan.

Personally, I think they should have been allowed to keep the special rules across the CF but make a specific exception for target lock rules.

Anyway, even without all the rules sharing just being able to increase everyone's BS by +1 and utilizing maker lights is still a strong rule in and of itself.

The Tau community should take a breather, realize their forces improved very much with the "new" dex drop and get back to rolling dice.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Forgeworld has publicaly stated the points are wrong for that stompa - lobbyists for duh boyz were able to capitalize... which speaks for itself.

The thing that I don't understand about that is that if you want to make an uncompetitive choice in a weak faction more viable, you don't need to bother with a fig leaf of "An official publication said this, once, for a short period of time." Why not just lower the points cost? Likewise, why fool around with the Wraithknight instead of just raising the points cost?

 Elemental wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Forgeworld has publicaly stated the points are wrong for that stompa - lobbyists for duh boyz were able to capitalize... which speaks for itself.

The thing that I don't understand about that is that if you want to make an uncompetitive choice in a weak faction more viable, you don't need to bother with a fig leaf of "An official publication said this, once, for a short period of time." Why not just lower the points cost? Likewise, why fool around with the Wraithknight instead of just raising the points cost?

Short period of time?

Hasn't that Buzzgob stompa been available at that point cost for over a year? I don't play Orks so I don't know exactly, but it it may be significantly over a year.

It's more official at this point than anything in the Space Marine codex. If Forgeworld wanted to errata it, I'm sure someone there has a computer and has mastered the art of typing

 Bulldogging wrote:

 Elemental wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Forgeworld has publicaly stated the points are wrong for that stompa - lobbyists for duh boyz were able to capitalize... which speaks for itself.

The thing that I don't understand about that is that if you want to make an uncompetitive choice in a weak faction more viable, you don't need to bother with a fig leaf of "An official publication said this, once, for a short period of time." Why not just lower the points cost? Likewise, why fool around with the Wraithknight instead of just raising the points cost?

Short period of time?

Hasn't that Buzzgob stompa been available at that point cost for over a year? I don't play Orks so I don't know exactly, but it it may be significantly over a year.

It's more official at this point than anything in the Space Marine codex. If Forgeworld wanted to errata it, I'm sure someone there has a computer and has mastered the art of typing

But alas, I'm sure GW has these skills as well and you. Can see where we are on that...

Yeah that is a huge problem, but unless the companies do the required errata we really have to take the rules as they are(in terms of official).

I'll never forget the day the Heldrake FAQ came out giving it 360 firing arc and measured from the base. I've given up on trying to figure out what they want the rules to be.

 PaladinDanse wrote:
Probably a hoax, but mabye not. If it was limited to people who actually were in tournaments only, we wouldn't have to question things like this right now.

Its precisely what I keep telling people: The vote doesnt even require a supermajority, and a 50/50 split ids worth making a call on? Hell with that. Let the players and TO's work it out until the ITC can pose three different readings we can agree on, including the original. As it is your oppoents who outnumber you are telling ITC hoiw they want your army to run against them! 50% is their call to action? No. Get 75% to agree and its legit.

 Jancoran wrote:

 PaladinDanse wrote:
Probably a hoax, but mabye not. If it was limited to people who actually were in tournaments only, we wouldn't have to question things like this right now.

Its precisely what I keep telling people: The vote doesnt even require a supermajority, and a 50/50 split ids worth making a call on? Hell with that. Let the players and TO's work it out until the ITC can pose three different readings we can agree on, including the original. As it is your oppoents who outnumber you are telling ITC hoiw they want your army to run against them! 50% is their call to action? No. Get 75% to agree and its legit.

But the vote was also meant as a rules interpretation so that players wouldn't have to waste that much time arguing with each other and TOs about the special rule.

Honestly, if you guys are limiting yourself to the Hunter Contingent then you don't really know the full power of Tau.

I guess I could say if you only play gladius strike force or sky hammer for marines you don't know marines. Or if you just run decursion necromancer you don't know your army. Or if you only run war convocation you don't know the full power of admech. This is false. I know the power of tau, and so did those nerfing them. It's still the most powerful and rewarding bonuses. It also let a wide variety of units contribute meaningfully. ZERO of the other power tau builds you see mentioned run fire warriors. In the hunter contingent, they were pure gold. I guess you can get used to seeing drones, 16 piranha, and three riptides every game then. Wait we already had three riptides every game. I guess nobody wants change.

 Orock wrote:
I guess I could say if you only play gladius strike force or sky hammer for marines you don't know marines. Or if you just run decursion necromancer you don't know your army. Or if you only run war convocation you don't know the full power of admech. This is false. I know the power of tau, and so did those nerfing them. It's still the most powerful and rewarding bonuses. It also let a wide variety of units contribute meaningfully. ZERO of the other power tau builds you see mentioned run fire warriors. In the hunter contingent, they were pure gold. I guess you can get used to seeing drones, 16 piranha, and three riptides every game then. Wait we already had three riptides every game. I guess nobody wants change.

You realize the Hunter Contingent is still really good, right? It still does a great job of shoring up the weakness to deathstars, especially because the ITC has already nerfed deathstars with the nerfs to 2+ Rerollable saves and Invisibility, and The Optimized Stealth Cadre is still the scariest thing the Tau have for many armies, because almost no vehicle has back armor good enough to survive all that melta. Food for thought.

It is starting to really get annoying and offensive how people say "tau will be fine they still have XXX" please stop using that as one of the reasons to justify the result! Let's all be honest, the ITC vote was not a rule clarification but was a "how you would want to play against it" vote for the sake of "balance". There are other OP formations/combos that actually has tournament results to back it up. The rules for those formations are quite clear RAW but since the CF vote was clearly not a rule clarification vote, when are we voting on those and phrase it "how would we like to play against XXX" for the sake of "balance".

