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.

Some armies have a wide toolkit that extends to many different armies, and the collective nerfs of those different abilities result in balance. Other armies have a more unique package that requires more specific nerfs and changes in order to be balanced.

In either case, both are valid, and simply because one army might fall into the former, instead of the ladder, does not necessarily mean it was affected any less than the one who does fall into the ladder.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 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.

No lol, the poll does NOT "evens out". Considering Tau players probably make up about 5% of total players (i know there is no way to actually calculate that, but tis a rough guesstimate). That means even if every single Tau player voted completely biased (which was not the case). There was much higher than 5% of that 95% who voted to nerf Tau just so there own armies wouldn't be hurt by them.

It's not like ITC is going to change the vote so maybe the best thing to do is move along. Tau still are going to be very powerful regardless what people say. I think it's possible you can do an army thst is mostly monstrous creatures and gargantuan which is really cool and should be competitive.

Orock wrote: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.

Not everyone has equal access to 2+ re-rollable, Invisibility, or ranged D. Considering that Eldar can pull off all three, this amounts to a substantial nerf for Eldar.

The argument that CFP sharing special rules is fine because other things are equally broken doesn't hold up. When everything is broken, it just translates to a game of rock-paper-scissors on who can abuse the most broken mechanics. Sure, with CFP sharing special rules, Tau would only be as broken as Centstar. That still makes Tau an auto-win against the majority of armies out there. Adding one more thing to the list of broken things is a game is not a good way to balance the game; instead, the broken units and mechanics should be toned down.

Reecius may have overplayed his hand when he put out that article before the poll, but consider this: what do you think would have happened if that poll question just came out of nowhere? I'd be willing to be a lot of people would just skip it as they didn't understand the intent behind the potential ruling. What people wanted was for the ITC to do something about the new Tau, and that article ended up laying out Reecius's idea for doing so. Being able to vote on the plan would have been a lot better than Reecius just arbitrarily ruling on the issue; I would have made the ITC look worse than if they allowed for member input.

notredameguy10 wrote:No lol, the poll does NOT "evens out". Considering Tau players probably make up about 5% of total players (i know there is no way to actually calculate that, but tis a rough guesstimate). That means even if every single Tau player voted completely biased (which was not the case). There was much higher than 5% of that 95% who voted to nerf Tau just so there own armies wouldn't be hurt by them.

Considering the measure only passed by eight votes, the poll very nearly did even out.

Around where I play, people are having the opposite reaction: they're glad that the ITC stepped in to tone down the latest instance of broken power creep in the game.

DirtyDeeds wrote:

 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.

That isn't the issue. Like at all. Whether people "should" do this or "should" use that is irrelevant. The question is, "Should the ITC even be handing down a ruling yet with that margin?"

the answer is an emphatic no.

 Jancoran wrote:


That isn't the issue. Like at all. Whether people "should" do this or "should" use that is irrelevant. The question is, "Should the ITC even be handing down a ruling yet with that margin?"

the answer is an emphatic no.

The ITC are made up of people, therefore if whether people "should" do something is irrelevant, then the question "Should the ITC even be handing down a ruling yet with that margin?" is also irrelevant. Q.E.D.

If I recall correctly, the measure to nerf Eldar Windriders to one heavy weapon per three jetbikes failed by five votes. Is that an acceptable margin for play, or should the ITC have revoted until at least two-thirds of everyone who had participated in an ITC event had voted in favor of one or the other? The reason Eldar Windriders failed is because there are plenty of other models in the game that are just as undercosted for what they bring to the table (see Riptides). The ITC nerfs all the mechanics that Eldar can exploit and restricts people to one Wraithknight. While Codex: Scatbikers does put out a ludicrous amount of firepower, most tournament-level armies can kill them. The same cannot be said for killing an entire Tau army.

It feels at this point the people are just desperately grasping at straws in order to try to find a reason to invalidate the ITC's decision.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:


That isn't the issue. Like at all. Whether people "should" do this or "should" use that is irrelevant. The question is, "Should the ITC even be handing down a ruling yet with that margin?"

the answer is an emphatic no.

