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.

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

No it is not. The rules were perfectly clear, just like tactical squads having a 3+ armor save is perfectly clear.

 Peregrine wrote:

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

No it is not. The rules were perfectly clear, just like tactical squads having a 3+ armor save is perfectly clear.

Invisibility, shooting D-weapons, and 2+ rerollable saves are perfectly clear too

They were general rules that multiple armies had access to. These changes were faction specific - and for new units which is probably the main reason for out cry.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 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.

To be fair, I bought all the piranhas back in their 6th ed book with the plan to run 3x squads of 5 in a CAD. I didn't rush out and buy them all once I saw the new formations. The new formations just gave me motivation to actually finish them (painting the insides of a piranha isn't fun)

 Frozocrone wrote:
They were general rules that multiple armies had access to. These changes were faction specific - and for new units which is probably the main reason for out cry.

They've done army spacefic changes before too such as with Warp Spyders

 Mulletdude wrote:
To be fair, I bought all the piranhas back in their 6th ed book with the plan to run 3x squads of 5 in a CAD. I didn't rush out and buy them all once I saw the new formations.

I actually think the Repair+Rearm rule is pretty cool. GW just doesn't write rules towards blocking min-maxing exploits, so you end up with players thinking "drone farm" instead of playing them actually 'Repairing and Rearming" which is more thematically appropriate.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
They were general rules that multiple armies had access to. These changes were faction specific - and for new units which is probably the main reason for out cry.

They've done army spacefic changes before too such as with Warp Spyders

Eldar too stronk though, as the Internet has proclaimed :p

Let me begin by saying I have no problem with what any of the people who are involved with ITC do. I’m not saying I agree with them 100% of the time, and I know you will never make everyone happy. I agree that they have done good things for TOs around the country by making a generally accepted and easy to use FAQ/Errata that GW no longer does often enough themselves. I am a Tau player myself, so I fully expect to catch flak as I have since I started playing them back in 5th edition when they weren’t even good.

I am planning on going to a Tournament at the end of the month with very little intention of bringing a Ghostkeel (I own 2), a Stormsurge (I own 2 of those also), or taking the never ending drone factory. I give you this information so that you can see however the ruling goes, and it more than likely won’t affect my life as I normally play FSE just so I can flood the board with Crisis Suits.

With all that being said if you read the ITC “FAQ” it is easy to see why people get a little heated and upset when Tau are brought up. I agree with most of their rulings including the Hunter Cadre ruling about not sharing the buffmander’s effects across the whole army. However, let’s have a look at what ITC has for the Tau, and then we the community can discuss, politely and progressively, the fairness of said changes.

1. The roll made for Aun’Va’s Paradox of Duality may be taken in addition to any save the model may attempt. Additionally, weapons that ignore cover do not negate the Paradox of Duality roll. <-- Reading the rule out of the book, this is a true FAQ answer. It doesn’t add anything new to the rule and clarifies that the save is not an actually cover save, but merely acts “like” a cover save.

2. A unit must be within 12” of an Ethereal at the time they actually wish to benefit from the invocation of the Elements special rule. In the case of Zephyr’s Grace, this means units must end their run movement within 12” of the Ethereal to be able to fire Snap Shots. <-- This is Errata. The rule as written is not ambiguous. The Ethereal uses his ability at the start of his movement phase and effects all friendly non-vehicle Tau Empire models within 12” until of the start of the Ethereal’ s next movement phase. By the change they made, the Ethereal can relocate in the movement phase and affect more, or less, units than it would have at the beginning of its phase. This is neither a buff, nor a nerf, but changes the way the ability plays completely.

3. A Stealth Team must contain six models (excluding drones) in order to purchase two fusion blasters. <-- This is a FAQ answer, I’m sure it stems from someone interpreting the drones as team members and saying they took 6 drones, so all three members of the team could have fusion blasters. That is IMO a TFG thing that gives Tau players a bad name. Good call here and no harm done.

4. A Sun Shark Bomber begins the game with one pulse bomb. <-- FAQ answer and makes common sense. (On a side note, who is using these?)

