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.

But that's the rub, they Are allowed, so why pick on cool new unit releases just because they're not entrenched yet?

Also, I almost always take subpar armies but, I do like to know important rulings like that more than a few days out from an event I'm flying to!

 RiTides wrote:
But that's the rub, they Are allowed, so why pick on cool new unit releases just because they're not entrenched yet?

Because the sooner you stomp on it, the fewer people go out and buy 3 Ghostkeels thinking that they work a given way only to have an FAQ come out that removes their perceived advantage?



If this is the ruling they're going with, better for it to happen now rather than later when everyone's gone out and bought the models

But that's what makes it all the stranger! The ghostkeel came out, what, 4 months ago? And this ruling comes out a few days before one of their biggest tournies, and seemingly is just for the tourney, and might be voted on later...

So, in the end it's not giving people warning or stopping a trend, just kind of a kick in the nads for anyone who Did bring 3 Ghostkeels

 RiTides wrote:
But that's what makes it all the stranger! The ghostkeel came out, what, 4 months ago? And this ruling comes out a few days before one of their biggest tournies, and seemingly is just for the tourney, and might be voted on later...

So, in the end it's not giving people warning or stopping a trend, just kind of a kick in the nads for anyone who Did bring 3 Ghostkeels

Yeah, the timing is a little odd. I guess that begs the question though of just how many people were actually planning on bringing 3 Ghostkeels to this event...

2 things, 1 didn't all of these changes go through 2-3 months ago when they did all the voting? Is it just the Ghostkeel thing that's new because the consolidated firepower thing was certainly a good while ago.

2. You guys that are arguing pro-ghostkeel or w/e else have legitimate points as far as the rulings go for sure, but it doesn't take much for a rule to be considered ambiguous. Look at the stupid thing with the librarius conclave and the 'end of the turn'.

But saying they're 'Anti-Tau' is ridiculous, no one running a business or a tournament scene would jeopardize the whole thing just because they don't like 1 army. There's no profit in it. No, the thing ITC is against are rules that stop you from interacting with your opponents models. They hit Invis because the baseline version made whatever it got cast on IMMUNE to GAMEPLAY. They nerfed rerollable 2++ because whatever had it became IMMUNE to GAMEPLAY. And they(the entire organization plus it's voters) made holophotons not work against 3 seperate targets for a unit that already has a super easy 2+ cover because if they didn't then Ghostkeels would be IMMUNE to GAMEPLAY.

Erjak, the reason for the (numerous) threads on this issue scattered across Dakka is because several rulings just came out. The Ghostkeel is being discussed because it feels the most unfair / arbitrary, but there were quite a few others (the Piranha drone delivery system was nerfed, for instance, and appropriately so, imo).

I think it's possible to agree that the process of FAQ'ing 40k rules is good and needed... and to disagree with a ruling! Hopefully, they do put the Ghostkeel up for vote, and if anyone wants to copy and paste the text I posted last page that I emailed to Frontline, feel free

That's it for me in this discussion, since I don't even play Tau... but I really do hope Frontline heeds the outcry and is less active with future rulings, only adjusting things that truly need it (again like the Piranha formation probably did).

 CrownAxe wrote:

 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

Only one guy gets it out of 256 or whatever so yeah. Most people dont attend to win. Still, when you play a gajillion games of Warhammer in a weekend the last thing you want is to be constantly annoyed.

 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

Changing the rules of the game is just as valid a bait and switch. Maybe you go to buy a new car that was advertised with features you like. Then when you are about to sign the paper they tell you they removed the a/c feature. It's still completely the car you want! Except it's not.

How about we let you play marines, but we take away your 3+ save and replace it with a 5+. They are still marines right?

 RiTides wrote:
But that's what makes it all the stranger! The ghostkeel came out, what, 4 months ago? And this ruling comes out a few days before one of their biggest tournies, and seemingly is just for the tourney, and might be voted on later...

