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.

Whoa, lots of hurt in the air! Everyone knows the vote was political. Does it matter? Just a little bit, but the Contingent is not the best tool.

Give me Riptide Wing with Skynet, add Drone factory and we are set. Now that I'd like to see.

notredameguy10 wrote:


Um that isn't true at all lol. ITC has had several rule voting on 100% clear rules just because they felt they were too OP. As well as the exact wording for CFP vote for CFP was "How do you wish to play...". Not "What is the RAW'.

Scatter bikes was 100% clear RAW and that was put up to a vote and barely won at around 51%

And 90% of people who actually have read the rule extensively will say RAW sharing rules is exactly what CFP says.

We are getting into separate issues here. In terms of lack of clarity, I was talking specifically about the Tau vote. The rule can be interpreted in many different ways, hence we voted to determine how he want it to work in the ITC.

For the other rule changes you've brought up. As a Tau player I wouldn't think that you would like to revisit the 2++ re-rollable rule. Even with the strongest version of coordinated firepower, you're not getting through that and getting steam rolled by Daemons.

Are you finding it truly impossible to win and be competitive without a 15 pt (or however much the buffmander upgrade is) way to ignore cover for all your shooting? Because there are other people who play games, not just the FLG folks. Most players seem to be doing quite well with the new rules.

Or is it the general sense of injustice?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:
Whoa, lots of hurt in the air! Everyone knows the vote was political. Does it matter? Just a little bit, but the Contingent is not the best tool.

Give me Riptide Wing with Skynet, add Drone factory and we are set. Now that I'd like to see.

Political in sense that when you have a large group of people with differing opinions they talk, form groups and then vote to reach a consensus opinion.

The tau player lost this gane with bad rolls which had absolutely nothing to do with any tau nerfs since coordinated fire played no roll in this game.

Seriously when str2 ap- grot blasters are taking out 2+ save stealth units and 4+ save jinking drones. It has nothing to do with over powered or underpowered units and was simply bad rolls.

Secondly the tau player didn't have 2 Stormsurges or every model to make other spam lists like drone nets so that also plays a roll in what he could or could not play.

The hunter rule still might change in the ITC if the errata which is supposedly coming out soon contains the faq for it as the supposed white dwarf emails reported. If those emails are true.

In which case you have nothing to whine about since the ITC effectively buffed tau when they changed the rules just to benefit your army with multiple LoWs in a single unit.

I brought a list that was different to see how it would do against someone of Reece's caliber to his studio. Besides the bad dice rolls throughout the game, the list did well. I am not a regular tournament player and I'm glad I did as well as I did. Do not take our game as an excuse to bash Frontline Gaming for the perceived "nerf" that our army recieved under their ruleset. Honestly, when we play again, you'll see a much different outcome.

Also, orks are no longer bottom tier with that Big Mek. I hope you all realize that.

DirtyDeeds wrote:
I brought a list that was different to see how it would do against someone of Reece's caliber to his studio. Besides the bad dice rolls throughout the game, the list did well. I am not a regular tournament player and I'm glad I did as well as I did. Do not take our game as an excuse to bash Frontline Gaming for the perceived "nerf" that our army recieved under their ruleset. Honestly, when we play again, you'll see a much different outcome.

Also, orks are no longer bottom tier with that Big Mek. I hope you all realize that.

And thats the problem. For no reason whatsoever, ITC poll voted to basically just give works 500 free points because people felt bad for them. It is an obvious typo/oversight on the forge world data sheet.

notredameguy10 wrote:

DirtyDeeds wrote:
I brought a list that was different to see how it would do against someone of Reece's caliber to his studio. Besides the bad dice rolls throughout the game, the list did well. I am not a regular tournament player and I'm glad I did as well as I did. Do not take our game as an excuse to bash Frontline Gaming for the perceived "nerf" that our army recieved under their ruleset. Honestly, when we play again, you'll see a much different outcome.

Also, orks are no longer bottom tier with that Big Mek. I hope you all realize that.

And thats the problem. For no reason whatsoever, ITC poll voted to basically just give works 500 free points because people felt bad for them. It is an obvious typo/oversight on the forge world data sheet.

On a downloadable datasheet, that they can change at will, hosted on their own site, for a long..long time.

If that's not legitimate, then what is?

