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.

Gentlemen , we are switching over to ITC format for our tournaments. Just a little help with the format.

I.E. -- I could have 2 Ork CAD's and a detachment from WAAGGHH Ghazgull ?

Yes you can.

You mean IoM format? Why not just play 30k?

 Orock wrote:
You mean IoM format?

Nah, more like space marine format. It's why IG get some of their LoW options banned: they don't allow marines to get a save, and marine players having to remove models without getting to roll a save is "not fun".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orock wrote:
You mean IoM format?

Nah, more like space marine format. It's why IG get some of their LoW options banned: they don't allow marines to get a save, and marine players having to remove models without getting to roll a save is "not fun".

Yeah......its not like Crisis suits get hurt from those, or Eldar, or Dark eldar, or orks, or deamons, or Chaos......Nope, only space marine hate ap2 massive blast ignores cover.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orock wrote:
You mean IoM format?

Nah, more like space marine format. It's why IG get some of their LoW options banned: they don't allow marines to get a save, and marine players having to remove models without getting to roll a save is "not fun".

Yeah......its not like Crisis suits get hurt from those, or Eldar, or Dark eldar, or orks, or deamons, or Chaos......Nope, only space marine hate ap2 massive blast ignores cover.

Actually you're wrong. Daemons don't care about massive blasts that ignore cover. They all have invulnerable saves. The ones with a armor fly and ignore the blast weapons.

I wonder what could do more damage. A massive blast str 10 ap 2 that ignores cover and scatters 66% of the time or 3 Riptides AND 2 Stormsurges double firing all their weapons at all different targets and ignoring cover from 4x4 units of marker lights. Ask Frankie how well it works. But by all means keep the ban on the Typhon. I mean it is so broken. Nothing in the game comes close to replicating what it can do. Nothing .........

Thanks for the reply JY !

If you have future questions, that are more complicated, the ITC does have the option for you to submit questions about their rules directly. It's a good resource for more difficult questions and could help them form a better FAQ in the future.

Here's a link to the question submission form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1W8A22qTts0p9CIkhxZIefmicHr7J2RoWlJmPqGQFiZo/viewform

Edit: Welcome to the ITC, they're rather admirable folks that work hard and I hope their rules suit your group's needs

Thank you , those guys have done some good work. That's for sure. Play tested 4 of their missions and am very impressed.

Have you tried out the new super cheap Stompa (is that the right word?) that they updated in the latest vote? How is it if you have?

One thing to remember, if your group can disaqree with a ruling, banned list, or whatever, it is other to ignore it.

The ITC does some amazing things. Obviously, as you see above, not everyone is always happy with the rules they put in place. However, don't let the butt hurt ones discourage you. The ITC does what it does for valid reasons. They play test extensively, and are always open to rational suggestions. If people in your area begin to complain that you're using ITC, they probably aren't worth having around anyway.

I don't think it's a matter of whether people complain about the ITC, but rather how people complain about it. It's completely fine to complain about something, and it's not unreasonable to disagree with people or rules, but the correct way to go about it is to express that disagreement in a civil manner and to present it for others so that they may be better informed when making a decision in the future.

It's when people start calling the ITC a farce, or out to get them, or whatever other inane nonsense they may dream up that it becomes a problem and they're probably not a great person to be around.

Not a farce but clear favoratism. Where are the necron marine and eldar nerfs?

 Orock wrote:
Not a farce but clear favoratism. Where are the necron marine and eldar nerfs?

Some armies require direct nerfs, some require multiple small nerfs.

This is actually true for any game, as at times just changing basic fundamental aspects of the game will reduce the power level of a character or force to the point of being balanced, while at other times direct nerfs to specific things is required to weaken that thing to the same level. Eldar get hit by D reduction, LoW restrictions, and Invisibility nerfs. Yes, none of those are direct nerfs to the Eldar, as they affect multiple armies, but the they all chip away at Eldar to some extent, and as such the power level goes down. Tau isn't like Eldar, Tau is powerful in a very specific way, and doesn't lose anything from those three things I mentioned here, as they don't really have D platforms that get hit by that ruling, they don't have invisibility as they don't have psykers, and the LoW restriction doesn't hurt them as much because they can take up to three Stormsurges as one slot. On top of that they got a rule that was outright broken as written, and needed to be fixed, and I'm saying this as a strictly Tau player.

