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.

 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.

As this is an FAQ released by a TO, for his own event, there is some authority to be sure.

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.

Well you have to read the rules like that sometimes. For orks it is only one word that makes the difference between calling a Waaagh once a game or once per warboss. It is also a single word that does not allow you to take multiple relics on one warboss. The one word "unit" redefines how you initially read the rule pertaining to Ghostkeels in units Vs with drones. But like I've said many times if you don't like the rules don't play ITC or go to their tournaments, there are many many people in the waiting that will be more then happy to take your spot if your gonna rage quit for one little rule and don't say it is not little because it is hypocritical to say that having the rule interpreted in your favor will not affect the game, yet it is such a big deal that people are crying for blood in the streets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

What are you even talking about. Who thinks they have authority, ITC? Well they actually do have authority to run "their" tournaments exactly how they want, there no if's about that. There are enough people that like their rule set that they use them in their own games and leagues, no bullying or authority needed with these personal choices. Why are you acting like these normal guys with a business are going around like the gangsters and beating the gak out of people or burning stores down of those who do not use their rules.

 Polonius wrote:

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

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.

As with most GW rules, it's not black and white, but as you point out in your last sentence, I think there is quite a lot pointing to them being able to trigger individually.

This is why I've been bringing this up in the context of "preemptively nerfing" powerful new units. The majority of people read the rule a certain way, but the ITC chose the less powerful reading, which will also result in less variety, since no one will take Ghostkeels in units with that ruling.

 Cieged wrote:

 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!

Thanks . Hopefully a few others will email the address above asking for it to be put on the next ballot, too!

well first of all, blinding ONE unit isnt even up there on the scale. Paying 400 points to blind a total of three units a total of one phase each? gimme a break. Its not even on the CenturionStar radar.

 Jancoran wrote:
well first of all, blinding ONE unit isnt even up there on the scale. Paying 400 points to blind a total of three units a total of one phase each? gimme a break. Its not even on the CenturionStar radar.

Not to mention it's just a 2+ COVER save and even then that only applies when you're 12" or more away AND if the drones are still alive. There are too many ways around it.

 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.

I know, right? I mean, you put up all this money and spent countless hours of time getting the tournament together...finding the space, haggling with the Casino over all kinds of issues, came up with an entire itinerary of things to do for significant others if they don't feel like hanging out at the tables all day...when you think about it, you've gone way way WAY overboard with the amount of thoughtfulness and care you gave this multi-day tournament.

Oh wait...YOU didn't do any of that. Frontline Gaming did. It's their event, and people from all over have said YES with their time and hard earned money. Get out of here with your total bullcrap opinion.

 dbgoldberg323 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
well first of all, blinding ONE unit isnt even up there on the scale. Paying 400 points to blind a total of three units a total of one phase each? gimme a break. Its not even on the CenturionStar radar.

Not to mention it's just a 2+ COVER save and even then that only applies when you're 12" or more away AND if the drones are still alive. There are too many ways around it.

Yup. The ridiculous assertion by some that this NEEDED to be addressed is just that: ridiculous. There are a host of people on this very thread and a hundred like it that have asserted opinions that clearly indicate they haven't even read it and that they only know what they read on the forums, none of the actual text. People psoted it soewhere and if you dont read the thread as it goes, easy for those who dont know to miss it.

Its frustrating that something like this should even be a discussion. I can at least understand the thinking on the Entering from reserves and leaving in the same turn. Frankly I had missed that possibility altogether when I first read those rules and I think my brain just said "nah, can't do that" and dismissed it. Then some guys on Dakkadakka started talking about its possibilities and their math wasn't adding up so I looked at it closer and was like "wow, i can see why they think that". On that one i can see how lightbulbs went on and schemeing started. I can see why they needed to slow some rolls on that.

I don't see it with the Ghostkeels. Unfortunately that has created some rather unpleasant back and forth, but i just don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Voidwraith wrote:

 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.

I know, right? I mean, you put up all this money and spent countless hours of time getting the tournament together...finding the space, haggling with the Casino over all kinds of issues, came up with an entire itinerary of things to do for significant others if they don't feel like hanging out at the tables all day...when you think about it, you've gone way way WAY overboard with the amount of thoughtfulness and care you gave this multi-day tournament.

Oh wait...YOU didn't do any of that. Frontline Gaming did. It's their event, and people from all over have said YES with their time and hard earned money. Get out of here with your total bullcrap opinion.

