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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

...because the army was designed to function by outgunning its opponents, and thats how most people who get into IG want to play them,

and being inflexible in how you play them is probably why you're struggling. I don't know that as fact. its not relevant here. So lets keep it on the FAQ i guess and you can PM me about IG tactica.

ok, we'll leave the rather unsubtle L2P insinuation as a substitute for being unable to actually muster a coherent response, but my main point was that many of these armies aren't on anything near equal footings, with massive capability gaps, and that these apply to the game as a whole and feed into the divisiveness that you were bemoaning the ITC causing. There is no format that isnt going to generate drama and divisiveness, the game is simply so messy with so many balance issues and so little focus that expectations simply are not controllable the way they were in previous editions.

The game as it stands in 7th edition doesnt know what it wants to be, and quite frankly makes for an awful organized play ruleset. There isnt a way to structure an event thats not going to make *somebody* butthurt, and the ITC isnt doing any worse job than anyone else. Would i feel undergunned with my Tau in an ITC event? Probably not, or if so, not because of the event rules.


The big problem i have with things like the ITC or old INAT is when they impress themselves on more casual play, though sadly, at least in my area, casual play appears to be increasingly rare, making the issue moot.

How are they "impressing" themselves on casual play?

 Orock wrote:
Are tau players that signed up for itc events prior to this eligible for a refund. Because changing the rules this close feels like bait and switch.

Nothing got banned. Its not like tau playes that had a preplanned list are now sitting with an illegal army

I think there's still an elephant in the room, and maybe the answers to this question should come in PM format if necessary, but again where's all the evidence, bat-reps, and tournament reports showing that the use of these abilities as written (Coordinated Firepower, Re-arm & Re-fuel, Holophoton Countermeasures, etc, etc) is legitimately overpowered and dominating the game or is dangerous to the game?

Where is it?

I'm still just baffled by the presumptions and fear-mongering. Have any of YOU guys had any battles with or against these units, formations, etc, and if so how did they go? Has every game been overwhelming in Tau's favor, every time or a majority of the time? What tournaments have you been to where these abilities were allowed to be used to their full potential and Tau mopped up specifically because of it? Have you tried building lists to counter it? How did that go? Have you tried approaching those games in different ways?

I'm not being snarky, I actually want to know. Reply to this, PM me, or start a new thread and direct me to it (or hell, I will). I just don't think it does anyone any good to rush to these boards and scream "BROKEN!" when we really don't know if it is because the nerfs went into place before we could even find out.

Tau don't get Psykers or Assault units. We skip those phases so of course the army has to focus on shooting and movement. Why are people still surprised 15 years later that Tau get to do those things well? Get a squad of Guardsmen in combat with Tau and you've got an even fight . Get a squad of anything that even remotely leans towards CC and you'll annihilate Tau units left and right. Multi-assault them. Tie them up. Deny them LoS with Drop Pods or again LoS-blocking terrain. Focus-fire the crucial units down. Take objectives. Focus on the mission. Where are Tau regularly making Top 8 (let alone 1st place which has yet to happen at a GT-level event to my knowledge)?

There are just way too many assumptions being made on how effective something is or isn't for Tau by Reecius, Frankie, and whoever else associated with Frontline/ITC based on nothing more than conjecture and kneejerk reactions. I have yet to see the mountains of evidence showing how Tau and all its 7th ed shenanigans used as printed are the end-all be-all of 40k in some of the highest levels of competitive gaming. There's just a bunch of people chuckling to themselves because "Tau got what was coming to them." When they come for your armies (if they haven't already) we will be having the same discussions but as someone else already said, we'll be a LOT more supportive and open to discussion on the merits of those nerfs than others are being right now.

 Mojo1jojo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

...because the army was designed to function by outgunning its opponents, and thats how most people who get into IG want to play them,

and being inflexible in how you play them is probably why you're struggling. I don't know that as fact. its not relevant here. So lets keep it on the FAQ i guess and you can PM me about IG tactica.

ok, we'll leave the rather unsubtle L2P insinuation as a substitute for being unable to actually muster a coherent response, but my main point was that many of these armies aren't on anything near equal footings, with massive capability gaps, and that these apply to the game as a whole and feed into the divisiveness that you were bemoaning the ITC causing. There is no format that isnt going to generate drama and divisiveness, the game is simply so messy with so many balance issues and so little focus that expectations simply are not controllable the way they were in previous editions.