However, if you wanted to argue something like Darkstrider benefiting multiple units with CFP, because he isn't played much at all, I would be ok with considering that option. Though if you want the "put one drone in a unit to gain all the buffs from a Buffmander and more" that just seems a little too powerful to me. Actually, if you want to phrase it that the vote should have been broken up more, in that people should vote for CFP in how it behaves in multiple cases (Benefit from X, benefit from Y, or Z) as opposed to a blanket form and then sub categories, I can understand that, but also I'm fine with playing it as is for now, and then proposing new votes later down the line if needed.

Tinker ITC feels that Tau rule needs a nerd (not sure if they have made that ruling since the Tau FAQ is not up to date yet) then why have we not seen (or I missed it) rules limiting the special rules for space marines special rules over lapping (i.e. Wolves with dark angels to get benefits of both army or unit special rules). I think when you see people talk about favoritism that is probably where they are leaning. I don't think it is just the ITC that does this and I do appreciate the time they put in to try and smooth out the game overall.

@Fishboy

Tau needs a Nerd? Geez, they are a bit geeky with the anime slant, but I don't think you have to be a nerd to play them anymore than the rest of the armies in 40k

And yes, we did put the Dark Angels/Blood Angels/Space Wolves/CTs issue up for vote, but it didn't pass. The community didn't feel it was needing an alteration.

As for the Coordinated Firepower ruling being a nerf or not is in the eye of the beholder. RAW was unclear for most folks so we simply asked the ITC community how they wanted to play it and the result was the less powerful version. And honestly, I think it is perfectly reasonable for a group of people to not want to face an entire army of ignoring cover, tank hunting, monster hunting units, lol. That to me seems like a reasonable alteration but some will disagree (as always).

@Haldir

All army build guidelines here: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-season-40k-tournament-format/

@Orock

Lol, my goodness, you are still so salty! I understand that you do not agree with the way things went, that is your prerogative and fair, but holy smokes man, lol, the vitriol is not doing anything but continuing to make you upset. Your fellow community members decided they didn't want to play the rule the way you want to play it. That is frustrating, I understand, but there comes a point when you have to accept things with some maturity and just move on. If in your local group you guys want to play it the more powerful way, go for it! Have fun, we don't care. But, if your local group wants to play the toned down version then hey, don't direct your anger at us. You have the power to play the game you want to play, we simply strive to provide a baseline from which organized play can begin and to have a clearly established rule set for ITC events. That means when we have contentious issues, we have to make decisions that will inevitably not be what everyone wants. It's just the way it is. If no one was willing to step forward and make choices, then we'd have chaos and 40k would be a fractured set of little fiefdoms, all playing a different game. True rankings and large scale tournament circuits would be impossible.

Everyone wants some uniformity in the rule set, but many get upset if it isn't the version of uniformity they want! Haha, that always amuses me. The only way to achieve that goal is through compromise. Sometimes you get a ruling you want, sometimes you don't. No reason to hang on to a sense of resentment. It changes nothing and only serves to keep you unhappy. Just let it go and enjoy the game with your fellow hobbyists, or play the rule the way you want to play it with your local group. If one interpretation of one rule in a game with thousands of rules and ways to play really ruins it for you I will say you are missing the forest for the trees. Focus on the positives! We are playing a super fun game of toys with friends, it's not something to get upset about.

Hehe...auto correct makes me a nerd


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When a large majority plays MEQ type armies it will be very hard to get any rulings across that would be bad for them in a voting environment. How is a marine formation that grants hundreds of points of free transports (and OS) not nerfed, especially in an environment where the majority of victory conditions are objective based? How is a Mechanicum formation that grants free war gear and special rules chosen by the player every turn not nerfed? These are both overpowering for many other armies. I would grant that the rules for those formations are pretty clear however the reference to overpowered is what comes up in the voting process. You will never achieve balance in a Rock, Paper, Scissors environment and every time there is a nerf if ITC it seems to benefit Imperial armies the most....which really don't need any more help.