I laugh because you're missing the obvious: Frontline Gaming aren't martyrs. they make money. they are a business. So they didnt do it out of the goodness of their hearts. I know they did it as a labor of love for sure, but lets not forget that if you attend, you are WHY the event exists. No attendance, no event. So anyone who pays to go to these things and is yoked to their rulings has a right to an opinion. period. Even if its in support of Frontline.

I personally love the crew their. Ive had very positive interactions with them. I just like them. But that doesnt mean I have to like their FAQ. No no no. Different issue altogether.

No more insults, please, by any posters - you can make your points much better without them!

Rule #1 on Dakka is "be polite", please keep that in mind before posting further in this thread.

It's a business guys. And businesses have to keep their main customers happy. In this case it's imperial players. None if these hamfisted over reactions should surprise anyone. A business does not have to be impartial or fair. Just do what it takes to keep the bottom dollar.

 Orock wrote:
It's a business guys. And businesses have to keep their main customers happy. In this case it's imperial players. None if these hamfisted over reactions should surprise anyone. A business does not have to be impartial or fair. Just do what it takes to keep the bottom dollar.

All players in ITC are their customers. Ostracizing a majority of their player base (because imperial players aren't the majority) isn't sound business sense.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Orock wrote:
It's a business guys. And businesses have to keep their main customers happy. In this case it's imperial players. None if these hamfisted over reactions should surprise anyone. A business does not have to be impartial or fair. Just do what it takes to keep the bottom dollar.

(because imperial players aren't the majority)

Wrong. If you include marines, admech, guard, sisters, and any players using them as allies in some form, they make up when you take attendance of all the tournaments they make up 60+ precent of attendees.

 Orock wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Orock wrote:
It's a business guys. And businesses have to keep their main customers happy. In this case it's imperial players. None if these hamfisted over reactions should surprise anyone. A business does not have to be impartial or fair. Just do what it takes to keep the bottom dollar.

(because imperial players aren't the majority)

Wrong. If you include marines, admech, guard, sisters, and any players using them as allies in some form, they make up when you take attendance of all the tournaments they make up 60+ precent of attendees.

Cool. So they are purposely ignoring ~40% of the potential customers because?

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Orock wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Orock wrote:
It's a business guys. And businesses have to keep their main customers happy. In this case it's imperial players. None if these hamfisted over reactions should surprise anyone. A business does not have to be impartial or fair. Just do what it takes to keep the bottom dollar.

(because imperial players aren't the majority)

Wrong. If you include marines, admech, guard, sisters, and any players using them as allies in some form, they make up when you take attendance of all the tournaments they make up 60+ precent of attendees.

Cool. So they are purposely ignoring ~40% of the potential customers because?

Well you see Reece is an Ork fanboy and France-Waaagh! likes the Dark Eldar enough to try to make them work as best he can for a long time, so obviously they're biased towards Marines... Actually, Frankie's Marine army is only slightly older than his Tau army, I think he got it only a couple months ago, which he quickly swapped for Tau when it came out.

I also find it weird that Imperium players get lumped in so much, because honestly, while they can all be taken as allies, does every Imperium player care to alley with every other Imperium army? Can you imagine how silly it would be, to be a Marine player and buff SoBs just to maybe one day go out and track down some expensive metal models to ally in your army? Worse yet, being someone who loves Ad Mech and not enjoying Marines at all... It's just silly to lump them all together like that, since I'm sure tons of players like on part of the Imperium but have no interest in the other parts, to the point that I'm sure more than a couple would rather see that part nerfed just to have an excuse not to have to run it in their list.

The good tournament winning lists usually do. Gladius aside because it's just so good look up what makes a winning space wolf list. Heck admech can't place above fiftyith without some form of war convocation with knights and or drop pod allies. And the amount of imperium players splashing knights in these days is high too.

 Tinkrr wrote:
I also find it weird that Imperium players get lumped in so much, because honestly, while they can all be taken as allies, does every Imperium player care to alley with every other Imperium army? Can you imagine how silly it would be, to be a Marine player and buff SoBs just to maybe one day go out and track down some expensive metal models to ally in your army? Worse yet, being someone who loves Ad Mech and not enjoying Marines at all... It's just silly to lump them all together like that, since I'm sure tons of players like on part of the Imperium but have no interest in the other parts, to the point that I'm sure more than a couple would rather see that part nerfed just to have an excuse not to have to run it in their list.