The game as it stands in 7th edition doesnt know what it wants to be, and quite frankly makes for an awful organized play ruleset. There isnt a way to structure an event thats not going to make *somebody* butthurt, and the ITC isnt doing any worse job than anyone else. Would i feel undergunned with my Tau in an ITC event? Probably not, or if so, not because of the event rules.


The big problem i have with things like the ITC or old INAT is when they impress themselves on more casual play, though sadly, at least in my area, casual play appears to be increasingly rare, making the issue moot.

How are they "impressing" themselves on casual play?

It's not these doing it themselves, but rather when you get stores or clubs where, since their events run these rules, people often just play their pickup games with them or expect to, as pickup games often (in my experience) tend to default to whatevrr tournament rules the house uses.

Jeez, even with this so-called 'nerf' to Holophoton Countermeasures, they're still an amazing bit of wargear.... If only Smoke Launchers were half as good... :(

It's a bit to tough to swallow having to face an Optimised Stealth Cadre with a unit of 3 Ghostkeels - that can have a 2+ cover save mind you, due to Shrouded/Stealth being doubled - and the unit that you found an Ignores Cover option for then is forced to Snap Shoot for 3 turns... Talk about unkillable. Especially if you wanted to use Vehicles against them, because now they're hitting the rear armour and ignoring the only real defense of a Vehicle with its front AV value. I guess you could not shoot and pop smoke for a 5+ cover instead? But oh wait that formation gets Ignore Cover anyway just because.

 RiTides wrote:

I also agree that this ruling might flip, but that's partly my issue - a lot hangs on these rulings, and the way the questions for the polls are come up with, the phrasing, and in this case a number of quite significant rulings the same week as the event... I think they need to work a bit on transparency or just the process in general.

Transparency is a key to trust as a decision maker, but it is a lot of hard work. I'm a front line supervisor in the federal government. I manager 13 (soon to be 15) attorneys, mostly only a few years out of law school, but all smart, drive people that can understand complicated rules and standards. I spend hours a week breaking down the opaque, confusing, or outright incorrect messaging from senior management so that my staff understand our goals, my expectations, and how they will be evaluated. It's a huge part of my workload, but I need to do it gain credibility and trust.

The thought of trying to convince thousands of gamers, who are already prone to a schismatic paranoia, that a process if fair sounds exhausting. So, I understand the lack of transparency, while fully agreeing that it would help.

I think part of the problem is that 40k rules inquiries are essentially unknowable. there is no "correct" answer. Odds are, the person that wrote the holo rules didn't interact with the person that made the unit size 1-3, and so the interaction never occurred to anybody. Even if an official answer were delivered, odds are it would be the result of a metaphorical coin flip.

And that's what drives debate: the unknowable and the impossible to disprove. At the root of nearly any chronic debate, public or private, is a question with no correct answer. Sometimes you need to dig deeper than others, but pick any vicious political debate, and you'll find an existential or metaphysical question that cannot be answered. Abortion boils down to the nature of the human soul between birth and conception. Gun control boils down to liberty versus security.

GW rules debates are nastier and hotter because they become binary quite quickly, and frankly anybody with a high school education and the ability read can weigh in without making a fool of himself.

I'll never understand how Tau players ever feel justified in complaining about their codex (really codex with 2 campaign books) that have maybe one or two bad units, lots of awesome formations, and great looking models.

I just simply don't get it. That's all. I doubt that a Tau player could really make me understand because I won't see it from their perspective, I don't have a Tau army, but I feel like I were a Tau player I probably wouldn't care because I would still want to collect most of the faction and run my list whatever way I wanted that day anyway.

I don't have any problem with ITC rulings "nerfing" the Pirahna formation or the Ghostkeel ability, like literally, it's not that gakky of a thing to do. Tau players will still be just fine with those rulings, that's why IMO it's not a gakky thing to do.

 dbgoldberg323 wrote:
I think there's still an elephant in the room, and maybe the answers to this question should come in PM format if necessary, but again where's all the evidence, bat-reps, and tournament reports showing that the use of these abilities as written (Coordinated Firepower, Re-arm & Re-fuel, Holophoton Countermeasures, etc, etc) is legitimately overpowered and dominating the game or is dangerous to the game?

