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.

Naaris wrote:

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.

And what everyone is missing is that it doesn't AFFECT the unit. it AFFECTS the target!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 raverrn wrote:

 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.

sorry but he's right. he literally is authoring another game altogether.

It affects the shooting unit. Learn to read?

Unannounced change. The other 'votes' are poorly advertised, don't stay out long, and tend to be announced with a biased article. It's not a very transparent or clean process at all.

Jancoran, you can't read for gak. THE GC CREATURES RULE ARE MORE SPECIFIC!

So, again, the discussion of the Ghostkeel's rules is better taken elsewhere at this point.

Although it does quite nicely illustrate the point that there are multiple interpretations of the rule. The fact that the ITC went with an interpretation you disagree with doesn't automatically make it a rules change.

I have to give the ITC credit, they are trying to polish the turd of GW rules. The ITC are trying to make a non tournament game into a tournament game and I wish them luck. I'm sure it's a lot of work polishing that turd.

Your anger should be focused on GW for releasing such crap and unbalanced rules, not the guy trying to fix that mess.

 foto69man wrote:

My issue with ITC is that most places use it now, so unless you like it you are stuck with it regardless. Or don't play...fun.

Or start a discussion with your local TO to tailor it to suit local players...

 raverrn wrote:
It affects the shooting unit. Learn to read?

Yup.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chute82 wrote:
I have to give the ITC credit, they are trying to polish the turd of GW rules. The ITC are trying to make a non tournament game into a tournament game and I wish them luck. I'm sure it's a lot of work polishing that turd.

Your anger should be focused on GW for releasing such crap and unbalanced rules, not the guy trying to fix that mess.

Yeah except GW really isnt the issue. The goal posts are what they are. Just because you dont like a couple rules or they "could be tighter" doesnt justify...this...whatever this mess is called.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Quickjager wrote:
Jancoran, you can't read for gak. THE GC CREATURES RULE ARE MORE SPECIFIC!

I've read them. I know what you're TRYING to say. You're just wrong. Theres a difference between my reading comprehension which is stellar and your mutation of meaning to fit what you'd like to be true (see ITC for other examples).

I know what rules you're TRYING to be confused about. What i don't get is why you'd attempt to be.

 RiTides wrote:
I've edited the title slightly (honestly, might need a bit more of an edit...). The opinions are totally fine to express here, but please remember to do so politely.

Thanks all

A lot of the ITC folks do read Dakka and might see things posted here, but will only have an effect if they're reasonable and supported by solid arguments rather than name-calling. I think there's a strong case to be made that the process should be revised, and I'm surprised how close to the LVO these rules have come out (although they'll be incorporated into the next ITC vote, it seems). But again, folks will have a much stronger case for revising the process / decisions / etc by making a strong argument supported by facts, rather than name-calling.

Quoting over this mod note from earlier in the thread...

If you can't post politely here, you simply won't be able to post. That includes comments about pulling rules out of one's arse, people not being able to read, etc. Rule #1 on Dakka is Be Polite - either make your point politely, or it will have to be edited / deleted / etc.

So, back on topic politely, please! Thanks to blaktoof below for doing so already.

Other than the ghostkeel thing they all seem good.

The piranha re-arm thing puts it in line with how all of reserves works in 40k. i.e. you cannot enter and leave the table on the same turn. That it is not addressed in the rule for piranhas does not give permission to override the basic rule that you cannot leave and re-enter reserves on the same turn.

The clarification about getting more piranhas back is not a nerf, this was a contentious point and rules in favor of tau power. The issue about immobilized piranhas is also a good ruling, that prevents allowing tau players to make more piranhas than were in the starting unit.

The stormsurge not being removed on tank shock is definately not a nerf.

Overall I find nothing about these unreasonable, and in fact many of them are good clarifications that could reduce arguments at tables. FWIW I also like the clarification about the librarian conclave for SMs.

I am not sure what bias people are complaining about.

And honestly if you do not like it you can always get together with people and start your OWN rules faqs/erratas and support it, then run a tournament system to help back it. I am pretty sure thats how ETC / Adepticon /LVO / ITC etc all worked out, they are not sanctioned by the games they run.

Janc you're talking about how when a locked down Stormsurge is tank shocked *and cannot move because of said lock* it is removed following the rules of tank shock.

However I find an exception to this rule under a more specific section stating that when a GC is affected by an ability that would normally remove a model from play it instead takes D3 wounds.

How is this incorrect. You state Codex triumphs BRB, but the codex doesn't state it is removed from play; just that the Stormsurge can't move.

