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.

 carldooley wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Still waiting for a tau vs foot orks match =(

I just did that last night. used the Tidewall Rampart which was fun. My Fire Warriors were heroic, slaying his Stompa. hehehe.

Actually, I'm fairly certain that that was for me. I said I'd play a vassal match against him. koooaei, one of the links you sent me was infected. I'm fixing my computer now.

Can't be. Having 0 issues running them. What kind of virus is that?

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I have avoided posting in this thread until now, but I suppose I must finally take the bait.

OP, most of your arguments thus far can be succinctly summarized as "L2P, git gud scrub". When presented with evidence to the contrary, you either provide biased examples or move the goalposts for disproving your argument.

What is wrong with the mentality of "I lost I need to get better"?

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I don't hate Tau. I hate the kind of players that Tau brings, the ones with a genuine sense of entitlement that their army should simply be better than the rest. Screw game balance, I've got mine and you should just wait around until you get your army's overpowered buff. This doesn't apply to all Tau players naturally, but the OP is certainly one of them.

Those players with a sense of entitlement are every where its not just some Tau players. I don't own any Tau I have one Riptide that my friend got me because he wanted me to start back playing. I did not turn this thread into Tau, Tau, and more Tau you clearly feel a certain way about some Tau players thus the reason why it was used as an example.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
The OP claims that the ITC is biased against Tau in favor of Eldar and Space Marines. Nothing could be further from the truth. Teh ranged D restrictions in the ITC were a direct result of the new Eldar codex dropping. Warp Spiders are nerfed, and Scatbikers were almost nerfed. If put to a vote, I would vote to nerf Scatbikers because I believe that they are bad for the balance of the game as a whole. The Allies shenanigans that the Imperium can pull off are nerfed by source and detachment restrictions.

I don't agree with trying to change some of those things if its broken vote on it but don't vote on it because its really good! That's my main problem we all can tell when something is broken like ranged D but stuff like scatbikes are amazingly good but are they ranged d or 2+ re-roll able good no so why vote on it? I don't have a problem with the ITC I have a problem with the way that it operates, anyone can tell when something is broken and it needs to be voted on but when it comes to things that are just really good why do we need to vote on stuff like that.

You say I am complaining but you guys are the one that are constantly wanting more and more change in hopes of gaining an advantage. I am the one saying leave it as is and I am ridiculed for being conservative but at the end of the day people are using a democratic process to try to win more games that's what it boils down to.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
The conspiracy theory that DE were left alone to make Eldar more powerful doesn't hold up either. Sure, DE can take a 10 point HQ. This unit also has only one wound, and unimpressive statline, and a 5+ armour save. Not exactly the height of game-breaking power.

Your missing the point archon I believe is 60 the hq choice is 10 they gain 50 points, that's enough to points to upgrade all of the aspect host sergeants or get another venom to put the bs 5 fire dragons. Acting as if not paying the hq tax for Cads or allied detachment is a small thing is crazy if marines could do it they would get 55 extra points.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I think that the OP has fundamentally misunderstood the concept behind groups like the ITC and NOVA. They are not there to be biased against certain armies. They exist to allow most every army to at least be able to show up and have fun at their tournaments, even if they have no shot at winning. Winners are decided primarily by player skill and luck of the dice. Tau are nerfed, along wiht others, to create a more inclusive environment at tournaments.

I think I understand you when it comes to the top tables it doesn't matter player skill come into effect but at other tables you don't want players losing just because they brought a certain army it should be a test of skill. Gotcha!

Tau Empire has always been (to me) even when they were one of the worst and outdated codex's (which was most of its life) the funnest army to play.

They look cooler than any other army (to me). They allow me to play my deployment shenanigans. They have really really impressive shooting, and they are very dynamic with their movement.

They aren't the fastest army, but they are not the slowest. They can get blown up pretty badly by Psychic attacks (Flickering Fire, LD attacks and similar powers all threaten the Tau Empire pretty badly as evidenced in my most recent game where i was lifting entire units off the table in the Psyker phase). Tau Empire cant fight out of a wt paper bag so you have to learn to play FROSTY when you play them. I never understood Gunline Tau much for that reason. You're lining the pins up for the bowling ball when you do that. Makes me pretty nervous so I was downright frightened to try my Tidewall.