Where is it?

Jy2 (a notable tournament player) has already posted his experience against Piranha Factory http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/678686.page#8424917 And also made an excellent post about the issue Piranha Factory is in a tournament http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/675443.page#8424974

Regarding the Holophoton and Tank Shocking Stormsurges, its is a rules clarification (despite how clear some people feel the rules are written, they aren't) not a targeted nerf (heck the Stormsurge one is a buff because the alternative is that the Stormsurge just auto dies)

As with Coordinated Firepower the rules are a little murky but my understanding is that Frankie and Reece had play tested it and they found it too strong. Also that is has dominated a Euorpean tournament. Plus that one was polled so majority agreed that is too much.

Okay, consider this for a moment...

I read that this decision was pushed out to make it in time for the LVO and was kind of a last minute thing. That would make sense because they are potentially game breaking in their own rights, like the infinite drone spawning. That is an issue that I think most people don't have a problem with because it is so powerful/game breaking. The Stormsurge ruling is yet again a straight forward FAQ that no one seems to be upset about.

The thing that everyone is upset about is the Ghostkeel ruling which if I remember right the formation allows you to take up to three? So that would be three turns of basically invisibility for this unit of MCs, correct? Okay, the ITC has already nerfed invisibility so this new ability which is just another form of it should come as no surprise, was nerfed. No, they likely haven't had time to test it but as was stated they needed to get these issues out of the way before LVO and due to that they had to make a decision on how to handle this new invisibility and I can totally understand why they just limited it to once a game use rather than change it another way. It is a simple fix to test the waters, see how this pseudo-invisibility works unchanged while disallowing a unit to have 3 turns of near immunity. Makes sense, right?

Plus, they can always go back and change it if it proves not to be an issue. But what would you, as an TO, have happen? Upset people by changing a potentially broken mechanic? Or let the broken mechanic reign supreme and sweep the tournament?

I hate to say "back in my day" BUT

Whatever happened to, if there are two possible interpretations of the rule, good sportsmanship insists on the less beneficial interpretation?

More broadly: For those arguing that a unit of Ghostkeels gets multiple uses from multiple Ghostkeels, are you capable of understanding the argument, even if you disagree with it, that the phrase "the unit uses the holophoton" means the entire unit uses its one-use item at one time implies that it is single-use? If you understand it, even if you disagree, right there is where it is ambiguous. If you say "But . . ." you are still implying yes, which means you in fact recognize it's ambiguous.

If it's ambiguous, it's fair for a FAQ, which means this isn't a nerf or arbitrary, but is in fact a FAQ.

A number of people on this thread are also making the emotional mistake of assuming intent. ie, "They only did this because Tau are seen as overpowered, therefore they are anti-Tau, therefore they did this because Tau are seen as overpowered, therefore this is personal to Tau players." That's circular argument, and a logical fallacy. It's ambiguous, they made the conservative (ie, less powerful) interpretation, and those who are pointing out Tau are still strong are generally- with a few exceptions- not saying that "Tau had it coming!" but are instead arguing- in most cases, by my read of tone- "It's not like this is crippling to Tau, so why the fuss?"

EDIT: For the counter-argument that "Ghostkeels come in units, that use of unit doesn't mean anything"; that's assuming intent on behalf of the designers. I can assume the designers want us all to morph into unicorns too- in pure logic space, that's not an argument. As a discussion of how the use of unit could be an error, it's a valid interpretation, but is fundamentally speculative.

 Vaktathi wrote:


substitute for being unable to actually muster a coherent response, .

sure. You can say that's what it was. You could also say it was me trying desperately not to spin off into a tactics discussion. whatevs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

My main point was that many of these armies aren't on anything near equal footings, with massive capability gaps, and that these apply to the game as a whole and feed into the divisiveness that you were bemoaning the ITC causing. There is no format that isnt going to generate drama and divisiveness, the game is simply so messy with so many balance issues and so little focus that expectations simply are not controllable the way they were in previous editions.