EDIT: Also I apologize Janc.

blaktoof wrote:


And honestly if you do not like it you can always get together with people and start your OWN rules faqs/erratas and support it, then run a tournament system to help back it. I am pretty sure thats how ETC / Adepticon /LVO / ITC etc all worked out, they are not sanctioned by the games they run.

And if you do then you also get the added joy of having strangers on the internet question your honesty, fairness, intelligence, and sanity.

blaktoof wrote:
The piranha re-arm thing puts it in line with how all of reserves works in 40k. i.e. you cannot enter and leave the table on the same turn. That it is not addressed in the rule for piranhas does not give permission to override the basic rule that you cannot leave and re-enter reserves on the same turn.

By basic rule, do you mean an explicit rule in the rulebook, or simply a longstanding practice (what we in the legal industry call precedent)? I honestly don't know, but I think when you have a rule that acts counter to multiple similar rules, there's enough wiggle room to call a change an "FAQ" instead of a conscious nerf.

OP, I have zero sympathy.

Tau are already horrifically powerful and these nerfs should have been a lot more heavy handed IMO. But thats just me, a salty IG player whom is fed up with being lambasted by every tau army he comes across.

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be perfectly honest, I wish they'd have done more of this sort of thing in general. One can say many things about Reece (or anyone for that matter), but from my experience with him in person at a couple of events (though never as an opponent admittedly) and on tabletop gaming forums like this, it's hard to see him on some sort of power-tripping personal vengeance quest against Tau.

You mean the same guy who in just watching one of his battle-reports in the last week thought he was hilarious for spouting disability-shaming "comedy" that would've gotten him banned in a second here on DakkaDakka? Clearly he's a bastion of good taste, and definitely the good guy the ITC rules committee deserves.

Or maybe I am just salty because he is so consistently intolerant or rude during the content he records that it is genuinely hard to root for the guy.

I'm utterly bewildered at this kind of a post. The ITC has regularly modified rules seemingly in favor of the desires of the masses. I for one am thrilled Invisibility is scaled down or that 2+ rerollable saves are penalized. Nothing truly unique has been done here.

One could argue this outrage is perhaps outstanding as the nerfs were made a bit proactively, prior to real data being accumulated. Curious, I wonder if those whom posted that feeling made similar remarks during the discussions to reduce ranged D or limit ScatBikes 1-to-3 prior to the Craftworld Codex being launched.

It's hard to take these criticisms seriously given what I've just proposed above. If you aren't consistent then your outrage is so utterly biased that your opinion is hardly useful.

Moving past that a moment, it wouldn't personally occur to me to even make a post like this. If I felt extraordinarily wronged by a rules call, I would make a post to honestly and rationally discuss what has occurred. If I still felt justified, I'd send a well constructive non-offensive email to the FLG group to demonstrate my point. If that was ignored, the ITC rules are guidelines and I would work my best to convince my local group to support me and not utilize those rulings.

This is not binary decision making. There are reasonable choices to be made that can resolve your concerns. You should be using this anger to instead be productive, you'll get more done and be happier about the results.

Oh look, my silly little irrelevant blog has been plugged!

While my posts on my own personal blog may be a little charged sometimes, they were replied to with some pretty fantastic examples of why people are leaving this hobby left and right. My blog isn't moderated by Dakka Dakka mods so people are choosing to be childish and disrespectful (with the exception of one person) and avoiding the issue altogether with blanket statements, insults, and not actually trying to have a discussion. I mean, to each their own, but I'd rather talk it out than go on someone's blog and tell them to "man up".

Wasnt aware that the ITC was the official GW gospel that the game has to be played as now.

This isnt your first post ranting about the ITC OP, with the apparent 'forced' rules that you have to play, but you really dont.

How about you make up your own rulings if you dont like theirs?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Wasnt aware that the ITC was the official GW gospel that the game has to be played as now.
...How about you make up your own rulings if you dont like theirs?

This process is actually pretty fun too! If you find yourself among a group of like-minded individuals that are open to playing in an event with your own version of an ITC rules set/misison pack/etc, then why not give it a shot? If it's good, it'll catch on, and you'll possibly even develop your own Independent Tournament Circuit!

 insaniak wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
If the ITC can no longer provide unbiased rules where will we get suggested rulings from?

Wherever you want?

3rd party FAQs are only ever providing house rules for those who choose to use them. There is nothing forcing you to adopt it for your own games, and if you do choose to use it, nothing forcing you to adopt it wholesale - If there are specific rulings you disagree with, just ignore them.

