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.

 Jancoran wrote:
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.

How about:

1) email Reece and voice your opinion

2) start a rival company, invent your own FAQ's and try to destroy Frontline Gaming

3) boycott them and their tournies

4) get over it and accept it.

I understand people's frustrations, but I feel like this is getting out of hand. People are treating these rulings as the end of the world.

 jreilly89 wrote:

I understand people's frustrations, but I feel like this is getting out of hand. People are treating these rulings as the end of the world.

what did you expect on page 11 of a XX got nerfed thread ?

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
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.

How about:

1) email Reece and voice your opinion

2) start a rival company, invent your own FAQ's and try to destroy Frontline Gaming

3) boycott them and their tournies

4) get over it and accept it.

I understand people's frustrations, but I feel like this is getting out of hand. People are treating these rulings as the end of the world.

I have voiced my opinion. They know this discussion is happening. Believe it. I'm not INTERESTED iun destroying anyone. I like Frontline Gaming. Haven't I said that repeatedly? yes. I have. And boycotting their tournaments is absolutely legitimate, although not in the negative way YOU are saying to do it. It's simply a matter of not wanting to be annoyed by the rules the entire time you're there. Eight straight games of going Z"oh yeah, they changed that?" and crap like that. Sure, I could be a Basement apartment nerd who does nothing BUT this game or I can be a functional nerd who just wants to play his game.

"Getting over it" is how you cope? So basically anything they put put, you'll accept because...why? Why WOULD you? If you're a T.O, at multiple events and you haveto make these decisions, it isn't JUST about how i feel about it. It's about how my players feel when saddled with these rulings. It's bigger than one persons satisfaction so with all due respect, I'm not going to get over it. I'm GOING to try and BETTER the ITC by being critical.

It's only antagonism if you wish Frontline Gaming ill. I don't. getting up and speaking out is what makes things better. And we ALL benefit if the ITC is beyond reasonable reproach.

A Super majority and minimum vote count makes the most sense if they want that to happen.

Edited by RiTides - Rule #1 of Dakka is "Be Polite"

As already noted a few times previously in this thread, using personal insults (such as "sheeple") is against Dakka's rules (basically, "be polite"!).

Please make your argument without insults, or refrain from posting in this thread.

Thanks

 Jancoran wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
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.

How about:

1) email Reece and voice your opinion

2) start a rival company, invent your own FAQ's and try to destroy Frontline Gaming

3) boycott them and their tournies

4) get over it and accept it.

I understand people's frustrations, but I feel like this is getting out of hand. People are treating these rulings as the end of the world.

I have voiced my opinion. They know this discussion is happening. Believe it. I'm not INTERESTED iun destroying anyone. I like Frontline Gaming. Haven't I said that repeatedly? yes. I have. And boycotting their tournaments is absolutely legitimate, although not in the negative way YOU are saying to do it. It's simply a matter of not wanting to be annoyed by the rules the entire time you're there. Eight straight games of going Z"oh yeah, they changed that?" and crap like that. Sure, I could be a Basement apartment nerd who does nothing BUT this game or I can be a functional nerd who just wants to play his game.

So what can you do beyond voice your opinion? Either play or don't. Until a vote comes out, that's it. Also, how is boycotting something never not negative? The act by itself is negative, that's the point.

Also, there's a reason these FAQs are released before the tourney, so there's no confusion, people have time to read, accept the rules, and get on with the game.

"Getting over it" is how you cope? So basically anything they put put, you'll accept because...why? Why WOULD you? If you're a T.O, at multiple events and you haveto make these decisions, it isn't JUST about how i feel about it. It's about how my players feel when saddled with these rulings. It's bigger than one persons satisfaction so with all due respect, I'm not going to get over it. I'm GOING to try and BETTER the ITC by being critical.

With some things? Yes, especially when it's out of my control. I just listed it as an option, I never said you had to just sit down and accept it.

It's only antagonism if you wish Frontline Gaming ill. I don't. getting up and speaking out is what makes things better. And we ALL benefit if the ITC is beyond reasonable reproach.

A Super majority and minimum vote count makes the most sense if they want that to happen.

And you and a majority of this thread aren't antagonistic? 90% of what I've seen has been very harsh towards the ITC ruling. Also, they've said there was going to be a vote at a later time, I'm guessing they didn't want to wait/rush a vote before the LVO.