Tautastic wrote:
It is starting to really get annoying and offensive how people say "tau will be fine they still have XXX" please stop using that as one of the reasons to justify the result! Let's all be honest, the ITC vote was not a rule clarification but was a "how you would want to play against it" vote for the sake of "balance". There are other OP formations/combos that actually has tournament results to back it up. The rules for those formations are quite clear RAW but since the CF vote was clearly not a rule clarification vote, when are we voting on those and phrase it "how would we like to play against XXX" for the sake of "balance".

...Offensive? Lol Wut? How is telling you that your army is viable offensive? Fine, the vote wasnt a rules clarification, Ill concede that. Doesn't change the fact that tau will still be perfectly viable, especially in the ITC which doesnt play purely maelstrom and nerfs Invisibility and 2+ rerollable saves, the teo strongest things a powerful deathstar can have.

 Swampmist wrote:

Tautastic wrote:
It is starting to really get annoying and offensive how people say "tau will be fine they still have XXX" please stop using that as one of the reasons to justify the result! Let's all be honest, the ITC vote was not a rule clarification but was a "how you would want to play against it" vote for the sake of "balance". There are other OP formations/combos that actually has tournament results to back it up. The rules for those formations are quite clear RAW but since the CF vote was clearly not a rule clarification vote, when are we voting on those and phrase it "how would we like to play against XXX" for the sake of "balance".

...Offensive? Lol Wut? How is telling you that your army is viable offensive? Fine, the vote wasnt a rules clarification, Ill concede that. Doesn't change the fact that tau will still be perfectly viable, especially in the ITC which doesnt play purely maelstrom and nerfs Invisibility and 2+ rerollable saves, the teo strongest things a powerful deathstar can have.

That isn't the point. The point is there was a knee-jerk reaction to nerf 1 specific army before a single tournament was completed and that if it were a space marine army, it would never have been nerfed due to popular voting.

It's offensive because you are telling someone who had one of their legs chopped off "buck up, buttercup. You can still lead a full and fulfilling life. Just not AS full anymore. Particularly if you enjoyed soccer".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Know what else is "viable"? Marines without free transports, wraiths without 4+ reanimation protocols, eldar without every jetbike having a scatter laser, marines without super pinning and turn one deep strike assault.....

I agree with the gist of it Orock, about how it was an obvious targeted nerf and hilariously unfair when all the other power armies you listed are virtually untouched despite being equally problematic, but I wouldn't compare the ITC nerf to chopping off a leg. It barely counts as a paper cut, if anything.

Make no mistake, Tau are very much still a power army as good as the rest of them, all this means is that the Hunter Contingent probably isn't the best way to run them; but we don't really need it anyway. What pisses me off about the nerf is just the obvious fact that this was less about game balance and more about just sticking it to people for playing Tau, because "Feth Tau, get rekt, lol."

Even though I technically have to agree with the result, I know we got there for the wrong reasons, and that if these people had an opportunity they would have gone much farther than CFP just because they don't want to see our army on the table at all.

 Sidstyler wrote:
I agree with the gist of it Orock, about how it was an obvious targeted nerf and hilariously unfair when all the other power armies you listed are virtually untouched despite being equally problematic, but I wouldn't compare the ITC nerf to chopping off a leg. It barely counts as a paper cut, if anything.

Make no mistake, Tau are very much still a power army as good as the rest of them, all this means is that the Hunter Contingent probably isn't the best way to run them; but we don't really need it anyway. What pisses me off about the nerf is just the obvious fact that this was less about game balance and more about just sticking it to people for playing Tau, because "Feth Tau, get rekt, lol."

Even though I technically have to agree with the result, I know we got there for the wrong reasons, and that if these people had an opportunity they would have gone much farther than CFP just because they don't want to see our army on the table at all.

A short list of armies that are seriously nerfed by ITC changes to 2+ re-rollable, Invisibility, and Ranged D:

Eldar
Centstars
Daemons
Dark Angels
Eldar Freakshows
Thunderdome

And that's just off the top of my head. Counting all the deathstar armies that are at a disadvantage from ITC missions, there's plenty of armies out there that have been nerfed and aren't Tau.

You can accuse people of voting to nerf Tau because they hate the dumb blue fish people and don't want to have to see them at tournaments. By the same token, I can accuse Tau fanboys of wanting to keep their army at the codex's written level of overpowered and broken just because other things in the game happen to be overpowered and broken. We can't dispute the fact that plenty of people probably voted in bad faith. However, if there was any bad faith, it was on both sides. Therefore, the poll evens out.

There are still plenty of hilarious ways for Tau to compete in an ITC environment (see nine Riptides at 1850 points). All the ITC did was depower one particularly broken ability to keep some resemblance of balance in their house rules.

Your Nerf assumptions are incorrect. All of those changes are universal rule changes that affect anyone who could benefit from them equally. 2+/2+? Screamer star wasent the only list that could get there. Invisible? About 10 dead as units could do it. D weapons? Eldar do not have a monopoly, especially if you include forgeworld. This was a specific targeted Nerf and a joke one considering the other things out there that are so much worse. That it was done by popular vote because the rules lawyring failed to convince anyone it worked different, especially after the bias spewed by the very host of the survey condemning it as the end to fair 40k as we know it was even worse. Where was the popular fan following for the other side of the coin. Nowhere. It died the death of all minority issues. And I hope the goodwill and reputation it cost them comes back to them.