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.

 easysauce wrote:

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

*snipped image*

What is that a screen capture of? I can't find any verbiage like that anywhere on the Frontline site. (Also, did you take a photo of the screen with your camera instead of a screenshot? )

 TheNewBlood wrote:

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.

No tau was in the top 8 despite having a new codex and already being considered a powerful codex. If a powerful codex gets an update it should top 8 but it didn't because the good players chose not to use ghostkeels because of the nerf, riptides could not take its signature system, and no one was dum enough to bring the piranha formation after its nerf.

That's the point you don't know what those units could do because they were nerf before any one could use them and now your voting to keep it the same despite having no data. Did target use any of the things that you are voting on? The answer is no if the rulings were differently he might have used them.

It impacted Tau because Tau didn't use them, the players elected not to take the nerf units! Would you take a unit or formation that was nerf to a grand tournament?

In all seriousness I do believe most of the issue with the polls isn't some crazy conspiracy theory. Yes, I'd love it if they were more transparent like some folks have said, Yes, I'd love it if the questions at times were a bit better worded. But end of day neither of those things are physical ballots in boxes. The real issue in my mind is: the polls need to provide more background information on the issue, and/or, the average voter needs to be more informed (I see this as sadly unlikely). If you look at the case of "TheNewBlood" - I'm going to guess he may not even have attended LVO, he made an assumption about what the LVO FAQ did to the Piranha formation, and - without checking it - went ahead and voted for what he thought was "keep them with the same nerfs" and instead voted "nerf them more". Good intentions, bad results.

I think this is far more common then we'll admit. We see a poll, we're interested in a couple issues, we take swings at the rest without being very informed. That's not a recipe for success on rulings. End of the day, I think this is like the "do we cut points or how do we fix the games not finishing problem" we've seen debated. You have two options:

1) Tell players to play faster /// Tell players to be more informed and do more research before voting

or, if you can't expect the above to work in any meaningful way (you can't), you tackle the problem a different way

2) Reduce points, Increase round time, etc. /// Provide detailed background in each poll question, and improve wording on each, prior to releasing (do the research for the respondent)

 CKO wrote:
That's the point you don't know what those units could do because they were nerf before any one could use them and now your voting to keep it the same despite having no data. Did target use any of the things that you are voting on? The answer is no if the rulings were differently he might have used them.

It impacted Tau because Tau didn't use them, the players elected not to take the nerf units! Would you take a unit or formation that was nerf to a grand tournament?

@CKO...I still took basically all of the things that were nerfed to LVO . By the time I learned these were nerfed (monday night, 2 days before i flew out, they had been faq changed but not announced the preceding Friday), it was a bit too late. I'd built, painted, and practiced with that army, and beyond that, I just liked it. You don't have double digit numbers of piranhas painted and sitting around and not like them

What was your army list Target?

From memory, since I don't have a copy at work:

Dawnblade Contingent (source 1)

Retaliation Cadre [s1]
Commander, 2x plasma, target lock
3x Solo Crisis with 2x Cyclic Ion Blaster
3x Broadside with early warning override
1x Riptide: Ion, SMS, interceptor

Piranha Wing [s1]
1 Piranha
2 Piranha
3 Piranha
3 Piranha

Optimized Stealth Cadre [s2]
2x Ghostkeel, Cyclic Ion Rakers/TL Fusions, 1 Target Lock
3 Stealth suits (I think 1 fusion per unit?)
3 Stealth suits (I think 1 fusion per unit?)

Aspect Host [s3]
5 spiders
5 spiders
5 spiders

That's about right iirc. Was a lot of fun to play, the existing nerfs definitely hurt some, but originally I planned on doing a suit-based coordinated firepower army. Those are now back on the shelf. Then I decided to get back out my piranhas and try out ghostkeels, and they got hit near the end. Piranhas Ive loved forever, and even ran 8 at the last LVO, so the nerf didn't bother me as much on the coming/going. Removing their ability to come back at full strength...kind of kills the remaining purpose of the formation.

I voted for them to keep the regaining of dead models, though not of immobilized models. It's basically a slightly worse version of old RP, as I understand it, and isn't really that powerful.

To be honest, I didn't understand the second Piranha question on the ballot. If you vote to count immobilized Piranhas as destroyed, what does that mean?

I'm guessing, if the first question is voted that destroyed Piranhas return, then they return with the rest. But what if the first question is voted that destroyed Piranhas don't return... is the second question then irrelevant (similar to the points question earlier, that is dependent on the first question of whether or not to lower points, followed by the exact value to lower them to)?

 CKO wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

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.

No tau was in the top 8 despite having a new codex and already being considered a powerful codex. If a powerful codex gets an update it should top 8 but it didn't because the good players chose not to use ghostkeels because of the nerf, riptides could not take its signature system, and no one was dum enough to bring the piranha formation after its nerf.