Also, sorry if I hit a nerve. Apparently, this one ruling is genuinely upsetting for you.

 jreilly89 wrote:


So what can you do beyond voice your opinion? Either play or don't. Until a vote comes out, that's it. Also, how is boycotting something never not negative? The act by itself is negative, that's the point.

And you and a majority of this thread aren't antagonistic? 90% of what I've seen has been very harsh towards the ITC ruling. Also, they've said there was going to be a vote at a later time, I'm guessing they didn't want to wait/rush a vote before the LVO.

Also, sorry if I hit a nerve. Apparently, this one ruling is genuinely upsetting for you.

I don't think it's negative. No. You're not doing ti to "hurt them". You're doing ti to spend your limited money on the things you enjoy more.

And you should make the distinction here. i am harsh towards the ITC FAQ. What they wanted to do is irrelevant. What they DID do is rule on it dead wrong.

The ruling is Wrong. T.O.'s should not follow suit. the Detachment limit question sucked and the answer therefore meaningless. Everyone knows that and they fixed it...eventually. In the meantime people had to live with it IF the T.O. wouldn't override it. Many overrode it. this is good. This is what they need to do about this one too.

If you dont think a super majority makes sense, tell me why. Why is ITC stepping in on things that dont have a REAL majority opinion? Many of these were super close votes, some not so close. And some were becaue the wording was bad and people don't read the entirety of the rule, they just read the question. I promoise you there is a huge chunk of players who dont know every codex. They vote with or without that knowledge. a 50% or 55% vote is questionable in its meaning. You need a true super majority to make it stand on its own and put it beyond reasonable reproach.

GW rules are so slack that someone needs to step up and take responsibility for fixing them.

This used to be INAT, who did a sterling job, but since they went into a hiatus, ITC have taken up the cudgels.

The things I would say about ITC compared to INAT are that INAT used to class each decision as a clarification, rules change or whatever, and given their reasoning. This gave a lot of transparency to the FAQ.

Secondly, I don't think it helps for ITC to make these decisions subject to a vote. This confers a sense of democratic authority and fairness to be stamped on to completely arbitrary decisions.

 Jancoran wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


So what can you do beyond voice your opinion? Either play or don't. Until a vote comes out, that's it. Also, how is boycotting something never not negative? The act by itself is negative, that's the point.

And you and a majority of this thread aren't antagonistic? 90% of what I've seen has been very harsh towards the ITC ruling. Also, they've said there was going to be a vote at a later time, I'm guessing they didn't want to wait/rush a vote before the LVO.

Also, sorry if I hit a nerve. Apparently, this one ruling is genuinely upsetting for you.

I don't think it's negative. No. You're not doing ti to "hurt them". You're doing ti to spend your limited money on the things you enjoy more.

And you should make the distinction here. i am harsh towards the ITC FAQ. What they wanted to do is irrelevant. What they DID do is rule on it dead wrong.

The ruling is Wrong. T.O.'s should not follow suit. the Detachment limit question sucked and the answer therefore meaningless. Everyone knows that and they fixed it...eventually. In the meantime people had to live with it IF the T.O. wouldn't override it. Many overrode it. this is good. This is what they need to do about this one too.

So...continue doing what I already said, T.O.'s over riding and making their own judgements? That's the whole point. The ITC FAQs something, use it or don't.

Also, they don't need to over ride this one too. They should put it to a vote, not automatically override it.

If you dont think a super majority makes sense, tell me why. Why is ITC stepping in on things that dont have a REAL majority opinion? Many of these were super close votes, some not so close. And some were becaue the wording was bad and people don't read the entirety of the rule, they just read the question. I promoise you there is a huge chunk of players who dont know every codex. They vote with or without that knowledge. a 50% or 55% vote is questionable in its meaning. You need a true super majority to make it stand on its own and put it beyond reasonable reproach.

They FAQed it because either A) it was seen as super powerful and needed a nerf or B) they thought that it was unclear enough to warrant a ruling and not waste the T.O.'s time at the events.

At this point I don't think a vote will help, I'm starting to think ITC should just FAQ things with no voting allowed, if the people are so uninformed or heated as you claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GW rules are so slack that someone needs to step up and take responsibility for fixing them.

This used to be INAT, who did a sterling job, but since they went into a hiatus, ITC have taken up the cudgels.

The things I would say about ITC compared to INAT are that INAT used to class each decision as a clarification, rules change or whatever, and given their reasoning. This gave a lot of transparency to the FAQ.