5. When an Interceptor Drone disembarks from a Sun Shark Bomber the distance the Sun Shark moves does not affect the drone’s shooting attack (i.e. they do not need to fire Snap Shots even if the Sun Shark moves 36”). <-- FAQ as the rules for High Velocity Deployment do not cover this.

6. If a vehicle is only able to make Snap Shots at a target (e.g. it is suffering from a Crew Shaken vehicle damage result) and it uses the seeker markerlight ability to fire a seeker missile, the attack is resolved at BS1. <-- This is Errata. The seeker rule being a special rule over rides the rules for Crew Shaken as it is a basic rule from the BRB. This is a Nerf to how Seeker missiles work.

7. When a model with the Skyfire special rule uses the Seeker markerlight ability to fire a seeker missile at a Zooming Flyer or Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature, the attack is resolved at BS5. If the firing model does not have Skyfire then the attack is resolved at BS1. <-- This is Errata. The Seeker Rule being a special rule over rides the USR for how skyfire works in this instance as it is from a Codex and Codex>BRB. This is a Nerf to how Seeker Missiles work. (In case you were wondering the Rules for seeker missiles being fired with a markerlight states: “A seeker missile fired in this way is resolved at Ballistic Skill 5.”)

8. When multiple units fire Overwatch at an enemy unit, markerlight counters plaed by one unit may be utilized by other units that fire after them. <-- This is FAQ and changes nothing about how supporting fire, or markerlights work.

9. A markerlight counts as a weapon with a Strength of 5 or less for the Point Defense Targeting Relay vehicle battle system. <-- This is FAQ and covers markerlights attached to Skyrays which aren’t covered anywhere else.

10. Both the Drone Controller and the Counterfire Defense support systems have no effect on drones making Snap Shots. <-- FAQ and common sense also. I have to say this is another one of those things it sounds like a TFG tried out.

11. Only Gun Drones, Marker Drones, and Sniper drones benefit from a Drone Controller support system. <-- Regrettably, this is not even FAQ it is RAW. I know it would be nice to stick at Drone Commander in a squad with maxed out broadsides and loads of Missile Drones, but it just isn’t legal. I personally think this feeds into the whole, only broadsides can take missile drones rule. Don’t worry though; Drone network still bumps them up to BS 3.

12. A model firing Overwatch cannot use the Target Lock support system to target a non-charging enemy unit. <-- FAQ and a TFG move IMO as you are trying to weasel in an extra shot at a unit that could be as much as 60” away if you are using Railsides.

13. Models in the Piranha Firestream Wing formation may not leave the table using the Rearm and Refuel special rule the same turn that they arrive from Reserves or Ongoing Reserves. <-- I’ll be honest; I’m not familiar with the Firestream wing as I am not a big fan of any Piranhas except the forgeworld one with the armoured top and better weapon options. I personnaly don’t see a problem with this ruling as it really is a TFG WAAC gamer move in the first place. I think daemon clown car is just as bad, but hey, the rules are fairly clear it is legal. I think this was a good call, we’ll see where it goes. (On a side note, a full Imperial Knight army “should” be a hard counter to this, especially since, if I’m remembering correctly, they have weapons with interceptor that could smoke the Piranhas as the come in, and I seem to remember they don’t have a armour value less than 12 making them immune to the drone shots.)

14. When returning to the table using the Rearm and refuel special rule, the Piranha unit does so at full strength, including regaining Piranhas that have been destroyed earlier in the game. However, models that have formed their own unit due to being immobilized are not replaced. <-- Once again, not familiar with the rules for the Firestream Wing, but I seem to think from what I’ve read, getting destroyed Piranhas back was not implied in the original wording, or at least I didn’t read it that way. So that being said this is a Buff at best, a FAQ answer at worst.

15. All Ghostkeels in a unit activate their Holophoton Countermeasures at the same time.I’ve read the rule over and over. <-- I’m going to say it is FAQ, but I still believe RAW each model can activate their Countermeasures at different times, meaning they can be shielded from one round of shooting from one unit once per game per Ghostkeel in the squad. It makes sense to me as the Countermeasures are part of the base cost of the model on the board. Not saying I’m right, but I believe that they have gone overly conservative.