It always genuinely amazes me that some folks forget you can literally make up any rules you want for it. Want your Tac Marine to have 20 wounds? As long as your opponent is okay with it? Sure! Don't like the idea of mere bullets doing anything but plinking harmlessly off a tank's hull? Make up a rule for it (or ignore rules addressing it). I could give countless examples, but the point of all of this - the models, the rules, the game - is to have fun. Being as "fun" is such a subjective term, it's really up to each of us to decide what we want to do with our toys and time.

The changes made to Tau are mostly consistent with a conservative approach to rule ambiguities and multiple interpretations.

The Stormsurge rule is a middle ground between two rules that have no means of reconciliation without an outside FAQ. The anchor rule clearly states that the model cannot move under any circumstances; the Tank Shock rules are clear that models that fail certain requirements like moving, failing death or glory, or not maintaining coherence are removed from play; the gargantuan creature rule states that they cannot be removed from play but instead suffer D3 wounds. This is the best way to reconcile the rules as making a 400 point stormsurge die to a free rhino is a bit much as is a stormsurge essentially being immune to tank shock if it plants its feet.

The Piranha ruling is smart as the ability to create up to 30ish drones per turn, for free, without any possible interaction by the opponent is just game breaking. Daemon-farm still requires dice rolls, and the summoner models can still be killed, but if Piranhas are allowed to leave play the turn they arrive, then there is really no way to stop them, and at least against Daemon-farm, you have a few turns before the heaviest stuff comes out most times while Tau can theoritically put out 60 BS3, twin-linked str5 shots for free, and of course, by turn 2, this is 120 BS3 -twin-linked shots that can still benefit from marker lights, and this is not including whatever else the Tau army shoehorns in. I in fact just built a Tau army designed to use this, and I admit that if I went harder into the drone-factory, it would be markedly unfair.

I do disagree with the Ghostkeel decision. To me, the ruling is clear that it is activated on a model by model basis as the cost of a Ghostkeel essentially includes this one-time ability, and if it is limited to once per unit, then any additional Ghostkeels are paying points for an ability that cannot be used. I am hopeful that ITC will open this up to a vote after LVO. Frontline has communicated via podcast that a new FAQ update is in the works, but I do agree that in the future, FAQ updates receive a wider announcement such as here, Warseer, and the frontpage of their website.

For those that feel Tau are being nerfed, I still hold that they are a top-tier army. From what I've seen, they can produce more firepower than anyone outside of scatbike spam but with more durability and a surprising amount of agility (although not scatbike levels). We will see how LVO pans out for Tau, and if the numbers show that Tau get bushwhacked, then there is some solid ground to talk about their "nerfs".

 Cieged wrote:
I'm utterly bewildered at this kind of a post. The ITC has regularly modified rules seemingly in favor of the desires of the masses. I for one am thrilled Invisibility is scaled down or that 2+ rerollable saves are penalized. Nothing truly unique has been done here.

There is a huge difference in general rulings (making Invisibility less potent, or adjusting 2+ rerollable saves for Any army) than taking a new unit and immediately nerfing it. The former is great for the game (in my opinion) and the latter is not, because there are so many more units that need nerfing! Why should a new unit be so susceptible to it?

The process for which units get nerfed just seems to not be working in a fair manner. I think the rules you highlight are great examples of this - those rules were fair because they could be applied to a number of armies across the board. I also recognize that sometimes it would be good to nerf a new, crazy formation... but the Ghostkeel ruling really bothers me, even though I'm not a Tau player, as it seems to be unfairly targeted as a new unit. My guess is that when put to a vote, if the question is worded fairly, that ruling will be overturned... but it will still be in effect for the LVO.

They do a great job overall with their FAQ, but a clearer process for "nerfs" of new units would address almost all complaints that have been raised, and is well worth considering! That, or just put them in a separate section of the ITC packet so that TOs can more easily choose whether or not to use the "power level adjustment" rulings, as opposed to the normal FAQ.

Based on the general demeanor in this thread, I realize that my comments as a Tau player will most likely be ignored, but here goes anyways.

I don't tend to have a problem with tournament organizers clarifying rules that are ambiguous or non-functional. This is what an FAQ should be. People say "how does this work" and the organizers answer.

This is not what the ITC is doing. They are taking rules that are generally unambiguous and changing them to make them arbitrarily less competitive. They are simply rewriting the rules... not clarifying them.