Secondly, I don't think it helps for ITC to make these decisions subject to a vote. This confers a sense of democratic authority and fairness to be stamped on to completely arbitrary decisions.

I'm starting to think ITC should just FAQ things with no voting allowed, if the people are so uninformed or heated as you claim.

I could actually agree with the ITC just making a FAQ without voting - but in that case I think a process more like the INAT (with explanations and classifying different rulings into different categories) would definitely be needed.

With the Ghostkeel ruling, for instance, it isn't clear if they were doing it as just a slight power level adjustment, or if they were actually just making a true FAQ clarification of the rule, but going with the minority opinion of how to read it.

If they were to make their own committee decisions, but classify each into FAQ or Errata, then people could more easily choose what to use for their events. That would be even better than the chance to vote on things as it is now, imo, since the vote is a bit of the "wild wild west", and sometimes a very close vote makes a big decision. Not unlike actual political voting but since they have the choice to make their own system here, going with a committee and clearer explanations and classifications of rulings would be just as (or even more) effective, imo!

 RiTides wrote:

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!).

"Less attractive as a unit in a normal CAD" means nothing to Tau players. They're either using the Dawn Blade Contingent(Ghostkeel Wing) or the Hunter Cadre(Optimised Stealth Cadre and Heavy Retribution Cadre). Both of those have reaaaaaaaaaaally big benefits for Ghostkeels in their formations(Optimised Stealth Cadre grants Ignores Cover and autohits on rear armor to all units in the formation near the Ghostkeels from the formation, Heavy Retribution Cadre gets you re-roll failed To Hit rolls for shooting attacks made by Stormsurges in the formation if the target unit is within 12" of a Ghostkeel from the formation, and the Ghostkeel Wing in the DBC grants an additional +1 BS for Ghostkeels in the formation if they shoot at a unit already fired at by any other Ghostkeel from the formation).

Running a unit of Ghostkeels nets you a bigger unit footprint(which is good for the Ghostkeel Wing formation in DBC; they grant Stealth(or if the unit already has Stealth? Shrouded) to all units within 12" of 2 or more units from the Formation), more Stealth Drones adding redundancy to the Stealth Field for the unit(if the MV5 Stealth Drones are alive, the Ghostkeels receive Shrouded), and the Fireteam bonus(+1 BS for having 3 MCs in the unit).

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

Who says it's being done "just because it's new"?

We got the new Tau stuff around Thanksgiving or so. There's been a good chunk of time for people to play with them at this point, and HCMs are definitely a big sticking point for many people.

 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).

Here's the thing, I encourage people trying to make their voices heard and conveying their views of what they believe should happen. What I have an issue with is how a lot of people present it on here, because when this thread opens with a conspiracy of how the ITC is being corrupted from within, or whatever, it's hard to take it seriously. Here's the thing, this thread is now over ten pages long, and no reply from Reece, in fact when I did a search to see if he posted here, all I found was myself mentioning him, and people bashing him, why would he want to respond to this? I wouldn't be surprised if someone read this and got something out of this in the ITC, but I doubt they'd take it at face value with all the crazy things said here.

Now look at it this way, I made one post, about one rule I disagreed with, I was polite and stated my views as to why it shouldn't be the way it is, and I got a reply from Reece, here it is:

 Reecius wrote:
We had a ton of new material we had to plow through for the LVO guys, and nearly 600 questions on the ITC questionnaire submission form to answer before the event. It was a massive task to put it mildly.

We'll have a vote coming out of the LVO for the next season and a lot of these issues will be voted on like the Riptide question which does seem like it could be an oversight.

So yea, if people want to voice their views, awesome, I'm all for it, but keep the conspiracy theories and slander out, all it does is hurt the cause, because one well thought out post that shows them respect for their hard work has gotten a lot more done than this hate fest as far as we can see.

 Tinkrr wrote:

 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).

Here's the thing, I encourage people trying to make their voices heard and conveying their views of what they believe should happen. What I have an issue with is how a lot of people present it on here, because when this thread opens with a conspiracy of how the ITC is being corrupted from within, or whatever, it's hard to take it seriously. Here's the thing, this thread is now over ten pages long, and no reply from Reece, in fact when I did a search to see if he posted here, all I found was myself mentioning him, and people bashing him, why would he want to respond to this? I wouldn't be surprised if someone read this and got something out of this in the ITC, but I doubt they'd take it at face value with all the crazy things said here.