 Bulldogging wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

DirtyDeeds wrote:
I brought a list that was different to see how it would do against someone of Reece's caliber to his studio. Besides the bad dice rolls throughout the game, the list did well. I am not a regular tournament player and I'm glad I did as well as I did. Do not take our game as an excuse to bash Frontline Gaming for the perceived "nerf" that our army recieved under their ruleset. Honestly, when we play again, you'll see a much different outcome.

Also, orks are no longer bottom tier with that Big Mek. I hope you all realize that.

And thats the problem. For no reason whatsoever, ITC poll voted to basically just give works 500 free points because people felt bad for them. It is an obvious typo/oversight on the forge world data sheet.

On a downloadable datasheet, that they can change at will, hosted on their own site, for a long..long time.

If that's not legitimate, then what is?

Lol so you think the intention was to just give you a 900 point model for 400 points? Just because hey why not?

I try to not assume anything about GW.

FW Stompas might have needed a sales boost.

In fairness it was supposed to be an Apoc unit before the game became Apochammer 40k.

Or the flip side, do you think their intention is to leave a typoed document on their own web site, that they can amend at will? Just because hey why not?



EDIT: Not being argumentative, just pointing out it doesn't make sense either way. I don't want the internet to portray the wrong intentions.

 Bulldogging wrote:
I try to not assume anything about GW.

FW Stompas might have needed a sales boost.

In fairness it was supposed to be an Apoc unit before the game became Apochammer 40k.

Or the flip side, do you think their intention is to leave a typoed document on their own web site, that they can amend at will? Just because hey why not?



EDIT: Not being argumentative, just pointing out it doesn't make sense either way. I don't want the internet to portray the wrong intentions.

Keep in mind you are talking about a company who literally does not care about updating their rules, as can be seen with the lack of any FAQs in the past year.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Bulldogging wrote:
I try to not assume anything about GW.

FW Stompas might have needed a sales boost.

In fairness it was supposed to be an Apoc unit before the game became Apochammer 40k.

Or the flip side, do you think their intention is to leave a typoed document on their own web site, that they can amend at will? Just because hey why not?



EDIT: Not being argumentative, just pointing out it doesn't make sense either way. I don't want the internet to portray the wrong intentions.

Keep in mind you are talking about a company who literally does not care about updating their rules, as can be seen with the lack of any FAQs in the past year.

So Tau players deserve their badly written, ambiguous rules and the rest of us are filthy plebs that deserve nothing but scorn?

bogalubov wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Bulldogging wrote:
I try to not assume anything about GW.

FW Stompas might have needed a sales boost.

In fairness it was supposed to be an Apoc unit before the game became Apochammer 40k.

Or the flip side, do you think their intention is to leave a typoed document on their own web site, that they can amend at will? Just because hey why not?



EDIT: Not being argumentative, just pointing out it doesn't make sense either way. I don't want the internet to portray the wrong intentions.

Keep in mind you are talking about a company who literally does not care about updating their rules, as can be seen with the lack of any FAQs in the past year.

So Tau players deserve their badly written, ambiguous rules and the rest of us are filthy plebs that deserve nothing but scorn?

There is a big difference between some people not understanding a rule correctly and having a misprint of points where you get a 900 point unit for 400 points lol

Tau got beaten by grots. OMG grots op nerf grots.

And about a stompa for 400 pts. In current meta, it's really not all that great even for 400 pt When you compare it to a wraithknight or even this one stormsurge. Yep, it's tougher. But what weapon loadout does it have? A few single shot bs2 weapons and ability to get some big gunz for 100-150 pts. That don't have access to ignore cover. And when it purchases this guns, it becomes a 500-550 pt superheavy. It's true value is fearless bauble. Which indeed is great. But it relies on the rest of the army to pick benefits from it. Is the current incarnation of big mek stompa good? Yep! Especially for orks. Do orks have better options? Yep, if you look at a custom stompa, it can get a couple massive D blasts, a supa lobba - which is a s7 ap4 massive blast and a freaking hellstorm s6 ap3 flamer for about the same cost. Aside from it, i think Mek stompa is just a reasonable decurion-era superheavy. Not too good, but definitely not bad.

Oh, and i believe, technically, Buggzob could be your warlord with WAAAGH! but i'm not sure about it.

And i'm actually not sure bout a fearless bauble. I assume it has effigy since it's a stompa.

Regardless of the nerf this match seems to just be a case of bad rolling and a bad list match up.

bogalubov wrote:

Naw wrote:
Whoa, lots of hurt in the air! Everyone knows the vote was political. Does it matter? Just a little bit, but the Contingent is not the best tool.

