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:

 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.

Your description of voting does nothing to prove that it is being manipulated by eldar players. Eldar players get just as much a say in the matter as every other army. The only thing I can think of that would give any weight to that is if there was a significantly higher number of eldar players than other armies. I don't however think this is true.

Also if we follow your argument to its logical conclusion then its not going to make sense. If each vote is done primarily by players who are not that army, and these players are "posessed of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy" than it follows that the ITC votes would constantly ere on the side of nerfing things when they came to be voted on. This however has not been the case. The ITC has instated very little nerfs, and has also instated several buffs.

 coblen wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 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.

Your description of voting does nothing to prove that it is being manipulated by eldar players. .

Oh I wasnt saying it was specifically Eldar players. that was someone else. In fact I AM an Eldar playr (and i play every other army but three).

So you see, it's not just an anti-Eldar bias i am explaining.

and they DO err on the side of nerfing things by the way. the entire ITC HANDBOOK is one big list of nerfs, or had you not noticed? others are just confirmations of what we already knew.

 Jancoran wrote:

 coblen wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 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.

Your description of voting does nothing to prove that it is being manipulated by eldar players. .

Oh I wasnt saying it was specifically Eldar players. that was someone else. In fact I AM an Eldar playr (and i play every other army but three).

So you see, it's not just an anti-Eldar bias i am explaining.

and they DO err on the side of nerfing things by the way. the entire ITC HANDBOOK is one big list of nerfs, or had you not noticed? others are just confirmations of what we already knew.

Right I guess the part where you responded to my comment made me think it was actually in regard to my question.

The handbook is not the place to go when looking at whether they more often choose to nerf things or not instead you should look at the poll results themselves. If things don't get nerfed they will not end up in the handbook.

They choose not to nerf scatter bikes, stormsurges, tyrannocytes , and the Angel’s Fury Spearhead Force Formation. They choose to allow orks to get the misprinted point on mek boss buzzgobs big mek stompa. They allowed the use of experimental forge world rules. They buffed khorn daemonkin summoning bloodthirsters, and they buffed ravenwing characters on bikes to be able to be in the ravenwing detachment before gw FAQ'ed it.

This does not sound like a group of people "posessed of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy".

Angel's fury? Really?

CKO, pls change an avatar - can't read any of your stuff =(


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CKO wrote:

Black Yellow Black Yellow Black Yellow Seizure HGGGGGG

 coblen wrote:

Right I guess the part where you responded to my comment made me think it was actually in regard to my question.

The handbook is not the place to go when looking at whether they more often choose to nerf things or not instead you should look at the poll results themselves. If things don't get nerfed they will not end up in the handbook.

They choose not to nerf scatter bikes, stormsurges, tyrannocytes , and the Angel’s Fury Spearhead Force Formation. They choose to allow orks to get the misprinted point on mek boss buzzgobs big mek stompa. They allowed the use of experimental forge world rules. They buffed khorn daemonkin summoning bloodthirsters, and they buffed ravenwing characters on bikes to be able to be in the ravenwing detachment before gw FAQ'ed it.

This does not sound like a group of people "posessed of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy".

They actually DIDNT vote on everything in the FAQ. You are misinformed. Badly.

 Jancoran wrote:

 coblen wrote:

Right I guess the part where you responded to my comment made me think it was actually in regard to my question.

The handbook is not the place to go when looking at whether they more often choose to nerf things or not instead you should look at the poll results themselves. If things don't get nerfed they will not end up in the handbook.

They choose not to nerf scatter bikes, stormsurges, tyrannocytes , and the Angel’s Fury Spearhead Force Formation. They choose to allow orks to get the misprinted point on mek boss buzzgobs big mek stompa. They allowed the use of experimental forge world rules. They buffed khorn daemonkin summoning bloodthirsters, and they buffed ravenwing characters on bikes to be able to be in the ravenwing detachment before gw FAQ'ed it.

This does not sound like a group of people "posessed of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy".

They actually DIDNT vote on everything in the FAQ. You are misinformed. Badly.

Whether they voted on everything has nothing to do with your criticism of the votes. We can see by looking at the poll results that that they are not in accordance with you're idea of a voting base of people ""posessed of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy". Your argument about the voters voting only in there self interest has no bases on fact. When you look at the actual poll results you can see a trend of not nerfing things, and in some cases buffing things.