But in all this joy of playing the Tau Empire, a couple things that have nothing to actually DO with the Tau Empire are impinging on the enjoyment of others.

In the ITC, they smartly limited the number of Detachments but then allowed a guy (Eldar) to win with six detachments. this kind of loop holing is also affecting the Tau Empire too. Their units aren't the boogeyman. Not even the StormSurge (mine costs me 440 points!).

Players who don't "like" the Tau Empire really just don't like facing the Super detachments. Same for the Decurion. Same for the Gladius. Same for the Hunter Contingent. And so on.

I see a pattern.

These detachments aren't going away. i see this Tau hate as being a product far more of the Detachment rules and far less of the Tau Empire list. In a CAD, a Tau list looks remarkably sane no matter what you put in it. Even with two Detachments the same can be said.

When you expand it to three, it takes all of the restraint out of list building. SOME more elite armies only need two to blow up the balance. Tau kind of needs three to get to that higher level of play and even then look at the standings: did they as a whole do any better than one would have expected? Not really. Good generals matter.

So I wonder aloud here if the Detachment limits of the ITC and how they ARENT truly limiting them wouldn't be a better place to aim some heated passion.

I also think that tournaments like our Elvensword Ambassadorial tournament have put armies back on a sane footing with the way we limit Detachments. No long drawn out list of allowables and provisos.

We essentially banned just two things: Stronghold Assault/Escalation which are kind of one thing really and then Forge World.

We allowed the normal fortifications from Stronghold Assault (but not Void Shields and trap doors etc...). 0-1 Super Heavy. Three Detachments, and the third would have to be a CAD. This last point above all others unintentionally balanced things beyond our wildest hopes. So many things that would otherwise go from "cool' to "not cool" are avoided this way.

That's it. The result was immensely more enjoyable play that is still highly competitive. Just as importantly it keeps the cost of competing at a more reasonable level (note that I didn't say reasonable hehehe).

Of all the factions to dislike, one would think eldar would get more of this than Tau Empire. By a long shot. Good in melee, good in Psyker phase, great in shooting, great with movement... there is no real area they dont compete well in. But there's nothing wrong with that. They can be beaten. it just makes their internal balance better meaning they can take a larger combo of units to be effective but effective doesn't mean they dont have to be played well. Just means more variety can win (see Warp Spiders list for details).

Tau Empire basically does exceedingly well in one phase and pretty well at movement if they want to. two out of four doesn't strike me as unbalanced. i think that the lists facing it will have to account for any and all possible threats and i think that some of this hate is just because people know they have to paint more models and rearrange their cheese to fight the various threats. but i promise: i am as worried about a Battle Company as anyone, Tau or no Tau. I am as worried about Eldar as anyone, Tau or no Tau. Decurions, and all the rest of it.

The ITC Detachment rules might need to be revisited again.

 CKO wrote:

What is wrong with the mentality of "I lost I need to get better"?

There is a difference between "I lost and I need to get better", and "you lost because you suck". You think your saying the former, but you come off as saying the latter.

 CKO wrote:

You say I am complaining but you guys are the one that are constantly wanting more and more change in hopes of gaining an advantage. I am the one saying leave it as is and I am ridiculed for being conservative but at the end of the day people are using a democratic process to try to win more games that's what it boils down to.

 CKO wrote:

Your missing the point archon I believe is 60 the hq choice is 10 they gain 50 points, that's enough to points to upgrade all of the aspect host sergeants or get another venom to put the bs 5 fire dragons. Acting as if not paying the hq tax for Cads or allied detachment is a small thing is crazy if marines could do it they would get 55 extra points.

The court is an HQ choice. Its listed as such in the rule book. The vote was not to change it to an HQ choice but whether to keep it as it was. They decided to keep it RAW.

On the one hand you have a statement saying how you want the ITC to keep the rules as it is, and on the other you have a statement complaining that they didn't choose to change it. Your upset that the ITC changed a formation that gives upwards of several hundred free points, but also upset that they let dark eldar have 50 more points than you think they should have.

 coblen wrote:


There is a difference between "I lost and I need to get better", and "you lost because you suck". You think your saying the former, but you come off as saying the latter.
.

