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.

Actually in that context I would argue that "The whole unit uses it" is more reasonable. I can see that GW went with "model" because it requires a model in the unit to actually have that wargear, or else you get people arguing that a single drone still being alive would let you use it.

(The line of thought would be that, if it said "A unit that has this piece of wargear", then even if the actual model holding it dies, the unit isn't dead and technically still has it". Yes it sounds stupid but we've seen stupid-er logic coming out of the YMDC forum.)

However if it was specifying the entire unit it would say the unit uses their holophoton counter measures. Instead it says uses it's as in singular. So what I take from this is one model uses its counter measure in the unit. And since a model can only use this once it can allow a unit to use it three times before every model in the unit of three (or two) is out.

The Unit is still singular. "It" in this case is refering to the single unit, not the single model. A unit of 3 is still "a" unit. Now it's just playing semantics and word limboing.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The Unit is still singular. "It" in this case is refering to the single unit, not the single model. A unit of 3 is still "a" unit. Now it's just playing semantics and word limboing.

It says "A model". How is that semantics?

 koooaei wrote:

 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.

Except Pilons stop it from moving under any circumstance. Codex trumps rules. So he cannot move and is therefore destroyed.

There has already been a YMDC thread, and the consensus (at least with most posters) was the opposite - that the model uses it, but the unit benefits:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/669989.page

There's also some discussion of it here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/678734.page

It's like most GW rules and could use clarification... I'm just really surprised they chose this ruling since it significantly reduces the effectiveness of the unit, doesn't (to me) seem to be how the rule was intended - they could easily have ruled the other way, in other words.

In-depth discussion of the wording should probably head over to YMDC... but I just wanted to provide those links to prior discussion as reference (the second link is still active).

Cindis wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
I don't see the problem. I'd rather something is preemptively nerfed instead of it ruining an entire tournament

Ok then. Your entire army is banned. And you'd better not complain, because you made it perfectly clear that you'd rather see something preemptively nerfed than risk letting it ruin an entire tournament. And who knows what horrible abusive fun-ruining things your army might be capable of.

PS: don't bother trying to buy a different army, that will also be banned.

notredameguy10 wrote:
You are 100% incorrect. It is not a "simple clarification" lmao. It is a complete opposite ruling of the rule simply because they didn't like it.

This. There was nothing at all ambiguous about the rules, certain players just didn't like that GW made the rule. And because of the popular idea that Tau are overpowered they manage to get people to support their nerfs. Is it a good change to make? Arguably, but that doesn't make it a clarification.

And, honestly, I'd be much less annoyed about ITC if they admitted that this is what they are doing instead of hiding behind their laughable "we're just clarifying ambiguous rules" excuse. If you want to nerf Tau at least have the courage to openly say "we don't like this unit, so we're going to nerf it".

Some people have more trouble reading than others - the rule clearly states that when a model uses countermeasures the unit as a whole fires them off. TFG Tau players have just chosen to conveniently ignore that bit about the unit though.

The ITC ruling is correct, no amount of tears will wash that simple truth away.

Try reading again buddy, maybe you are the one having trouble.

The rule clearly states that ONE MODEL activates the ability, then the UNIT uses the ability. Its pretty simple

I had a similar lack of understanding with unit\model interaction when I asked about a solo Riptide with a Target Lock. The question was: the unit designates its shooting against an enemy within assault range, the model uses its Target Lock to target another unit with its shooting, then the unit assaults the enemy that the unit shot at. That there is only one model is immaterial, but people cannot seem to wrap their heads around it.

If you folks think that I am trying to draw a comparison between the ITC nerfs and the holocaust, you are crazy and I would suggest ingesting something to raise your blood sugar. The point came across, yes? I could have used the second amendment's attempted limitations, but that would have had several people outside the US scratching their heads.

notredameguy10 wrote:

Cindis wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
I don't see the problem. I'd rather something is preemptively nerfed instead of it ruining an entire tournament

Ok then. Your entire army is banned. And you'd better not complain, because you made it perfectly clear that you'd rather see something preemptively nerfed than risk letting it ruin an entire tournament. And who knows what horrible abusive fun-ruining things your army might be capable of.

PS: don't bother trying to buy a different army, that will also be banned.

notredameguy10 wrote:
You are 100% incorrect. It is not a "simple clarification" lmao. It is a complete opposite ruling of the rule simply because they didn't like it.

