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.

If that is the case, not only on the "tampering/spam email" or the fact that it is completely open to everyone, and not just ITC tournament attendees, then this whole thing needs to be scrapped until a system is in place that provides actual probative value.

Because what is being suggested then is a population that is not indicative of the true player base and a sample size that is cannot be trusted to show factual data.

 FTGTEvan wrote:

 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.

 djdarknoise wrote:
If that is the case, not only on the "tampering/spam email" or the fact that it is completely open to everyone, and not just ITC tournament attendees, then this whole thing needs to be scrapped until a system is in place that provides actual probative value.

Because what is being suggested then is a population that is not indicative of the true player base and a sample size that is cannot be trusted to show factual data.

I don't know what type of fail-safe mechanisms they have in place. I am sure that is one area that they must have considered.

 FTGTEvan wrote:
[conspiracy_hat] 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

My problem with most of the criticism levied at the ITC is that people seem to think that by participating in ITC events they are owed something. Be it transparency in the question generation process or an equal treatment of their faction.

The "ITC" is literally 2 guys and whatever resources they can spare from their business to organize it. They receive no direct money from it. Perhaps the larger profile does some advertising for their business, but unless you've purchased something from FLG as a direct result of the ITC, you have little room to complain or make demands.

So if you would like to see improvements, do what TinBane did and help. That guy liked the general of the ITC, but didn't care for the slow process of ranking updates. So he wrote the software that allows scores to be automatically uploaded. I'm not saying you need to know how to code, but you can certainly volunteer your time to sort through question submissions and then post a nice breakdown of many times a question was asked and how many times it needs to be asked to make the poll.

Claiming that FLG is an evil cabal out there to undercut drone and piranha sales is actually not helpful.

If you want conspiracy theories, here's a simple one. FLG wants high participation in ITC tournaments and they want to sell you stuff. Both of those are achieved by doing whatever the majority of players want.

Djdarknoise I dont think its that bad I hope no one would go through such extremes to tilt a ruling to their favor.

Well said, bogalubov.

Remember, these are two guys who are spending time on trying to create a standard for their tournaments but who has to run a business also. They have limited resources, are devoting their time to doing this without getting paid, and who can and will make mistakes also. You, the reader, may think 1 or 2 issues are important that they forgot about, but they are literally dealing with 100's and 100's of issues from 100's of people and with a limit to their time. Sometimes, answering just 1 question from 1 person can take up a lot of time. They aren't omniscient nor are they always in touch with the latest-and-greatest. Basically, they are guys with limited time and resources dealing with the ENTIRE 40K WORLD.

I'd cut them some slack if they forget a question or if they don't answer yours in a timely manner. Their main job is to sell models/mats and do commission painting. Running the tournament is what they do mainly because of the love of the competitive scene and wanting to see it grow.

bogalubov wrote:

 FTGTEvan wrote:
[conspiracy_hat] 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

My problem with most of the criticism levied at the ITC is that people seem to think that by participating in ITC events they are owed something. Be it transparency in the question generation process or an equal treatment of their faction.

The "ITC" is literally 2 guys and whatever resources they can spare from their business to organize it. They receive no direct money from it. Perhaps the larger profile does some advertising for their business, but unless you've purchased something from FLG as a direct result of the ITC, you have little room to complain or make demands.

So if you would like to see improvements, do what TinBane did and help. That guy liked the general of the ITC, but didn't care for the slow process of ranking updates. So he wrote the software that allows scores to be automatically uploaded. I'm not saying you need to know how to code, but you can certainly volunteer your time to sort through question submissions and then post a nice breakdown of many times a question was asked and how many times it needs to be asked to make the poll.

Claiming that FLG is an evil cabal out there to undercut drone and piranha sales is actually not helpful.

If you want conspiracy theories, here's a simple one. FLG wants high participation in ITC tournaments and they want to sell you stuff. Both of those are achieved by doing whatever the majority of players want.

Good lord you hit the nail on the head.. preach it brother.

I dont buy that arguement JY2 there are people that are willing to help. They just are afraid to let others hold their baby.

 CKO wrote:
I dont buy that arguement JY2 there are people that are willing to help. They just are afraid to let others hold their baby.

Then try creating a Tournament standard yourself and see how many people you can please.

It's an impossible job.

I know it is impossible so lets stop pretending its perfec!, Its more like its the best they can do type of thing and their efforts are to be acknowledged but dont get upset with players when votes dont go their way when we all know there are flaws that can be exploited. FLG and we the players are victims we both suffer the consequences of someone cheating the system!