The results are public, and not hard to find.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/10/12/itc-2015-season-3rd-quarter-update-poll-results/
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/11/29/3rd-quarter-mid-season-itc-update-poll-results/
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/05/08/itc-2015-mid-season-update-poll-results-are-in/
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/08/07/itc-2015-season-quarterly-update-results/

 coblen wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 coblen wrote:

Right I guess the part where you responded to my comment made me think it was actually in regard to my question.

The handbook is not the place to go when looking at whether they more often choose to nerf things or not instead you should look at the poll results themselves. If things don't get nerfed they will not end up in the handbook.

They choose not to nerf scatter bikes, stormsurges, tyrannocytes , and the Angel’s Fury Spearhead Force Formation. They choose to allow orks to get the misprinted point on mek boss buzzgobs big mek stompa. They allowed the use of experimental forge world rules. They buffed khorn daemonkin summoning bloodthirsters, and they buffed ravenwing characters on bikes to be able to be in the ravenwing detachment before gw FAQ'ed it.

This does not sound like a group of people "posessed of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy".

They actually DIDNT vote on everything in the FAQ. You are misinformed. Badly.

Whether they voted on everything has nothing to do with your criticism of the votes. We can see by looking at the poll results that that they are not in accordance with you're idea of a voting base of people ""posessed of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy". Your argument about the voters voting only in there self interest has no bases on fact. When you look at the actual poll results you can see a trend of not nerfing things, and in some cases buffing things.

The results are public, and not hard to find.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/10/12/itc-2015-season-3rd-quarter-update-poll-results/
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/11/29/3rd-quarter-mid-season-itc-update-poll-results/
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/05/08/itc-2015-mid-season-update-poll-results-are-in/
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/08/07/itc-2015-season-quarterly-update-results/

Again moving the goal post = bad form. stating that the votes make it all legit is crazy because.... they WERENT all voted on! Its patently false. So using it as your underlying reasoning is necessarily undermining your case. Not mine.

My criticism comes from a different direction.

 Jancoran wrote:

 coblen wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 coblen wrote:

Right I guess the part where you responded to my comment made me think it was actually in regard to my question.

The handbook is not the place to go when looking at whether they more often choose to nerf things or not instead you should look at the poll results themselves. If things don't get nerfed they will not end up in the handbook.

They choose not to nerf scatter bikes, stormsurges, tyrannocytes , and the Angel’s Fury Spearhead Force Formation. They choose to allow orks to get the misprinted point on mek boss buzzgobs big mek stompa. They allowed the use of experimental forge world rules. They buffed khorn daemonkin summoning bloodthirsters, and they buffed ravenwing characters on bikes to be able to be in the ravenwing detachment before gw FAQ'ed it.

This does not sound like a group of people "posessed of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy".

They actually DIDNT vote on everything in the FAQ. You are misinformed. Badly.

Whether they voted on everything has nothing to do with your criticism of the votes. We can see by looking at the poll results that that they are not in accordance with you're idea of a voting base of people ""posessed of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy". Your argument about the voters voting only in there self interest has no bases on fact. When you look at the actual poll results you can see a trend of not nerfing things, and in some cases buffing things.

The results are public, and not hard to find.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/10/12/itc-2015-season-3rd-quarter-update-poll-results/
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/11/29/3rd-quarter-mid-season-itc-update-poll-results/
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/05/08/itc-2015-mid-season-update-poll-results-are-in/
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/08/07/itc-2015-season-quarterly-update-results/

Again moving the goal post = bad form. stating that the votes make it all legit is crazy because.... they WERENT all voted on! Its patently false. So using it as your underlying reasoning is necessarily undermining your case. Not mine.

My criticism comes from a different direction.

How is this moving the goal post? Here is what I originally responded to.

 Jancoran wrote:
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?

You where criticizing the voting system and laying false accusations that the voters vote based on "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy". I have attempted to disprove that, and have presented evidence of actual votes that took place in which the results do not line up with your accusations. The actual rules in the ITC handbook are irrelevant to my argument. My argument is based solely on disproving the notion that the voters are voting out of "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy".

 coblen wrote:

You where criticizing the voting system and laying false accusations that the voters vote based on "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy". I have attempted to disprove that, and have presented evidence of actual votes that took place in which the results do not line up with your accusations. The actual rules in the ITC handbook are irrelevant to my argument. My argument is based solely on disproving the notion that the voters are voting out of "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy".