I really don't believe it is silly at all to lump them together because of the amount of allied lists I have seen on here, in ITC sponsored/format tournaments and the fact that it is one of the best and unique things about Imperial armies. I think it is one of the reasons Imperial armies are attractive to players, having almost unlimited tactical flexibility and creativity options on top of how competitive some of these allied builds can be really justifies lumping them all together in this case. You are correct not everyone does so, however especially in tournament formats it seems the nom to ally in as much Imperial Shenanigans to get the best list possible to achieve victory.

 gmaleron wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
I also find it weird that Imperium players get lumped in so much, because honestly, while they can all be taken as allies, does every Imperium player care to alley with every other Imperium army? Can you imagine how silly it would be, to be a Marine player and buff SoBs just to maybe one day go out and track down some expensive metal models to ally in your army? Worse yet, being someone who loves Ad Mech and not enjoying Marines at all... It's just silly to lump them all together like that, since I'm sure tons of players like on part of the Imperium but have no interest in the other parts, to the point that I'm sure more than a couple would rather see that part nerfed just to have an excuse not to have to run it in their list.

I really don't believe it is silly at all to lump them together because of the amount of allied lists I have seen on here, in ITC sponsored/format tournaments and the fact that it is one of the best and unique things about Imperial armies. I think it is one of the reasons Imperial armies are attractive to players, having almost unlimited tactical flexibility and creativity options on top of how competitive some of these allied builds can be really justifies lumping them all together in this case. You are correct not everyone does so, however especially in tournament formats it seems the nom to ally in as much Imperial Shenanigans to get the best list possible to achieve victory.

What is done, does not mean it is fully desired. We all go to work, we all do our taxes, and we all do so much more than that in order to get what is best for us. Competitive players will ally the best options, but it does not mean they don't wish to have one thing nerfed so that they can take another better thing.

Let's put it this way, I don't particularly like Broadsides, but I will always bring three when running a Ret Cad, they're just too good with relentless and HYMP to pass up if you're going that path for your core choice. It's not so much that I want them in my list, it's that there really isn't a choice when going about it that way, and when the Ghostkeel was spoiled, before we knew about the OSC or all the special rules, a part of me did wish HYMP broadsides would get a slight nerf.

But that's exactly the problem... these rulings seem to take the opportunity of nerfing new things that are good, while leaving the old untouched. That's really not a positive for the game, imo... I'd love to see more Tau with Ghostkeel units, they seem unique, tactical to use and not overpowering.

Why nerf them as a new unit, rather than other things? I just don't like that kind of activism in the ITC errata decisions, and really hope they'll put this up for vote... the majority of people posting in this thread, even who are mostly in favor of the ITC decisions, have said "except the Ghostkeel". It's really just unnecessary, and takes away a cool way to field Tau since it would be crazy to run a unit of them rather than singles with that change.

Again, you do know they went with conservative rulings for the provisional rulings that are in place for the ITC but will have a vote later, right?

I was really with you, until you brought up the Ghostkeel topic, as I do agree the ITC doesn't exactly review past topics as much as it should from what I've seen personally, though it does bring some up on occasion.

As for the Ghostkeel changes, I had this discussion a while ago in the Tau thread and basically using them in units was pretty much strictly better than using them solo. This new ruling makes them better solo, but still has reason to use them in units when using something like the OSC. It's not perfect mind you, but neither was the previous incarnation, due to how the Holophoton works as a whole.

Remember, the Ghostkeel change simply shifted it from multiple Ghostkeels in a unit being the best, to multiple single unit Ghostkeels, such as the Ghostkeel Wing, being the best when looking at things. I can't say which is better, but then again this is just a provisional ruling, which can work in favour of the Tau, since if they don't preform well enough at the LVO, the vote after it will be in their favour and buff them.

 RiTides wrote:
But that's exactly the problem... these rulings seem to take the opportunity of nerfing new things that are good, while leaving the old untouched. That's really not a positive for the game, imo... I'd love to see more Tau with Ghostkeel units, they seem unique, tactical to use and not overpowering.

Putting it bluntly, you're STILL going to see Ghostkeels. They're basically an autotake as the OSC and HRCs are fantastic formations.

The ITC change isn't going to lower it.

Why nerf them as a new unit, rather than other things? I just don't like that kind of activism in the ITC errata decisions, and really hope they'll put this up for vote... the majority of people posting in this thread, even who are mostly in favor of the ITC decisions, have said "except the Ghostkeel". It's really just unnecessary, and takes away a cool way to field Tau since it would be crazy to run a unit of them rather than singles with that change.