Especially when it comes to determining what gets voted on! I unlike you dont live in California and can drive to their store and have casual conversations with them to voice my concerns. I have to send emails, personal messages, Facebook, and write threads the list goes on and it still will not be heard despite being the one that could easily be considered an unfair critic.

 CKO wrote:
I dont buy that arguement JY2 there are people that are willing to help. They just are afraid to let others hold their baby.

That's because you aren't familiar with the work Frontline has had to put in just to make the event happen in the first place, let alone be as successful as it's been. There are a lot of people willing to help, and they do, but there's a certain point where you simply can't rely on volunteer effort, especially not in a relatively small community like competitive 40k.

 CKO wrote:
I know it is impossible so lets stop pretending its perfec!, Its more like its the best they can do type of thing and their efforts are to be acknowledged but dont get upset with players when votes dont go their way when we all know there are flaws that can be exploited. FLG and we the players are victims we both suffer the consequences of someone cheating the system!

Especially when it comes to determining what gets voted on! I unlike you dont live in California and can drive to their store and have casual conversations with them to voice my concerns. I have to send emails, personal messages, Facebook, and write threads the list goes on and it still will not be heard despite being the one that could easily be considered an unfair critic.

You want to have your voice heard? Get other people to email them as well. It is a numbers game. 1 guy complaining about the same thing 10 times bears little weight compared to 10 guys complaining about the same thing once. And have a little patience (or not, I don't really care as it is not my standard). It took numerous polls before they finally had the vote on the GC toe-in-cover issue. The Piranha and HC issue might not have be re-voted on in this poll, but that does not mean it never will. FLG has reversed its decisions before (mycetic spore arc of fire) and as long as enough people brings up the issue, they can again.

But just do it through the proper channels, do it politely and do it with some reasoning.

 DarkLink wrote:

 CKO wrote:
I dont buy that arguement JY2 there are people that are willing to help. They just are afraid to let others hold their baby.

That's because you aren't familiar with the work Frontline has had to put in just to make the event happen in the first place, let alone be as successful as it's been. There are a lot of people willing to help, and they do, but there's a certain point where you simply can't rely on volunteer effort, especially not in a relatively small community like competitive 40k.

I am an anayltical I research for hours I know nearly every website/blog that relates to 40k. I know the humble begainings of Frontline Gaming they have accomplished alot, you cant say I need help but at the same time push people away.

 jy2 wrote:

You want to have your voice heard? Get other people to email them as well. It is a numbers game. 1 guy complaining about the same thing 10 times bears little weight compared to 10 guys complaining about the same thing once. And have a little patience (or not, I don't really care as it is not my standard). It took numerous polls before they finally had the vote on the GC toe-in-cover issue. The Piranha and HC issue might not have be re-voted on in this poll, but that does not mean it never will. FLG has reversed its decisions before (mycetic spore arc of fire) and as long as enough people brings up the issue, they can again.

But just do it through the proper channels, do it politely and do it with some reasoning.

I have created 3 threads in less than a month that all have over 3k views each relating to the ITC, do they not look at the forums?

 CKO wrote:

I have created 3 threads in less than a month that all have over 3k views each relating to the ITC, do they not look at the forums?

The proper channel is to email them or submite a FAQ request on their blog.

Don't assume that just because you have multiple threads on a forum that they will read each one and in detail. I used to write 100's of battle reports on Dakka and Librarium Online but I'm not going to assume that you or anyone else have read my reports.

This proper channel stuff sounds like something Hillary or Donald would say when they are asked a question they dont want to answer!

Will you provide me with their email and a link to the faq request that is on their blog.

jy2 wrote: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.

If we had a registration system that generated a unique ID for each ITC competitor and allowed them to identify at events that would potentially be even better, especially since using the email address as a unique ID was never widely communicated.

And really, "Johnson?" You couldn't have picked another last name that wasn't a euphemism for a penis? You could have at least gone with Tim. I recall Adam opted for that alias after BAO two years ago.

 CKO wrote:
This proper channel stuff sounds like something Hillary or Donald would say when they are asked a question they dont want to answer!

Will you provide me with their email and a link to the faq request that is on their blog.

ITC 40k Rules Question Submission Form
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1W8A22qTts0p9CIkhxZIefmicHr7J2RoWlJmPqGQFiZo/viewform

ITC Questions: Frankie@FrontlineGaming.org


Both were easily found on the FLG website.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 punchdub wrote:

jy2 wrote: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.

If we had a registration system that generated a unique ID for each ITC competitor and allowed them to identify at events that would potentially be even better, especially since using the email address as a unique ID was never widely communicated.

Which would be another headache they don't need. You would have to have a person looking up those numbers at the tournament for ever one that forgot their ID number, which from personal experience would not be insignificant, plus those who wouldn't have any proof of identity at all.