Give me Riptide Wing with Skynet, add Drone factory and we are set. Now that I'd like to see.

Political in sense that when you have a large group of people with differing opinions they talk, form groups and then vote to reach a consensus opinion.

You meant to say "those who play Tau vs those who don't".

Naw wrote:

bogalubov wrote:

Naw wrote:
Whoa, lots of hurt in the air! Everyone knows the vote was political. Does it matter? Just a little bit, but the Contingent is not the best tool.

Give me Riptide Wing with Skynet, add Drone factory and we are set. Now that I'd like to see.

Political in sense that when you have a large group of people with differing opinions they talk, form groups and then vote to reach a consensus opinion.

You meant to say "those who play Tau vs those who don't".

I'm very certain that is not what I meant to say. If what you say is true, the vote wouldn't have been 51-49. It would have been 90-10 if it was Non-Tau versus Tau voters.

As a recap:

1. GW released an ambiguously worded rule
2. The ITC community was asked how they want to interpret the rule
3. Community voted and now we have clarity

To keep community cohesiveness, I suggest we all abide by the ruling and stop arguing about it. Keeping a community going requires give and take.

If you happen to not like the rule, write in to FLG and ask to vote again. If enough people write in, they will put it on the ballot again. If nothing else, FLG wants tournaments to thrive and attendance to remain high, it's in their business interest. If enough people want to re-vote, we'll be voting again.

bogalubov wrote:

Naw wrote:

bogalubov wrote:

Naw wrote:
Whoa, lots of hurt in the air! Everyone knows the vote was political. Does it matter? Just a little bit, but the Contingent is not the best tool.

Give me Riptide Wing with Skynet, add Drone factory and we are set. Now that I'd like to see.

Political in sense that when you have a large group of people with differing opinions they talk, form groups and then vote to reach a consensus opinion.

You meant to say "those who play Tau vs those who don't".

I'm very certain that is not what I meant to say. If what you say is true, the vote wouldn't have been 51-49. It would have been 90-10 if it was Non-Tau versus Tau voters.

As a recap:

1. GW released an ambiguously worded rule
2. The ITC community was asked how they want to interpret the rule
3. Community voted and now we have clarity

To keep community cohesiveness, I suggest we all abide by the ruling and stop arguing about it. Keeping a community going requires give and take.

If you happen to not like the rule, write in to FLG and ask to vote again. If enough people write in, they will put it on the ballot again. If nothing else, FLG wants tournaments to thrive and attendance to remain high, it's in their business interest. If enough people want to re-vote, we'll be voting again.

That is exactly what i was talking about before. the vote WAS NOT ON INTERPRETATION. it was on how players wanted it to be. Big difference. There are numerous threads on the topic and about 90% of people agree on the interpretation and no one can give a SINGLE reason as to why rules do not share other than they believe it is OP

notredameguy10 wrote:

That is exactly what i was talking about before. the vote WAS NOT ON INTERPRETATION. it was on how players wanted it to be. Big difference. There are numerous threads on the topic and about 90% of people agree on the interpretation and no one can give a SINGLE reason as to why rules do not share other than they believe it is OP

Edit for quotation box.

90% eh? How did the vote go 51-49 in that case?

The reason the question asked "how do you want to play" because there is no definitive answer. We just have to pick one to prevent rehashing this discussion every single game. You keep saying that it's clear as day, but based on the fact that we are still having this conversation, I would say it's not clear. I do not interpret that rule the same way that you do.

People do not process information and behave the same way. Sure, you can tell them that the way they interpret things is wrong and they need to stop being dumb, but you will find that won't actually make them change their mind.

So I'll again point you to Reece's email box as the next step of getting your grievance addressed.

bogalubov wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

That is exactly what i was talking about before. the vote WAS NOT ON INTERPRETATION. it was on how players wanted it to be. Big difference. There are numerous threads on the topic and about 90% of people agree on the interpretation and no one can give a SINGLE reason as to why rules do not share other than they believe it is OP

Edit for quotation box.

90% eh? How did the vote go 51-49 in that case?

The reason the question asked "how do you want to play" because there is no definitive answer. We just have to pick one to prevent rehashing this discussion every single game. You keep saying that it's clear as day, but based on the fact that we are still having this conversation, I would say it's not clear. I do not interpret that rule the same way that you do.