Yeah...there's still plenty of reasons to run them as units rather than singles. All this did was nerf the tankiness of a unit of Ghostkeels--which is kinda absurd to begin with.
3 Ghostkeels in a unit means that they can pop HCMs three times a game, mostly which will be done when they're being targeted by something that will be able to ignore their Cover saves.
Being "only" able to force a single unit to Snap Fire against a unit of 9 models(Ghostkeels come standard with their Stealth Drones--you cannot remove them or purchase them separately) minimum; 15 models maximum(3x Ghostkeels with 2x Stealth Drones each and 2x Gun, Shield, or Marker Drones each) where the whole unit is rocking a 4+ Cover save out in the open, able to claim a 2+ Cover save pretty easily because they're MCs and JPI? That's still a pretty hefty unit.

 Tinkrr wrote:
Again, you do know they went with conservative rulings for the provisional rulings that are in place for the ITC but will have a vote later, right?

I was really with you, until you brought up the Ghostkeel topic, as I do agree the ITC doesn't exactly review past topics as much as it should from what I've seen personally, though it does bring some up on occasion.

Yes definitely, I'm aware that they're just provisional rulings - just voicing support for adding them to the ballot so that these don't become permanent without being looked at again! As you say, the ITC doesn't really review past topics - but as long as this at least makes the next ballot, I'll be happy (and I'm not a Tau player)

To your other points and Kanluwen's, I don't really see shifting the benefit to taking single Ghostkeels to be a good thing - ITC already has a lot of rulings favoring MSU style armies, and this would be another one moving the meta in that direction. But most of all, I think that each model (up to 3) being able to use their ability once per game is supported by (most people's) reading of the RAW (which should be kept intact when possible, and only clarified rather than changed for "preemptive balancing" of new units, imo).

 RiTides wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
Again, you do know they went with conservative rulings for the provisional rulings that are in place for the ITC but will have a vote later, right?

I was really with you, until you brought up the Ghostkeel topic, as I do agree the ITC doesn't exactly review past topics as much as it should from what I've seen personally, though it does bring some up on occasion.

Yes definitely, I'm aware that they're just provisional rulings - just voicing support for adding them to the ballot so that these don't become permanent without being looked at again! As you say, the ITC doesn't really review past topics - but as long as this at least makes the next ballot, I'll be happy (and I'm not a Tau player)

To your other points and Kanluwen's, I don't really see shifting the benefit to taking single Ghostkeels to be a good thing - ITC already has a lot of rulings favoring MSU style armies, and this would be another one moving the meta in that direction. But most of all, I think that each model (up to 3) being able to use their ability once per game is supported by (most people's) reading of the RAW (which should be kept intact when possible, and only clarified rather than changed for "preemptive balancing" of new units, imo).

RiTides, You have been hitting the nail on the head all thread long. You're doing god's work lol.

 RiTides wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
Again, you do know they went with conservative rulings for the provisional rulings that are in place for the ITC but will have a vote later, right?

I was really with you, until you brought up the Ghostkeel topic, as I do agree the ITC doesn't exactly review past topics as much as it should from what I've seen personally, though it does bring some up on occasion.

Yes definitely, I'm aware that they're just provisional rulings - just voicing support for adding them to the ballot so that these don't become permanent without being looked at again! As you say, the ITC doesn't really review past topics - but as long as this at least makes the next ballot, I'll be happy (and I'm not a Tau player)

To your other points and Kanluwen's, I don't really see shifting the benefit to taking single Ghostkeels to be a good thing - ITC already has a lot of rulings favoring MSU style armies, and this would be another one moving the meta in that direction. But most of all, I think that each model (up to 3) being able to use their ability once per game is supported by (most people's) reading of the RAW (which should be kept intact when possible, and only clarified rather than changed for "preemptive balancing" of new units, imo).

I think you're misunderstanding my point.

While certainly RAW it seems pretty clear, there is still a bit of wobble. That though does not change the fact that there are still significant benefits to taking units of Ghostkeels rather than singles.

For example, you're not going to see people taking single Ghostkeels in an OSC or Ghostkeel Wing.

Right, but as a general policy, if the RAW is "pretty clear" (I've also used that term and so have a lot of others about it, so we're in agreement!) it makes the most sense just to clarify it, rather than to justify a nerf or boost one way or the other based on other factors.

This is why I'm making a point of it - I don't think the ITC should be doing anything to nerf / boost such new releases, unless they are game-breaking from either a game mechanics or balance point of view (the Piranha formation may have been from a game mechanics perspective, for instance).