That's the point you don't know what those units could do because they were nerf before any one could use them and now your voting to keep it the same despite having no data. Did target use any of the things that you are voting on? The answer is no if the rulings were differently he might have used them.

It impacted Tau because Tau didn't use them, the players elected not to take the nerf units! Would you take a unit or formation that was nerf to a grand tournament?

Eldar didn't win any major tournaments until the LVO with their new codex. Nobody disputed that Eldar weren't colossally overpowered then. Player skill and luck of the dice has more to do with top 8 pairings than anything else.

The reason Tau did not make top 8 is because their codex is still relatively fresh and people are still adapting to the best ways to play the book. The ITC nerfs are in place to provide a fair playing ground for the non-Tau players.

 RiTides wrote:
To be honest, I didn't understand the second Piranha question on the ballot. If you vote to count immobilized Piranhas as destroyed, what does that mean?

I'm guessing, if the first question is voted that destroyed Piranhas return, then they return with the rest. But what if the first question is voted that destroyed Piranhas don't return... is the second question then irrelevant (similar to the points question earlier, that is dependent on the first question of whether or not to lower points, followed by the exact value to lower them to)?

That's correct. If it counts as destroyed, then it comes back in with the unit. You could theoretically spawn more piranhas that way. Say if 1 piranha lands on terrain and immobilizes itself and then the unit leaves. If it counts as dead, then the unit will come back as 3 piranhas and you'd have a 4th piranha on the table (though immobilized). This could be a viable tactic, especially if you purposefully immobilize yourself on an objective.

Now if it wasn't counted as dead, then the unit leaves and when it comes back in, it would only return as 2 piranhas, plus the immobilized piranha on the table for a total of 3 piranhas.

Man, that might should have been laid out a little more (like you just did!). Not sure I voted how I intended on that one, to be honest!

What is the point of the formation if you cant come back with new piranhas?

If they kill 3 of 5, you leave come back with 2 piranhas you create 4 new drones! What is the point?

Some one please tell me why you would use the formation if you cannot get back the piranhas? They have 2 hp so you literally gain the ability to get back 1 hp.

This statement I am about to make is bias and I should not say it but I am going to word it in a way where it isn't as harsh but, it gets my point across since ITC originated from the westcoast.

How many players from the west coast is representing the United States in worlds?

Please don't drag that into this....

You do realize that literally all of the questions that they put up for the poll.....are actually Frequently Asked Questions, right? It really is that simple.

The ruling on the WK's movement maybe could have been put up for clarification; however Forge World did release a statement via email saying that the 12" move was an error on their part. Which makes sense - there is literally no reason ever to use that function if it scatters. "Oh wait I moved 12" and then scattered 12" directly back to where I started? Good plan guys let's do it again!"

 CKO wrote:
What is the point of the formation if you cant come back with new piranhas?

If they kill 3 of 5, you leave come back with 2 piranhas you create 4 new drones! What is the point?

Some one please tell me why you would use the formation if you cannot get back the piranhas? They have 2 hp so you literally gain the ability to get back 1 hp.

How many players from the west coast is representing the United States in worlds?

What's the point of the new Ork Decurion giving the exact same benefits as one of its sub-formations? What's the point of the Cadian formation providing a new order that's basically a worse version of an existing order?

Besides if your piranhas stay on the table for multiple turns and you use positioning to change up which ones take small amounts of damage, you can get like 2-3 hull points back in one go!

Its how the questions are presented that's the problem. Why not copy and paste the rule, than ask the question?

If you don't have a Tau codex and know nothing about Tau and you are asked:

How many times can a unit of Tau Ghostkeels containing more than one Ghostkeel activate their Holophoton Countermeasures?

Conflict: The Holophoton Countermeasures rule indicates that the rule is activated on both a per model and per unit basis, creating ambiguity.

You don't even know what a countermeasure is! I guess that explains why they would like to write the articles but they are persuasive so just write the rule and ask the question.

bogalubov wrote:
Besides if your piranhas stay on the table for multiple turns and you use positioning to change up which ones take small amounts of damage, you can get like 2-3 hull points back in one go!

They have 2 hp, open top, and side armor 10 the chances of them surviving is extremely low the chances of doing exactly one hp with units such as eldar jetbikes with 12 str 6 shots, 10 str 6 shots from warp spiders, 10 grav-cannon shots is very low. Even with jink the unit is not durable to take away the ability to come back is essentially banning this formation.

Why not ask do you want to ban the piranha formation? Its basically house rules with a democratic front to justify their rulings. That's fine by me I just need to swallow that pill and keep it moving and stop creating stress for the people that feel like they are safer with these rules than without them. I understand changing op stuff but this is not the case.

