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.

Target wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:

 warboss wrote:
I thought they said they were reconsidering their rules change nerf to the Tau codex decurion? I didn't see that one on there.

No, just the ones that were implemented for LVO.

ITC already did a vote on the Hunter Contingent.

But come to think of it, that should also include the coming/going of the Piranhas that wasn't voted, and the ability of a regular riptide to take an Earth Caste Pilot Array

The riptide is straight up clear the option to take it is no where in the book. The new FSE still doesn't include it. I don't know how much clearer that can be. Only the named has access to that signature system.

gungo wrote:

Target wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:

 warboss wrote:
I thought they said they were reconsidering their rules change nerf to the Tau codex decurion? I didn't see that one on there.

No, just the ones that were implemented for LVO.

ITC already did a vote on the Hunter Contingent.

But come to think of it, that should also include the coming/going of the Piranhas that wasn't voted, and the ability of a regular riptide to take an Earth Caste Pilot Array

The riptide is straight up clear the option to take it is no where in the book. The new FSE still doesn't include it. I don't know how much clearer that can be. Only the named has access to that signature system.

Yes, it is clear. Invisiblity is also clear. 2+ rerollables are also clear, etc, etc. But if you check the LVO Thread (or maybe I'm remembering a conversation I had with him in person at LVO), at one point the ECPA came up and I believe Reece stated he was planning on having it voted - could be wrong, but pretty sure that's the case. I'm pointing it out because I just noticed it was missing, yet I expected to see it. It's not a debate of whether it's correct by RAW - because again, most of these questions aren't rules questions, they're rules *change* questions.

I think the best way to make sure something gets on the ballot is to send it through email:

frankie AT frontlinegaming DOT org

I did this for the Ghostkeel question, although it seems like it's really likely that was making it on anyway... but definitely worth doing!

I didn't on these because I think I just assumed they were already on it and included in the "tau rules questions" and such. Maybe that was the case for everyone and they got missed.

There were 100's of queries. It's quite conceivable that they missed a couple of questions that was asked previously of them.

Or, perhaps they polled the questions that came up the most in frequency?

I think if you still want an answer to a question of yours, keep on asking away. Who knows. Maybe there will be a ITC Q1 Poll Part II.

I thought that the coordinated fire power ruling would be on there also, hopefully they are going to do some more play testing and come up with modifications, I am trying to be positive.

Yeah from feedback they've posted, I'm not sure if they count forum chatter as "frequency" of asking a question... so, best to "officially" ask it by emailing it to them to make sure it gets noted!

There's a ton to keep track of obviously, so if nothing else this would really help with the book-keeping side of things and ease of reference.

 CKO wrote:
I thought that the coordinated fire power ruling would be on there also, hopefully they are going to do some more play testing and come up with modifications, I am trying to be positive.

I wouldn't just hope. I would submit your question to the address the RiTides has provided. If enough people want to revisit the issue it will be back on the ballot. If it's not, it might be that most people have moved on to the newest rule insanity and are fine with how things came out.

I think it's because, and I might be wrong, Reece said they would be reviewing the previous tau rulings. That might be why most people don't seem to have submitted the questions to him from here anyway and why many of us, myself included, are surprised to not see the piranha and hunter cadre questions on the block.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I think it's because, and I might be wrong, Reece said they would be reviewing the previous tau rulings. That might be why most people don't seem to have submitted the questions to him from here anyway and why many of us, myself included, are surprised to not see the piranha and hunter cadre questions on the block.

I came to the same conclusion based on what they said during their youtube videos. They knew that their previous poll after only a week or two of the codex being out raised a few eyebrows and I assumed that when they specificied that they'd be including previous Tau rulings that their initial knee jerk badly worded poll would be included. I suppose it's a lesson on not assuming.

 RiTides wrote:
Yeah from feedback they've posted, I'm not sure if they count forum chatter as "frequency" of asking a question... so, best to "officially" ask it by emailing it to them to make sure it gets noted!

There's a ton to keep track of obviously, so if nothing else this would really help with the book-keeping side of things and ease of reference.

I sent him a private message and I sent him a message on Facebook, no response!

I figure I'll just send over an email when I get chance with the questions that didn't make the poll that I thought would. If enough folks do that *politely* they'll probably have a follow up/another one with those issues.

Nothing to do now but vote on these and send feedback for future ones

Agreed, Target! Especially on the polite part lol.

CKO, I don't think messaging Reecius on FB or here is the way to go - proper channels is to email it to Frankie, and I got a response confirming he'd received the feedback and that it was an issue they'd likely be putting into the poll.

Oh hey, while we're at it for Eldar, let's bring up the other question that makes no sense;

"Per RAW, if a Gargantuan Creature with any part of its base is in a piece of terrain which grants a cover save, the Gargantuan Creature gains the save even if no part of it is actually obscured. Do you wish to play this rule this way?" (This is often referred to as the "Toe in Cover" rule.)

GC's are MC's MC's get Toe In Cover. Why would this not apply to GC's? Why are we picking and choosing one part of a core rule while keeping the others? Why again are we looking to change a core rule that literally only affects one army?

