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.

No. The Stormsurge ruling HELPS Tau.

The other two screw them. So no. that's not it at all.

Inventing freaking rules out of thin air is the issue.

I'm all out sorry.

Anyway, none of these were actually a problem to a top Tau player except the Ghostkeel one. WHICH I feel is fair because of its similarity to invisibility and we all know how much that one is house-ruled.

Otherwise you've lost nothing, unless you are a WAAC casual ITC-Ruling player.

I can make anything sound fair. Is that all i need to do now?

Lol.

Ho dear. Lets start a list of things we all THINK would be fair...and then just send it to the ITC so they can unilaterally change it like they just did.

Or. We could not.

Just saying.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Quick, I need my popcorn!

That's why we all love the General Discussion forum right?

The passion, the pain, the narrow self-interest!

 Jancoran wrote:
No. The Stormsurge ruling HELPS Tau.

The other two screw them. So no. that's not it at all.

Inventing freaking rules out of thin air is the issue.

You know ITC makes and modify rules all the time already right? Such as LOS! against stomps, or stomps not working out of combat, or FMCs also not being hit by blasts and templates, or Invis being BS1 instead of snap shots...

The list goes on. Getting angry because their tournament rulings aren't RAW is ridiculous because ITC was never strictly RAW in the first place.

Spammy "popcorn" joke posts, posts that add nothing like "Spot the X player" and just the whole general level of this thread has to lift, or else moderation action will happen. Everyone give your posts an extra read before you let them loose on the forum, have a quick flick of the rules if you're uncertain, then post when you're sure.

I keep hearing a top tier army saying they are victims. It isn't the case.

Only ONE of these is a real nerf and it only affects ONE thing a player would take.

1 or 2 Ghostkeels in a OSC.

This probably kills the ghostkeel in their tournaments.

Guess its time for ITC Tau players to spam Riptides and Stormsurges until those get taken away too.

Christ man you sound like a Blood Angels player in the current meta.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
No. The Stormsurge ruling HELPS Tau.

The other two screw them. So no. that's not it at all.

Inventing freaking rules out of thin air is the issue.

You know ITC makes and modify rules all the time already right? Such as LOS! against stomps, or stomps not working out of combat, or FMCs also not being hit by blasts and templates, or Invis being BS1 instead of snap shots...

The list goes on. Getting angry because their tournament rulings aren't RAW is ridiculous because ITC was never strictly RAW in the first place.

Oh I think you're oversimplifying to defend your point when i am expanding to make mine. I have not said all the rulings WERE bad. I have not said that interpreting rules that aren't clear is bad.

But when you ask a populace that cosists in the majority of armies you don't play (not me...you) and say "Whatcha wanna' do to these guys" I find it highly unlikely based on the many posts here that have demonstrated their butt hurt feelings about this and that faction would not enter into such a vote... even when its not necessary.

They are ruling on Stormsurges dying to Tank shock but the rules say they die. The rules say they die. So let them die and let those players sort out how valuable their pilons are to them. Dont rewrite the darn rules!

The Ghostkeel wargear thing is literally taking the unit and saying that you simply dont benefit from yur gear,. At all. Its not INTERPRETING a difficult to understand rule. Its a straight up nerf to an army that doesnt even have ccess to invis nor to a counter and they somehow find it a bad idea to allow the faction to do it? Why? Because Centurion Stars are so much friendlier? lol. Hilarity.

The Piranha thing isnt going to affect me but It is what it is. A bunch of non scoring suff and reclyclable missiles MAYBE. like the Forge world artillery blasts that can target any point and cant be stopped. Like the Daemon summoning that can be if you kill the caster (read: Piranha). I feel Daemon summoning should be banned based on this ruling. is that fair or not? nope. And few sorcerer ever thought of being as expensive as 5 piranhas with or without missiles on em. The ones who are flying are a darn sight more annoying to kill.

So yeah. I don't understand why we're making these weird rulings. i don't because i dont see that they even needed to be. yeah it will be jarring to lose a Stormsurge that way but then... Is anyone crying for me after I just bombed them with double the shots? Nope. As a player who own just about every army, I get hit from every angle on these things and the cumulative effect of it all for me is this: its their tournament FAQ. if its what they wanna do fine. But I will not run tournaments like this and i run them at four stores.