People do not process information and behave the same way. Sure, you can tell them that the way they interpret things is wrong and they need to stop being dumb, but you will find that won't actually make them change their mind.

So I'll again point you to Reece's email box as the next step of getting your grievance addressed.

LOL it was voted 51-49 because people DIDNT WANT TO PLAY AGAINST IT BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS OP. There is ZERO ambiguity in the rule.

They shoot as if one unit
Rules are shared amongst a unit

Simple as that.

If you have a single rebuttal to the rule I implore you to participate in the active thread as ZERO people have been able to give a reason as to why rules do not share.

Considering that you're shouting, I don't think you're actually interested in rebuttals. You've made up your mind and nothing I say will change it. Hence my recommendation to you to let it go and just go with the ruling.

Since now we're just talking about the ITC and the way it conducts business, we're way off topic from this battle report, so I bid you a good day.

bogalubov wrote:
Considering that you're shouting, I don't think you're actually interested in rebuttals. You've made up your mind and nothing I say will change it. Hence my recommendation to you to let it go and just go with the ruling.

Since now we're just talking about the ITC and the way it conducts business, we're way off topic from this battle report, so I bid you a good day.

So i take it you have no rebuttal. cool. Just like everyone else.

Shouting down the opposition is not the same as winning the argument. All your doing is making people want to avoid the conversation, and in some cases cementing resentment against your side. You are being your own worst enemy.

Ceaser wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Ceaser wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Ceaser wrote:
This guy isn't worth the letters we are typing. He refuses to listen to any reason other than his own

Says the guy who has constantly the past argued in Tau related threads when he has been wrong every single time:

Argued that:
Drones count as scoring units
Piranhas cannot leave the board in their formation

Says what? What are you talking about? Are we making up random nonsense and babbling on now?

I have seen you in multiple threads like i mentioned in my post. You have like 40 posts and half of them are trying to bash tau/ tau players

and its funny how you can't argue anything i say on the matter and instead just say "pssh no use listening to him"

*looks at posts* I've never bashed the players. In this thread, I even simply stated I was happy for the orks. You know what it must feel like to beat tau, the hardest match up? Have you ever been an ork player? It's a constant uphill battle. Every move is crucial. Every dice roll. To get that victory had to of been exillerating.

He is a ridiculous fish fanboy. There is no reasoning. You could quote a thousand rules, he has made up his mind that it's the way he wants or the highway. I'm just glad people like him won't be playing in the itc

bogalubov wrote:
As a recap:

1. GW released an ambiguously worded rule
2. The ITC community was asked how they want to interpret the rule
3. Community voted and now we have clarity

When you let people vote you get to a position where even Ivana's ex has a very good chance of becoming a president. You'll have people voting for the other candidate because they dislike him a little bit less. That's what happened here.

The rule is not ambiguous, that is just smoke screen. People voted against it thinking it is too powerful. That is fine, just don't try to claim that it was done to clarify anything. Funnily enough, those same guys who voted agains sharing rules are also saying that all units participating to CF suffer the negative effects.

Whatever ITC rules or the players vote doesn't concern me. My armies are BA and Eldar, but recently (during the past year) I've acquired some Tau Crisis suits, planning to play FSE occassionally.

I don't think the Hunter Contingent is the most powerful tool for Tau. There's nothing to prevent me fielding 9 suits and a buffmander rather than 3 units of 3 suits. I'd split fire with that one unit and it would be perfectly fine, gaining the buffs with all shots. I just don't get the ruling, it was nerfed before anyone even tested it properly.

Back to the batrep, in a game where rolling dice is one very important element weird things can happen. I once held up Ghatzkull Thraka and a couple of boys with 5 necron warriors who just wouldn't run away and/or stay dead for 3 rounds. It happens. DirtyDeeds will show them Orkses next time.

Ceaser wrote:

Ceaser wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Ceaser wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Ceaser wrote:
This guy isn't worth the letters we are typing. He refuses to listen to any reason other than his own

Says the guy who has constantly the past argued in Tau related threads when he has been wrong every single time:

Argued that:
Drones count as scoring units
Piranhas cannot leave the board in their formation

Says what? What are you talking about? Are we making up random nonsense and babbling on now?