Because let's be honest, we're talking about a Wraithknight.

a) no one cares about the Barbed Heirodule
b) Stormsurges can purchase an Invul save that in no way diminishes their ranged shooting output (at a 4+, mind you)
c) The Taunar Armor is banned
d) The Demon GC LOW get an inherent 5+ that can easily be modified to a 2+ invul save.
e) The Codex Wraithknight has to give up the D-cannons to get a 5+ save (yes, I know it gets D in CC, but unlike the Taunar, it loses all decent ranged capability), and the Skathach has to sacrifice a gun AND gets no D in close combat.

So we're literally only talking about taking away Toe in Cover for the Eldar players because the only way they get in a non-armor based save otherwise is to gimp their ranged offensive output with a weaker save than any other GC.

How is that even remotely fair?

Because most people think that GCs being able to toe in cover is a bs rule and makes zero sense? I argue the same thing for MCs, personally, and am probably going to suggest it when I email franky, which I'm probbaly gonna do once the poll results come out and we see the effects of the possible point limit changes.

Wow, and make my poor tyranids even worse in the process

Sorry man, I wish we could make Carnifexes less than a distraction, but we can atleast make them have the same rules as their equally as terrible dreadnought friends .

Ah yes, my other army . But seriously, area terrain is much easier to implement on less elaborate tables, and cover is really crucial for bugs!

I keep scheming a Tyrranocyte list to get my big bugs there safe, but GW just point costed them high enough that it's hard to fit in while keeping enough punch...

 djdarknoise wrote:
Oh hey, while we're at it for Eldar, let's bring up the other question that makes no sense;

"Per RAW, if a Gargantuan Creature with any part of its base is in a piece of terrain which grants a cover save, the Gargantuan Creature gains the save even if no part of it is actually obscured. Do you wish to play this rule this way?" (This is often referred to as the "Toe in Cover" rule.)

GC's are MC's MC's get Toe In Cover. Why would this not apply to GC's? Why are we picking and choosing one part of a core rule while keeping the others? Why again are we looking to change a core rule that literally only affects one army?

Because let's be honest, we're talking about a Wraithknight.

a) no one cares about the Barbed Heirodule
b) Stormsurges can purchase an Invul save that in no way diminishes their ranged shooting output (at a 4+, mind you)
c) The Taunar Armor is banned
d) The Demon GC LOW get an inherent 5+ that can easily be modified to a 2+ invul save.
e) The Codex Wraithknight has to give up the D-cannons to get a 5+ save (yes, I know it gets D in CC, but unlike the Taunar, it loses all decent ranged capability), and the Skathach has to sacrifice a gun AND gets no D in close combat.

So we're literally only talking about taking away Toe in Cover for the Eldar players because the only way they get in a non-armor based save otherwise is to gimp their ranged offensive output with a weaker save than any other GC.

How is that even remotely fair?

They put questions like this on the poll, than they ask questions to further nerf the piranha formation which no one is using anyway lol.

Its hard to please everyone when you start asking questions that are not about op stuff. Its easy to turn on the air when its hot but when your trying to decide if you want the air between 73-76 the task becomes difficult.

 djdarknoise wrote:
Oh hey, while we're at it for Eldar, let's bring up the other question that makes no sense;

"Per RAW, if a Gargantuan Creature with any part of its base is in a piece of terrain which grants a cover save, the Gargantuan Creature gains the save even if no part of it is actually obscured. Do you wish to play this rule this way?" (This is often referred to as the "Toe in Cover" rule.)

GC's are MC's MC's get Toe In Cover. Why would this not apply to GC's? Why are we picking and choosing one part of a core rule while keeping the others? Why again are we looking to change a core rule that literally only affects one army?

Because let's be honest, we're talking about a Wraithknight.

a) no one cares about the Barbed Heirodule
b) Stormsurges can purchase an Invul save that in no way diminishes their ranged shooting output (at a 4+, mind you)
c) The Taunar Armor is banned
d) The Demon GC LOW get an inherent 5+ that can easily be modified to a 2+ invul save.
e) The Codex Wraithknight has to give up the D-cannons to get a 5+ save (yes, I know it gets D in CC, but unlike the Taunar, it loses all decent ranged capability), and the Skathach has to sacrifice a gun AND gets no D in close combat.

So we're literally only talking about taking away Toe in Cover for the Eldar players because the only way they get in a non-armor based save otherwise is to gimp their ranged offensive output with a weaker save than any other GC.

How is that even remotely fair?

It's an issue a lot players bring up. Hence it's on the polls.

Dude, it's not an issue of RAW. That train had left long ago. Rather, it's an issue of How-would-you-like-to-play-it. If the player-base - and I'm talking about the actual people who play in their tournaments and not some joe on the interwebz who has nothing to do with the ITC - complains enough, it will be on the polls.

So if you're part of the ITC and you would like a change, make sure you voice your concerns though the proper channels.

 jy2 wrote:
It's an issue a lot players bring up. Hence it's on the polls.

Dude, it's not an issue of RAW. That train had left long ago. Rather, it's an issue of How-would-you-like-to-play-it. If the player-base - and I'm talking about the actual people who play in their tournaments and not some joe on the interwebz who has nothing to do with the ITC - complains enough, it will be on the polls.

