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.

 Orock wrote:
"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!!"

You do know there's a Ghostkeel Wing formation in the same book, right? It even favours running three individual Keels heavily :/.

I was not aware that the holophoton bonus is stacking. It would strongly support the view that the RAW follows the RAI and that ITC is wrong on this particular point.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I was not aware that the holophoton bonus is stacking. It would strongly support the view that the RAW follows the RAI and that ITC is wrong on this particular point.

I don't think the RAW is clear one way or the other

RAW is extremely clear in the ghostkeel case, and also for the rest of the nerfs, firestream, coordinated firepower etc. Saying stuff like "but but you have other formations which are still really good so dont feel bad bla bla" is just plain condescending. All of the prime strenghts of these units/rules have been gutted, be it shooting or any form of wargear.

Maybe they should just remove all Tau from ITC games then we don't have to hear more whinning

There's plenty of other formations. But when people just default to Riptide Wing it says a lot.

X078 wrote:
RAW is extremely clear in the ghostkeel case, and also for the rest of the nerfs, firestream, coordinated firepower etc. Saying stuff like "but but you have other formations which are still really good so dont feel bad bla bla" is just plain condescending. All of the prime strenghts of these units/rules have been gutted, be it shooting or any form of wargear.

My best guess is they thought thought that Holophoton Countermeasures effectively gave Invisibility to the unit for a turn, which would be fairly powerful, instead of actually causing a single enemy unit to only fire Snap Shots per use. With the actual reading, you can only cause Snap Shots per unit per activation, which would be three units in one turn, or one unit over three turns, and all the variants in between.

Now if they did say that it did cause all enemy units to only fire snap shots at them for one turn at the cost of all Holophoton Countermeasures, I would say that is a net buff, but completely missed the original point of the rule.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I was not aware that the holophoton bonus is stacking. It would strongly support the view that the RAW follows the RAI and that ITC is wrong on this particular point.

I don't think the RAW is clear one way or the other

It is clear. So clear.

 Mojo1jojo wrote:
Maybe they should just remove all Tau from ITC games then we don't have to hear more whinning

I fail to see how this is helping in the current discussion? From what I can see RAW the Ghostkeel reads just fine and that this was a rushed knee jerk reaction by ITC to get this rule out before the LVO so they could have a rule in place while the tournament is run. I honestly would like to see better advertising of when a vote is occuring, as several people have already pointed out many didnt even know that a vote had occured.

Since I don't play Tau ATM, I have no interest in whether Tau get nerfed or not by a ruling. However I think it is very important that with all the terrible bad writing in GW rules, if they actually do write a clear rule, it should be upheld rather than overturned.

The Holophoton rule seems perfectly clear, and is supported by the other rule that Holophotons stack. (If I have understood that correctly.)

I accept that people may find it unclear.

It would be very useful if they would explain their reasons, as this would be helpful to everyone including ITC in improving the way they write rules, errata and FAQs.

AlexRae wrote:
There's plenty of other formations. But when people just default to Riptide Wing it says a lot.

This is what I don't understand... as I've been trying to express, nerfing the Ghostkeel results in even less variety (more Riptides) which is bad for the game / meta as a whole. Why in the world does it make sense to nerf a unit just because an army has another good unit in the same slot?

Again, it's just completely unnecessary, and the ITC should go with a policy of having the least interference possible, imo. Otherwise they're basically picking winners and losers for unit types, and remarkably seem to ignore the most powerful units when doing so! I am really against this and cannot believe the Riptide being awesome is somehow logic for nerfing the Ghostkeel.

There is a quarterly vote after the lvo. Stop overreacting these changes were specifically to answer questions for judges so they can uniformly play the same rules.
If you have an issue then submit the question to the ITC rules committee. Reece already said there are a bunch of questions being placed on this next quarterly update.
I fully expect the ghostkeel question to be answered and reversed, I expect the Stormsurge to stay, coordinated firepower might be reversed just like time original str d rule was and I expect the toe in cover gmc rule to be brought up this time however no clue how it will go.

 RiTides wrote:

AlexRae wrote:
There's plenty of other formations. But when people just default to Riptide Wing it says a lot.

This is what I don't understand... as I've been trying to express, nerfing the Ghostkeel results in even less variety (more Riptides) which is bad for the game / meta as a whole. Why in the world does it make sense to nerf a unit just because an army has another good unit in the same slot?

Again, it's just completely unnecessary, and the ITC should go with a policy of having the least interference possible, imo. Otherwise they're basically picking winners and losers for unit types, and remarkably seem to ignore the most powerful units when doing so! I am really against this and cannot believe the Riptide being awesome is somehow logic for nerfing the Ghostkeel.

Have even more exalt! (At this point I think I've exalted all your posts over the last like seven pages haha).