Except ITC even admitted that there was a lot of fake voting for the elder related votes (Scat bikes for example).

And yes, they are voting for their own self interest. If you don't think that is the case then you are extremely naive. Just looking at the comments on this site I see that from a ton of people (many of which literally said "Nerf the crap out of Tau. I hate them")

How many individual posters are we talking about? Or was it a couple of posters saying it a lot? And how much of that is hyperbole just to wind you guys up?

notredameguy10 wrote:

 coblen wrote:

You where criticizing the voting system and laying false accusations that the voters vote based on "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy". I have attempted to disprove that, and have presented evidence of actual votes that took place in which the results do not line up with your accusations. The actual rules in the ITC handbook are irrelevant to my argument. My argument is based solely on disproving the notion that the voters are voting out of "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy".

Except ITC even admitted that there was a lot of fake voting for the elder related votes (Scat bikes for example).

And yes, they are voting for their own self interest. If you don't think that is the case then you are extremely naive. Just looking at the comments on this site I see that from a ton of people (many of which literally said "Nerf the crap out of Tau. I hate them")

There is a difference between some people voting in a "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy" way, and the general voting populous voting in that way. Anecdotal remarks from commentators are not the same as actual poll results.

If there are fake votes then that is an entirely seperate problem. I'm not saying that the ITC is perfect, or even great. I'm only attempting to disprove that the voting populous as a majority votes out of "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy".

 coblen wrote:


You where criticizing the voting system and laying false accusations that the voters vote based on "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy". I have attempted to disprove that, and have presented evidence of actual votes that took place in which the results do not line up with your accusations. The actual rules in the ITC handbook are irrelevant to my argument. My argument is based solely on disproving the notion that the voters are voting out of "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy".

I WASNT criticizing the voting system so stop saying that i am as a premise to argue with me. if everthing was voted with a super majority Id be the biggest ITC fan you ever saw.

And when does restating the obvious that no one debated become an argument...again? I know there WERE some votes. On SOME things. That is beyond dispute...and no one is disputing it...which makes this paragraph limited in value.

One must wear ridiculously rose colored glasses to think for one moment that this voting represented a majority of their decisions.

EVERY "inclusion" is a decision. But its really just telling us what we already knew. Unnecessary.

Every EXCLUSION was a conscious choice and NOT voted on in a ton of cases. A lot.

Every rules re-write (and there are FAR too many) is a conscious choice and they ALSO were not all voted on.

So. In the end... What i am saying.... Is that you cannot use this as any kind of argument. That some things got voted by SOME people isn't being debated here by me.

But lets walk down the path of wrong assumptions and say that they were all voted on (they weren't). In that case what you essentially have is players of 15 codex's voting on whether YOUR one codex should be nerfed (yes I know very well that some play multiple codex's as i do). You're asking them whether they want the codex they FACE to be nerfed. Wait for it... Let it sink in...

For one to in any way pass a straight face test, one is not going to state here and now that the voters have no self interest and that they would never dream of having a human moment of petty jealousy.

You've read DakkaDakka for whatever period of time and seen Eldar hate and Storm of Chaos hate and Tau hate and freaking Triple Heldrake hate and War Convocation hate and the list is endless. My own dislike of Forge Wolrd is an example of an area i don't think should be allowed and given a vote, I'd vote it out. You've seen the most spurious of arguments for and against things and you think after all that that I am going to assume for one minute that this self interest, spurious logic, sore losers and poor Generals (and yes the good ones) aren't going to let their hate of a certain faction affect their vote?

Give. Me. A. Break.

So if you want this voting thing to matter... Revote it all. Require a Super Majority in order to keep it. Because only a super majority will tell you whether the community is self interested (50-55%) or they really are overwhelmingly in agreement (65-70%) enough to take those things and change them.

Some of those decisions go back two to three years before they voted on a thing.

Self interest is real. Saying otherwise and arguing with me about it is your prerogative. Pointing out its obvious presence is mine.

I think the confusion is coming from you responding to me with things that have nothing to do with what I originally said.

I asked CKO if he thought that the ITC votes where being manipulated. I asked this because he had alluded to it several times but I wanted it laid out plainly.

You responded to me telling me that
A) Most people who vote on each decision are not the people who play that army.
B) People vote out of self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy

You then went on to tell me that I should ask myself if 50% really meant anything as a result of this. Leading me to believe that you don't think 50% means anything, because of the above.