The Free vehicles require you to take at least six squads of tactical marines. The Gladiolus isn't that powerful. As for the Tau, even with the rule interpretation your still a very strong army.

 Fishboy wrote:
Hehe...auto correct makes me a nerd


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When a large majority plays MEQ type armies it will be very hard to get any rulings across that would be bad for them in a voting environment. How is a marine formation that grants hundreds of points of free transports (and OS) not nerfed, especially in an environment where the majority of victory conditions are objective based? How is a Mechanicum formation that grants free war gear and special rules chosen by the player every turn not nerfed? These are both overpowering for many other armies. I would grant that the rules for those formations are pretty clear however the reference to overpowered is what comes up in the voting process. You will never achieve balance in a Rock, Paper, Scissors environment and every time there is a nerf if ITC it seems to benefit Imperial armies the most....which really don't need any more help.

You know what kind of tax I take to be able to get those free weapons? I practically hand you first blood for free. Literally, here you go. Have fun.

A few points.... The game as written out of the book is broken in sooo many ways. ITC at least helps mitigate that to a degree , nobody will always agree on every rule. However the community action & voting is some really good work put forth by them. As a TO I won't put forth a mission or format that I haven't personally play tested. Have to say that I'm pretty impressed and happy with what I've seen and play tested so far.
Our previous events were very restrictive and the guys wanted to open it up a little. So to do that I think that ITC presents the best format for such. I have 3 Fat Mats , love them and use them for our events. Keep up the great work ITC & Frontline!

Ceaser wrote:
The ITC does some amazing things. Obviously, as you see above, not everyone is always happy with the rules they put in place. However, don't let the butt hurt ones discourage you. The ITC does what it does for valid reasons. They play test extensively, and are always open to rational suggestions. If people in your area begin to complain that you're using ITC, they probably aren't worth having around anyway.

They actually claim to play test extensively, which is obviously BS when they put votes up to ban/alter most of the Tau formations and rules DURING the release weeks.

And if they were so open to readdressing things then maybe they would have changed the idiotic fact that maelstrom is scoured at the bottom of the turn giving armies that go second a MASSIVE edge just like in additions before.

I will agree that in the past they did a better job when GW was so absent but currently I feel they have been making some super knee jerk changes while actually never going back over prior changes. For example 2++ rerollable list no longer need a nerf with so much stomping and D weaponry in the game yet you will never see that go back to vote. this doesn't even mention the fact that their own stupid bottom of turn scouring is what made those lists so strong initially to begin with.

Before anyone says I am raging, I am not I just don't beat around the bush when pointing out errors. Devils advocates are always a good thing.

 Red Corsair wrote:

They actually claim to play test extensively, which is obviously BS when they put votes up to ban/alter most of the Tau formations and rules DURING the release weeks.

None of the Tau formations got "banned". There is one that would have been illegal regardless of any votes, that didn't change.

The vote you're referring to had nothing to do with playtesting, and was never advertised as such.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
When a large majority plays MEQ type armies it will be very hard to get any rulings across that would be bad for them in a voting environment. How is a marine formation that grants hundreds of points of free transports (and OS) not nerfed, especially in an environment where the majority of victory conditions are objective based? How is a Mechanicum formation that grants free war gear and special rules chosen by the player every turn not nerfed? These are both overpowering for many other armies. I would grant that the rules for those formations are pretty clear however the reference to overpowered is what comes up in the voting process. You will never achieve balance in a Rock, Paper, Scissors environment and every time there is a nerf if ITC it seems to benefit Imperial armies the most....which really don't need any more help.