16. If a Stormsurge that has deployed its Stabilising Anchors is Tank Shocked, it must Death or Glory in response. If it Fails to stop the Tank Shocking vehicle, it suffers D3 wounds and the tank is leftin base to base contact with the Stormsurge at the point it made contact with it. <-- This is FAQ “Crunch” rule vs. GC rules. It actually leads me to a different question. Does that mean that my Stormsurge is now in close combat with your tank in your turn?

17. A whole bunch of stuff that basically says the buffmander can’t improve everyone from Coordinated Firepower. <-- FAQ. I’ve read this rule multiple times. I can see how it can be interpreted each way. I personally think they made the right call. Tau gets a bad rep from seemingly super powered rules and this one is still impressive without the buffmander’s interference. I’ve seen this formation fall flat on its face using the more powerful version of the rules, so I’m not even saying it is OP, just very scary and can be hard to handle if you aren’t ready for it.

Now, that is my two cents on the mater. Seventeen total FAQ/Errata’s and I’m going to say maybe 4 of them are truly what I would call a bad call. That’s >75% good call which is fairly good. Top that off with if you look at the rules they put in for multi-trackers (they didn’t call them out specifically) in their shooting phase section, you’ll see they also improved crisis suits and MC’s abilities to overwatch and interceptor by firing multiple weapons.

TLDR, in conclusion I don’t think ITC or any of the people involved in it are the enemy of Tau. I don’t think they are spot on every time either, but they do appear to be trying.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Invisibility, shooting D-weapons, and 2+ rerollable saves are perfectly clear too

Sure, and arguably those needed to be changed. My objection here is less that the particular rule was changed and more that ITC is trying to hide behind this absurd idea that it's a "clarification" instead of being honest enough to admit that they wanted to nerf a rule they don't like.

 Peregrine wrote:

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

No it is not. The rules were perfectly clear, just like tactical squads having a 3+ armor save is perfectly clear.

I think multiple threads full of people that see it otherwise would limit the truth of your claim. It might be perfectly clear to you, but that does make it perfectly clear to everybody. I see a conflict between the two clauses, one of which refers to the model having the ability, and the other saying that the unit activates them.

I think there are some interesting arguments to make why they should be interpreted each way, but trying to argue that it's perfectly clear is an indirect insult to those that see it another way.

The change to The ghostkeel is pretty weird and not justified in my opinion. It is not that strong compared to the current meta where everybody (with a new codex) receive tons of units, upgrade for free or can pump up 50++ wounds with a single squad.

Seems to me it was indeed voted by Tau haters. The rules clearly state each model of Ghostkeel may activate once, instead of unit. Basic BRB 101 Warhammer.

Oh well not my army nor an event I go to... Carry on!

sheesh...reading this thread reminds me why I don't play much anymore.

That said to those who are upset that these rules were rushed out would you prefer that if your opponent and you read the rule differently at the tournament the judge makes a snap rules call that impacts your game on the spot.

Picture this: You bring your unit of Ghost Keels, your opponent shoots at it with a unit, you activate your counter measures. Later he shoots with another unit, you go to activate counter measures again. He says, "you can't do that it is once per game." You argue it is once per game per model...he disagrees. You now have a heated discussion/argument going, you call a judge. One of you is now going to be unhappy because of the ruling as the outcome might alter how you played the earlier part of the game. Say you get ruled against, and lose your unit and it costs you the game. Wouldn't you rather know how it will be played before you show up?

IT obviously isn't 100% clear because people on this thread don't all agree.

You may not like the ruling, but that doesn't mean having one is worse than not having one.

Was it even voted or just arbitrarily decided ?

TheNewBlood wrote:
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?

Hah! I forgot about that. We should rename this thread Operation Pitchfork 2: Electric Boogaloo, ITC Edition.

Dozer Blades wrote:Was it even voted or just arbitrarily decided ?

There has been a strong demand for a ruling on these issues, so they decided these ruling are just for the LVO. Word is there will be a vote later when they have more time.

notredameguy10 wrote:

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

Seems like we both read it, but only one of us understood it.

Good thing we have the ITC to clear up these little disagreements

 Crimson Devil wrote:

TheNewBlood wrote:
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?

Hah! I forgot about that. We should rename this thread Operation Pitchfork 2: Electric Boogaloo, ITC Edition.

Dozer Blades wrote:Was it even voted or just arbitrarily decided ?