From a player's perspective, this can be extremely frustrating. Ghostkeels are 75 USD each. I read the unambiguous rules and decided that I wanted to run a unit of 3. After all, assuming the models survive from turn to turn, they can activate their countermeasures three times... once for each model. Seemed cool. So, I went out, spent 225 USD, assembled and painted my unit in preparation for a local tournament. I'm now being told that the rules are arbitrarily being changed for my unit and that my models are significantly less durable than I was expecting based on the rules. I'm left feeling like I've wasted time and money on a unit that won't perform as promised.

I know it's very popular to hate all things Tau right now. I just hope everyone remembers the Tau players' comments on this sort of arbitrary rules changing when the Nerf Bat starts hitting your armies. When that happens, I'll be there to support you.

 RiTides wrote:
I also recognize that sometimes it would be good to nerf a new, crazy formation... but the Ghostkeel ruling really bothers me, even though I'm not a Tau player, as it seems to be unfairly targeted as a new unit.

The thing is, I don't think it's 'unfairly targeted' at all, because the rule as written is ambiguous (one reference to the model using the ability, one to the unit triggering it), and if you go with them being used on a model by model basis, the ability becomes exponentially more powerful when you have them in a unit, due to the rule benefiting the unit as a whole...

Basically, you have an ability that is supposed to provide a benefit to a model once per game. Put two of those models in a unit, and allow them to trigger that ability separately, and suddenly the model gets double the benefit of that ability, for no extra individual cost. Three in a unit means three times the power for no extra individual cost. That's three turns of coverage for an ability that is only supposed to provide the model a benefit for a single turn.

Frankly, I think they made the right call on this one.



On the Piranha thing, it strikes me that when a similar 'nerf' was made to Eldar Swooping Hawks back in 4th edition, even Eldar players largely agreed it was for the best. Having units that can affect the game without ever actually standing on the board is not good for the game.

 Kriswall wrote:
Based on the general demeanor in this thread, I realize that my comments as a Tau player will most likely be ignored, but here goes anyways.

I don't tend to have a problem with tournament organizers clarifying rules that are ambiguous or non-functional. This is what an FAQ should be. People say "how does this work" and the organizers answer.

This is not what the ITC is doing. They are taking rules that are generally unambiguous and changing them to make them arbitrarily less competitive. They are simply rewriting the rules... not clarifying them.

From a player's perspective, this can be extremely frustrating. Ghostkeels are 75 USD each. I read the unambiguous rules and decided that I wanted to run a unit of 3. After all, assuming the models survive from turn to turn, they can activate their countermeasures three times... once for each model. Seemed cool. So, I went out, spent 225 USD, assembled and painted my unit in preparation for a local tournament. I'm now being told that the rules are arbitrarily being changed for my unit and that my models are significantly less durable than I was expecting based on the rules. I'm left feeling like I've wasted time and money on a unit that won't perform as promised.

This is exactly the problem (and for what it's worth, a lot of people in the thread have been posting "I have no problem with what the ITC did here except the Ghostkeel ruling"). I am really hopeful, Kriswall, that when the ITC actually puts this up for vote this won't pass. At least, I really hope this item is one of the voting questions, as otherwise it just seems like a completely unnecessary nerf to a cool new unit...

As a Tyranid player, I really don't want that to happen to us when we finally get something new and cool (hey, a guy can dream right ). How does it make sense to limit this model when so many others are just rampantly better. It seems to me that it's just because it's new, that it's on the chopping block of a "preemptive" nerf... and I really think the ITC should avoid that and stick to FAQs, and general rulings... and only nerf something that is really game-breaking or breaks the flow of the game terribly (the pirahna formation might qualify as this, and I'm OK with that change... but the Ghostkeel is just totally unecessary!).

It's possible that something that was unambiguous to you was in fact, either ambiguous, or unambiguous yet meaning the opposite to somebody else?

Rules, particularly sloppily written ones, can often be read in different ways. True, some of that can be based on the biases or goals of the reader, but anybody that's spent any time with contract language knows that seemingly clear language can still have different meanings.

There's a lot of confidence in how clearly rules can be read, and as a legal professional, I cringe.

I don't think many GW rules are truly "unambiguous" but this one was fairly clear, as thoroughly discussed in the YMDC thread I linked to. I think being a new unit it was open to being adjusted, and they did it... and I think they should make it clearer when they're adjusting for power level, versus truly clarifying the rules. Right now, it's one big mix of everything, and really hard to sort out these "power level adjustment" rulings from the true FAQ, if any TO had the energy to try to do so.