More T.O.'s need to smell what's being served before they eat heartily from this steaming plate.

 Quickjager wrote:
I'm all out sorry.

Anyway, none of these were actually a problem to a top Tau player except the Ghostkeel one. WHICH I feel is fair because of its similarity to invisibility and we all know how much that one is house-ruled.

Otherwise you've lost nothing, unless you are a WAAC casual ITC-Ruling player.

They could have made it so that the Snapshots were instead resolved at BS1/WS1 or something to that effect. Not make it once per unit so that there is a monumental tax to taking extra Ghostkeels for +1 BS.

Also why would people avoid the ITC? It's literally everywhere (predominately in the USA, but it's making it's way here too and other countries) and not everyone thinks that it's a bias against Tau. Or just don't care, so long as their army don't care. But they are WAAC so won't be the best opponent regardless of any nerfs.

I agree with that Frozocrone. Perhaps make a counter to the ITC with the rest of the players who are affected?

 Jancoran wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
No. The Stormsurge ruling HELPS Tau.

The other two screw them. So no. that's not it at all.

Inventing freaking rules out of thin air is the issue.

You know ITC makes and modify rules all the time already right? Such as LOS! against stomps, or stomps not working out of combat, or FMCs also not being hit by blasts and templates, or Invis being BS1 instead of snap shots...

The list goes on. Getting angry because their tournament rulings aren't RAW is ridiculous because ITC was never strictly RAW in the first place.

Oh I think you're oversimplifying to defend your point when i am expanding to make mine. I have not said all the rulings WERE bad. I have not said that interpreting rules that aren't clear is bad.

But when you ask a populace that cosists in the majority of armies you don't play (not me...you) and say "Whatcha wanna' do to these guys" I find it highly unlikely based on the many posts here that have demonstrated their butt hurt feelings about this and that faction would not enter into such a vote... even when its not necessary.

They are ruling on Stormsurges dying to Tank shock but the rules say they die. The rules say they die. So let them die and let those players sort out how valuable their pilons are to them. Dont rewrite the darn rules!

The Ghostkeel wargear thing is literally taking the unit and saying that you simply dont benefit from yur gear,. At all. Its not INTERPRETING a difficult to understand rule. Its a straight up nerf to an army that doesnt even have ccess to invis nor to a counter and they somehow find it a bad idea to allow the faction to do it? Why? Because Centurion Stars are so much friendlier? lol. Hilarity.

The Piranha thing isnt going to affect me but It is what it is. A bunch of non scoring suff and reclyclable missiles MAYBE. like the Forge world artillery blasts that can target any point and cant be stopped. Like the Daemon summoning that can be if you kill the caster (read: Piranha). I feel Daemon summoning should be banned based on this ruling. is that fair or not? nope. And few sorcerer ever thought of being as expensive as 5 piranhas with or without missiles on em. The ones who are fly nd are a darn sight more annoying to kill.

So yeah. I don't understand why we're making these weird rulings. i don't because i dont see that they even needed to be. yeah it will be jarring to lose a Stormsurge that way but then... Is anyone crying for me after I just bombed them with double the shots? Nope. As a player who own just about every army, I get hit from every angle on these things and the cumulative effect of it all for me is this: its their tournament FAQ. if its what they wanna do fine. But I will not run tournaments like this and i run them at four stores.

More T.O.'s need to smell what's being served before they at heartily from this steaming plate.

I don't know what you are complaining about? Why is modifying the rules so bad for you?

I think there really needs to be another option, but it is a daunting task to undertake. Hmmm since I do find a good chunk of the ITC ruling good I think this is less a secondary circuit and more of a splitting off of the church to use a metaphor.

The easiest thing to do would be to use the ITC as a base and try figure out the rulings that they did wrong as a community and revert them, change them, or offer alternative takes on them.

Jancoran.

Why is rewriting the tank shock rule so bad? There was ambiguity in it. Hell it was more of a clarification it literally changed nothing.

Locked down it cannot move. Tank shock forces units to move. Under the rules, units who cannot move are removed from play. But GC just lose D3 if it is supposed to removed from play.

EDIT: Gamgee THATS THE POINT! Its just a stupid set of houserules. My store doesn't even play ITC, we just know the issues that come up with our army and clear it up beforehand. People take these "official" rules too seriously.