The ITC are made up of people, therefore if whether people "should" do something is irrelevant, then the question "Should the ITC even be handing down a ruling yet with that margin?" is also irrelevant. Q.E.D.

If I recall correctly, the measure to nerf Eldar Windriders to one heavy weapon per three jetbikes failed by five votes. Is that an acceptable margin for play, or should the ITC have revoted until at least two-thirds of everyone who had participated in an ITC event had voted in favor of one or the other? The reason Eldar Windriders failed is because there are plenty of other models in the game that are just as undercosted for what they bring to the table (see Riptides). The ITC nerfs all the mechanics that Eldar can exploit and restricts people to one Wraithknight. While Codex: Scatbikers does put out a ludicrous amount of firepower, most tournament-level armies can kill them. The same cannot be said for killing an entire Tau army.

It feels at this point the people are just desperately grasping at straws in order to try to find a reason to invalidate the ITC's decision.

and if six people hadn't forgotten to vote, then what? It loses by one vote? The ones who had a cold that day who could have turned it? They needed to do another vote on this to get a more definitive majoirty.

Oh and by the way i dont actually care about he ruling itself. I cared about the margin being used as a "mandate from the people". It isnt as if T.O.'s can't make decisions on the things ITC doesn't YET have a definitive public opinion on . 50.01%? gimme a break.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:


That isn't the issue. Like at all. Whether people "should" do this or "should" use that is irrelevant. The question is, "Should the ITC even be handing down a ruling yet with that margin?"

the answer is an emphatic no.

The ITC are made up of people, therefore if whether people "should" do something is irrelevant, then the question "Should the ITC even be handing down a ruling yet with that margin?" is also irrelevant. Q.E.D.

If I recall correctly, the measure to nerf Eldar Windriders to one heavy weapon per three jetbikes failed by five votes. Is that an acceptable margin for play, or should the ITC have revoted until at least two-thirds of everyone who had participated in an ITC event had voted in favor of one or the other? The reason Eldar Windriders failed is because there are plenty of other models in the game that are just as undercosted for what they bring to the table (see Riptides). The ITC nerfs all the mechanics that Eldar can exploit and restricts people to one Wraithknight. While Codex: Scatbikers does put out a ludicrous amount of firepower, most tournament-level armies can kill them. The same cannot be said for killing an entire Tau army.

It feels at this point the people are just desperately grasping at straws in order to try to find a reason to invalidate the ITC's decision.

First off, its not an "entire tau army" lol. Kill the buffmander (which isn't that hard) and bam, there you go.
Secondly, Eldar have the second highest player base other than space marines (maybe even higher if you separate chapters), and thus very likely win a popular vote. Tau not so much.

 Jancoran wrote:

Oh and by the way i dont actually care about he ruling itself. I cared about the margin being used as a "mandate from the people". It isnt as if T.O.'s can't make decisions on the things ITC doesn't YET have a definitive public opinion on . 50.01%? gimme a break.

So how many votes does your side have to lose by before you accept it? 10? 100? 1000? 10,000? You lost by a handful of votes. That's how voting works. The only people going on about a mandate are the ones that enjoy spinning you up over losing the vote. If you don't like it avoid ITC events, organize a Tau boycott of LVO, you have options. But invalidating the vote isn't one of them. There is no Supreme Court to appeal to. And I don't think Reece would be inclined to reconsider given a couple of you are in the process of burning all your bridges with him.

I'm pretty confident that we didn't have this level of uproar when people decided that having ICs assault with the Skyhammer Formation from Deep Strike wasn't going to be allowed, and that wasn't even a vote. Seems like there's literally an analogous example of something similar happening to Space Marines and yet no outrage.

Simple, if it was an Imperial Army with this ability they would not have been nerfed nearly as bad as the Tau have been. Why i don't usually play in tournaments and why my FLGS has not and probably will ever adopt their format.

 gmaleron wrote:
Simple, if it was an Imperial Army with this ability they would not have been nerfed nearly as bad as the Tau have been. Why i don't usually play in tournaments and why my FLGS has not and probably will ever adopt their format.

If only there were some sort of similar example that applied to Space Marines and someone had mentioned it recently. Say, in the post right above yours.