I voted for them to come back but not if immobilised because I don't think it was meant for spawning more piranhas and it's just a cheesy shenanigan that makes no sense if someone is trying to immobilize themselves to summon extra units.

However it's an interesting tactic to prevent missle and drone spam by just immobilizing them.

gungo wrote:
I voted for them to come back but not if immobilised because I don't think it was meant for spawning more piranhas and it's just a cheesy shenanigan that makes no sense if someone is trying to immobilize themselves to summon extra units.

However it's an interesting tactic to prevent missle and drone spam by just immobilizing them.

Its an interesting tactic to not even see it by voting against it!

 CKO wrote:

gungo wrote:
I voted for them to come back but not if immobilised because I don't think it was meant for spawning more piranhas and it's just a cheesy shenanigan that makes no sense if someone is trying to immobilize themselves to summon extra units.

However it's an interesting tactic to prevent missle and drone spam by just immobilizing them.

Its an interesting tactic to not even see it by voting against it!

The piranha detschment is stil extremely viable every other turn because it allows you to spam missiles as well which you normally wouldn't be able to use is you are just phasing in and out of existence in the movement phase. Come on the board let loose ur drones, fire your missiles, then leave the board next turn, they are basically invulnerable units since they keep respawning every other turn. In a game where 90% of the time you are only ever getting to turn 5 in a tournament you also have plenty of opportunity to pop on the board and claim objectives turn 5. It's hardly a crappy formation.

gungo wrote:

 CKO wrote:

gungo wrote:
I voted for them to come back but not if immobilised because I don't think it was meant for spawning more piranhas and it's just a cheesy shenanigan that makes no sense if someone is trying to immobilize themselves to summon extra units.

However it's an interesting tactic to prevent missle and drone spam by just immobilizing them.

Its an interesting tactic to not even see it by voting against it!

The piranha detschment is stil extremely viable every other turn because it allows you to spam missiles as well which you normally wouldn't be able to use is you are just phasing in and out of existence in the movement phase. Come on the board let loose ur drones, fire your missiles, then leave the board next turn, they are basically invulnerable units since they keep respawning every other turn. In a game where 90% of the time you are only ever getting to turn 5 in a tournament you also have plenty of opportunity to pop on the board and claim objectives turn 5. It's hardly a crappy formation.

By taking away the ability to enter and leave board at the same time AND taking away the ability to respawn dead Piranhas, you've turned the formation from a very good one to a pretty mediocre one. Piranhas are pretty paper thin and with no respawn they are far less attractive.. not to mention that the respawn is RAW and most likely RAI (remember that the rule had been printed before and it explicitly states that dead piranhas come back to life.) I would have loved to see FLG post that image along with the question.

gungo wrote:

 CKO wrote:

gungo wrote:
I voted for them to come back but not if immobilised because I don't think it was meant for spawning more piranhas and it's just a cheesy shenanigan that makes no sense if someone is trying to immobilize themselves to summon extra units.

However it's an interesting tactic to prevent missle and drone spam by just immobilizing them.

Its an interesting tactic to not even see it by voting against it!

The piranha detschment is stil extremely viable every other turn because it allows you to spam missiles as well which you normally wouldn't be able to use is you are just phasing in and out of existence in the movement phase. Come on the board let loose ur drones, fire your missiles, then leave the board next turn, they are basically invulnerable units since they keep respawning every other turn. In a game where 90% of the time you are only ever getting to turn 5 in a tournament you also have plenty of opportunity to pop on the board and claim objectives turn 5. It's hardly a crappy formation.

It actually becomes quite crappy if the vote further nerfs it beyond how it was played at LVO by not letting it bring dead ones back to life. You have to keep in mind - Piranhas are already a relatively weak, joke unit. Certain people may love and swear by them, myself included, but in general these are *not* power units. They're a unit you almost never saw during 6th and 7th for a reason, and only as suicide single melta teams in 4th/5th. We aren't talking about reducing the effectiveness of a formation that gives scatterbikes a ton of free benefits, or that buffs grav centurions - we're talking about Piranhas. The discussion needs perspective in this case.

Add in that the formation literally states "The unit returns at full strength, with any .... replaced and HP restored" and it's pretty clear what full strength means. If that isn't enough, while most people may not realize it, and it wasn't mentioned in the poll, this formation has been around for years - in the War Zone Damocles book, its an apoc formation. The wording of the rule was *identical* except they added (e.g. five models) after full strength in order to explain exactly what they meant - and this is how everyone played it. They removed the explanatory text - but changed nothing else - because the unit size is no longer locked at 5 models as it was previously, and suddenly we're discussing what "full strength" means. If I gave you a unit of 5 tyranid warriors and three died and said "return the unit at full strength" would you place back 2 models with full wounds? No, you'd place back five models. Squadrons work identically.