 Quickjager wrote:
I agree with that Frozocrone. Perhaps make a counter to the ITC with the rest of the players who are affected?

I won't be voting if it's comes to a vote, as I don't play ITC. I'm just throwing suggestions around for the people that do play (and disagree with erratas).

 Quickjager wrote:
Jancoran.

Why is rewriting the tank shock rule so bad? There was ambiguity in it. Hell it was more of a clarification it literally changed nothing.

Locked down it cannot move. Tank shock forces units to move. Under the rules, units who cannot move are removed from play. But GC just lose D3 if it is supposed to removed from play..

That one is reasonable, but the ghostkeel one is not.

Reasonable tankshocks? They literally broke raw and made a bunch of rhinos being able to insta-kill stuff like no big deal.

ITC rules are nuts sometimes. It's up for community to use it or no. Basically, for every thing it fixes, it breaks another one. And some things are just sidegrades. Their missions are: get 2 VP every turn and the one who gets FB wins.

 Gamgee wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Jancoran.

Why is rewriting the tank shock rule so bad? There was ambiguity in it. Hell it was more of a clarification it literally changed nothing.

Locked down it cannot move. Tank shock forces units to move. Under the rules, units who cannot move are removed from play. But GC just lose D3 if it is supposed to removed from play..

That one is reasonable, but the ghostkeel one is not.

I'm sorry was the Optimized Stealth Cadre not good enough?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
Reasonable tankshocks? They literally broke raw and made a bunch of rhinos being able to insta-kill stuff like no big deal.

ITC rules are nuts sometimes. It's up for community to use it or no. Basically, for every thing it fixes, it breaks another one. And some things are just sidegrades. Their missions are: get 2 VP every turn and the one who gets FB wins.

They removed the ability for rhinos to insta-kill Stormsurges. You still haven't explained what's so bad about "breaking RAW" and you clearly haven't played any ITC missions if you think that's how it goes. They don't even use FB in 4/6 missions.

 Gamgee wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Jancoran.

Why is rewriting the tank shock rule so bad? There was ambiguity in it. Hell it was more of a clarification it literally changed nothing.

Locked down it cannot move. Tank shock forces units to move. Under the rules, units who cannot move are removed from play. But GC just lose D3 if it is supposed to removed from play..

That one is reasonable, but the ghostkeel one is not.

The Ghostkeel thing is dumb.

 Gamgee wrote:

The easiest thing to do would be to use the ITC as a base and try figure out the rulings that they did wrong as a community and revert them, change them, or offer alternative takes on them.

That would be more productive than just complaining about it, yes.

 Jancoran wrote:

They are ruling on Stormsurges dying to Tank shock but the rules say they die. The rules say they die. So let them die and let those players sort out how valuable their pilons are to them. Dont rewrite the darn rules!

This is actually a perfect illustration of the problem faced by anyone trying to write an FAQ like this. INAT faced the same problem... When they address ambiguous rules that some people disagree are ambiguous, it inevitably winds up being perceived by some people as a rules change rather than a clarification.

More T.O.'s need to smell what's being served before they eat heartily from this steaming plate.

Alternatively, players could try to remember that it's an optional rules guide that someone has put a crapload of work into so that others who don't want to do that work themselves don't have to, for a game of toy soldiers.

A little perspective wouldn't go astray.

 Quickjager wrote:
Jancoran.

Why is rewriting the tank shock rule so bad? There was ambiguity in it. .

There is none. Read ther actual rules. Not this forum. the rules. Tank shock kills a Stormsurge. thats it.

Read Ghostkeel. Each one can use its wargear. Nothing says they have to do it at one time. Why would they? Do Psykers lose their power when they cast invis? No.

this is the knee jerk stuff I cannot stand. the Canoptek Spyder thing was the same way: dumb. The rules are right there. why are you changing them? It wasn't game breaking either way and it was not "unclear" except for people who just hated Necrons at the time.

Dark eldar need their Crucible to work on Psykers in the unit first. I'd vote for it but... would that be right to the Psyker players? Does it matter?

They are free to do as they please at their marquis event. I'll do what I think is right at mine. As I've said, no one needs most of the ITC FAQ to run a good tournament and they tell you to change them as you will. So i will.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:


Alternatively, players could try to remember that it's an optional rules guide that someone has put a crapload of work into so....