It's completely different though, independent characters can't join the formation and get a formations special rules, it says so under formations. I'm not trying to talk gak on ICC however it's been a common complaint for a little while from what I've been hearing is that xenos armies tend to get screwed more than Imperial.

 gmaleron wrote:
It's completely different though, independent characters can't join the formation and get a formations special rules, it says so under formations.

Which isn't how the combo works, but there's enough stuff in YMDC for people curious. It's pretty much exactly the same situation: people disagree on how to read a rule and the least powerful interpretation gets used, but there aren't (or, well, weren't) multiple threads in the general forum by disgruntled Space Marine players whining about how unfair it was.

How is it whining if its making a valid point? You can knock off trying to put a negative spin on it just because Tau players are unhappy for the level of nerfing they have received compared to Space Marines. It can easily be said it was Imperial "whining" that caused some of these over the top reactions to happen. Just a pattern that I've unfortunately continued to hear that Imperials don't nearly suffer from the nerf bat as bad as xenos forces have.

notredameguy10 wrote:First off, its not an "entire tau army" lol. Kill the buffmander (which isn't that hard) and bam, there you go.
Secondly, Eldar have the second highest player base other than space marines (maybe even higher if you separate chapters), and thus very likely win a popular vote. Tau not so much.

How many armies out there can kill a T5 2+ armour 5+ Feel No Pain multi-wound model, that will in all likelihood have a 2+ Look Out Sir! wound redistribution and some kind of cover save? It's doable for plenty, sure, but only if you end up going first. If Tau go first, they just CFP away the units that can kill the buffmander. That's game.

gmaleron wrote:How is it whining if its making a valid point? You can knock off trying to put a negative spin on it just because Tau players are unhappy for the level of nerfing they have received compared to Space Marines. It can easily be said it was Imperial "whining" that caused some of these over the top reactions to happen. Just a pattern that I've unfortunately continued to hear that Imperials don't nearly suffer from the nerf bat as bad as xenos forces have.

The three-source limit and no CTA Allies in ITC takes away the worst shenanigans that Space Marines can pull off with allies, as does the limit on duplicate formations/detachments. Nerfing Invisibility and 2+ re-rollable makes Centstar a lot more vulnerable. The ITC rules do in fact tone down the worst that Space marines can pull off.

In much the same way, it wasn't that the Tau codex had all its formations removed and all its units made significantly more expensive. One special rule was changed to make it more balanced for everyone else to play against Tau.

Consider this: maybe people were "whining" because GW introduced yet another game-breakingly overpowered ability into the game, and there were plenty of Tau players gloating about how they would take full use of it. For the sake of everyone else having a fun and somewhat balanced game, CFP had to be nerfed.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:First off, its not an "entire tau army" lol. Kill the buffmander (which isn't that hard) and bam, there you go.
Secondly, Eldar have the second highest player base other than space marines (maybe even higher if you separate chapters), and thus very likely win a popular vote. Tau not so much.

How many armies out there can kill a T5 2+ armour 5+ Feel No Pain multi-wound model, that will in all likelihood have a 2+ Look Out Sir! wound redistribution and some kind of cover save? It's doable for plenty, sure, but only if you end up going first. If Tau go first, they just CFP away the units that can kill the buffmander. That's game.

gmaleron wrote:How is it whining if its making a valid point? You can knock off trying to put a negative spin on it just because Tau players are unhappy for the level of nerfing they have received compared to Space Marines. It can easily be said it was Imperial "whining" that caused some of these over the top reactions to happen. Just a pattern that I've unfortunately continued to hear that Imperials don't nearly suffer from the nerf bat as bad as xenos forces have.

The three-source limit and no CTA Allies in ITC takes away the worst shenanigans that Space Marines can pull off with allies, as does the limit on duplicate formations/detachments. Nerfing Invisibility and 2+ re-rollable makes Centstar a lot more vulnerable. The ITC rules do in fact tone down the worst that Space marines can pull off.

In much the same way, it wasn't that the Tau codex had all its formations removed and all its units made significantly more expensive. One special rule was changed to make it more balanced for everyone else to play against Tau.