This is the problem with uninformed voting, and with polls that aren't doing the research for their respondents. People are voting against these things because they read on the internet it's really good. In reality, I believe a total of two tau players were willing to take the nerfed (can't come/go same turn) piranha formation to LVO - myself and Israel - and neither of us exactly burnt down the world with it, nor did I have any opponents complain about it. Now we're voting to nerf it further.

And to be clear, I don't place this entirely, or even mostly, on the heads of the ITC - yes, they need to provide more information/word things better, but the responsibility is on the people voting to actually be informed, and at present, they're not.

I don't think the vote is going to remove respawning and I agree removing respawning makes the formation uncompetitive. The only rule I can see going either way is the immobilize result and I think a lot of people didn't understand the question even though it was written fairly clearly. That can go either way and in the end it wouldn't be game breaking just a dumb tactic.

gungo wrote:
I don't think the vote is going to remove respawning and I agree removing respawning makes the formation uncompetitive. The only rule I can see going either way is the immobilize result and I think a lot of people didn't understand the question even though it was written fairly clearly. That can go either way and in the end it wouldn't be game breaking just a dumb tactic.

While I hope you're right, I think you're going to be surprised (or maybe I'll just be proven to be a pessimist ) with the results.

Take thenewbloods earlier statement - he voted to nerf them further because he thought that was how they were played at lvo and he was just voting for the nerf to stay in place. He also thought they "did fine". Not only was it not how they were played at lvo, they were almost absent anyhow!

gungo wrote:
I don't think the vote is going to remove respawning and I agree removing respawning makes the formation uncompetitive. The only rule I can see going either way is the immobilize result and I think a lot of people didn't understand the question even though it was written fairly clearly. That can go either way and in the end it wouldn't be game breaking just a dumb tactic.

So you voted not to remove the respawn I take it?

I voted to keep respawn except when its immobilized and abandoned. That way it's not a free summoned unit where people play odd tactics of trying to immobilize thier piranha to summon more models.

You have to keep in mind - Piranhas are already a relatively weak, joke unit

Just to pitch the other side of this. At the LVO I played against the new Piranha formation (paired with double riptide wing) and could do nothing against it. It's hardly a joke.

My opponent came on the board and dropped his drones and fired his missiles. Survived my return fire (because I had nothing that can reliably take out 6 hull points worth of jinking armour) and then left the board to do the same thing all over again when he came back on the board.

So no. It's not a joke unit. A ton of missiles and kill-point-free drones that zoom up the board and create screens are a pain to deal with.

 The Everliving wrote:

You have to keep in mind - Piranhas are already a relatively weak, joke unit

Just to pitch the other side of this. At the LVO I played against the new Piranha formation (paired with double riptide wing) and could do nothing against it. It's hardly a joke.

My opponent came on the board and dropped his drones and fired his missiles. Survived my return fire (because I had nothing that can reliably take out 6 hull points worth of jinking armour) and then left the board to do the same thing all over again when he came back on the board.

So no. It's not a joke unit. A ton of missiles and kill-point-free drones that zoom up the board and create screens are a pain to deal with.

Well, he was referring to Piranhas in a vacuum, no formation rules applied. When looked upon in that context I would say they are relatively weak. Not bad, per se, but weaker than many other Tau options. The formation makes them very good, but too good? I don't think so, at least not in a world of unmitigated Warp Spiders, Wraithknights, Scatbikes, Grav Cents, Battle Companies, Grimoire'd Daemons, Decurion Necron units (esp the nearly invincible Wraiths that you took), etc. When observed against those things, I would hardly call the Piranha formation broken. PITA, yes, but broken no. I just recently played against it and while I lost it was a very close game and I at no point felt that the Piranhas were single-handedly turning the tide.

For competitive play all that really matters is the formation. No one is going to run them stock.

What Dozer Blades said.

The debate is not about stock Piranhas. It's about the formation.

His reply was totally evasive to the point of being downright misleading.

 The Everliving wrote:
What Dozer Blades said.

The debate is not about stock Piranhas. It's about the formation.

I was talking about Piranhas, just the unit itself. To make the point that while the formation is good, it's not insane, and it's already been toned down. We aren't discussing a formation that further buffs an already crazy unit, we're talking about a formation that buffs a relatively weak unit. If you remove all of the formation benefits, it starts to get a bit silly.


And let's also point out Alex - you won that game (i think, since your only lost was sean) with your Necron Decurion. That piranha wing, under the LVO nerf of no come/go in the same turn, did not single-handedly break the game. It was good, yes. It wasn't "lets remove its other ability that it clearly has by raw" good.