You think I don't know what the work is like for that? I know what its like. I have to do it every year! I dont need "more perspective" on the matter. I get plenty right from the T.O. drivers seat.

So what if they did a lot of work on it? They did it for their Marquis event. One expects no less. they didnt do it for YOU or the goodness of their heart. Lol. Your comment suggests I should treat them like Martys. They are a BUSINESSS. They happen to be run by very cool people and i like them, but that's what they are. not martyrs for the cause.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Jancoran.

Why is rewriting the tank shock rule so bad? There was ambiguity in it. .

There is none. Read ther actual rules. Not this forum. the rules. Tank shock kills a Stormsurge. thats it....

No they don't. The GMC rules are clear that they don't

The next step would be to bring the nerfbat heavily against MCs, turning most of them into walker vehicles. Then we can sit back, build a pier and make nice money loaning boats for people to cross the massive river created by Tau tears.

More Tau tears, for lulz sake!

On a more serious tone, when a certain game is such a bug-ridden mess as the current 40k is, it's up to the community to take the reims and try to fix it. We're certain the company has no interest in doing so. I too believe the ITC crowd should just drop any pretense of being "clarifying" rules, just admit you're houseruling everything that seems broken to you, there's nothing wrong with that. The result won't be worse than the 'official' rules no matter how hard they try.

Of course the cheesemongers won't be pleased. And there seems to be quite a bunch of them among the Tau playerbase, I wonder why.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Jancoran.

Why is rewriting the tank shock rule so bad? There was ambiguity in it. .

There is none. Read ther actual rules. Not this forum. the rules. Tank shock kills a Stormsurge. thats it....

No they don't. The GMC rules are clear that they don't

It is. i can quote them. It absolutely is. Bottom of page 92. Last paragraph, left ide. So yeah. Its supr clear that:

"any model that cannot manage that are crushed and removed from play as casualties with no save allowed. Crunch!"

So...

 Jancoran wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Jancoran.

Why is rewriting the tank shock rule so bad? There was ambiguity in it. .

There is none. Read ther actual rules. Not this forum. the rules. Tank shock kills a Stormsurge. thats it....

No they don't. The GMC rules are clear that they don't

It is. i can quote them. It absolutely is. Bottom of page 92. Last paragraph, left ide. So yeah. Its supr clear that:

"any model that cannot manage that are crushed and removed from play as casualties with no save allowed. Crunch!"

So...

UNSTOPPABLE

"Any attack that normally inflicts Instant Death or says that the target model is removed from play inflicts D3 Wounds on a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature instead."

Its in the Gargantuan Creature section of unit types. If you insist on a pg number i'll have to go to my car to get it

 Jancoran wrote:

So what if they did a lot of work on it? They did it for their Marquis event. One expects no less. they didnt do it for YOU or the goodness of their heart. Lol. Your comment suggests I should treat them like Martys.

No, my comment suggests that if you don't like the ITC FAQ, you can just choose to not use it, or you can modify it to suit yourself, rather than carrying on like they broke into your house and ate your puppy.

It's an FAQ for a game of toy soldiers.

With regards to the Piranha Firestream formation, I don't think some of the Tau players here even realize just how powerful that formation is. They say it can't score/contest/whatever and so it isn't good. Really? It is "nerfed" and rightly so. It is an extremely powerful build and I will share with you my experiences with playing against it.

I basically wrote a Tau list and my friend ran it against me. It consisted of the Firestream formation (10 piranhas in total), the Dronenet and "other" Tau stuff. We played it the "un-nerfed" way.


Game #1 vs Daemons

This was a larger game, I believe 2500. I ran Chaos knight with 2++/3++ Invuln, Fatey, D-thirster, Be'lakor, Grimoire Prince and some troops. Chaos Knight was basically useless here and just couldn't get through the infinite drone screens. D-thirster and other FMC's eventually got taken down through Tau VoF (volume-of-fire). Result: Tau Crushing Victory

Game #2 vs Daemons

This was an 1850 game with a Daemon list that I won a tournament with. It is actually a worse list than the one I used in Game #1. It was a close game, but my experience and the game ending on Turn 5 gave me a 1-pt win. Had the game went on, it would have been another crushing Tau victory. Result: Daemon Minor Victory