This. There was nothing at all ambiguous about the rules, certain players just didn't like that GW made the rule. And because of the popular idea that Tau are overpowered they manage to get people to support their nerfs. Is it a good change to make? Arguably, but that doesn't make it a clarification.

And, honestly, I'd be much less annoyed about ITC if they admitted that this is what they are doing instead of hiding behind their laughable "we're just clarifying ambiguous rules" excuse. If you want to nerf Tau at least have the courage to openly say "we don't like this unit, so we're going to nerf it".

Some people have more trouble reading than others - the rule clearly states that when a model uses countermeasures the unit as a whole fires them off. TFG Tau players have just chosen to conveniently ignore that bit about the unit though.

The ITC ruling is correct, no amount of tears will wash that simple truth away.

Try reading again buddy, maybe you are the one having trouble.

The rule clearly states that ONE MODEL activates the ability, then the UNIT uses the ability. Its pretty simple

It is pretty simple. Because since the unit has 'used' the ability, and it may only be 'used' once, then that counts as the one use.

"Once per battle, in the enemy Shooting phase, a model equipped with holophoton countermeasures can disrupt the targetings systems used by one enemy unit that is targeting it or the unit it belongs to. Declare that the unit will use the holophoton countermeasures after the enemy unit has chosen it as a target but before any hit rolls are made. The enemy unit can only make Snap Shots in that Shooting phase."

Okay the unit is declared, but a single ghostkeel is still using its holophoton countermeasures. The unit is using its holophoton counter measures but because a single ghostkeel is using them. The ambiguity is the fact that they don't specify if a single model uses up its counter measures or the entire unit. Considering the very rule itself says a single model and the later parts of it are causing the ambiguity I would err on the side of the unit using up only one ghostkeels counter measures. So the ITC simply decided to specify and they chose to nerf for some reason. Which is silly given this will just hurt Tau. If the unit being referred to had not been modified beforehand by this part of the rule a model equipped with holophoton countermeasures then there would be less heated debate since the later part of the rule would simply refer to the unit and that would be that. As it is the rules are fairly clear the unit expends only one use of the holophoton projector. Not to mention circumstantially from a rules writing perspective why even specify a single model uses it if an entire unit would use it up there are much clearer ways to write that it would use up all the Ghostkeels uses of the countermeasures.

Edit
The rule doesn't say a unit may only use it once per battle, it says an individual model may only use it once per battle.

notredameguy10 wrote:


The rule clearly states that ONE MODEL activates the ability, then the UNIT uses the ability. Its pretty simple

It really really does.

 Gamgee wrote:
"Once per battle, in the enemy Shooting phase, a model equipped with holophoton countermeasures can disrupt the targetings systems used by one enemy unit that is targeting it or the unit it belongs to. Declare that the unit will use the holophoton countermeasures after the enemy unit has chosen it as a target but before any hit rolls are made. The enemy unit can only make Snap Shots in that Shooting phase."

Okay the unit is declared, but a single ghostkeel is still using its holophoton countermeasures. The unit is using its holophoton counter measures but because a single ghostkeel is using them. The ambiguity is the fact that they don't specify if a single model uses up its counter measures or the entire unit. Considering the very rule itself says a single model and the later parts of it are causing the ambiguity I would err on the side of the unit using up only one ghostkeels counter measures. So the ITC simply decided to specify and they chose to nerf for some reason. Which is silly given this will just hurt Tau. If the unit being referred to had not been modified beforehand by this part of the rule a model equipped with holophoton countermeasures then there would be less heated debate since the later part of the rule would simply refer to the unit and that would be that. As it is the rules are fairly clear the unit expends only one use of the holophoton projector. Not to mention circumstantially from a rules writing perspective why even specify a single model uses it if an entire unit would use it up there are much clearer ways to write that it would use up all the Ghostkeels uses of the countermeasures.

I think the point is that it requires clarification. They use model in one part of the rule and unit in another; we cannot know which one was intended. Therefore, it isn't as clear as you made it seem with this thread, and this thread in my mind went from wow, they have a real point, ITC is fething up to oh, they're whining over something that ITC clarified that actually is questionable. There is contention about this rule - heck, the rule even contradicts itself. So to claim that ITC has jumped the shark and should be boycotted for making a ruling is overreaction at best or disingenuous at worst.