Now look at it this way, I made one post, about one rule I disagreed with, I was polite and stated my views as to why it shouldn't be the way it is, and I got a reply from Reece, here it is:

 Reecius wrote:
We had a ton of new material we had to plow through for the LVO guys, and nearly 600 questions on the ITC questionnaire submission form to answer before the event. It was a massive task to put it mildly.

We'll have a vote coming out of the LVO for the next season and a lot of these issues will be voted on like the Riptide question which does seem like it could be an oversight.

So yea, if people want to voice their views, awesome, I'm all for it, but keep the conspiracy theories and slander out, all it does is hurt the cause, because one well thought out post that shows them respect for their hard work has gotten a lot more done than this hate fest as far as we can see.

Have an exalt friend.

 Tinkrr wrote:

So yea, if people want to voice their views, awesome, I'm all for it, but keep the conspiracy theories and slander out, all it does is hurt the cause, because one well thought out post that shows them respect for their hard work has gotten a lot more done than this hate fest as far as we can see.

Have another exalt.

I fully support Janacor to express his opinion. He is a great communicator and has an honest vibe to me.

 Tinkrr wrote:

 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).

Here's the thing, I encourage people trying to make their voices heard and conveying their views of what they believe should happen. What I have an issue with is how a lot of people present it on here, because when this thread opens with a conspiracy of how the ITC is being corrupted from within, or whatever, it's hard to take it seriously. Here's the thing, this thread is now over ten pages long, and no reply from Reece, in fact when I did a search to see if he posted here, all I found was myself mentioning him, and people bashing him, why would he want to respond to this? I wouldn't be surprised if someone read this and got something out of this in the ITC, but I doubt they'd take it at face value with all the crazy things said here.

Now look at it this way, I made one post, about one rule I disagreed with, I was polite and stated my views as to why it shouldn't be the way it is, and I got a reply from Reece, here it is:

 Reecius wrote:
We had a ton of new material we had to plow through for the LVO guys, and nearly 600 questions on the ITC questionnaire submission form to answer before the event. It was a massive task to put it mildly.

We'll have a vote coming out of the LVO for the next season and a lot of these issues will be voted on like the Riptide question which does seem like it could be an oversight.

So yea, if people want to voice their views, awesome, I'm all for it, but keep the conspiracy theories and slander out, all it does is hurt the cause, because one well thought out post that shows them respect for their hard work has gotten a lot more done than this hate fest as far as we can see.

Have another exalt.

Kanluwen, when it comes to it, if a formation makes a unit a problem, I'd much rather see that adjusted than the unit itself! Because then you're all the more likely to only see it in a powerful formation, further reducing variety. That said I'm not a Tau player so don't know their formations, just that the Ghostkeel rule seemed fine - certainly not something that needed adjusting via FAQ / Errata.

Regarding new things, it seems to be that recent releases are adjusted more frequently, whereas there are really powerful existing things that aren't... so, I was just mentioning it'd be nice to let it play out a bit unless it's extremely powerful (and maybe even then!).

Finally, that is a great post and I commented over there too Tinkrr, but of course I think Reecius or any Frontline guys are running their event and not worrying about this this week! I'm also not condoning the starting premise of this thread (especially the former title, which I edited out). I emailed them, and hopefully others will do the same if they want something addressed / voted on / etc

 Tinkrr wrote:

Spoiler:

 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).

Here's the thing, I encourage people trying to make their voices heard and conveying their views of what they believe should happen. What I have an issue with is how a lot of people present it on here, because when this thread opens with a conspiracy of how the ITC is being corrupted from within, or whatever, it's hard to take it seriously. Here's the thing, this thread is now over ten pages long, and no reply from Reece, in fact when I did a search to see if he posted here, all I found was myself mentioning him, and people bashing him, why would he want to respond to this? I wouldn't be surprised if someone read this and got something out of this in the ITC, but I doubt they'd take it at face value with all the crazy things said here.

Now look at it this way, I made one post, about one rule I disagreed with, I was polite and stated my views as to why it shouldn't be the way it is, and I got a reply from Reece, here it is:

 Reecius wrote:
We had a ton of new material we had to plow through for the LVO guys, and nearly 600 questions on the ITC questionnaire submission form to answer before the event. It was a massive task to put it mildly.

We'll have a vote coming out of the LVO for the next season and a lot of these issues will be voted on like the Riptide question which does seem like it could be an oversight.