Game #3 vs Tyranids

I brought my 1850 tournament-winning Pentyrant (5-flyrant) list this time, but I just couldn't deal with his Piranhas, which I couldn't even target. Of course it helped that all his riptides had Skyfire, but by Turn 3, all of my flyrants were dead. I then conceded on Turn 4 with just 1 mawloc left. Result: Tau Crushing Victory

Game #4 vs Eldar

This game was played at 2250 and we didn't use ITC list-building rules. I ran an Eldar list with 5 Wraithknights! This was going to be an uphill battle for the Tau, or so we thought. By Turn 4, he had killed all 5 WK's and only lost 2 riptides (including the Y'vahra) in the process!!! Oh, and did I mention that I had Invisibility on 1 WK almost every turn? Result: Tau Crushing Victory


Analysis:

If you're thinking that for formation is not good because the drones can't score/contest, you really don't see the true power of this formation. The job of the drones is A) firepower and B) protection for the rest of the army against assault units. The amount of firepower it puts out is just staggering. With 10 piranhas, my opponent was producing 20 drones a turn. That is 40 twin-linked S5 BS3 shots a turn. And yeah, that's right....BS3 because of the Dronenet. Against my Daemons, the drones did just as much damage as his "main" offensive units (i.e. skyfiring riptides). Against my Tyranids, they shot down 2 flyrants and a couple of Mawlocs just through sheer VoF. Against Eldar, they had a hand in wounding/helping to kill almost all of the WK's. Flying or T8, it didn't matter. Sheer volume of twin-linked shooting was just devastating.

 insaniak wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

So what if they did a lot of work on it? They did it for their Marquis event. One expects no less. they didnt do it for YOU or the goodness of their heart. Lol. Your comment suggests I should treat them like Martys.

No, my comment suggests that if you don't like the ITC FAQ, you can just choose to not use it, or you can modify it to suit yourself, rather than carrying on like they broke into your house and ate your puppy.

It's an FAQ for a game of toy soldiers.

Well I sure am glad you let me know, lest my illusions continue.

You're stating the obvious as a defense of their choice to make these changes in a tournament people are paying to attend. No offense but if it was free you'd have a point. It isn't free.

You buy the right to an opinion on the subject any time you attend an event labeled ITC. You paid for the right to an opinion. not that you needed to, but ya did. And while it is a game, its my leisure time. My time is worth something to me. I spend a lot of it on this game and I enjoy 95% of that time. So I don't want someone coming along and mucking up my leisure time with this tripe. But that will happen or else i don't get to play at that ITC tournament. Those are my choices.

I also run tournaments, I get the right to have an opinion for that reason also. for FREE, I spend my time and my money to entertain people like you. FOR FREE I promote the ITC name in all my tournament postings. And what the players expect of me is that I will shepherd their leisure time with as much care as i hope others will for me.

So I get an opinion on this and this is my opinion: it stinks. The process stinks and i am encouraging T.O.'s to be critical of the document and address this. If a bunch of sheeple simply tell them they can ignore whatever outrage they create, they will. That simple. Lol. That is the reality. They don't care what this forum thinks as long a their prestige remains relatively undiminished. If 2016 turns out to have half as many ITC events as before, I cant imagine that wont be a mandate for reconsideration of their positions on some things. If it takes 30 more days than the year before to fill all their slots, they will start to notice and they will start to wonder why.

And that is why the opinion needs to be expressed. No one responds to idle talk, nor sheeple. No one cares what they have to say. No one. Not even the sheeple. So it is best not to fall into that category and to instead express ones opinion when given the chance.

Ergo, forums exist. Ergo, voting.

So lets not oversimplify this down to plastic men being pushed around. You know it's more than that, its a competition and a pretty intense mental exercize as well. You've spent enough time n this forum to prove you think its more. so lets not kid ourselves. We dont treat it like Monopoly my friend.

 Jancoran wrote:


"any model that cannot manage that are crushed and removed from play as casualties with no save allowed. Crunch!"

So...

It says previously that the models must move the minimum distance to avoid it and still maintain coherency. This minimum distance can be half the field when needed. So, brb basically explicts crunch other than on a 100% surrounded squad. And it literally explicts a cruch of a solo model on anything other than a 100% crowded table.