How you take such statements is a self esteem thing. If you are confident, then you assume no one is probably ABLE to impugn you. If you are not, you here persecution everywhere.

I would not ascribe motivations to people online. Its far too difficult to know for sure.

I am showing how bias voters can be!

Retainers: For each Archon included in a detachment, the detachment can include a court of the archon that does not take up a slot on the force organization chart.

That's what it says you can rule lawyer your way into believing the way we are doing it now is okay but, honestly we all know its not right an hq choice for less than a marine come on now!

As for the drone factory I wrote a very detail article on it explaining why its not OP I am not going to put any more energy into it and turn this thread into another drone factory argument, I don't care about that ruling because I think its weak regardless of the ruling.

 CKO wrote:
I am showing how bias voters can be!

Retainers: For each Archon included in a detachment, the detachment can include a court of the archon that does not take up a slot on the force organization chart.

That's what it says you can rule lawyer your way into believing the way we are doing it now is okay but, honestly we all know its not right an hq choice for less than a marine come on now!

That rule is for taking a court without an HQ slot. It doesn't make you do anything if you use an HQ slot

Do you think its fair for them to have a 10 point hq choice?

 CKO wrote:
Do you think its fair for them to have a 10 point hq choice?

Why does it have to be fair? What does fair have anything to do with what the rules say?

 CrownAxe wrote:

 CKO wrote:
Do you think its fair for them to have a 10 point hq choice?

Why does it have to be fair? What does fair have anything to do with what the rules say?

Because we vote to make things fair! We don't vote on just the OP things we vote on things to make them fair. So that's why what is fair is important.

 CKO wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 CKO wrote:
Do you think its fair for them to have a 10 point hq choice?

Why does it have to be fair? What does fair have anything to do with what the rules say?

Because we vote to make things fair! We don't vote on just the OP things we vote on things to make them fair. So that's why what is fair is important.

Oh so thats why Scat bikes didn't get their scatter latters reduces to 1 -in-3 bikes, to make it fair right?

 CKO wrote:
I am showing how bias voters can be!

Retainers: For each Archon included in a detachment, the detachment can include a court of the archon that does not take up a slot on the force organization chart.

That's what it says you can rule lawyer your way into believing the way we are doing it now is okay but, honestly we all know its not right an hq choice for less than a marine come on now!

As for the drone factory I wrote a very detail article on it explaining why its not OP I am not going to put any more energy into it and turn this thread into another drone factory argument, I don't care about that ruling because I think its weak regardless of the ruling.

It has an HQ marking in the corner. That marking is literally all anybody has to determine what slot anything takes. Nowhere are the words, an archon can be taken as an HQ choice. He is taken as one because he has the HQ marking in his data sheet, just like the court does, just like every single unit in this game does. The retainer rule is something special that lets you take them without it taking up a force org slot.

Whether it is OP or not has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of your statements. You simultaneously argue that the ITC should change more and less. You complain when other armies get what you consider 50 free points, but think its offside that people don't want tau to get hundreds of free points. You're not showing how biased the voters are your showing how biased you are.

Don't get upset with me that I bring these things to light.

Bias towards what?

 CKO wrote:
Don't get upset with me that I bring these things to light.

Your bias? Because I'm not seeing a lot of other things being brought to light.

 coblen wrote:
Whether it is OP or not has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of your statements. You simultaneously argue that the ITC should change more and less. You complain when other armies get what you consider 50 free points, but think its offside that people don't want tau to get hundreds of free points. You're not showing how biased the voters are your showing how biased you are.

Each ruling is different and some things need to change and some don't I cant say everything needs to stay the same or change that's not the case. I have a problem with the process and as a result of my problem I dislike some of the rulings, do you see the difference?

 CKO wrote:
Do you think its fair for them to have a 10 point hq choice?

I still dont like this and I play Dark Eldar. it bothers me that its clearly talking about a Court of the Archon... and you need not take an Archon?

Dumb. i play them and I say its dumb. I've bnevr done it, mostly out of protest.

 CKO wrote:

 coblen wrote:
Whether it is OP or not has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of your statements. You simultaneously argue that the ITC should change more and less. You complain when other armies get what you consider 50 free points, but think its offside that people don't want tau to get hundreds of free points. You're not showing how biased the voters are your showing how biased you are.