I have seen you in multiple threads like i mentioned in my post. You have like 40 posts and half of them are trying to bash tau/ tau players

and its funny how you can't argue anything i say on the matter and instead just say "pssh no use listening to him"

*looks at posts* I've never bashed the players. In this thread, I even simply stated I was happy for the orks. You know what it must feel like to beat tau, the hardest match up? Have you ever been an ork player? It's a constant uphill battle. Every move is crucial. Every dice roll. To get that victory had to of been exillerating.

He is a ridiculous fish fanboy. There is no reasoning. You could quote a thousand rules, he has made up his mind that it's the way he wants or the highway. I'm just glad people like him won't be playing in the itc

Lol and out of your 45 posts 30 of them are on Tau threads trying to argue against everyone else

Considering the hunter continent was never used in this batrep nor was and tau units nerfed in this batrep.

The guy is just arguing for no reason other turn to look for his audience for his ranting.

I have a feeling the hunter rule will be overturned anyway since the new gw faqs are suppose to clarify it. However I suspect they won't clarify spitfire and thus your stuck sharing on one target making the hunter contingent still suck compared to other detachments.

Hopefully you all didn’t miss the close game between Orks and Tau on Tuesday. It had everything you could ever want in a 40k game so I recommend watching it if you didn’t catch it. Anyway, here are some after game thoughts.



Keith:

Hello everyone! DirtyDeeds here with my post game analysis for my game against Reece and his Sons of Anorky and Bik Mek Stompa! First of all, I want to thank Reece, Frankie, and the Frontline crew for having me on their stream. It was an honor and a lot of fun to play against such well known people within our hobby community.

Now down to business. As with any humble player, we begin our journey through our beloved hobby by building the list we feel will be the most capable of handling any situation. As such, I brought a standard Combined Arms Detachment with the Optimized Stealth Cadre from the Codex and the Drone Net formation from the Mont’ka campaign. I think my first mistake was taking as many Marker Drones as I had, while they provided a huge boost in Markerlights when and where I needed them, I lost my ability to utilize them as the tides turned in Reece’s second phase (more on this later). However, the bonuses from the Optimized Stealth Cadre coupled with the damage potential of two Riptides and a Stormsurge provide extremely scary outcomes. In future games I may favor the Riptide Wing formation over the Optimized Stealth Cadre and I’ll bring an Y’Vahra to see how it does!

Alright, game time. Leading into this match Reece and I both agreed that the first turn would determine the flow of battle for either side. Gauging by his list and typical Ork strategy, he would want to be in my face as quickly as possible. Zhadsnarck could give his bikes Scout (an additional 12” movement prior to the beginning of the game), and his two Trukks and the Big Mek could move 12” or more every turn. If there’s one thing Tau hate, it’s enemy units in our deployment zone on turn 1 or 2. He had 4 very mobile units to worry about, three of which (the Trukks and the Bikes) were relatively weak and easy to manage in my first shooting phase. The Big Mek and its healing capabilities were to be dealt with at a later turn. He won the roll to go first, so I had to try and mitigate his movement as best as possible. Since you cannot Scout within 12” of an enemy model, I deployed my Infiltrating Stealth Suits behind Line of Sight blocking terrain as close as I could. This force him to funnel his bikes down the middle of the board where I could bring my cover Ignoring, Strength 7 Ap 4 shots to bare. Ultimately, I would Seize the Initiative and obliterate half the squad of bikes that were forced down the middle of the board. Simultaneously, I knocked out both Trukks preventing his Tank Bustas from destroying my Void Shield Generator. I was in a great position at the end of my first turn, but that’s when my luck ran out…



My second turn saw my first major mistake. I ran my Heavy Burst Cannon Riptide up the right flank while keeping my rooted Stormsurge in my deployment zone. The Heavy Burst Cannon coupled with my ample Markerlights could have singlehandedly taken care of the remaining bikes with the help of one Ghostkeel. That would have left the remaining Ghostkeel the opportunity to shoot the ass of the Stompa dropping it a few more wounds. If my Stormsurge ran up the right flank instead, he would have still been able to use his Destroyer Missiles and Pulse Driver on the Stompa, Cluster Rockets on the Bikes, and my Smart Missiles and Airbursting Fragmentation Projector on the Grots hiding on his Emperor’s Will Objective. This would have dragged his Stompa away from my deployment zone in an attempt to protect that objective. But it wasn’t until his second turn that my mistake was finally realized. The reserved Grots were able to take out TWO Stealth Suits while in cover!!! W…T…F… The remaining suit decided that the building behind him was a much cooler place to hide and ran away. Then he used his Stompa’s Gaze of Mork (now forever known as the Care Bear State) to take out my Heavy Burst Cannon Riptide, and his Deff Cannon to Instant Death both Ghostkeels and three Drones.