Despite how clearly and concisely you've made your points, over and over and over again, people STILL don't seem to get it. The opposing comments coming in now however are more instigative than helpful and really don't add much to the conversation except attempts to troll because you, Kilkrazy, and Jancoran have pointed out the obvious so many times. I'm not sure where this thread has left to go honestly. You're making all the right points and doing so in a very professional way, and the argument against what you're saying is basically boiling down to "nu-uh!"s and "if you're so smart then go make your own ITC".

 RiTides wrote:

AlexRae wrote:
There's plenty of other formations. But when people just default to Riptide Wing it says a lot.

This is what I don't understand... as I've been trying to express, nerfing the Ghostkeel results in even less variety (more Riptides) which is bad for the game / meta as a whole. Why in the world does it make sense to nerf a unit just because an army has another good unit in the same slot?

Why do you continually keep referring to it as "nerf a unit just because an army has another good unit in the same slot"?

Nobody plays Tau as a standard CAD now. They really don't. They run the unique detachments, and the standard CAD is ignored--or they just run multiples of the individual formations. The existence of the Riptide meant that nothing else really got picked for the Elite slot even before the Ghostkeel. The Ghostkeel was something, prior to the reveal of the formations and the change to Riptides(minimal but for the ability to be taken in trios for a single slot and the +1 BS for having 3 in a unit), that was considered to be competitive with the Riptide.

As soon as we saw the Detachments and the Formations that make them up? It was over. Ghostkeels can be taken without needing to compete with Riptides. The only place where they actually are competing is in the "Hunter Cadre" Core choice--which is you choosing between Riptide, Ghostkeel, Stealth Suits, or Crisis Suits.

Again, it's just completely unnecessary, and the ITC should go with a policy of having the least interference possible, imo. Otherwise they're basically picking winners and losers for unit types, and remarkably seem to ignore the most powerful units when doing so! I am really against this and cannot believe the Riptide being awesome is somehow logic for nerfing the Ghostkeel.

Again:
Even IF this change were significant enough to make people stay away from Ghostkeels(it's not), if they were to make decisions based solely upon the CAD method? Ghostkeels almost certainly wouldn't be showing up in the first place when Riptides are in the running with the buffs that Tau MCs and vehicles have seen.

Kanluwen, I think you might be missing my point a bit - it shouldn't matter if there's a good formation for a unit, or that the army has another good unit and "it wouldn't be taken anyway" in a CAD, when deciding whether or not to nerf it. I only compared it to a Riptide because you did so in mentioning that it would never be taken in a CAD (even though that's how I wanted to take it if I ever play Tau ). For one, that would mean there's even less reason to nerf it, and secondly if the formation is the problem, nerf the formation, not the unit!

In other words, no matter how you look at it (whether it's too powerful in a formation, or not powerful enough in a CAD) to me the solution should never be to nerf the unit... and that's why I wanted to make a point of this, in relation to the ITC's approach more generally. My hope is they will be less active in these kinds of unnecessary "preemptive power level adjustments" for any army or unit, not just specifically Tau.

I hope that's clear, maybe we can take it to PM otherwise as I don't actually disagree with what you're saying about the Riptide / formation / etc - I'm just saying it shouldn't result in the Ghostkeel (or any unit) getting nerfed!

 Kanluwen wrote:


Nobody plays Tau as a standard CAD now. They really don't. They run the unique detachments, and the standard CAD is ignored--

Well that's definitely not the case. I know someone whose taking two Riptide Wings and a Piranha formation as his entire army. There are others doing a similar thing. But there's plenty of people who get the value of the Obsec. Plenty.

Not really the point here but since it came up.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


Nobody plays Tau as a standard CAD now. They really don't. They run the unique detachments, and the standard CAD is ignored--

Well that's definitely not the case. I know someone whose taking two Riptide Wings and a Piranha formation as his entire army. There are others doing a similar thing. But there's plenty of people who get the value of the Obsec. Plenty.

Not really the point here but since it came up.

Really? You edit out the part where I specifically said:

or they just run multiples of the individual formations.

Way to make my point though buddy. And ObSec isn't really something that can be considered competitive at this juncture for Tau when they can just y'know...shoot you off the objective.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And ObSec isn't really something that can be considered competitive at this juncture for Tau when they can just y'know...shoot you off the objective.

Doesn't that remain to be seen, though? I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm just saying, this is a release from less than 4 months ago or the like... I really don't think we should head down a path of nerfing units that are not even the most powerful in their own book that early after release!

For those saying only the Riptide Wing is playable, and it will always be taken by default because it's a no brainer, the Tau list we saw win round two of the LVO (yes, the game itself was kind of whatever but the list won round one too it means, so it's doing at least something right) is as follows:



The list has no Riptide Wing, but does run an allied CAD and the Piranha Wing. So contrary to popular belief around here, these other formations can still compete with the Riptide Wing for list allocation.