 RiTides wrote:

This is exactly the problem (and for what it's worth, a lot of people in the thread have been posting "I have no problem with what the ITC did here except the Ghostkeel ruling"). I am really hopeful, Kriswall, that when the ITC actually puts this up for vote this won't pass. At least, I really hope this item is one of the voting questions, as otherwise it just seems like a completely unnecessary nerf to a cool new unit...

I couldn't agree more.

There shouldn't be arbitrary, outright nerfs, unless the participating community decides that that's what it wants.

RiTides wrote:How does it make sense to limit this model when so many others are just rampantly better. It seems to me that it's just because it's new, that it's on the chopping block of a "preemptive" nerf... and I really think the ITC should avoid that and stick to FAQs, and general rulings... and only nerf something that is really game-breaking or breaks the flow of the game terribly (the pirahna formation might qualify as this, and I'm OK with that change... but the Ghostkeel is just totally unecessary!).

RiTides wrote:There is a huge difference in general rulings (making Invisibility less potent, or adjusting 2+ rerollable saves for Any army) than taking a new unit and immediately nerfing it. The former is great for the game (in my opinion) and the latter is not, because there are so many more units that need nerfing! Why should a new unit be so susceptible to it?

The process for which units get nerfed just seems to not be working in a fair manner. I think the rules you highlight are great examples of this - those rules were fair because they could be applied to a number of armies across the board. I also recognize that sometimes it would be good to nerf a new, crazy formation... but the Ghostkeel ruling really bothers me, even though I'm not a Tau player, as it seems to be unfairly targeted as a new unit. My guess is that when put to a vote, if the question is worded fairly, that ruling will be overturned... but it will still be in effect for the LVO.

They do a great job overall with their FAQ, but a clearer process for "nerfs" of new units would address almost all complaints that have been raised, and is well worth considering! That, or just put them in a separate section of the ITC packet so that TOs can more easily choose whether or not to use the "power level adjustment" rulings, as opposed to the normal FAQ.

RiTides wrote:This is exactly the problem (and for what it's worth, a lot of people in the thread have been posting "I have no problem with what the ITC did here except the Ghostkeel ruling"). I am really hopeful, Kriswall, that when the ITC actually puts this up for vote this won't pass. At least, I really hope this item is one of the voting questions, as otherwise it just seems like a completely unnecessary nerf to a cool new unit...

As a Tyranid player, I really don't want that to happen to us when we finally get something new and cool (hey, a guy can dream right ). How does it make sense to limit this model when so many others are just rampantly better. It seems to me that it's just because it's new, that it's on the chopping block of a "preemptive" nerf... and I really think the ITC should avoid that and stick to FAQs, and general rulings... and only nerf something that is really game-breaking or breaks the flow of the game terribly (the pirahna formation might qualify as this, and I'm OK with that change... but the Ghostkeel is just totally unecessary!).

RiTides wrote:I don't think many GW rules are truly "unambiguous" but this one was fairly clear, as thoroughly discussed in the YMDC thread I linked to. I think being a new unit it was open to being adjusted, and they did it... and I think they should make it clearer when they're adjusting for power level, versus truly clarifying the rules. Right now, it's one big mix of everything, and really hard to sort out these "power level adjustment" rulings from the true FAQ, if any TO had the energy to try to do so.

Thank you, this is what people need to understand. There's a difference between FAQ-ing a set of rules that are ambiguous or altering an ability that has been proven over time to be outrageously OP, and preemptively nerfing something into the ground before it's even had the ability to go through a few tournaments, statistical analysis, or extensive playtesting.

 Polonius wrote:
It's possible that something that was unambiguous to you was in fact, either ambiguous, or unambiguous yet meaning the opposite to somebody else?

Rules, particularly sloppily written ones, can often be read in different ways. True, some of that can be based on the biases or goals of the reader, but anybody that's spent any time with contract language knows that seemingly clear language can still have different meanings.

There's a lot of confidence in how clearly rules can be read, and as a legal professional, I cringe.

Interpretations can obviously vary from person to person, but when you read words saying that a MODEL can do X and interpret is as ambiguous and possibly meaning that a UNIT can do X... your interpretation probably isn't valid.

The Ghostkeel rules text isn't particularly ambiguous. There haven't been any major rules forum debates on how the rules work. Honestly, the fact that three units have more than 3x the utility as one unit makes total sense. The background is full of examples of Tau tech creating a "force multiplier" effect. Heck, the majority of their Signature Systems are force multipliers. Drone Controllers are force multipliers. Why can't countermeasures be force multipliers? The answer we get, unfortunately, is that the ITC said so and a relatively small cross section of the gaming community that isn't necessarily representative of the whole agreed.