 CKO wrote:
This proper channel stuff sounds like something Hillary or Donald would say when they are asked a question they dont want to answer!

Will you provide me with their email and a link to the faq request that is on their blog.

Sure!

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1W8A22qTts0p9CIkhxZIefmicHr7J2RoWlJmPqGQFiZo/viewform

Oops. Ninja'd! Thanks Crimson Devil.

bogalubov wrote:

 FTGTEvan wrote:
[conspiracy_hat] 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

My problem with most of the criticism levied at the ITC is that people seem to think that by participating in ITC events they are owed something. Be it transparency in the question generation process or an equal treatment of their faction.

The "ITC" is literally 2 guys and whatever resources they can spare from their business to organize it. They receive no direct money from it. Perhaps the larger profile does some advertising for their business, but unless you've purchased something from FLG as a direct result of the ITC, you have little room to complain or make demands.

So if you would like to see improvements, do what TinBane did and help. That guy liked the general of the ITC, but didn't care for the slow process of ranking updates. So he wrote the software that allows scores to be automatically uploaded. I'm not saying you need to know how to code, but you can certainly volunteer your time to sort through question submissions and then post a nice breakdown of many times a question was asked and how many times it needs to be asked to make the poll.

Claiming that FLG is an evil cabal out there to undercut drone and piranha sales is actually not helpful.

If you want conspiracy theories, here's a simple one. FLG wants high participation in ITC tournaments and they want to sell you stuff. Both of those are achieved by doing whatever the majority of players want.

1.) I would think by calling a section of my post [conspiracy_hat] it would be fairly obvious that it's tongue in cheek. Guess it wasn't clear enough.
2.) what part of hosting a poll for rules changes means people who just participate in events don't have a say? That's somewhat the point. Just because people have critiques for the system doesn't invalidate the points. And they have incorporated feedback before, including improving polling questions and format, so dismissing criticism because it's just two guys working at it is irrelevant. Yes they devote their own time and effort, I don't think people question that. It doesn't mean it can't be made better.

CKO going through the correct channel is easy and they make that info very available. We can't expect them to farm every forum out there looking for specific posts and questions.

I see a glaring problem and possible fix in this vote. The rule for corsairs came up for vote but I don't have that book and don't know the specific rule. I still had to vote....my recommendation is to make an abstain option so when honest people don't know they can choose to not vote on that option. It's bad enough that people are voting to nerf armies...not because the rules but because it's powerful against their armies.

They do read forums, Reecius responded to Orock's thread that was about Tau and engaged with him/her on Dakkadakka.

But you're more likely to get noticed by going through the correct channels.

I like that abstain option although it's just as easy to write the rule in the question.

I think engaging in a discussion is different from submitting issues for the poll, though - it took me a little while to realize this, to be honest but that's why I've been posting the email quite often in these threads. If you really want your question "counted", you've got to make sure to email it!

Logistically, I can see why this would be necessary... it's just a lot to juggle already and submitting the form or just sending an email is likely a lot easier for them to track.

Yep, so that's what I'll start doing as well RiTides, I submitted the following to the frankie email address above.

Frankie,

Just voted in the poll and expected to see a few Tau questions that weren't included, so figured I'd submit them here for the "if there are enough people asking they'll get answered" docket. I didn't previously since I thought they'd be included in the lumped-together "tau rulings" you guys mentioned, apologies for not submitting prior to the poll.

1) Can a Riptide other than O'Vesa take the Earth Caste Pilot Array Signature system. RAW this is not allowed, however I believe there was discussion of giving them an allowance (or voting to do so) since it seemed an oversight by GW.

2) Piranha's from the Firestream Wing, by RAW they can leave in the same turn they enter. There was a FAQ entry added without vote prior to the LVO restricting this, could we get a vote on this?

3) Coordinated Firepower Ruling - Revote Request. This issue was voted prior to much playtesting/seeing how impactful it was and I was hoping it would be revoted at a later date as stated it might be. For what it's worth, I'd like to see the middle ground ruling occur, which is more or less: only shots fired at the target of the coordinated firepower attack receive the associated buffs, but buffs do transfer.

If you'd like full text or example question text on any of these, don't hesitate to ask.

Cheers,

Andrew

Its bit odd, but they seem to have changed their ruling for "a 2++ reroll able is only passed on a second roll of 4+"

to : every 2+ reroll able save of any kind, or to hit or wound, the 2nd roll is on a 4+"

while rerolling a 2++ is indeed a positive change,

I think that should have come to a vote, people have ways to deal with cover/armour and bs5/pre enemy doesn't need a nerf.