Did you really just use a list of Dawn Blade Contingent with an Allied CAD that is clearly Farsight and only used as such to shove in a Y'vara Battlesuit and a Tetra Scout Speeder Team to show how things can compete with a Riptide Wing?

Or you know, you can look at what you'd normally consider the weakest aspects of the list, instead of the Y'vara or Tetras which you consider stronger, since you know you'd usually start by cutting the former and not the latter when making changes.

That being said, in this case it's the Wall of the Martyrs (with comm relay) and Piranha Firestream Wing with a total of seven Piranha that competes with the Riptide Wing. More so, he's running two Mark'Os, a Drone Net, and Tetras, so it's not like he doesn't have wiggle room with the Tetras.

Even more so, who cares if it's just the Tetras and Y'vara that compete with the Riptide Wing, it's still yet another option people can take that shows the Riptide Wing is being way over blown in this thread as a whole.

So please, take a little time and let the shock and outrage pass, and allow yourself to better analyse the situation before making a post that probably isn't very constructive.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


Nobody plays Tau as a standard CAD now. They really don't. They run the unique detachments, and the standard CAD is ignored--

Well that's definitely not the case. I know someone whose taking two Riptide Wings and a Piranha formation as his entire army. There are others doing a similar thing. But there's plenty of people who get the value of the Obsec. Plenty.

Not really the point here but since it came up.

Really? You edit out the part where I specifically said:

or they just run multiples of the individual formations.

Way to make my point though buddy. And ObSec isn't really something that can be considered competitive at this juncture for Tau when they can just y'know...shoot you off the objective.

Stating they dont play with CAD's was the only part I was interested in responding to.

 Tinkrr wrote:
Or you know, you can look at what you'd normally consider the weakest aspects of the list, instead of the Y'vara or Tetras which you consider stronger, since you know you'd usually start by cutting the former and not the latter when making changes.

That being said, in this case it's the Wall of the Martyrs (with comm relay) and Piranha Firestream Wing with a total of seven Piranha that competes with the Riptide Wing. More so, he's running two Mark'Os, a Drone Net, and Tetras, so it's not like he doesn't have wiggle room with the Tetras.

The downside of the DBC is that it does not have the bonus BS for combining fire.

This list fixes that.

Even more so, who cares if it's just the Tetras and Y'vara that compete with the Riptide Wing, it's still yet another option people can take that shows the Riptide Wing is being way over blown in this thread as a whole.

Yeaahh...not many people were actually discussing the Riptide Wing.

Riptides by themselves are powerful enough, and it's not like the Riptide Wing is competing for the same slot as the Ghostkeel Wing. Neither of those Formations are in the DBC or the HC Detachments. They're literally meant to be standalone formations that get no benefits from their respective detachments.

So please, take a little time and let the shock and outrage pass, and allow yourself to better analyse the situation before making a post that probably isn't very constructive.

I'm not the one who posted up an "example of a CAD" to show how people are avoiding Riptide Wings; when the CAD in question is basically nonexistent(2 Crisis Suits, a Crisis Commander--it's literally the bare minimum you can get away with to bring in Tetras, a Y'Vara and a Wall of Martyrs).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


Nobody plays Tau as a standard CAD now. They really don't. They run the unique detachments, and the standard CAD is ignored--

Well that's definitely not the case. I know someone whose taking two Riptide Wings and a Piranha formation as his entire army. There are others doing a similar thing. But there's plenty of people who get the value of the Obsec. Plenty.

Not really the point here but since it came up.

Really? You edit out the part where I specifically said:

or they just run multiples of the individual formations.

Way to make my point though buddy. And ObSec isn't really something that can be considered competitive at this juncture for Tau when they can just y'know...shoot you off the objective.

Stating they dont play with CAD's was the only part I was interested in responding to.

Selective editing is frowned upon--especially when you're engaged in a debate.

The downside of the DBC is that it does not have the bonus BS for combining fire.

Neither does a normal CAD, such as the one Frankie ran, that also needed Markers for the D-Missiles, and he only needed a Drone Squads and a Mark'O to get by for the most part. This player has two Mark'Os and a Drone Net, the Tetras can still have functionality but I wouldn't be surprised if they could be cut completely or even replaced by a Skyray with some consideration. More so, the Riptide Wing does buff its own BS.

Yeaahh...not many people were actually discussing the Riptide Wing.

Riptides by themselves are powerful enough, and it's not like the Riptide Wing is competing for the same slot as the Ghostkeel Wing. Neither of those Formations are in the DBC or the HC Detachments. They're literally meant to be standalone formations that get no benefits from their respective detachments.