So, in the end it's not giving people warning or stopping a trend, just kind of a kick in the nads for anyone who Did bring 3 Ghostkeels

Ghostkeels IMO are still amazing. Tau can run an MC/GMC/Suit army which is pretty darn cool. Of course again IMO the formation is the way to go. I can easily Tau finishing in the top four and even taking best overall at LVO this weekend. I'm sure the top Tau players will have their game faces on and best wishes to them.

 Orock wrote:

Changing the rules of the game is just as valid a bait and switch. Maybe you go to buy a new car that was advertised with features you like. Then when you are about to sign the paper they tell you they removed the a/c feature. It's still completely the car you want! Except it's not.

That would be an apt analogy if your aircon was a one-use device, you had found a hack that lets you use it three times, but then when you pick the car up you find out that your hack no longer works and your single -use aircon can, in fact, only be used once...

No one was going to be using three Ghostkeels anyway. It would be just too many points in one basket, up to two Ghostkeels per Stealth Cadre is optimal and no one who had a streak of competitiveness in them would run three Ghostkeels out side of that formation anyway.

 insaniak wrote:

 Orock wrote:

Changing the rules of the game is just as valid a bait and switch. Maybe you go to buy a new car that was advertised with features you like. Then when you are about to sign the paper they tell you they removed the a/c feature. It's still completely the car you want! Except it's not.

That would be an apt analogy if your aircon was a one-use device, you had found a hack that lets you use it three times, but then when you pick the car up you find out that your hack no longer works and your single -use aircon can, in fact, only be used once...

According to your opinion once. Mine says three times standard. You are looking at it from a narrow point of view that says your interpretation is indesputibly correct. And my analogy is fine. It's still something they changed. Which fits bait and switch.

How many people in this thread were taking 3 Ghostkeels to the tournament? At this point I just HAVE to know...

 Orock wrote:
According to your opinion once. Mine says three times standard. You are looking at it from a narrow point of view that says your interpretation is indesputibly correct. And my analogy is fine. It's still something they changed. Which fits bait and switch.

But that's just the thing - it's only a change if you're looking at it from the narrow point of view that says that your interpretation is indisputably correct...


I actually thought that I had been fairly clear previously in the thread, but just to put it out there again - I don't think that 'my' interpretation is 'indisputably correct'. I think that it's one legitimate way of reading the rules as written, and that it is unclear just how it is supposed to work. Which makes the FAQ ruling a clarification, not a rules change.

If they had chosen instead to rule for all three Ghostkeels getting to use their abilities separately, I would have still considered that to be a clarification, rather than a rules change, even though it would have gone against 'my' interpretation of the rules. Because I'm more than willing to accept that sometimes some people get a different meaning out of a written rule than I do.

 Quickjager wrote:
No one was going to be using three Ghostkeels anyway. It would be just too many points in one basket, up to two Ghostkeels per Stealth Cadre is optimal and no one who had a streak of competitiveness in them would run three Ghostkeels out side of that formation anyway.

So then. Whats the point of this FAQ IF that were true?

also it's not really true. I used three and it was awesome.

In related news:

Per the ITC FaQ: The Pyrovores Volatile special rule only affects units within D6” of the slain Pyrovore.

What? No outrage on this one even though the rulebook clearly states the explosion hits EVERY UNIT for a number of hits equal to each model within D6" of the slain Pyrovore? For shame...can't anyone read? It's not even game breaking. What am I supposed to do with all these Pyrovores now???

/sarcasm still on and eyes still rolling

 insaniak wrote:
I think that it's one legitimate way of reading the rules as written, and that it is unclear just how it is supposed to work. Which makes the FAQ ruling a clarification, not a rules change.

