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.

While I'm against the nerf to the firestomr in general, one thing pushed me to accept it as reasonable.

It was made global. ANYTHING that can leave the board, cannot do it the turn it entered.
So its equal to all the other things that could to it besides the firestorm (there are very few, but existing), and it preemptively applies to anything else that might come in the future.


So while its mostly a firestorm nerf, at least it was made to be global.


The GMC ruling seemed obvious to me, I'm amazed it does not apply to EVERYTHING anyway. (considering "area terrain" is not actually in the rules any more and instead there is "terrain datasheets")


Ghost calling was right. I'm surprised haters didn't take over there, call it a pleasant surprise.


Legacies for chaos knights, I think that's a mistake, but chaos could use the bone. maybe they should revert it once chaos is less miserable.


Can't find anything else, missed something?

I think another good example that the leaving the board the turn you come in is the new IA Wraithknights.. don't they have a thing about teleporting to reserves?

There is another formation as well that can do this that is relatively new... I want to say from one of the "start collecting" boxes.

The RG bladewing formation the Y’vahra also could technically, but it would be silly as they won't get anything done before leaving. (guess it helps if you want to avoid the table for one turn.)

 BoomWolf wrote:
The RG bladewing formation the Y’vahra also could technically, but it would be silly as they won't get anything done before leaving. (guess it helps if you want to avoid the table for one turn.)

Bladewing Assault Brotherhood is a once per game thing, and you declare it in your Movement phase with the unit then being placed into Ongoing Reserves.

Ongoing Reserves always re-enter play at the start of their controlling player's following turn, but otherwise follow the normal rules for Reserves(p.136 of the BRB).

Were the results posted? I see y'all talking about them but I can't find them.

I, for one, am glad to see the piranha wing formation lose its ability to leave the field on the same turn, as it always seemed obnoxiously game to me.

It does, however, mean that formation's focus will shift from truly obnoxious levels of drone spam to a healthy mix of drone and seeker missile spam...

 Captain Joystick wrote:
Were the results posted? I see y'all talking about them but I can't find them.

I, for one, am glad to see the piranha wing formation lose its ability to leave the field on the same turn, as it always seemed obnoxiously game to me.

It does, however, mean that formation's focus will shift from truly obnoxious levels of drone spam to a healthy mix of drone and seeker missile spam...

That wasn't even voted on this time, that had already happened. They instead voted to nerf it further by defining "the unit returns at full strength" as "only the models that left come back, dead piranhas don't return"

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2016/02/29/signals-from-the-frontline-413/

 CrownAxe wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Well I was kinda shocked at the 1850 result. Felt like 95% of the people I talked to off and online were stoked about the points drop, with only a small number that mentioned wanting it kept the same. And then bam, wildly different poll result.

I'm sure it'll come back around anyway. One thing I don't think a lot of the 1850 supporters realize is that it's going to get worse. More decurions, more free points, more free rules, more free units. And armies will take them to be competitive.

A year from now, making it TO turn 5 will be an impressive feat in a game between two good lists where one doesn't get crippled out of the gate.

I have a feeling a lot of ITC voters weren't real big in the tournament scene and didn't realize how big 1850 is in a true competitive environment.

That, or we play in a lot of tournaments, don't have an issue with our games finishing, and would rather play with the lists and toys we're used to. Implying that those who voted for 1850 are inexperienced or don't play in tournaments is pretty disingenuous.

 somerandomidiot wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Well I was kinda shocked at the 1850 result. Felt like 95% of the people I talked to off and online were stoked about the points drop, with only a small number that mentioned wanting it kept the same. And then bam, wildly different poll result.

I'm sure it'll come back around anyway. One thing I don't think a lot of the 1850 supporters realize is that it's going to get worse. More decurions, more free points, more free rules, more free units. And armies will take them to be competitive.

A year from now, making it TO turn 5 will be an impressive feat in a game between two good lists where one doesn't get crippled out of the gate.

I have a feeling a lot of ITC voters weren't real big in the tournament scene and didn't realize how big 1850 is in a true competitive environment.

That, or we play in a lot of tournaments, don't have an issue with our games finishing, and would rather play with the lists and toys we're used to. Implying that those who voted for 1850 are inexperienced or don't play in tournaments is pretty disingenuous.

That seems unlikely actually. There were what...26 or 2700 votes? Between LVO, BAO, and Wargamescon there were only 500 entrants, and some of those were the same people. (For example pj pants and incontrol were at all 3, just to name a couple off the top of the head.) That means that a huge, commanding majority of the voters didn't attend any of the big FLG-run events last year. The attendees theoretically could have ALL voted for lower points and still be massively overrun by the voters who don't even go to those.

To be honest, considering that that issue was touted as only affecting their personally ran big events, the vote should've been for attendees only or even just a no-vote TO judgement.

Now I'm not saying everyone that voted that way is somehow ignorant, but I would call BS if someone tried to tell me the opposite: that everyone who voted that way knew exactly what they were doing and had sound reasoning.

 niv-mizzet wrote:

That seems unlikely actually. There were what...26 or 2700 votes? Between LVO, BAO, and Wargamescon there were only 500 entrants, and some of those were the same people. (For example pj pants and incontrol were at all 3, just to name a couple off the top of the head.) That means that a huge, commanding majority of the voters didn't attend any of the big FLG-run events last year. The attendees theoretically could have ALL voted for lower points and still be massively overrun by the voters who don't even go to those.

To be honest, considering that that issue was touted as only affecting their personally ran big events, the vote should've been for attendees only or even just a no-vote TO judgement.

Now I'm not saying everyone that voted that way is somehow ignorant, but I would call BS if someone tried to tell me the opposite: that everyone who voted that way knew exactly what they were doing and had sound reasoning.