There has been a strong demand for a ruling on these issues, so they decided these ruling are just for the LVO. Word is there will be a vote later when they have more time.

Thanks CD !

As a Tau player, I am fine with the rule for Ghostkeel Units. After all, if my one unit, each model equipped with Holophoton Countermeasures gets to use it only once, then a unit of Centurions equipped with grav weapons all gets only one shot a turn, right? Sure, each Centurion has their own grav gun, but they apparently fire the off like a unit, right?

All kidding aside, It's the same concept. Each model has a countermeasure, each model can use it. Each Centurion has a grav gun, each Centurion can fire their grav gun.

The grav amp profile, also does not state one use only

 Polonius wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

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

No it is not. The rules were perfectly clear, just like tactical squads having a 3+ armor save is perfectly clear.

I think multiple threads full of people that see it otherwise would limit the truth of your claim. It might be perfectly clear to you, but that does make it perfectly clear to everybody. I see a conflict between the two clauses, one of which refers to the model having the ability, and the other saying that the unit activates them.

I think there are some interesting arguments to make why they should be interpreted each way, but trying to argue that it's perfectly clear is an indirect insult to those that see it another way.

And in said threads, 90% of the people agree that it can activate once PER ghost keel. Its the vocal minority that were the only ones saying otherwise


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Adobo wrote:
As a Tau player, I am fine with the rule for Ghostkeel Units. After all, if my one unit, each model equipped with Holophoton Countermeasures gets to use it only once, then a unit of Centurions equipped with grav weapons all gets only one shot a turn, right? Sure, each Centurion has their own grav gun, but they apparently fire as a unit, right?

That makes absolutely no sense.

Adobo wrote:
As a Tau player, I am fine with the rule for Ghostkeel Units. After all, if my one unit, each model equipped with Holophoton Countermeasures gets to use it only once, then a unit of Centurions equipped with grav weapons all gets only one shot a turn, right? Sure, each Centurion has their own grav gun, but they apparently fire as a unit, right?

I think you have misunderstood what is causing the countermeasures to only apply once.

It's not that a unit with three of them only gets to use one. It's that the unit triggers them, which means that all three go off at once.

Cindis wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

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

Seems like we both read it, but only one of us understood it.

Good thing we have the ITC to clear up these little disagreements

Sorry bud, but just because ITC ruled something does NOT mean that is correct. and in this case they are incorrect.

Again, 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

It's quite hilarious how some people can read the Ghostkeel rules as only allowing Holophotons once from a unit with e.g. 3 Ghostkeels. Trying really hard, cherry picking words in the rules, putting unit against model etc, just wow.

Its one holophoton per model per game i.e. 3 uses from a unit with 3 Ghostkeels.

X078 wrote:
It's quite hilarious how some people can read the Ghostkeel rules as only allowing Holophotons once from a unit with e.g. 3 Ghostkeels. Trying really hard, cherry picking words in the rules, putting unit against model etc, just wow.

Its one holophoton per model per game i.e. 3 uses from a unit with 3 Ghostkeels.

Says you. ITC ruled differently.

 jreilly89 wrote:

X078 wrote:
It's quite hilarious how some people can read the Ghostkeel rules as only allowing Holophotons once from a unit with e.g. 3 Ghostkeels. Trying really hard, cherry picking words in the rules, putting unit against model etc, just wow.

Its one holophoton per model per game i.e. 3 uses from a unit with 3 Ghostkeels.

Says you. ITC ruled differently.

And thats why people are mad, because they ruled against both RAW and RAI without so much as mentioning it to anyone else. There are numerous threads on this site and others regarding this particular rule and the VAST majority (~90%) agree its one use per MODEL

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


I think multiple threads full of people that see it otherwise would limit the truth of your claim. It might be perfectly clear to you, but that does make it perfectly clear to everybody. I see a conflict between the two clauses, one of which refers to the model having the ability, and the other saying that the unit activates them.

I think there are some interesting arguments to make why they should be interpreted each way, but trying to argue that it's perfectly clear is an indirect insult to those that see it another way.

And in said threads, 90% of the people agree that it can activate once PER ghost keel. Its the vocal minority that were the only ones saying otherwise n

Which leaves you with a choice: either a minority of people are illiterate, markedly biased, or lying... or there are different ways to read the rules.