Each ruling is different and some things need to change and some don't I cant say everything needs to stay the same or change that's not the case. I have a problem with the process and as a result of my problem I dislike some of the rulings, do you see the difference?

The Dark Eldar one you're complaing about because you don't think its fair because its clearly RAW

 CrownAxe wrote:
The Dark Eldar one you're complaing about because you don't think its fair because its clearly RAW

This is where manipulation comes into effect you think your voting on a rules issue when in reality your voting to give them an extra 50 points to upgrade their 3 Aspect Host warp spider sergeants or to get an extra venom for their fire dragons!

 CKO wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
The Dark Eldar one you're complaing about because you don't think its fair because its clearly RAW

This is where manipulation comes into effect you think your voting on a rules issue when in reality your voting to give them an extra 50 points to upgrade their 3 Aspect Host warp spider sergeants or to get an extra venom for their fire dragons!

Eldar don't need to ally dark eldar to be broken. see the top two eldar lists at LVO

 CrownAxe wrote:

 CKO wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
The Dark Eldar one you're complaing about because you don't think its fair because its clearly RAW

This is where manipulation comes into effect you think your voting on a rules issue when in reality your voting to give them an extra 50 points to upgrade their 3 Aspect Host warp spider sergeants or to get an extra venom for their fire dragons!

Eldar don't need to ally dark eldar to be broken. see the top two eldar lists at LVO

Even more reason not to give them the option to ally by only paying 10 points I believe 6th place used it however.

 CKO wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 CKO wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
The Dark Eldar one you're complaing about because you don't think its fair because its clearly RAW

This is where manipulation comes into effect you think your voting on a rules issue when in reality your voting to give them an extra 50 points to upgrade their 3 Aspect Host warp spider sergeants or to get an extra venom for their fire dragons!

Eldar don't need to ally dark eldar to be broken. see the top two eldar lists at LVO

Even more reason not to give them the option to ally by only paying 10 points I believe 6th place used it however.

CSMs can ally with Dark Eldar so clearly you should let Dark Eldar have a 10pt HQ to buff CSM

also a top 8 necron list had a monolith and obelisk doesn't make them borken

So the ITC votes are being manipulated by eldar players is that what your saying? Also keep it straight they did not vote to give it to them, they voted not to take it away.

This is my last post on this thread you guys are putting words in my mouth and its pointless.

 CKO wrote:
This is my last post on this thread you guys are putting words in my mouth and its pointless.

No, people are pointing out what you are saying and how biased it is. You are quite literally saying

"Oh poor little me, my super special army is being called overpowered and people are calling it to be brought back down to realistic levels. How dare these ignorant scrubs call for such a thing they should L2P better. My army is not OP it is really weak, you mooks are just terrible players"

All the while ignoring the points other people are making and changing the goalposts at whim.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 CKO wrote:

 coblen wrote:
Whether it is OP or not has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of your statements. You simultaneously argue that the ITC should change more and less. You complain when other armies get what you consider 50 free points, but think its offside that people don't want tau to get hundreds of free points. You're not showing how biased the voters are your showing how biased you are.

Each ruling is different and some things need to change and some don't I cant say everything needs to stay the same or change that's not the case. I have a problem with the process and as a result of my problem I dislike some of the rulings, do you see the difference?

The Dark Eldar one you're complaing about because you don't think its fair because its clearly RAW

Some of us play without loop holes and some with. I find this one distasteful.

If someone asks me if they ought to, my disdainful response is: "Sure. You could..."




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 coblen wrote:
So the ITC votes are being manipulated by eldar players is that what your saying? Also keep it straight they did not vote to give it to them, they voted not to take it away.

\

You can't deny the simple truth of those votes: any vote they ask for is being voted on primarily by people who don't play that army. Any given vote is that way! let the meaning of that sink in.

So if you think people aren't posessed of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy, re-read this thread and ask yourself: does 50% mean anything after reading threads like we've been plagued with recently? After reading this thread, can anyone possibly believe that people aren't willing to allow a moment of pettiness to get the better of them when voting?