I agree, a large number of voters aren't people who attend Frontline events. Whether they should have a voice in the Frontline event-specific items is a different question entirely, but my point was that assuming that it was the people who don't attend such events that voted for 1850, rather than the people who do, is a faulty assumption. There are completely valid reasons that someone who actually plays in those events could want the points to stay 1850.

In that case their own archaic voting system is biting them in the ass. Hahah.

 somerandomidiot wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:

That seems unlikely actually. There were what...26 or 2700 votes? Between LVO, BAO, and Wargamescon there were only 500 entrants, and some of those were the same people. (For example pj pants and incontrol were at all 3, just to name a couple off the top of the head.) That means that a huge, commanding majority of the voters didn't attend any of the big FLG-run events last year. The attendees theoretically could have ALL voted for lower points and still be massively overrun by the voters who don't even go to those.

To be honest, considering that that issue was touted as only affecting their personally ran big events, the vote should've been for attendees only or even just a no-vote TO judgement.

Now I'm not saying everyone that voted that way is somehow ignorant, but I would call BS if someone tried to tell me the opposite: that everyone who voted that way knew exactly what they were doing and had sound reasoning.

I agree, a large number of voters aren't people who attend Frontline events. Whether they should have a voice in the Frontline event-specific items is a different question entirely, but my point was that assuming that it was the people who don't attend such events that voted for 1850, rather than the people who do, is a faulty assumption. There are completely valid reasons that someone who actually plays in those events could want the points to stay 1850.

Well, if the voting system only involved the people who went to these events then that only alienates the other side of the playerbase. These itc votes encourage participation from the non tournament goers, and that helps encourage some of them to come and attend the events.
It's not perfect, but it is in the best benefit of the itc in the long run....at least as far as getting more atendees.

since ITC is so widely used outside of frontline events, there should be more votes then just those who go to the big ones.

 Gamgee wrote:
In that case their own archaic voting system is biting them in the ass. Hahah.

Archaic voting system? What are you talking about?

ITC isn't solely the domain of tournaments in America, hundreds of gaming clubs and competitive scenes across the world have adopted it, including some of the ones I frequent here in Australia. The vote being open to everyone is the best solution for a global consensus to be reached on important matters, whether each individuals' opinions are validated by tournament experience or not.

 Gamgee wrote:
In that case their own archaic voting system is biting them in the ass. Hahah.

Comments like this really do not help in a thread like this.

If you could refrain from posting like this in future please.

Thank you.

geargutz wrote:

 somerandomidiot wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:

That seems unlikely actually. There were what...26 or 2700 votes? Between LVO, BAO, and Wargamescon there were only 500 entrants, and some of those were the same people. (For example pj pants and incontrol were at all 3, just to name a couple off the top of the head.) That means that a huge, commanding majority of the voters didn't attend any of the big FLG-run events last year. The attendees theoretically could have ALL voted for lower points and still be massively overrun by the voters who don't even go to those.

To be honest, considering that that issue was touted as only affecting their personally ran big events, the vote should've been for attendees only or even just a no-vote TO judgement.

Now I'm not saying everyone that voted that way is somehow ignorant, but I would call BS if someone tried to tell me the opposite: that everyone who voted that way knew exactly what they were doing and had sound reasoning.

I agree, a large number of voters aren't people who attend Frontline events. Whether they should have a voice in the Frontline event-specific items is a different question entirely, but my point was that assuming that it was the people who don't attend such events that voted for 1850, rather than the people who do, is a faulty assumption. There are completely valid reasons that someone who actually plays in those events could want the points to stay 1850.

Well, if the voting system only involved the people who went to these events then that only alienates the other side of the playerbase. These itc votes encourage participation from the non tournament goers, and that helps encourage some of them to come and attend the events.
It's not perfect, but it is in the best benefit of the itc in the long run....at least as far as getting more atendees.

Hey, I wasn't the one claiming that people should be restricted from voting in the ITC polls...

 somerandomidiot wrote:

geargutz wrote:

 somerandomidiot wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:

That seems unlikely actually. There were what...26 or 2700 votes? Between LVO, BAO, and Wargamescon there were only 500 entrants, and some of those were the same people. (For example pj pants and incontrol were at all 3, just to name a couple off the top of the head.) That means that a huge, commanding majority of the voters didn't attend any of the big FLG-run events last year. The attendees theoretically could have ALL voted for lower points and still be massively overrun by the voters who don't even go to those.

To be honest, considering that that issue was touted as only affecting their personally ran big events, the vote should've been for attendees only or even just a no-vote TO judgement.

Now I'm not saying everyone that voted that way is somehow ignorant, but I would call BS if someone tried to tell me the opposite: that everyone who voted that way knew exactly what they were doing and had sound reasoning.

I agree, a large number of voters aren't people who attend Frontline events. Whether they should have a voice in the Frontline event-specific items is a different question entirely, but my point was that assuming that it was the people who don't attend such events that voted for 1850, rather than the people who do, is a faulty assumption. There are completely valid reasons that someone who actually plays in those events could want the points to stay 1850.

Well, if the voting system only involved the people who went to these events then that only alienates the other side of the playerbase. These itc votes encourage participation from the non tournament goers, and that helps encourage some of them to come and attend the events.
It's not perfect, but it is in the best benefit of the itc in the long run....at least as far as getting more atendees.

Hey, I wasn't the one claiming that people should be restricted from voting in the ITC polls...

Didn't mean to sound like I was. I just needed a few quotes to put my comment up with, maybe should've just quoted the 1st guy only.

Haha, no worries man, I just didn't want to imply that I was. In fact, I feel strongly that everyone who plays in 40k events should vote, because the changes do impact them.