It really isn't. The rule very clearly says that a MODEL with the rule may use it once per game, not that a UNIT may use it once per game. You indisputably have three copies of a one-use ability which, when used, provides a benefit to the entire unit. This is no more of a "clarification" than ruling that C:SM tactical squads actually have 5+ armor saves instead of 3+ because it's unclear whether the "3" in the printed rules is really a 3 or might have been intended to mean 5 instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Voidwraith wrote:
In related news:

Per the ITC FaQ: The Pyrovores Volatile special rule only affects units within D6” of the slain Pyrovore.

What? No outrage on this one even though the rulebook clearly states the explosion hits EVERY UNIT for a number of hits equal to each model within D6" of the slain Pyrovore? For shame...can't anyone read? It's not even game breaking. What am I supposed to do with all these Pyrovores now???

/sarcasm still on and eyes still rolling

The difference is that the Pyrovore rule was pretty obviously nonsense and the intent of the rule was easy to figure out. With the Ghostkeel ruling there's no such issue. The rule as-printed functions just fine, the only "problem" is that some people feel that it is too powerful and should be nerfed.

 Voidwraith wrote:
How many people in this thread were taking 3 Ghostkeels to the tournament? At this point I just HAVE to know...

It's not really about the LVO - but whether they keep this ruling for the ITC. Hopefully they put it up for vote, instead!

The Pirahna Wing nerf is fine, and Tau is fine. The players who want to win will probably use the Riptide Win (typo intentional) anyway.

If you're unhappy, use another ruleset or make your own, better one. We'll watch how it goes.

The last thing anyone who wants a more balanced WH40K experience should do is to avoid the ITC. Best ruleset around.

Creating, updating and upholding a ruleset is one of the most unthankful processes I can think of. Our own national group has one, it's a tiny fraction of the size of ITC (based on it partially too) and it's popularity and even with that this is evident. The fellas at Fronline have my full respect for their effort.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I think that it's one legitimate way of reading the rules as written, and that it is unclear just how it is supposed to work. Which makes the FAQ ruling a clarification, not a rules change.

It really isn't. The rule very clearly says that a MODEL with the rule may use it once per game, not that a UNIT may use it once per game. You indisputably have three copies of a one-use ability which, when used, provides a benefit to the entire unit. This is no more of a "clarification" than ruling that C:SM tactical squads actually have 5+ armor saves instead of 3+ because it's unclear whether the "3" in the printed rules is really a 3 or might have been intended to mean 5 instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Voidwraith wrote:
In related news:

Per the ITC FaQ: The Pyrovores Volatile special rule only affects units within D6” of the slain Pyrovore.

What? No outrage on this one even though the rulebook clearly states the explosion hits EVERY UNIT for a number of hits equal to each model within D6" of the slain Pyrovore? For shame...can't anyone read? It's not even game breaking. What am I supposed to do with all these Pyrovores now???

/sarcasm still on and eyes still rolling

The difference is that the Pyrovore rule was pretty obviously nonsense and the intent of the rule was easy to figure out. With the Ghostkeel ruling there's no such issue. The rule as-printed functions just fine, the only "problem" is that some people feel that it is too powerful and should be nerfed.

"the unit will use holophoton countermeasues"

Right there in black and white.

TBH this whole situation kinda reminds me of Smogon in Pokemon. They do tests every month or so and lets the community that ranks high enough in the Ladder to see what should be banned or or unbanned due to being broken or not, Be it Moves, Items, Pokemon, or combinations of them.


Sometimes the bans get too heavy handed and end up upsetting everyone that plays. And by banning or limiting one thing, more broken things crop up because the Banned checked the new broken and then more stuff gets banned and it just gets slowly out of hand until new stuff comes out or new things, via DLC, become available to the playerbase.

It just ends up killing the fun for me, but I'm not a tourney guy. I'm a "screw around with my friends playing games for fun" kinda guy.

 Mojo1jojo wrote:
There is no Tau hate coming from ITC. Even orks, a army we can agree is not anywhere near top tier was nerfed by not being able to bring the half-price stompa. Despite this you did not see Ork players calling for blood and boycotts.