The game as it stands in 7th edition doesnt know what it wants to be, and quite frankly makes for an awful organized play ruleset. There isnt a way to structure an event thats not going to make *somebody* butthurt, and the ITC isnt doing any worse job than anyone else. Would i feel undergunned with my Tau in an ITC event? Probably not, or if so, not because of the event rules.


The big problem i have with things like the ITC or old INAT is when they impress themselves on more casual play, though sadly, at least in my area, casual play appears to be increasingly rare, making the issue moot.

I unfortunately dont agree withthe DEGREE you characteriz here of the gap between armies. but lets assume i did: that isnt actually a reason to go changing the rules you dont like and pretending like the rationale makes "perfect sense".

But i dont share the feeling of inequity as keenly as you. That's just a degree thing. There are inequities. Just not these vast expanses you describe that would therefore justify this irrational ruling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ultimentra wrote:


I'll never understand how Tau players ever feel justified in complaining about their codex.

They're largely not. That wasn't what was happening here. This had zero to do with codex. Its about he FAQ.

BrainFireBob wrote:
I hate to say "back in my day" BUT

Whatever happened to, if there are two possible interpretations of the rule, good sportsmanship insists on the less beneficial interpretation?.

I just want to point out that this stance doesn't really work because the opposing player benefits from the less beneficial interpretation so neither side of a rule dispute is inherently fair because one player is always going get a benefit.

(I agree with everything else you said though)

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
Okay, consider this for a moment...

I read that this decision was pushed out to make it in time for the LVO and was kind of a last minute thing. That would make sense because they are potentially game breaking in their own rights, like the infinite drone spawning. That is an issue that I think most people don't have a problem with because it is so powerful/game breaking. The Stormsurge ruling is yet again a straight forward FAQ that no one seems to be upset about.

The thing that everyone is upset about is the Ghostkeel ruling which if I remember right the formation allows you to take up to three? So that would be three turns of basically invisibility for this unit of MCs, correct? Okay, the ITC has already nerfed invisibility so this new ability which is just another form of it should come as no surprise, was nerfed. No, they likely haven't had time to test it but as was stated they needed to get these issues out of the way before LVO and due to that they had to make a decision on how to handle this new invisibility and I can totally understand why they just limited it to once a game use rather than change it another way. It is a simple fix to test the waters, see how this pseudo-invisibility works unchanged while disallowing a unit to have 3 turns of near immunity. Makes sense, right?

Plus, they can always go back and change it if it proves not to be an issue. But what would you, as an TO, have happen? Upset people by changing a potentially broken mechanic? Or let the broken mechanic reign supreme and sweep the tournament?

No. its not. You have got to read it. Its application is way more narrow than invisibility. Its used on a SINGLE unit at a time! NOT the enemy army! At best if you are willing to kick out the points for it...IF... you can try and protect yourself from threee units total... total... in one game. This does not compare to invisibility in any way. Its like a very limited Blind effect. That's what it actually is. People are likening it to something its not like. This makes my point that people have not even read this thing! Its like listening to the media react to the media instead of the actual source of the news.

It was a common sportsmanship attitude when I started- because it was obviously to your advantage to have the "better" interpretation, you assumed you wouldn't unless your opponent acceded- it meant you weren't trying to browbeat them. Basic courtesy, man.

BrainFireBob wrote:
It was a common sportsmanship attitude when I started- because it was obviously to your advantage to have the "better" interpretation, you assumed you wouldn't unless your opponent acceded- it meant you weren't trying to browbeat them. Basic courtesy, man.

The same could be said for the opponent challenging you on a rules interpretation. It would be more sporting for them to let you have the advantage because then they don't look like they're nitpicking for an advantage.

That's true- and don't get me wrong, I understand you- but I control what I do, not what they do. If I go in and ask- but assume I can only have the better interpretation if they agree- then there's no rage, because they're not necessarily being an ass.

Besides, there's always the head game that if they beat you with the weak interpretation, you both know, and if you win with the weak interpretation, you both know. That's what they used to call "gamesmanship".

 CrownAxe wrote:

BrainFireBob wrote:
It was a common sportsmanship attitude when I started- because it was obviously to your advantage to have the "better" interpretation, you assumed you wouldn't unless your opponent acceded- it meant you weren't trying to browbeat them. Basic courtesy, man.