My belief is that GW originally intended for the ghostkeel to be a solo battlesuit (with drones of course), wrote the rule, and then decided to add more ghostkeels to the unit but didn't edit the rule. This doesn't get us any closer to a destination, but it would make more sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jancoran wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:


The rule clearly states that ONE MODEL activates the ability, then the UNIT uses the ability. Its pretty simple

It really really does.

Right, and the ability says it may be used once, not activated once. So it's rather irrelevant how it is activated - what matters is how many times it is used.

Okay, so now we've gone from the ITC being the spawn of Shlrrrg, God of Nasty Things, to them making a call on an ambiguous rule that people disagree with (which is pretty much the definition of "ambiguous").

This is really starting to feel this a YMDC thread now.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Okay, so now we've gone from the ITC being the spawn of Shlrrrg, God of Nasty Things, to them making a call on an ambiguous rule that people disagree with (which is pretty much the definition of "ambiguous").

Yes, that was the point I was going for.

Dozer Blades wrote:This is really starting to feel this a YMDC thread now.

Sorry, I'll drop it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Right, and the ability says it may be used once, not activated once.

"IT" in this sentence is the singular countermeasure used. So no. its not. This is just... ridiculous is what it is. I have move colorful words i am DYING to use but this overreach is, once again, a reason for T.O.'s to reconsidr their reasoning for even using this voluminous, bloated and mostly sour grapes document. They should just write some rules, call it 50K and be done with it so we can all start ignoring it.

I'm not gonna argue the wording any further. On top of not having the codex on hand at the moment, my quote has already been taken out of context and misinterpreted and I have no intention of typing out another page-long explanation only to get it ignored or cherrypicked because someone doesn't like a nerf. Especially since these aren't even official rules.

If you don't like em, don't play (like the title of this thread suggest). If this means losing your playgroup, maybe consider not forcing everyone else to play by your rules, and play by what everyone else wants.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Right, and the ability says it may be used once, not activated once.

"IT" in this sentence is the singular countermeasure used. So no. its not. This is just... ridiculous is what it is. I have move colorful words i am DYING to use but this overreach is, once again, a reason for T.O.'s to reconsidr their reasoning for even using this voluminous, bloated and mostly sour grapes document. They should just write some rules, call it 50K and be done with it so we can all start ignoring it.

I am pretty sure 'it' is the unit. (See? I can make claims too about ambiguous rules full of pronouns!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I'm not gonna argue the wording any further. On top of not having the codex on hand at the moment, my quote has already been taken out of context and misinterpreted and I have no intention of typing out another page-long explanation only to get it ignored or cherrypicked because someone doesn't like a nerf. Especially since these aren't even official rules.

If you don't like em, don't play (like the title of this thread suggest). If this means losing your playgroup, maybe consider not forcing everyone else to play by your rules, and play by what everyone else wants.

Preach!

 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.

Wait...where do you think rules come from? There's not like a rules tree out there somewhere GW picks every few months, ALL rules come out of thin air.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I am pretty sure 'it' is the unit. (See? I can make claims too about ambiguous rules full of pronouns!)

You can do anything that doent make sense and no one will stop you. You can be obtuse and no one will stop you. But if you read what YOU wrote, its pretty obviously answering its own question.

I wasnt ambiguous. You're just being obtuse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK 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.

Wait...where do you think rules come from? There's not like a rules tree out there somewhere GW picks every few months, ALL rules come out of thin air.

Irrelevant to the discussion...but...uh....ok?

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
If you don't like em, don't play (like the title of this thread suggest). If this means losing your playgroup, maybe consider not forcing everyone else to play by your rules, and play by what everyone else wants.

I think that's the point of some of the pushback lately, though - not everyone wants to use all of the ITC "power level adjustment" rules. It would be really great if they would separate out the true errata from power level adjustment rulings... right now it is all mixed together and listed as FAQ, which obviously many of the rules are not.

 RiTides wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
If you don't like em, don't play (like the title of this thread suggest). If this means losing your playgroup, maybe consider not forcing everyone else to play by your rules, and play by what everyone else wants.

I think that's the point of some of the pushback lately, though - not everyone wants to use all of the ITC "power level adjustment" rules. It would be really great if they would separate out the true errata from power level adjustment rulings... right now it is all mixed together and listed as FAQ, which obviously many of the rules are not.

First rule of ITC is you don't have to use any ITC rules if you don't want to. If your TO doesn't take out the rules he doesn't like that's his fault.