So yea, if people want to voice their views, awesome, I'm all for it, but keep the conspiracy theories and slander out, all it does is hurt the cause, because one well thought out post that shows them respect for their hard work has gotten a lot more done than this hate fest as far as we can see.

I'm very unsure of how much the Ghostkeel change was good or bad, I actually saw it mentioned before and had a conversation about it in the Tau Tactic Thread. The thing about the stacking Holophoton is that it does actually scale per Ghostkeel in the unit, instead of being static, so two Ghostkeels in a unit versus two individual Ghostkeels are better when Holophotons stack. That being said, how often, or how much better it would be is hard to say without excessive testing. I think it was more that some people in the ITC wrote blogs that played it that way, and that carried over to the provisional rulings.

That would actually be a good thing to bring up to the ITC more often, a great focus on the rules as a whole, instead of just the newer rulings. Though it is harder to constantly review everything, and easier to focus on specific things. Generally things have been good enough to not warrant significant attention to past topics, though on occasion they do come up.

Maybe we just need special Tau Ambassadors for the Dakka Dakka forums, since so many people can't seem to control their emotions it wouldn't be the worst thing to have translators for them to communicate a more reasonable message to the ITC. You know, let the Fire Caste be Fire Caste, and employ the Water Caste to do the talking D:

 Tinkrr wrote:
You know, let the Fire Caste be Fire Caste, and employ the Water Caste to do the talking D:

It's not a bad idea

I think the ITC probably gets bombarded from all directions, especially when rulings like this drop, and that reasoned discourse does yield a much better result!

That said, part of the reason I haven't been posting in the LVO thread about this is:

1) This is their week to have an awesome event, and not to worry about this stuff, there's nothing to be done for the LVO now other than have a great time
2) In the past, it hasn't really been effective discussing things in the LVO / ITC / etc threads in the tournament section, as again, I'm sure any argument made the Frontline guys have heard from some sector or other. What they've said makes a difference is how many people request that a certain ruling be addressed or voted on, and the only way to do that is by emailing them here:

frankie AT frontlinegaming DOT org

I keep listing that with the "AT" and "DOT" so hopefully no spambot picks it up which would be a danger with how often I'm trying to post it! But I think the problem is, right now most gamers don't know that that is the avenue to bring up an issue for the ITC to consider for voting / consideration / etc, and so we have threads like this but the concerns might not be getting to the eyes they need to. I'm all for an open discussion, and I think sometimes it even helps to have it separate from the "first party" / official thread / etc... but in the end the only way to get something addressed by the ITC is to let them know you want it voted on, and that's by emailing the above!

Other than these specific concerns, there is the larger discussion of how they should be addressing rules (just the newest or a comprehensive review, adjusting everything for power level or doing the least interference possible, etc). I think that's a great thing to talk about, and although won't involve immediate action, might move the needle a bit over time if Frontline sees that folks want the rules to be left as intact / unchanged as possible... or the inverse, if people want them to do even more re-balancing. It's a great discussion and one I enjoy... although it might be easier since it's not actually my army hanging in the balance! But I'm thinking of it as if it is, because it's always easy to say "Yeah nerf the other guy!" until you Are the other guy

 RiTides wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
You know, let the Fire Caste be Fire Caste, and employ the Water Caste to do the talking D:

It's not a bad idea

I think the ITC probably gets bombarded from all directions, especially when rulings like this drop, and that reasoned discourse does yield a much better result!

That said, part of the reason I haven't been posting in the LVO thread about this is:

1) This is their week to have an awesome event, and not to worry about this stuff, there's nothing to be done for the LVO now other than have a great time
2) In the past, it hasn't really been effective discussing things in the LVO / ITC / etc threads in the tournament section, as again, I'm sure any argument made the Frontline guys have heard from some sector or other. What they've said makes a difference is how many people request that a certain ruling be addressed or voted on, and the only way to do that is by emailing them here:

frankie AT frontlinegaming DOT org

I keep listing that with the "AT" and "DOT" so hopefully no spambot picks it up which would be a danger with how often I'm trying to post it! But I think the problem is, right now most gamers don't know that that is the avenue to bring up an issue for the ITC to consider for voting / consideration / etc, and so we have threads like this but the concerns might not be getting to the eyes they need to. I'm all for an open discussion, and I think sometimes it even helps to have it separate from the "first party" / official thread / etc... but in the end the only way to get something addressed by the ITC is to let them know you want it voted on, and that's by emailing the above!