The same could be said for the opponent challenging you on a rules interpretation. It would be more sporting for them to let you have the advantage because then they don't look like they're nitpicking for an advantage.

that's true, but this custom arises from an unlikely place: the old rules of hospitality and decorum. When a person is in their home, or their own land, they know the rules and etiquette and have the advantage. therefore, it is polite to adjust your custom for your guest, as he is unfamiliar with your home, and is no doubt making his own changes.

When you are playing with relatively new rules, or any rules that your opponent is unfamiliar with, the idea that they can prepare a reasonable argument for or against an interpretation is silly. It is sporting, rather than pushing them into debate on a subject, to not only yield, but offer to yield. It is perfectly fine for the opponent to graciously decline, with the idea that an honorable opponent would never bend the rules.

So, the difference is that one person is familiar with the rules, and one is not. In that instance, I think it appropriate that the advantaged party yield.

Nice post on transparency (further up the page), Polonius! I agree with almost everything you said there . It is tough to get a process like this right, but that's also why it's worth discussing, imo.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
No, they likely haven't had time to test it but as was stated they needed to get these issues out of the way before LVO and due to that they had to make a decision on how to handle this new invisibility and I can totally understand why they just limited it to once a game use rather than change it another way. It is a simple fix to test the waters, see how this pseudo-invisibility works unchanged while disallowing a unit to have 3 turns of near immunity. Makes sense, right?

Plus, they can always go back and change it if it proves not to be an issue. But what would you, as an TO, have happen? Upset people by changing a potentially broken mechanic? Or let the broken mechanic reign supreme and sweep the tournament?

The Ghostkeel ability only gives them the benefit against a single enemy unit, and only once per battle. So, that's 3 enemy units on one turn, or one unit on 3 turns, if ruled permissively. Hardly game-breaking!

And that's the point - it is much better to let things play out, than to "preemptively" nerf an ability. I think a nerf should never be used as a "simple fix to test the waters"... it should be the other way around, let it be used without limitations first, and then nerf it only if absolutely necessary!

I'm hoping the ITC will move more in that direction, hence my posting about this issue which doesn't affect my army at all . But I'd much rather see folks get to try things out, and have the ITC err on the side of allowing more types of play in their rulings.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Are tau players that signed up for itc events prior to this eligible for a refund. Because changing the rules this close feels like bait and switch.

Nothing got banned. Its not like tau playes that had a preplanned list are now sitting with an illegal army

But they are now sitting with a potentially sub par army list due to the short notice switches. Nobody brings a sub par army to a tournament they have to pay for.

 Polonius wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

BrainFireBob wrote:
It was a common sportsmanship attitude when I started- because it was obviously to your advantage to have the "better" interpretation, you assumed you wouldn't unless your opponent acceded- it meant you weren't trying to browbeat them. Basic courtesy, man.

The same could be said for the opponent challenging you on a rules interpretation. It would be more sporting for them to let you have the advantage because then they don't look like they're nitpicking for an advantage.

that's true, but this custom arises from an unlikely place: the old rules of hospitality and decorum. When a person is in their home, or their own land, they know the rules and etiquette and have the advantage. therefore, it is polite to adjust your custom for your guest, as he is unfamiliar with your home, and is no doubt making his own changes.

When you are playing with relatively new rules, or any rules that your opponent is unfamiliar with, the idea that they can prepare a reasonable argument for or against an interpretation is silly. It is sporting, rather than pushing them into debate on a subject, to not only yield, but offer to yield. It is perfectly fine for the opponent to graciously decline, with the idea that an honorable opponent would never bend the rules.

So, the difference is that one person is familiar with the rules, and one is not. In that instance, I think it appropriate that the advantaged party yield.

I don't think i've ever seen a game of 40k go down like this, because if the case of a player not being familiar with a rule, you just show them the rule and that solves the problem. Ever time I see a rules dispute it is because the two players think the same rule is done in different ways and one of them has challenged the other on it both thinking they are correct. It's a standoff with no fair comprimises other then to both agree on what is correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xerics wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Are tau players that signed up for itc events prior to this eligible for a refund. Because changing the rules this close feels like bait and switch.