I am not trying to insult Tau players, but it seems that there is such a higher percentage of WAAC players among them. I have read forums complaining about riptides and Rail-canons being to weak and that they need to be drastically stronger.

What are you talking about? The vote for the Stompa passed last vote


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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?

Again, people making judgments without actually knowing the rule. It is not "3 turns of invisibility". You can make 3 separate units targeting the ghost keels snapfire. Thats it.

 Voidwraith wrote:
In related news:

Per the ITC FaQ: The Pyrovores Volatile special rule only affects units within D6” of the slain Pyrovore.

What? No outrage on this one even though the rulebook clearly states the explosion hits EVERY UNIT for a number of hits equal to each model within D6" of the slain Pyrovore? For shame...can't anyone read? It's not even game breaking. What am I supposed to do with all these Pyrovores now???

/sarcasm still on and eyes still rolling

honestly if someone wanted to go with the original raw rules, I think it would be a blast.

Cindis wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I think that it's one legitimate way of reading the rules as written, and that it is unclear just how it is supposed to work. Which makes the FAQ ruling a clarification, not a rules change.

It really isn't. The rule very clearly says that a MODEL with the rule may use it once per game, not that a UNIT may use it once per game. You indisputably have three copies of a one-use ability which, when used, provides a benefit to the entire unit. This is no more of a "clarification" than ruling that C:SM tactical squads actually have 5+ armor saves instead of 3+ because it's unclear whether the "3" in the printed rules is really a 3 or might have been intended to mean 5 instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Voidwraith wrote:
In related news:

Per the ITC FaQ: The Pyrovores Volatile special rule only affects units within D6” of the slain Pyrovore.

What? No outrage on this one even though the rulebook clearly states the explosion hits EVERY UNIT for a number of hits equal to each model within D6" of the slain Pyrovore? For shame...can't anyone read? It's not even game breaking. What am I supposed to do with all these Pyrovores now???

/sarcasm still on and eyes still rolling

The difference is that the Pyrovore rule was pretty obviously nonsense and the intent of the rule was easy to figure out. With the Ghostkeel ruling there's no such issue. The rule as-printed functions just fine, the only "problem" is that some people feel that it is too powerful and should be nerfed.

"the unit will use holophoton countermeasues"

Right there in black and white.

How about you actually read the rule. It first says that "once per battle... A MODEL equipped with holophoton countermeasures may disrupt the targeting systems used by one enemy unit that is targeting IT OR ITS UNIT... Declare that the UNIT is using..."

It is pretty clear. A MODEL (aka one ghost keel) activates the ability, and then you declare that the UNIT it is in will use it". It clearly states the "once per battle" stipulation applies to a MODEL activating the ability

Just caught up on the thread. That was a fun read.

 Anglacon wrote:
OP- If you don't like the rulings,
Don't play in tournaments using them.

Problem solved.

Going online, bashing them, putting out a call to action to boycott them just because you disagree with what they say your army does just makes you look bad.
Do your talking with your wallet, not your mouth. It is a much better way to protest.

So... don't play in any tournaments in my area? That's a completely logical thing to do with these thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours I've spent on this hobby. Thanks for the advice.

blaktoof wrote:
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.

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.

The Stormsurge and tank shock is actually a non-issue, surprisingly. It actually doesn't matter what happens when a Rhino attempts to Tank Shock a GMC, because ITC has changed it so that only a super-heavy can Tank Shock a GMC and normal vehicles cannot.

The Piranha Firestorm Wing change is in line with other 'can leave play' abilities, but it's not RAW. A normal unit has no permission to leave the table. A flyer/FMC has permission to move off the table. The flyer/FMC has a restriction on it saying it can't leave the same turn it arrives. Swooping Hawks have the option to leave the board, with a written restriction that it cannot be the same turn they arrive from reserves. There is a common trend with things that are allowed to leave the board. They have written restrictions that prevent them from leaving the turn they arrive. This written restriction is not in the re-arm and refuel rule. I'm not arguing for or against, I'm just stating the rule as written.