T_T

So at this point with my spent Destroyer Missiles and the bulk of my damage destroyed, I was in defensive mode attempting to keep a handle on my lead in Maelstorm points and do my best to clear those Grots off of his Emperor’s Will Objective. My drones whiffed spectacularly in combat and were ultimately destroyed by those Grots… (Man, EFF THOSE GUYS.) I still had a decent chance to at least tie as we went into his fifth turn as his Stompa was stomping my backfield (as was predicted), but my Commander failed his leadership test after his Drone buddies took a Deff Cannon to the face with box cars, followed by ANOTHER set of box cars after the charge was declared!!!!

All in all, a fun game was had by all and I’m glad the viewers saw the damage potential of that Big Mek Stompa. But before I finish, I want to talk about this new and inexpensive superheavy we gave our green friends. It has the typical Stompa stat line with 12 hullpoints at 13/13/12 with D6 Void Shields (these work just like the Void Shield Generator shields, so Grav and Haywire won’t affect them per the ITC rules) that are rolled at the beginning of the game, that’s a staggering 18 possible hull points available for this beast. In addition, through in some Meks in the 20 capacity belly to heal this bad boy all day long! My advice to any Ork player out there is to take one of these guys to the next tournament you’re in, Reece wasn’t kidding when he said you guys are back on the table. As for the Gladius players, bring more Melta and try to take it out in one turn. Don’t give your opponent the opportunity to heal it. But I’m glad for the loss and glad for the opportunity to play against Reece! You guys will see me again for my…

REEEEEVVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

Until next time Frontline, this is DirtyDeeds, done dirt cheap!



Reecius

What a crazy game! First of all, big thanks to my awesome opponent, Keith. We had a very fun game, and crazy.

Tau vs. Orks is a game I have played many times and 9/10 times, I get stomped. Tau just have all the tools to beat Orks, it is a really poor match-up for the Greenskins. This time though with the Big Mek Stompa and the Zhadsnark Warbiker unit, I was confident if I got first turn, I’d take it!

Well, I got first turn…sweet…and then, seize! DOH! Well, that sucked. I got sucker punched first turn and it looked like the game was going to be over until turn 2 hapenned. What a crazy swing in the game! Turn 2 went red hot for me, and with some dice that just wouldn’t quit, was able to take out all the Ghostkeels, a Riptide and Stealthsuits. Wow, that was nuts! It swung the game from me getting stomped to being back in it.

It ended up being a very close game and in the end, was won by my Grots who killed a 2+ save Suit after passing two morale checks, lol! Way to be, little guys.

Great game, be sure to catch it on YouTube!

If the eye of gork was an auto hitting beem or a small blast I would take it all the time.

DirtyDeeds: You wrote that you wouldn't take 16 ML drones in the drone net. How would you go with them?

My group plays 1500 pts games, which doesn't really leave room for extra drones.

It just felt like 16 Markerdrones were too many for my list. The OSC needs so few that I was left with a bs 8 Stormsurge in one of my turns. I feel like it's necessary for the Riptide Wing to really capitalize on its alpha strike. At 1500 points, I feel like it's thus is too much, maybe take a unit of gun drones and Outflank instead of 4 squads of Marker drones.

 jy2 wrote:
To be fair, I think the FL guys have been playing more games than they've shown in battle reports and Frankie has been killing it with Tau, even though he is a Tau noobie.

Also, two of the top-ranked ITC guys are killing it with Tau in my area, Paul McKelvey and Jeremy Vesseire.

Regardless, Notredame dude has a point. The wording of the voting was worded in favor of anyone who didn't play Tau, not what the rules RAW say. Which is what the person posting above him was trying to argue, that it was unclear. It has a pretty clear interpretation, until someone who thinks it's OP says it can't be like that.

I feel ITC had a knee jerk reaction to the new Hunter Contingent ruling and unfairly so. Even if Tau are winning, losing, doing fine, whatever, it's a silly way to change rules. You're not playing competitive Warhammer 40k, you're playing some other version of it. I'd like some armies to play their rules differently but I don't make house rules based on how I want my opposing players rules to be used.