 RiTides wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
If you don't like em, don't play (like the title of this thread suggest). If this means losing your playgroup, maybe consider not forcing everyone else to play by your rules, and play by what everyone else wants.

I think that's the point of some of the pushback lately, though - not everyone wants to use all of the ITC "power level adjustment" rules. It would be really great if they would separate out the true errata from power level adjustment rulings... right now it is all mixed together and listed as FAQ, which obviously many of the rules are not.

Exactly, but more to the point if they are going to do adjustments may as well nerf all the powerful faction equally down or buff all the weak ones up. Not this shadowy half measure where you can't tell what's a bias ruling, what's a clarification, and what rules are them trying to tone the power levels down. It doesn't help they didn't put news of these changes on the front page which makes it look really suspicious and shadowy and they did it super close to tournament time.

I'd even settle for them acknowledging they're house ruling for the sake of balance so we could at least have a discussion about it without people acting so outraged.

I look forward to round three when they rule in favour of the wording that each additional set of ghostkeel and drones to a unit is 390 points, though I expect it'll pan out much the same.

ERJAK wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
I think that's the point of some of the pushback lately, though - not everyone wants to use all of the ITC "power level adjustment" rules. It would be really great if they would separate out the true errata from power level adjustment rulings... right now it is all mixed together and listed as FAQ, which obviously many of the rules are not.

First rule of ITC is you don't have to use any ITC rules if you don't want to. If your TO doesn't take out the rules he doesn't like that's his fault.

It'd be worlds easier to take out rules if the "power level adjustment" rules were in a separate Errata section!

As many have pointed out, it's just the mixing of these things all together that is frustrating, and the fact that new units get "toned down" while old, extremely powerful units are untouched. It seems to reinforce the status quo and keep the meta from progressing as it naturally would otherwise, imo... and I'd love to be able to more easily ignore those rules by separating them. Much easier to go to an already-overworked T.O. and say "What do you think about using the ITC FAQ but not the Errata?" than it is to say "What do you think about removing the second-to-last FAQ entry on the bottom of page 19?"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
So wait, the FAQ clarified a grammar error in the rules and people complained that it's a nerf?

Seems that way to me. That rule, as written, has the classical GW problem of conflating 'model' with 'unit', in the first half implying a model is using the wargear and in the second half implying it is the entire unit.

The second one is the ruling ITC went with, which isn't any more or less reasonable than the first.

To be fair, a Ghostkeel is a "unit" in the sense of "more than one model" that most people think of even when you're taking just one.
The Ghostkeel cannot ever be taken without the Stealth Drones.They're not Wargear, they're models in their own right.

This is kind of a two part reading:
A) Ghostkeels opt to trigger their Holophoton Countermeasures
B) The unit is then declared to have used HCMs.

The wargear entry specifically states that it affects the whole unit but it is kinda wonky wording.

Cindis wrote:


Some people have more trouble reading than others - the rule clearly states that when a model uses countermeasures the unit as a whole fires them off. TFG Tau players have just chosen to conveniently ignore that bit about the unit though.

The ITC ruling is correct, no amount of tears will wash that simple truth away.

Wording on the ability -
Once per battle, in the enemy Shooting phase,
a model equipped with Holophoton Countermeasures can disrupt the targeting systems used by one enemy unit that is targeting it or the unit it belongs to.

Declare that the unit will use the Holophoton Countermeasures after the enemy unit has chosen it as a target,
but before any To Hit rolls are made.

The enemy unit can only make Snap Shots in that shooting phase.

So yeah.....one model uses the ability, and as a unit, they declare they are using the HC against the attacking enemy.

I think its pretty clear that each ghostkeel gets to use their HC separately.

ITC tournaments springing up all over the place, even other countries, bringing together a community that was fractured by the fast pace of releases and changes to the game...

The community at large votes on the rule changes...

284 people signed up for the 40k championship...

I don't think Frontlinegaming has a lot to apologize for here.

This is all fine and good, but I still have no respect for them, as they haven't sufficiently gutted the Eldar.

 Voidwraith wrote:
ITC tournaments springing up all over the place, even other countries, bringing together a community that was fractured by the fast pace of releases and changes to the game...

The community at large votes on the rule changes...

284 people signed up for the 40k championship...

I don't think Frontlinegaming has a lot to apologize for here.

Nobody voted on this change. They were pulled straight from Reece's ass.