Nothing got banned. Its not like tau playes that had a preplanned list are now sitting with an illegal army

But they are now sitting with a potentially sub par army list due to the short notice switches. Nobody brings a sub par army to a tournament they have to pay for.

How do you know its sub par unless you've played it?

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

BrainFireBob wrote:
It was a common sportsmanship attitude when I started- because it was obviously to your advantage to have the "better" interpretation, you assumed you wouldn't unless your opponent acceded- it meant you weren't trying to browbeat them. Basic courtesy, man.

The same could be said for the opponent challenging you on a rules interpretation. It would be more sporting for them to let you have the advantage because then they don't look like they're nitpicking for an advantage.

that's true, but this custom arises from an unlikely place: the old rules of hospitality and decorum. When a person is in their home, or their own land, they know the rules and etiquette and have the advantage. therefore, it is polite to adjust your custom for your guest, as he is unfamiliar with your home, and is no doubt making his own changes.

When you are playing with relatively new rules, or any rules that your opponent is unfamiliar with, the idea that they can prepare a reasonable argument for or against an interpretation is silly. It is sporting, rather than pushing them into debate on a subject, to not only yield, but offer to yield. It is perfectly fine for the opponent to graciously decline, with the idea that an honorable opponent would never bend the rules.

So, the difference is that one person is familiar with the rules, and one is not. In that instance, I think it appropriate that the advantaged party yield.

I don't think i've ever seen a game of 40k go down like this, because if the case of a player not being familiar with a rule, you just show them the rule and that solves the problem. Ever time I see a rules dispute it is because the two players think the same rule is done in different ways and one of them has challenged the other on it both thinking they are correct. It's a standoff with no fair comprimises other then to both agree on what is correct.

That's certainly how it works in other games, like WMH for the most part, but I've seen it very differently in 40k. People here argue about their own interpretation of the rules vehemently. They think anyone who disagrees with them is trying to gain some kind of advantage, rather than just a simple disagreement due to poor writing. Not all players, obviously, but many.

Look at this thread, the GMC thread, the Tau formation thread for many many instances of the argument breaking down very quickly into camps that disagree with each other over how a word or two should be read.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

BrainFireBob wrote:
It was a common sportsmanship attitude when I started- because it was obviously to your advantage to have the "better" interpretation, you assumed you wouldn't unless your opponent acceded- it meant you weren't trying to browbeat them. Basic courtesy, man.

The same could be said for the opponent challenging you on a rules interpretation. It would be more sporting for them to let you have the advantage because then they don't look like they're nitpicking for an advantage.

that's true, but this custom arises from an unlikely place: the old rules of hospitality and decorum. When a person is in their home, or their own land, they know the rules and etiquette and have the advantage. therefore, it is polite to adjust your custom for your guest, as he is unfamiliar with your home, and is no doubt making his own changes.

When you are playing with relatively new rules, or any rules that your opponent is unfamiliar with, the idea that they can prepare a reasonable argument for or against an interpretation is silly. It is sporting, rather than pushing them into debate on a subject, to not only yield, but offer to yield. It is perfectly fine for the opponent to graciously decline, with the idea that an honorable opponent would never bend the rules.

So, the difference is that one person is familiar with the rules, and one is not. In that instance, I think it appropriate that the advantaged party yield.

I don't think i've ever seen a game of 40k go down like this, because if the case of a player not being familiar with a rule, you just show them the rule and that solves the problem. Ever time I see a rules dispute it is because the two players think the same rule is done in different ways and one of them has challenged the other on it both thinking they are correct. It's a standoff with no fair comprimises other then to both agree on what is correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xerics wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Are tau players that signed up for itc events prior to this eligible for a refund. Because changing the rules this close feels like bait and switch.

Nothing got banned. Its not like tau playes that had a preplanned list are now sitting with an illegal army

But they are now sitting with a potentially sub par army list due to the short notice switches. Nobody brings a sub par army to a tournament they have to pay for.

How do you know its sub par unless you've played it?

I said potentially sub par.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is that something you would be willing to pay for? Potentially sub par list due to last minute nerf to the unit you may have built your entire list around?

 insaniak wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
On the other hand, preemptive nerfs where there is no real evidence that a rule will create an unbalanced situation seems bad.