If you wanted to see the perceived bias you need to read the first few articles from frontline during the Tau release cycle. There was massive misinformation about what was actually going on and plenty of strawmen presented by FLG (the coherency thing for a combined firepower, for one).

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?

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.

I played back then. Was much more enjoyable because I only needed 2 books for my army. I personally would rule with the less powerful Ghostkeel wording if challenged because that's the kind of player I am. I don't mind solutions to FAQ's being questions that are ambiguous (ghostkeel). What I do mind are blatant rule changes with zero supporting evidence provided by the author. Jy2 has provided examples of how strong the Piranha formation can be, and props for him doing that, but FLG needed to provide examples showing why this is so broken and needed to be changed.

 Jancoran wrote:

 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.

I'd love the chance to bitch that my codex is too powerful and needs to be toned down. I haven't gotten to play with my codex with the rules as they're written in my book since it came out thanks to these 'day 1 polls' and such from FLG.

Now, this isn't to say I don't appreciate what the guys at FLG are attempting to do, I just don't agree with how it's getting done. Major rule changes a week before a major tournament in Las Vegas is not cool. I was working on a drone factory style list that will probably now never see completion (sorry box-o-piranhas. I wanted to pew with you).

Thank you Jy2 for providing evidence to support the Piranah nerf. I am now in favor of it and never had an issue with the SS one.

Now the one that still irks me is the Ghostkeel. Provided a reasonable explanation can be given I will accept that as well. It's too bad I had to go through all of this to get some answers. Maybe if they were more open in explaining why they did it on their main page instead of being so suspicious I wouldn't have made the topic like this.

 Orock wrote:

 Voidwraith wrote:
In related news:

Per the ITC FaQ: The Pyrovores Volatile special rule only affects units within D6” of the slain Pyrovore.

What? No outrage on this one even though the rulebook clearly states the explosion hits EVERY UNIT for a number of hits equal to each model within D6" of the slain Pyrovore? For shame...can't anyone read? It's not even game breaking. What am I supposed to do with all these Pyrovores now???

/sarcasm still on and eyes still rolling

honestly if someone wanted to go with the original raw rules, I think it would be a blast.

No, this would be horrifying. Note that the Pyrovore says every unit, with no other distinction.

Not every unit on the board.

Every unit.

Alll of them.

As soon as you deploy a 'unit' it takes an arbitrary number of S4 hits from every Pyrovore that has ever been ID'd in a game before in all history.

This includes games of Warhammer: Fantasy.

This includes games of Bolt Action. (Though how S4 works in THAT is up to you.)

 Mulletdude wrote:
Now, this isn't to say I don't appreciate what the guys at FLG are attempting to do, I just don't agree with how it's getting done. Major rule changes a week before a major tournament in Las Vegas is not cool. I was working on a drone factory style list that will probably now never see completion (sorry box-o-piranhas. I wanted to pew with you).

While it's always good to respect ingenuity -- if you are building an army around exploiting a rules quirk that's less than enjoyable for others, you should probably anticipate that it will eventually bite you in the ass.

Yoyoyo wrote:
While it's always good to respect ingenuity -- if you are building an army around exploiting a rules quirk that's less than enjoyable for others, you should probably anticipate that it will eventually bite you in the ass.

There was no exploit. Certain players just decided that they didn't like how powerful it was and nerfed it. This is no more of a "rules quirk" than C:SM tactical squads rolling their 3+ armor saves, and the nerf is no more of a "clarification" than giving those tactical squads 5+ saves.

 Peregrine wrote:
There was no exploit. Certain players just decided that they didn't like how powerful it was and nerfed it. This is no more of a "rules quirk" than C:SM tactical squads rolling their 3+ armor saves, and the nerf is no more of a "clarification" than giving those tactical squads 5+ saves.

Altering a statline is clearly a lot different than some special rules gimmick.