Multiple people brought up the Riptide Wing in the last couple of pages and how it was the default, and there was even more discussion about Riptides being too good and as a result stamping out variety.

I'm not the one who posted up an "example of a CAD" to show how people are avoiding Riptide Wings; when the CAD in question is basically nonexistent(2 Crisis Suits, a Crisis Commander--it's literally the bare minimum you can get away with to bring in Tetras, a Y'Vara and a Wall of Martyrs).

Actually it was to show that people will take the Piranha formation regardless of the changes, and there are other options to the Riptide Wing as a whole, whether it's a CAD or not is not actually important. In other words, ignore that it's a CAD being allied (call it the Y'vara Ret formation if you really want,) and more that it's a wide variety of units and formations that a lot of people have discounted being played in this list.

I took issue with the Tyranid Tyrannocyte weapon firing arc ruling completely ignoring the MC firing rules for line of sight/firing arcs, where it instead made them have individual firing arcs per weapon, like vehicles. I asked about the ruling repeatedly here and in comments on FLG, and talked to the nid players on other boards. It took a few months, but the issue was eventually put to a vote and was reversed.

I don't always agree with the ITC, but it sure beats 1000 different regional FAQs. There is a process for feedback (which, honestly, I do sometimes feel is part of the problem but it is what it is), use it.

Do the same, they've already said the ghostkeel decision was short term and will be voted on after LVO.

Reading these last few posts makes me think that 40K is a lost cause.

The only way forwards is to burn it all and start again.

A RIptide Wing and some storm surges. Mmmm Mmmm smell that roasted everything.

Beyond cheese to sheer roast levels.

 gigasnail wrote:
I took issue with the Tyranid Tyrannocyte weapon firing arc ruling completely ignoring the MC firing rules for line of sight/firing arcs, where it instead made them have individual firing arcs per weapon, like vehicles. I asked about the ruling repeatedly here and in comments on FLG, and talked to the nid players on other boards. It took a few months, but the issue was eventually put to a vote and was reversed.

I don't always agree with the ITC, but it sure beats 1000 different regional FAQs. There is a process for feedback (which, honestly, I do sometimes feel is part of the problem but it is what it is), use it.

Do the same, they've already said the ghostkeel decision was short term and will be voted on after LVO.

That's awesome, gigasnail! And wow, really glad they reversed that Tyrranocyte ruling, that would have been rough otherwise (I've got some conversions I'm working on for mine, but didn't even know about that!). Hopefully the same can happen for the Ghostkeel

When you say you posted comments on FLG, where did you do this - in the comment section of articles? Did you also email them? Making that suggestion process a bit clearer would really help things too, I think.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Reading these last few posts makes me think that 40K is a lost cause.

The only way forwards is to burn it all and start again.

Preeeettty much.

I started with comments to Reece here on dakka (I don't post a lot so I can track down links if you want, won't be too difficult), and then on comments on FLG articles. I didn't see an issue that needed correcting, as the unit is overcosted and not anything close to OP, and there being no rules issue/ambiguity (there was confusion when the rules popped in WD, because there is some really dumb flavor text in the margins of the article, but nothing even hinting using vehicle rules for firing arcs in the actual rules). The ruling made an already iffy unit marginal at best for competition.

Reece's responses seemed kind of blase, and I know he has larger issues to manage than one players gripes, but as others have pointed out the ITC shapes local rules and tournaments and I had been pushing the guys I play with towards the ITC FAQ just to have a consistent framework.

So I went to the http://thetyranidhive.proboards.com/ and we had a lot of discussion (some of it quite heated, as folks have noted just because something is clear to you, doesn't mean it's undisputed) about the pods and the ITC in general. I encouraged everyone to get over to FLG and make thier voices (politely!) heard, or the issue wasn't going to get addressed.

It took a few months but we kept piping in whenever the issue was mentioned, and eventually we had enough people asking about it where they put it to a vote. I have no idea how many of our guys at TTH actually put in votes, but I like to think we made a difference. The vote was pretty close.

There were a number of people involved in this (westrider and kwood to name the first two that come to mind); I do not want to imply this was a solo effort.

For what its worth, Reece has since said the initial decision on the pods was back when they were on the...eh, name escapes me I think he called it the FAQ council, it was the body that brain storms up the issues for several of the big national tournaments (I dunno I have the name of that right, I'm sure someone will correct me) and it was leftover from before they really started putting out thier own FAQ for the ITC.

tl;dr: I disagreed, and talked to everyone I knew with an interest in nids to get the issue out there, and we voted when the chance came up. ITC effects a lot of people even the guys like me that only play locally.

Edit: I didn't say above specifically, but yeah I emailed several times over the time period to their feedback/questions address. They're pretty good about getting back with you.