Consider this: maybe people were "whining" because GW introduced yet another game-breakingly overpowered ability into the game, and there were plenty of Tau players gloating about how they would take full use of it. For the sake of everyone else having a fun and somewhat balanced game, CFP had to be nerfed.

And that MAY be the case. But just because you say it is OP doesn't mean it is. The fact is frontlinegaming wanted CFP nerfed from the minute they read it, before a single game was played. The rule was put up for vote 2 weeks after the codex was released and the vote was 4 weeks after release. Not a single tournament was conducted. and the 2 games ITC tried CFP at full strength Tau lost both games

notredameguy10 wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:First off, its not an "entire tau army" lol. Kill the buffmander (which isn't that hard) and bam, there you go.
Secondly, Eldar have the second highest player base other than space marines (maybe even higher if you separate chapters), and thus very likely win a popular vote. Tau not so much.

How many armies out there can kill a T5 2+ armour 5+ Feel No Pain multi-wound model, that will in all likelihood have a 2+ Look Out Sir! wound redistribution and some kind of cover save? It's doable for plenty, sure, but only if you end up going first. If Tau go first, they just CFP away the units that can kill the buffmander. That's game.

gmaleron wrote:How is it whining if its making a valid point? You can knock off trying to put a negative spin on it just because Tau players are unhappy for the level of nerfing they have received compared to Space Marines. It can easily be said it was Imperial "whining" that caused some of these over the top reactions to happen. Just a pattern that I've unfortunately continued to hear that Imperials don't nearly suffer from the nerf bat as bad as xenos forces have.

The three-source limit and no CTA Allies in ITC takes away the worst shenanigans that Space Marines can pull off with allies, as does the limit on duplicate formations/detachments. Nerfing Invisibility and 2+ re-rollable makes Centstar a lot more vulnerable. The ITC rules do in fact tone down the worst that Space marines can pull off.

In much the same way, it wasn't that the Tau codex had all its formations removed and all its units made significantly more expensive. One special rule was changed to make it more balanced for everyone else to play against Tau.

Consider this: maybe people were "whining" because GW introduced yet another game-breakingly overpowered ability into the game, and there were plenty of Tau players gloating about how they would take full use of it. For the sake of everyone else having a fun and somewhat balanced game, CFP had to be nerfed.

And that MAY be the case. But just because you say it is OP doesn't mean it is. The fact is frontlinegaming wanted CFP nerfed from the minute they read it, before a single game was played. The rule was put up for vote 2 weeks after the codex was released and the vote was 4 weeks after release. Not a single tournament was conducted. and the 2 games ITC tried CFP at full strength Tau lost both games

That's not enough information to base a conclusion. Tau will be fine and when our player base gets to test different builds out I guarantee we'll see a better representation of Tau forces in the top tournaments.

 Jancoran wrote:

DirtyDeeds wrote:

 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.

That isn't the issue. Like at all. Whether people "should" do this or "should" use that is irrelevant. The question is, "Should the ITC even be handing down a ruling yet with that margin?"

the answer is an emphatic no.

If the vote is that close, it probably means it will come up for a re-vote the next time around, and by then people will have a more informed view of it because there will have been plenty of events played with it in one form, such that it can be noted whether it needs a change or not without the confusion of some events using one version or the other.

Remember, none of these votes are permanent, and the percent of majority shouldn't matter, since even if you do it as you desire, you'll still have to use one of the rulings in events and the ITC will probably use the majority version for their own large events which will set the president regardless. So you really don't change anything by not making an official statement as your suggesting.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

Oh and by the way i dont actually care about he ruling itself. I cared about the margin being used as a "mandate from the people". It isnt as if T.O.'s can't make decisions on the things ITC doesn't YET have a definitive public opinion on . 50.01%? gimme a break.

So how many votes does your side have to lose by before you accept it? 10? 100? 1000? 10,000? You lost by a handful of votes. That's how voting works. The only people going on about a mandate are the ones that enjoy spinning you up over losing the vote. If you don't like it avoid ITC events, organize a Tau boycott of LVO, you have options. But invalidating the vote isn't one of them. There is no Supreme Court to appeal to. And I don't think Reece would be inclined to reconsider given a couple of you are in the process of burning all your bridges with him.

I didnt lose the vote. What are you talking about?