Don't be naive. That's my suggestion. Eyes wide open. Eyes wide open.

you guys do know elder can do this already without allies, right? No-one does it, but you can take a single warlock as an HQ choice because of how the Warlock conclave works. So, really, this does nothing for the elder, and really doesn't do anything for the DE either as an archon can actually be decent with WWP and that shadowfield or w\e.

 Jancoran wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 CKO wrote:

 coblen wrote:
Whether it is OP or not has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of your statements. You simultaneously argue that the ITC should change more and less. You complain when other armies get what you consider 50 free points, but think its offside that people don't want tau to get hundreds of free points. You're not showing how biased the voters are your showing how biased you are.

Each ruling is different and some things need to change and some don't I cant say everything needs to stay the same or change that's not the case. I have a problem with the process and as a result of my problem I dislike some of the rulings, do you see the difference?

The Dark Eldar one you're complaing about because you don't think its fair because its clearly RAW

Some of us play without loop holes and some with. I find this one distasteful.

If someone asks me if they ought to, my disdainful response is: "Sure. You could..."

Sure you could be TFG and make your opponent waste points on crappy DE HQs just because "it doesn't feel right"

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 CKO wrote:

 coblen wrote:
Whether it is OP or not has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of your statements. You simultaneously argue that the ITC should change more and less. You complain when other armies get what you consider 50 free points, but think its offside that people don't want tau to get hundreds of free points. You're not showing how biased the voters are your showing how biased you are.

Each ruling is different and some things need to change and some don't I cant say everything needs to stay the same or change that's not the case. I have a problem with the process and as a result of my problem I dislike some of the rulings, do you see the difference?

The Dark Eldar one you're complaing about because you don't think its fair because its clearly RAW

Some of us play without loop holes and some with. I find this one distasteful.

If someone asks me if they ought to, my disdainful response is: "Sure. You could..."

Sure you could be TFG and make your opponent waste points on crappy DE HQs just because "it doesn't feel right"

Oh I think you misread me on purpose.

I cant make my opponent do anything. i imagine they would be asking me long beforea game happens.

As for being TFG: I am pretty sure gimping myself on purpose doesnt make me TFG. Pro tip: that's not what a TFG does. Lol.

 Jancoran wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 CKO wrote:

 coblen wrote:
Whether it is OP or not has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of your statements. You simultaneously argue that the ITC should change more and less. You complain when other armies get what you consider 50 free points, but think its offside that people don't want tau to get hundreds of free points. You're not showing how biased the voters are your showing how biased you are.

Each ruling is different and some things need to change and some don't I cant say everything needs to stay the same or change that's not the case. I have a problem with the process and as a result of my problem I dislike some of the rulings, do you see the difference?

The Dark Eldar one you're complaing about because you don't think its fair because its clearly RAW

Some of us play without loop holes and some with. I find this one distasteful.

If someone asks me if they ought to, my disdainful response is: "Sure. You could..."

Sure you could be TFG and make your opponent waste points on crappy DE HQs just because "it doesn't feel right"

Oh I think you misread me on purpose.

I cant make my opponent do anything. i imagine they would be asking me long beforea game happens.

As for being TFG: I am pretty sure gimping myself on purpose doesnt make me TFG. Pro tip: that's not what a TFG does. Lol.

Then why are you looking down on other DE players that do play it that way?

 CrownAxe wrote:


Then why are you looking down on other DE players that do play it that way?

Maybe you think I should support everything everyone has a right to do? In that event the main Rule Book for 40K allows me to do a lot of things you wouldn't like. Like 5 WraithKNights. it's allowed, you know. But we don't do it. Why?

Same reason I don't want to do this, only on a smaller scale. It is my prerogative to show self restraint despite the "right" to do something. We exercise that restraint in all kinds of ways. i think it very appropriate and socially acceptable behavior to show restraint, don't you?

If it is indeed good behavior to show restraint (and i know: we all fail sometimes), then this falls under the category of something I believe we should. I'm not going to say otherwise just so you won't feel bad while doing it. How you feel is a function of your self esteem, not a function of what I think about it. So you get to decide how you feel about it and I get to decide how i feel about it. And we can both play at the same table while doing so.

After all, it's not against the rules, right?