I think that would be somewhat situational, but I dont see a problem with a TO removing a potential issue before it actually arises if they think letting it happen might result in people having less fun at their event.

Take the endless drone farm, for example. That's exactly the sort of thing that I would much rather have removed from the game before I wind up facing it on the table, because unless I'm prepared specifically for it, it's just not going ot result in a fun game.


And players getting to triple the use of a single-use ability at no extra cost just by having a few models stand close to each other feels like just the same kind of rules exploit that will spoil peoples' day. Whether or not it's actually overpowered, it feels cheaty.


YMMV, obviously.

Letting it happen MIGHT result in people having less fun. Not letting in happen DOES result in people having less fun. As a former event organizer, I'd always err on the side of whichever choice has to potential to let everyone have fun.

Does it feel cheaty in the same way that letting Space Marines get tons of free Transports feels cheaty? Or is it more along the lines of letting an AdMech/Imperial Knights super Formation get free upgrades. I'm just curious as to which sort of cheaty it is. To me, allowing three models to activate three seperate single use piece of wargear designed to protect a unit over the course of three turns seems less cheaty than giving an army hundreds of points of free models or upgrades... yet those are totally cool.

There is a reason I don't play Tau, and am holding back on my interest in building them. I'ts not that I don't like the models and rules. It's the people who play Tau.

Granted, I've met plenty of decent Tau players in person and even on DakkaDakka (otherwise I wouldn't have played against Tau), but it's the kind of attitude from the OP that turns me off the army.

I remember when the ITC ruled to nerf D-weapons, Flickerjump, and restrict the ability to take multiple Wraithknights in one army. People were practically dancing in the streets that Eldar had been nerfed! I remember the giant storm of hate that occurred when the Eldar codex dropped nearly a year ago. The new Tau release didn't come anything close. And I remember a certain thread the OP of this very topic decided to start...Operation Pitchfork ring a bell?

You didn't see Eldar players complaining that their army had been nerfed. Nobody bothered to wait around for tournaments to see exactly how broken the new Eldar were. I for one was glad that Eldar was being restricted, as t made the competitive scene healthier. But nerf Tau? To the barricades! Boycott the LVO! It's this kind of attitude that really rubs me the wrong way, as though Tau deserve to be better than every other army.

I agree with the ITC's rulings. I don't care that they may contradict the RAW. According to strict RAW, Warp Spiders can Flickerjump an infinite number of times per Shooting Phase, I can take five Wraithknights at 1850 points, Invisibility is the most broken psychic power ever, and there is no limit to how much you can abuse the Allies system. The ITC has already established a precedent of limiting mechanics that force snapshots (Invisibililty), so I can see why they would tone down an ability that would let you force three different units to fire snapshots at what is most certainly a priority target. This on top of said target already having a 2+ cover save and hitting vehicles on their rear armour. It may not be RAW, but the ITC has made it clear that they value the health of the game rather than rules interpretations.

So to the OP (and those posters ITT with similar attitudes): I have zero sympathy. Go eat a giant slice of humble pie, and then I might take your arguments more seriously. Don't want to play at the LVO or in any other ITC events? Fine by you, but you might have trouble finding people west of the Mississippi who will play your version of the rules. All you do by boycotting the competitive scene is to increase the power of everyone who doesn't play Tau. Even with these changes, Tau are still a hard matchup for most every army out there, and you're just giving prospective tournament winners an easier shot at the prize.

I'm pitching in another bit before I go, this is a sidebar to Tau players.

I'm getting a lot of feeling persecuted- ie, "People claim my army is overpowered but I don't see Tau dominating tournaments and I don't personally feel I ROFL people" (the second clause being implied).

Let me use an analogy from when I started:

I started right after 3rd dropped. These were the days of the 20" charge without disembarkation points. I paid the exact same points cost for my codex marines as Blood angels, Berzerkers, and Space Wolves, who all shone in assault. In those days, if you won combat, you consolidated- and if you reached another unit, it counted as a new combat.

I played at a disadvantage and had to struggle to win, and I realized it was because everyone brought marine-slaughtering units because Blood Angels, Zerkers, and Wolves were so devastating when they closed.