So if you're part of the ITC and you would like a change, make sure you voice your concerns though the proper channels.

But yet any one on the interwebz can vote, doesnt make sense.

Btw, feth the Wraithknight. And this is coming from an Eldar player who owns 5 WK's. I love them, but feth them anyways.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CKO wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
It's an issue a lot players bring up. Hence it's on the polls.

Dude, it's not an issue of RAW. That train had left long ago. Rather, it's an issue of How-would-you-like-to-play-it. If the player-base - and I'm talking about the actual people who play in their tournaments and not some joe on the interwebz who has nothing to do with the ITC - complains enough, it will be on the polls.

So if you're part of the ITC and you would like a change, make sure you voice your concerns though the proper channels.

But yet any one on the interwebz can vote, doesnt make sense.

No, if your email isn't in their database, then it won't count. As long as you have participated in any ITC-approved tourneys, they your vote is good to go.

[conspiracy_hat] it's still interesting what makes it through said proper channels and what doesn't. The pertinent current issue are the stealth tau nerfs inserted before LVO. The official channels seemed to say they would be revisited with a vote, and only one has, while an additional nerf has been added. [/conspiracy_hat]

Sure, people complain about toe in for MCS, but some armies live or die by it. People complain about Grav and daemon summoning, but there haven't been magical rules changes proposed because, frankly, it's part of the game.

Don't get me wrong, they're doing something right, they have one of the biggest events around, but I can't say I agree or am comfortable with the process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The idea that they're limiting to known emails is somewhat troubling. I've participated in events that report to ITC, but I'm not sure my email was connected to it. Sure, you want some accountability, but that seems abuseable/flawed

 jy2 wrote:
No, if your email isn't in their database, then it won't count. As long as you have participated in any ITC-approved tourneys, they your vote is good to go.

I don't think this is accurate - it certainly doesn't say as much anywhere on the poll. Are you sure about that?

As the Evan says above, they would really want to make that more obvious so people use the correct email address. I can't believe this would be the case without saying so on the poll!

 RiTides wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
No, if your email isn't in their database, then it won't count. As long as you have participated in any ITC-approved tourneys, they your vote is good to go.

I don't think this is accurate - it certainly doesn't say as much anywhere on the poll. Are you sure about that?

As the Evan says above, they would really want to make that more obvious so people use the correct email address. I can't believe this would be the case without saying so on the poll!

Actually, I could be wrong in this matter after looking at the poll again.

Oh well, looks like everyone will have say in this.

Jy2 thats good to know that they have a database of our emails but I dont recall having to give my e-mail when I went to an ITC event a couple of months ago.

Like I said everything has its pros and cons because if you have a requirement to vote than outsiders will feel left out and have even more reason not to attend ITC tournaments.

To create a democratic process where its a yes or no question but you don't understand why you have to answer the question in the first place is tricky.

They should create a poll about what questions should be on the poll that would end alot of this conspiracy theory crap.

 FTGTEvan wrote:

The idea that they're limiting to known emails is somewhat troubling. I've participated in events that report to ITC, but I'm not sure my email was connected to it. Sure, you want some accountability, but that seems abuseable/flawed

And on the other extreme, you have vote tampering because the same person has voted more than once with different because the emails are not compared to a database of valid emails. It's a double-edged sword, my friend. Which poison would you choose?

The more transparent "poison" lol like for any vote, ever!

Good to hear there aren't any shenanigans after all . Crisis averted / nothing to see here / move along / etc etc!

 CKO wrote:
Jy2 thats good to know that they have a database of our emails but I dont recall having to give my e-mail when I went to an ITC event a couple of months ago.

Like I said everything has its pros and cons because if you have a requirement to vote than outsiders will feel left out and have even more reason not to attend ITC tournaments.

To create a democratic process where its a yes or no question but you don't understand why you have to answer the question in the first place is tricky.

They should create a poll about what questions should be on the poll that would end alot of this conspiracy theory crap.

The ITC actually requests the TO's to turn in emails as well when they submit their tournament scores. However, whether or not the TO's do that is entirely up to the TO's.

Submitting emails also make the ranking more accurate. For example, if in one tournament, your name is recorded as Steve Johnson, but in another, you are recorded as Steven Johnson, you will actually appear as 2 separate players in the Ranking system. However, if both players had the same email, than it would avoid that confusion.

But anyways, the polls do not say that you have to be in the system so my initial presumption is probably wrong.

 jy2 wrote:

 FTGTEvan wrote:

The idea that they're limiting to known emails is somewhat troubling. I've participated in events that report to ITC, but I'm not sure my email was connected to it. Sure, you want some accountability, but that seems abuseable/flawed

And on the other extreme, you have vote tampering because the same person has voted more than once with different because the emails are not compared to a database of valid emails. It's a double-edged sword, my friend. Which poison would you choose?

Not Google sheets? Other ways to validate identity and reduce ballot stuffing. As was mentioned earlier, that can be at least somewhat identified with a visual scan of submission results. Fact is, either way, with the current technology being used, there are flaws.