I'm not arguing in favor of the ruling. I feel that the context of the rule, the precedent for prior one use items, and the sloppiness of the rules point to them being able to trigger individually. But, I think that calling it "perfectly clear" is a gross overstatement. There is a genuine controversy.

 jreilly89 wrote:

X078 wrote:
It's quite hilarious how some people can read the Ghostkeel rules as only allowing Holophotons once from a unit with e.g. 3 Ghostkeels. Trying really hard, cherry picking words in the rules, putting unit against model etc, just wow.

Its one holophoton per model per game i.e. 3 uses from a unit with 3 Ghostkeels.

Says you. ITC ruled differently.

Too bad they ruled it wrong though.

X078 wrote:
Too bad they ruled it wrong though.

That's impossible. There is no way of knowing what the correct way to rule is.

I mean, in theory you could find the person that wrote the codex and ask them, but I'd bet a day's pay even the author doesn't know, and doesn't care.

It is simply unknowable.

 RiTides wrote:

 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?

I'm not entirely convinced there is a huge difference. If we take a look at which codices explicitly have likely access to Invisibility, we have a fairly narrow band. Tau, Necrons, Tyranids and many others have literally no way of enacting the ability. To that end I think the 'general' rule is quite a bit more narrow than suggested.

Now lets examine the other direction. You submit that calling out a specified unit or model and modifying is to target a Codex as its own entity. A specific change. However 7th edition stopped being about Codices. In my local groups competitive arena as a prime example, there are commonly armies that draw from three or more unique and unrelated sources. A Firebase with an Eldar CAD here, a Skyhammer with Astra Militarum there, Leviathan with an Imperial Knight precariously close, and so forth.

To be clear, I'm in agreement that we should have more visibility to alterations to the rules. But the argument that this is a unique scenario in which we are expressing a specific unilateral and bias nerf just doesn't hold weight with me.

As others have pointed out, this is not even remotely the first specific unit change/interpretation difference anyways. I don't recall an iota of pitchforks and torches when Warp Spiders were forced to a single Flickerjump without a vote. I'm not bitter on this point as I feel it is the right call, but to have this issue entirely dismissed by others has set the precedent. Either we have to engage all specific rules changes without bias, or we accept all rules changes with bias. Middle ground doesn't work for me because it means I've been struck twice; once by a nerf; twice by not being allowed to appeal or discuss the nerf while having to discuss others nerfs with them.

 RiTides wrote:
I think I found the correct address - it is:

frankie AT frontlinegaming DOT org

If anyone else wants the Ghostkeel question on the next ballot, it would be a very good idea to email the above address! I just sent this:

Hi Frankie,

It seems like a lot of people would really like the Ghostkeel ruling to be on the next ITC vote - I know it had to be ruled for the LVO, but for moving forward with ITC, it should be on the next ballot!

Relevant threads on Dakka:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/678686.page

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/678734.page

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/675443.page#8424541

So, please consider putting the Ghostkeel question on the next ballot - I.e., when several Ghostkeels are taken as a unit, can a single Ghostkeel activate their defensive ability at a time (to protect the whole unit) or are all activated at once (in which case, no one will be taking them as a unit and you'll have unnecessarily taken away a cool way to play Tau).

Most folks seem to be happy with your other rulings, but this one is too heavy handed and unnecessary. Hope it makes it on the next ballot!

Cheers,
Steve G / RiTides

I love that you've done this. It's exactly what should be done and what others should seek to do!

They think they have authority. They do not.

Attention-mongers require your attention to sustain them. That is what they are. This has been evident for years. Ignore them.

It should be amazing to anyone how they've garnered this kind of following given their thuggish social strategies and outright bullying.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
They think they have authority. They do not.

Attention-mongers require your attention to sustain them. That is what they are. This has been evident for years. Ignore them.

It should be amazing to anyone how they've garnered this kind of following given their thuggish social strategies and outright bullying.

Got some sauces there, strawman? That's a hefty accusation against people who, in the face of GW's apathy/idiocy, are releasing FAQs for their tournaments. Again, these FAQs are not mandatory, tournies can freely not use them.