Let's look at the top 15 ranked players/armies in ITC right now:

1) Daemons
2) War Convocation and Tyranids (plays both interchangeably)
3) Imperium Shenanigans (DA/SW/SM)
4) AM (but not really, haha)
5) SW
6) Eldar
7) Eldar
8) Orks
9) SM
10) IoM (War Convocation?)
11) Necrons
12) Tyranids/Grey Knights (jy2 on these forums)
13) Eldar
14) Necrons
15) Dark Angels

8/15 are IoM. Out of the armies that ITC tracks (16), 9 of them are IoM. Seems like a pretty even distribution to me, especially since the IoM armies are not necessarily top-loading that list though there are many up there. If it were as dire as people make it sound like I'd expect all 15 of those to be IoM in some form, with maybe some Necrons thrown in too If anything, Tau clearly need a buff In any case, we're talking about well over half of the ITC results being IoM armies, yet only ~50% of top 15 placements are of those armies.

Disclaimer: Yes, I am kidding about Tau. Not enough tournament results yet.

Obviously balance will never be truly achievable, and it would make the game boring as hell, but the results do point toward a pretty great distribution IMO.

2+ re-rollable is still stupid, especially when an entire army - Ravewing and any Imperial Deathstars armies which uses them as a base - have easy access to it.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Ceaser wrote:
The ITC does some amazing things. Obviously, as you see above, not everyone is always happy with the rules they put in place. However, don't let the butt hurt ones discourage you. The ITC does what it does for valid reasons. They play test extensively, and are always open to rational suggestions. If people in your area begin to complain that you're using ITC, they probably aren't worth having around anyway.

They actually claim to play test extensively, which is obviously BS when they put votes up to ban/alter most of the Tau formations and rules DURING the release weeks.

And if they were so open to readdressing things then maybe they would have changed the idiotic fact that maelstrom is scoured at the bottom of the turn giving armies that go second a MASSIVE edge just like in additions before.

I will agree that in the past they did a better job when GW was so absent but currently I feel they have been making some super knee jerk changes while actually never going back over prior changes. For example 2++ rerollable list no longer need a nerf with so much stomping and D weaponry in the game yet you will never see that go back to vote. this doesn't even mention the fact that their own stupid bottom of turn scouring is what made those lists so strong initially to begin with.

Before anyone says I am raging, I am not I just don't beat around the bush when pointing out errors. Devils advocates are always a good thing.

Even though say you aren't raging, you are. Saying you aren't doesn't make it so. They did awesome with tau. You must be a tau player. Hence the butt hurt. It's ok. Your formations are still good. You won't be too tier, but then again, who really wants to see tau gun lines be the top lists? No fun in that. Now, let's calm down, quit using the whole super knee jerk wording on every post, and accept that itc is awesome, and should be used widely to even up what GW messed up. Thanks.

Tau are top-tier, even within the more conservative interpretations of the ITC rulings. And on top of the Kauyon, they've also got the Mont'ka as well, which makes them even better.

 jy2 wrote:
Tau are top-tier, even within the more conservative interpretations of the ITC rulings. And on top of the Kauyon, they've also got the Mont'ka as well, which makes them even better.

Eh, after space marines eldar and necrons? And a few other IoM combos? I don't feel 4th-5th place is a good "top tier" title... Top tier of the middle tier sure

Ceaser wrote:
Eh, after space marines eldar and necrons? And a few other IoM combos? I don't feel 4th-5th place is a good "top tier" title... Top tier of the middle tier sure

Ahh, Dakka, where being in the top 25% of 20+ factions means you're just "middle tier".

Senpai Reecius never notices me :(

Ceaser wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
Tau are top-tier, even within the more conservative interpretations of the ITC rulings. And on top of the Kauyon, they've also got the Mont'ka as well, which makes them even better.

Eh, after space marines eldar and necrons? And a few other IoM combos? I don't feel 4th-5th place is a good "top tier" title... Top tier of the middle tier sure

That would have been true, pre-formations and new units, but now that's no longer the case. The Tau were already doing very well, with a showing that was above 50% as a whole in the Nova Open (which favours Deathstars) with them also taking the second place finish. The Nova Open was before the formations that give them all sorts of toys, the new powerful units like Stormsurges, and before many other minor buffs like now being able to save 18pts by taking two less fire warriors if you so desire.

Gentlemen , to be honest who would even want to win because of a broken unit? You should want to win because of better tactics and stratagems not because of broken game mechanics. I love 40K , really love it. But in all honesty the rules are really wanting. So kudos to the ITC for trying !