Other than these specific concerns, there is the larger discussion of how they should be addressing rules (just the newest or a comprehensive review, adjusting everything for power level or doing the least interference possible, etc). I think that's a great thing to talk about, and although won't involve immediate action, might move the needle a bit over time if Frontline sees that folks want the rules to be left as intact / unchanged as possible... or the inverse, if people want them to do even more re-balancing. It's a great discussion and one I enjoy... although it might be easier since it's not actually my army hanging in the balance! But I'm thinking of it as if it is, because it's always easy to say "Yeah nerf the other guy!" until you Are the other guy

That might be all the more reason to have army representatives from these forums to communicate with the ITC. Even if they get a lot of messages, there's only so much they can process at any given time, but if there's a direct line that takes some of that burden off of them, and compiles it into a compact form, they can quickly look it over and have a good idea of which issues are important or not. It would b a huge task for anyone doing the mediating, and it would involve a lot of power, so it would have to be someone not only consistent but able to step back from their own personal agendas or views, though if done right it would create a much more expedited system. Basically lobbying x_x

1.) + 2.) I don't wish to suggest people go there and spam them with their complaints. I don't know Reece or Frankie personally, but I've at least always gotten a reply from Reece when posting in regards to him because I've always tried my best to be constructive with my views, and I've always tried to make it clear that they were only my views and aren't necessarily correct. What I was trying to get across, was more that if people simply act reasonably, they could get a positive response for a better ITC format. As you said yourself, you edited the title to this thread but it still says "Avoid the ITC if you can", just imagine how that'd look to someone who is working on the LVO, while also doing everything else. They're incredibly busy people, but even so they take a lot of time to interact with the community.

That would actually be a really good discussion to have, though it would be one that couldn't be taken at full value, as often times what people truly want and what they say they want, are very different things. That's not to say they're malicious or lying, simply that many things seem good in concept but ultimately result poorly in practice, so the discussion would only be part of solution as a whole. Also, if it helps, I love the Tau, I want to only play Tau, like forever (though I'll probably have another army at some point) and oddly these changes don't bother me at all, in fact I would have voted against the stronger forms of CFP as I had stated it was too strong on these forums multiple times before that. Now again, you can clearly see I don't always agree with the rulings, but I am willing to accept playing by them until they are addressed later. To me the Tau just has enough variety, and there are enough goodies for me to try out or explore that I don't feel like these changes exactly hurt my play, more so the changes don't even make the specific units unplayable, they simply make them play differently. Though maybe I'm just weird, but hey I'll take the highs and the lows, as I ultimately believe the ITC is doing a lot more good than harm in the long run.

 RiTides wrote:
Kanluwen, when it comes to it, if a formation makes a unit a problem, I'd much rather see that adjusted than the unit itself! Because then you're all the more likely to only see it in a powerful formation, further reducing variety. That said I'm not a Tau player so don't know their formations, just that the Ghostkeel rule seemed fine - certainly not something that needed adjusting via FAQ / Errata.

You don't see how a unit of 3 MCs that have Stealth, Shrouded, and +2 to their Cover Save when over 12" from the unit firing at them being able to force Snap Shots on demand against units isn't a "problem"?

You really, really, really need to understand that the Ghostkeel as it stands? It's not going to be making an appearance in CADs to begin with. It's competing against Riptides--and nothing beats the Riptide. The formations that Ghostkeels are required for(Optimised Stealth Cadre, Heavy Retribution Cadre, and the Ghostkeel Wing) are just such autoinclude options that it's not going to be the case where you see Ghostkeels without them being present in those formations.

Regarding new things, it seems to be that recent releases are adjusted more frequently, whereas there are really powerful existing things that aren't... so, I was just mentioning it'd be nice to let it play out a bit unless it's extremely powerful (and maybe even then!).

Recent releases, if I had to guess, tend to get adjusted more frequently because people don't really have experience playing against them even in their unadjusted forms.

 Kanluwen wrote:
You don't see how a unit of 3 MCs that have Stealth, Shrouded, and +2 to their Cover Save when over 12" from the unit firing at them being able to force Snap Shots on demand against units isn't a "problem"?