I believed that this was a response to my question, because you did it as a response to my question, and if it was true then it would prove a significant level of manipulation was at hand. I then went on to try to prove that there where not enough voters voting out of "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy" to have affected the vote outcomes.

If all you where trying to say is that some people vote out of "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy". Then yes obviously some people do. I don't know what your point is though.

I said nothing about the current rules, I never said everything was voted on. I never said the outcomes where good, or bad. I only ever said that if you look at the outcomes of the polls it does not look like polls that where dominated by voters voting out of "self interest and butt hurt petty jealousy".

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 LValx wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 CKO wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Because most people agreed with the changes because they evaluated the nerfs themselves before the thread was made and they were sick of seeing a new 'ITC nerfed Tau please fix' thread every day?

What changes did you agree with? Besides the obvious coordinated fire power one. I am starting to understand why you rarely see the big names post on forums because this is getting no where fast.

All of them. As a Guard player (the original gunline army - yes, someone did it before the spacefishcowcommies) I hate the Tau with a passion. I have to get close to them with an army that struggles to move more that 6+D6" per turn. They can out shoot me. Their basic guns ignore my armour and the only save I get - cover - is completely ignored by their markerlights. If I try to shoot them then I barely even scratch them and starting a shooting war with them is tantamount to suicide but assault is pointless too as whatever tattered remnants make it close enough will be annihilated by their supporting fire and overwatch.
My tanks are laughable against their Railguns, D missiles, Ghost Keels and the like whilst their Riptides and Stormsurges are basically immune to my army as I have no feasible way of putting out enough firepower to kill them.

Tau are massively overpowered and the ITC nerfs are very, very, welcome and much needed.

Want to make your Tau matchup better?

Some tips: Take a huge blob of Guardsmen, 50 man big. Take Azrael from Dark Angels. All your Guardsmen now have a 4++ save at worst. This means all Tau weaponry will become very inefficient at removing your squad. For fun, add psykers and attempt to get more buffs (Sanctuary for a 3++ save on the entire blob, Invisibility because.. yeah, endurance for 4+ FNP and eternal warrior), take an inquisitor for Rad and Psychostroke grenades, load up on power axes and your blob will actually be very formidable in CC (I used to use a list like this, if you want I can PM you details). Load up on Wyverns, i'd recommend 2 squads of 2, they absolutely shred any non-MC infantry tau take, including the drones from both the drone net and the spawned drones. By taking SM allies you also gain the ability to bring along FA Drop Pods. Place Command Squads or Veterans squads inside the pods, load up on plasmas. A command squad full of Plasma, with rerolls and orders should be able to put a dent into some of those Tau MCs, you could also ally in Grav from Codex: SM to shore up that weakness.

As an imperial player, you should be using all the tools at your disposal. Bring along your buddies for the assistance you require.

So in order to stand up up to an even moderate tau list, take a very specific build, that A requires atleast three different books, B pisses all over the fluff. No army should have to stoop that low.

If you are playing against competitive Tau lists, yeah a lot of armies have to stoop that low. If you are playing against a casual Tau army it shouldnt be that big of a deal. But if your opponent is bringing a Riptide wing then you shouldnt feel at all bad about using all the assets available to you. Like it or not the game has allies and it is one of the few advantages that Imperials have over Tau/Eldar/Daemons/Crons.

"stoop"? Its called adaption. Its one thing to say a Codex CAN'T do something and another to say YOU WON'T.

If you won't that's a choice. Not a requirement to struggle.

 Jancoran wrote:
"stoop"? Its called adaption. Its one thing to say a Codex CAN'T do something and another to say YOU WON'T.

If you won't that's a choice. Not a requirement to struggle.

Yes, stoop. Having to buy, by my count, 4 codices just to be competitive is insane. Not to mention that it's hard to claim you're bringing a guard army to the table when you've tacked on DA, Inquisitors, and SMs to your little bit of IG.

MIni MIehm wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
"stoop"? Its called adaption. Its one thing to say a Codex CAN'T do something and another to say YOU WON'T.

If you won't that's a choice. Not a requirement to struggle.

Yes, stoop. Having to buy, by my count, 4 codices just to be competitive is insane. Not to mention that it's hard to claim you're bringing a guard army to the table when you've tacked on DA, Inquisitors, and SMs to your little bit of IG.

Again... Your choice. Dont tack anything on to it. it is self sufficient but you'll probably have to buy a few new toys. that's never not been the case though.