Tau players are currently in the same boat. Any tournament list made has to be able to handle Tau and Eldar. That means any Tau player, who yes, is playing with a generic advantage, is playing with a general list at any event against lists optimized to kill Tau and Eldar, because if their opponents don't optimize for their lists, they will lose and lose hard. It's taking generic Marines in a world where Marines with assault freebies and devastating assault existed- everyone kits to slaughter marines fast before they can close.

 Xerics wrote:

Is that something you would be willing to pay for? Potentially sub par list due to last minute nerf to the unit you may have built your entire list around?

I paid for the tournament already not expecting to win (because thats already not a feasible expectation). Most people going are there for more then just the chance to win first place

 Xerics wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Are tau players that signed up for itc events prior to this eligible for a refund. Because changing the rules this close feels like bait and switch.

Nothing got banned. Its not like tau playes that had a preplanned list are now sitting with an illegal army

But they are now sitting with a potentially sub par army list due to the short notice switches. Nobody brings a sub par army to a tournament they have to pay for.

Limiting- not even removing, but limiting- this one ability on one unit in the codex is enough to make their list potentially sub-par? The Ghostkeel ability is this powerful, is that your premise? Because if it's not, then this is an irrelevency.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I agree with the ITC's rulings. I don't care that they may contradict the RAW. According to strict RAW, Warp Spiders can Flickerjump an infinite number of times per Shooting Phase, I can take five Wraithknights at 1850 points, Invisibility is the most broken psychic power ever, and there is no limit to how much you can abuse the Allies system. The ITC has already established a precedent of limiting mechanics that force snapshots (Invisibililty), so I can see why they would tone down an ability that would let you force three different units to fire snapshots at what is most certainly a priority target. This on top of said target already having a 2+ cover save and hitting vehicles on their rear armour. It may not be RAW, but the ITC has made it clear that they value the health of the game rather than rules interpretations.

This ruling does nothing for the health of the game - in fact, I would argue it is bad for the health of the game. Instead of having the viable option of taking a unit of 2 - 3 Ghostkeels, people will simply take units of single Ghostkeels in the ITC format. This continues a trend already established in ITC rulings which pushes the game more towards MSU (which limiting things like invisibility and the 2+ rerollable does, appropriately in those cases I will add!).

So, instead of getting more variety, this gives you less variety (a unit which everyone will then only take in singles). That's bad for the health of the game, as is the idea of preemptively limiting the power level of units that have not proven to be game-breaking. Rulings like that contribute to the meta stagnating, rather than allowing it to naturally evolve as it otherwise would.

Obviously, as a single ruling it only really matters for Tau players who would like to field a unit of Ghostkeels (and no longer will!). But for the game as whole, it matters how the ITC approaches new units - nerf them in case they might cause problems, or let them play out and only nerf something that has shown that it will (I would argue the Piranha formation has shown that it will, simply from a gameplay perspective).

I really, really hope they will begin to err on the side of being more conservative and LESS active in their restrictions. Otherwise, it just feels too arbitrary on what new releases get nerfed, and what already extremely powerful units / abilities are allowed to stand. Adjusting power level of a new release should be a last resort, and the Ghostkeel was definitely not in need of this! Again, I'm not a Tau player...

I think the ITC rulings really help preserve the integrity of the game. GW should have written tighter rules for Tau. The things ITC locked down are super broken in a void.

 Xerics wrote:
But they are now sitting with a potentially sub par army list due to the short notice switches. Nobody brings a sub par army to a tournament they have to pay for.

You might not, but quite a lot of people take sub par armies to tournaments they have to pay for.

I did it for years, because I would rather take an army that I enjoyed playing with than one that was built solely for the 'best' firepower.

 Kriswall wrote:
Does it feel cheaty in the same way that letting Space Marines get tons of free Transports feels cheaty? Or is it more along the lines of letting an AdMech/Imperial Knights super Formation get free upgrades. I'm just curious as to which sort of cheaty it is. To me, allowing three models to activate three seperate single use piece of wargear designed to protect a unit over the course of three turns seems less cheaty than giving an army hundreds of points of free models or upgrades... yet those are totally cool.

Frankly if it were up to me, Formations just wouldn't be allowed, period.