Its a bit like their rules change that levitate can be used to get out of combat, just why? why!>? uneeded rules changes are just bloat at this point.

 easysauce wrote:
Its bit odd, but they seem to have changed their ruling for "a 2++ reroll able is only passed on a second roll of 4+"

to : every 2+ reroll able save of any kind, or to hit or wound, the 2nd roll is on a 4+"

while rerolling a 2++ is indeed a positive change,

I think that should have come to a vote, people have ways to deal with cover/armour and bs5/pre enemy doesn't need a nerf.

Its a bit like their rules change that levitate can be used to get out of combat, just why? why!>? uneeded rules changes are just bloat at this point.

What are you talking about? I don't see in the FAQ or anywhere else that anything other than saves are affected.

ITC FAQ wrote:
Modified Saves
2+ Rerollable Saves:
For ITC format events, any saving throw of a 2+ that can be rerolled, if the first roll is failed, the reroll is failed on a roll of a 1,2 or 3.

Pythius Primus wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
Its bit odd, but they seem to have changed their ruling for "a 2++ reroll able is only passed on a second roll of 4+"

to : every 2+ reroll able save of any kind, or to hit or wound, the 2nd roll is on a 4+"

while rerolling a 2++ is indeed a positive change,

I think that should have come to a vote, people have ways to deal with cover/armour and bs5/pre enemy doesn't need a nerf.

Its a bit like their rules change that levitate can be used to get out of combat, just why? why!>? uneeded rules changes are just bloat at this point.

What are you talking about? I don't see in the FAQ or anywhere else that anything other than saves are affected.

ITC FAQ wrote:
Modified Saves
2+ Rerollable Saves:
For ITC format events, any saving throw of a 2+ that can be rerolled, if the first roll is failed, the reroll is failed on a roll of a 1,2 or 3.

Had a friend get multiple FAQ writing judges rule it that way at the LVO


Maybe things changed since then to just "saves" vs ++ saves, still should be a vote as saves/cover are easily ignored.



here the cap

I have read so many things on the internet about the ITC faq that are just not true. It's amazing.

as much as I dislike ITC, I still am forced to play with it durring local tournaments. Anyone who votes for advantage are simply scum.

I voted to:

-limit the maximum number of detachments to three

-only go to four if the number of detachments were increased

-track factions based on the faction that had the largest number of points allotted in an army

-use less than 1850 points at larger ITC events

-use 1650 points at larger ITC events

-disallow the Tau Tidewall as a Fortification Network

-not allow Gargantuan Creatures to "toe in cover"

-limit a unit of Ghostkeel's to only one use of the Holophoton Countermeasures

-do not allow Piranhas to come back from the dead as part of their formation

-not count immobilized Piranhas as destroyed

-not allow the Reckless Abandon special rule to apply to Overwatch

-allow Chaos Knights to take Legacies of Ruin

Again, the big Tau changes for the LVO were on the ballot. As I think the changes were valid and did not dramatically impact Tau's ability to compete in the ITC, I voted for the changes to go ahead.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I voted to:
-do not allow Piranhas to come back from the dead as part of their formation

Again, the big Tau changes for the LVO were on the ballot. As I think the changes were valid and did not dramatically impact Tau's ability to compete in the ITC, I voted for the changes to go ahead.

Unsure if you're aware, but you then voted to *further* nerf the piranha formation past what it was nerfed to at LVO, you did not vote for the existing changes to go ahead. At LVO they removed their ability to come/go in the same turn, which is not on this ballot, but their preliminary reading of the rule was that dead ones do come back, because the rule states "the unit returns at full strength, with any drones/missiles replaced".

What was your reasoning behind voting to further nerf them, if I may ask?

Target wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I voted to:
-do not allow Piranhas to come back from the dead as part of their formation

Again, the big Tau changes for the LVO were on the ballot. As I think the changes were valid and did not dramatically impact Tau's ability to compete in the ITC, I voted for the changes to go ahead.

Unsure if you're aware, but you then voted to *further* nerf the piranha formation past what it was nerfed to at LVO, you did not vote for the existing changes to go ahead. At LVO they removed their ability to come/go in the same turn, which is not on this ballot, but their preliminary reading of the rule was that dead ones do come back, because the rule states "the unit returns at full strength, with any drones/missiles replaced".

What was your reasoning behind voting to further nerf them, if I may ask?

Fear!

I don't see any reason why you would want to nerf a unit like the ghostkeels who have little fire power, by restricting us Tau players they are encouraging us to play riptide wings and forge world experimental riptides, which is a lot worse ironically. Your going to see more players using riptide wings and drone net and that's it.

I copy and pasted your question and sent it to their blog thing.