The Ghostkeel just seems to be a small nerf, but it exemplifies what the ITC has been doing (adjusting power level of new release units preemptively) rather than what I think they should be focused on (providing needed FAQ clarifications, and only adjusting things when absolutely necessary). And just because there is still a good way to run Ghostkeels, doesn't mean making them less attractive as a unit in a normal CAD is a good thing - the result is a restricted way to run the army, which isn't good for variety (believe me - as a Tyranids player where Flyrant spam is the only real effective way to play, variety is needed!).

But most of all, it's just unnecessary, and shouldn't be OK to do just because it's "new"!

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.

I'm not going to a tournament to make friends; I already have them. It doesn't matter if it isn't enjoyable. RAW that is how Drone Factory works.
Saying that that doing that is going to bite you in the ass because of the opponent's non-enjoyment is a piss-poor argument.

 RiTides wrote:
Right, but as a general policy, if the RAW is "pretty clear" (I've also used that term and so have a lot of others about it, so we're in agreement!) it makes the most sense just to clarify it,

Then clarify that the RAW is RAW and move on. They changed the ruleE

 Jancoran wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Right, but as a general policy, if the RAW is "pretty clear" (I've also used that term and so have a lot of others about it, so we're in agreement!) it makes the most sense just to clarify it,

Then clarify that the RAW is RAW and move on. They changed the ruleE

They only changed the rules for the Piranha Drone Factory

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Right, but as a general policy, if the RAW is "pretty clear" (I've also used that term and so have a lot of others about it, so we're in agreement!) it makes the most sense just to clarify it,

Then clarify that the RAW is RAW and move on. They changed the ruleE

They only changed the rules for the Piranha Drone Factory

No. I'm referring to his idea that "as a general policy" if the RAW is "pretty clear" it makes sense just to clarify it.

Theres a vast GULF between clarifying that something is true... and completely reversing reality on a knee jerk reaction and pretending that it's not. That's a literal 180 degree difference.

I don't know why people are saying this will make them only want to play one Ghostkeel in a unit. I certainly plan to use three. That's just hyperbole in my mind. But it's just the wRONG call and we SHOULD not support it. If it comes to a super secret vote (I've never been asked to vote, have you?) I know the way I'm voting.

The votes are publicized (although perhaps it could be better, or open for longer periods). Also, if you read my post I actually was saying that my opinion was they should have clarified the rule so that each model could use their ability, as the RAW (and even RAI) implies... so, we're not in disagreement there

And while I've been critical of the ITC process, if you want to vote on this issue, there's really only one action to take - send an email to this address:

frankie AT frontlinegaming DOT org

And ask for the Ghostkeel question to be put on the next ballot!

The voting process is pretty clear on things. Its not some sort of secret cabal or conspiracy, nor is it a comprehensive tally of the opinions of all 40k players in some sort of attempt to apply s unified FAQ to the entire 40k playerbase...they throw up the poll on their site and make an announcement to come vote.

Its symptomatic. there should just BE a process and they should just never be ruling like this. Ever. if they really want the process to be trusted...make it an actual process and stick to it. Insteadof this free wheeling knee jerk reaction stuff.

How many times have we been on a forum and people are saying "End of the world is here. Faction X got Ability Z and now the entire universe of 40K is done for".

and then someone pokes his hand into the air and says "well... all you have to do is hit it with concussion and charge it with something REAL nasty and it goes away".

and then everyone relaxes and says "okay, adding Concussion to my Marines and Taking some Black Knights"

Codex's have also been sort of catching up to handle such things. the StormSurge, while a little on the frail side as such units go, answered the question every Tau was asking: what the heck do i do about THAT thing.

People got SO mad sooooooo mad about the Storm of Chaos. I mean it was a HUGE deal back in the day, remember that? And after some games people realized that hey, it CAN be bad...as CAN a hundred other things but it's not the game breaking thing people hated so much.

And here we are again. No evidence whatsoever that it's even an issue and we're nerfing things. Sorry. "Clarifying" things. by completely changing the rules.

The 40K community is so large (and I'm glad) compared to other games and a lot more passionate than any that I know of. I love that about it. It's why I can stomach some of these discussions and keep coming back for more. But that passion needs to be carefully managed when you are attemption to bean INAT or attempting to be an ITC etc... You're NOT just representing your little corner of the world any longer. there's responsibility that comes with that standing. Abuse it and people will just simply walk off and find tournaments and events they'd rather be at. The more you force a TO NOT to use your rules in their entirety, the more often they start questioning the need to use it at all.

And they should question it.