Let's see, nope! There's enough "ignore cover" in this game to mitigate the 2+ cover, and it's not impossible to get within 12" of a unit that has a 24" range on its weapons OR kill the drones in the unit. As for the forced snap shots, that ceases to be a problem when they're in assault.

 dbgoldberg323 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You don't see how a unit of 3 MCs that have Stealth, Shrouded, and +2 to their Cover Save when over 12" from the unit firing at them being able to force Snap Shots on demand against units isn't a "problem"?

Let's see, nope! There's enough "ignore cover" in this game to mitigate the 2+ cover, and it's not impossible to get within 12" of a unit that has a 24" range on its weapons OR kill the drones in the unit. As for the forced snap shots, that ceases to be a problem when they're in assault.

How much ignore cover also is good against T6 3+?

 CrownAxe wrote:

 dbgoldberg323 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You don't see how a unit of 3 MCs that have Stealth, Shrouded, and +2 to their Cover Save when over 12" from the unit firing at them being able to force Snap Shots on demand against units isn't a "problem"?

Let's see, nope! There's enough "ignore cover" in this game to mitigate the 2+ cover, and it's not impossible to get within 12" of a unit that has a 24" range on its weapons OR kill the drones in the unit. As for the forced snap shots, that ceases to be a problem when they're in assault.

How much ignore cover also is good against T6 3+?

A lot? Land Raider Redeemer flamers (and thus the Baal turret flamer), other Tau shenanigans, anything good you use "Fire on my Target" on, and anything good that you cast Perfect Timing on. There are plenty of other examples that I'm forgetting too I'm sure.

FYI ghostkeels are only T5.

 dbgoldberg323 wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 dbgoldberg323 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You don't see how a unit of 3 MCs that have Stealth, Shrouded, and +2 to their Cover Save when over 12" from the unit firing at them being able to force Snap Shots on demand against units isn't a "problem"?

Let's see, nope! There's enough "ignore cover" in this game to mitigate the 2+ cover, and it's not impossible to get within 12" of a unit that has a 24" range on its weapons OR kill the drones in the unit. As for the forced snap shots, that ceases to be a problem when they're in assault.

How much ignore cover also is good against T6 3+?

A lot? Land Raider Redeemer flamers (and thus the Baal turret flamer), other Tau shenanigans, anything good you use "Fire on my Target" on, and anything good that you cast Perfect Timing on. There are plenty of other examples that I'm forgetting too I'm sure.

So two terrible units, a guard infantry unit (which is at most 3-5 ap2 shots at BS3) and a randomly generated psychic power which can only be cast on the psyker and the unit he's joined to.. Other then tau marker lights you aren't actually providing any good ap3 ignore cover.

Can't believe this is still going on.

The Ghostkeel Wing change really isn't that big of a deal, it's a durable unit against shooting even without Holophoton Countermeasures and does quite a bit for it's cost. The point of the nerf is the fact the Ghostkeels can choose which shooting attacks to turn into Snap Shots, so they are able to trust their cover and armour against light attacks, and if something threatening comes up they can opt to effectively shut it down.

To do this 3 times would be ridiculous in a game that is usually a done deal by turn 5 and where melee is vastly underpowered compared to shooting. An opponent would have to shoot at them 3 times with attacks that are powerful enough to make the Tau player use Holophotons, only to BEGIN shooting at them normally. To that you need to add the lighter attacks the Tau player decides aren't threatening enough and sucks up with his 2+ Cover, T5 and 3+ Armour. And that's all against this one mobile unit in an army that shoots back better and more accurately when used correctly.

Stop overreacting and making a fuss about something this meaningless, especially when it's a sensible change. Next to that, as mentioned before, everyone who is in there for a win will be using the Riptidewing.

im upset about the ghostkeel changes but ITC is still better then running straight BRB events. more clarity and less time spent arguing over rules interpretations.

 Runic wrote:
Stop overreacting and making a fuss about something this meaningless, especially when it's a sensible change. Next to that, as mentioned before, everyone who is in there for a win will be using the Riptidewing.

So it's simultaneously a sensible change to a unit that was too powerful to remain as-printed, and a nerf to a weaker option that few competitive players were going to use in the first place. Makes sense to me...

And good to see we've abandoned any defense of the nerf as a "clarification" and admitted the obvious, that the entire reasoning behind the change is "it's too powerful".

"Three ghostkeels are way too powerful. Let's nerf them to make them less attractive choices for tau players!"

"WHY DO ALL TAU PLAYERS RUN 3 RIPTIDE FORMATION??!!one1!!"