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.

I don't think you understand how brutal and broken the formation is when left untouched.

Unnerfed, there is nothing you can do. Fact. Each turn, drones are dropped and Pirahnas leave. Each turn, more and more shots are added to the board, which in turn means more wounds, which in turn means more pinning tests to make, which lead to more failures, which leads to more board control, more models, more shots...you see where this is going?

As for destroyed and immobilized Piranhas, what if you dedicate all your fire power to one unit and it's still not enough to remove the unit? Next turn, they leave and you take casualties, which makes it even harder to remove the formation.

 Frozocrone wrote:
I don't think you understand how brutal and broken the formation is when left untouched.

Unnerfed, there is nothing you can do. Fact. Each turn, drones are dropped and Pirahnas leave. Each turn, more and more shots are added to the board, which in turn means more wounds, which in turn means more pinning tests to make, which lead to more failures, which leads to more board control, more models, more shots...you see where this is going?

As for destroyed and immobilized Piranhas, what if you dedicate all your fire power to one unit and it's still not enough to remove the unit? Next turn, they leave and you take casualties, which makes it even harder to remove the formation.

.....
.....
It's already been nerfed so that the Piranha cannot come onto board and leave board in the same turn, which is the biggest contributor to their "invincibility." Without that ability, the Piranhas are able to be engaged.

See the last part. I'm aware that the reserve come and go is sticking.

 Frozocrone wrote:
See the last part. I'm aware that the reserve come and go is sticking.

That nerf makes them able to be engaged.

Im not arguing that this formation isn't good, it's very good, but there are many very good formations and not all of them get treated like this one is being treated. As to any conversation concerning it's "brokenness" or power-level, we will never know how powerful the formation was because it was pre-emptively struck with a nerf bat. And while GT results may not offer perfect litmus tests, I'd argue that the lack of Firestreams at LVO highlights the issues of pre-emptively nerfing something.

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.

Yes, I did win that game. And I didn't claim that the formation was broken under the LVO nerf. I was simply putting forward the point that the formation wasn't a joke and in capable hands can still do well, even with the downgrade the LVO gave it.

 The Everliving wrote:

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.

Yes, I did win that game. And I didn't claim that the formation was broken under the LVO nerf. I was simply putting forward the point that the formation wasn't a joke and in capable hands can still do well, even with the downgrade the LVO gave it.

That is a reasonable assertion and I think Target and I would both agree, however if there is a second downgrade, I'm not sure the formation will be very formidable and will fall instead into the average category, being taken by players who already have and would like to field Piranhas.

 The Everliving wrote:

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.

Yes, I did win that game. And I didn't claim that the formation was broken under the LVO nerf. I was simply putting forward the point that the formation wasn't a joke and in capable hands can still do well, even with the downgrade the LVO gave it.

Agree, but my point is more - the current poll is to nerf that formation even further. And I agree with your assessment exactly - even with the downgrade under the ITC faq, it can still do well in capable hands. But if I were reading the description of a formation that was up for another nerf I wouldn't expect it to be "in capable hands it can still do well, do you want to nerf it more?" and see as many "hell yeahs!" as I do.

 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.

Turn 1:They Shoot the originals
Turn 2:They Leave
Turn 3:They Shoot bonus seeker missiles
Turn 4:They Leave
Turn 5:They Shoot bonus seeker missiles
Turn 6:They Leave
Turn 7:They Shoot bonus seeker missiles

They gain 2 uses of seeker missiles in a game that last 5 turns. You have 2 turns to take out marker light sources, do you know what a seeker missile is without a markerlight a bs 3 Hunter Killer Missile! Do you know what a Hunter Killer Missile is, most likely not you will have to look it up because its an upgrade that Imperial Players don't use.

What happens when warp spiders shoot at this unit of piranhas with seeker missiles do they jink? If they do they fire at bs 1 regardless if they use a marker light or not another nerf that ITC blessed Tau with but I actually like that one! So they shoot 10 bs 5 str 6 shots at side armor 10 if they jink they lose seeker missile use if they don't math says 4-5 hull points with possible explosions due to being open top so at a minimum you kill 2 piranhas. Do you know how much a 5 man piranha unit with 10 seeker missiles cost 280, do you know how much the bs 5 warp spiders cost 105 points. If I take 2 warp spider units 210 points and shoot at this unit 280 point unit numbers say they are dead unless they jink which they lose their fire power I wrote an article on this formation the formation is good broken no!

In my opinion there is pride involve with the decision to nerf this formation even further. I wrote a thread about ITC Flaws at the same time as their LVO event was happening that put some negative light on the ITC and it wasn't even the purpose of the thread. I than write a thread about the Piranha formation to show why its not broken and players do not understand it, I than receive a lot of hate and I think maybe I am being to hard on the ITC I than try to eradicate my mistake by making another thread called ITC Flawless and its immediately shutdown. I than try to contact them to explain the situation I get no response but when the poll comes out they randomly have a question asking do you want to nerf the piranha formation even further!

I don't have pride I have confidence the fact that this question is even on the poll speaks volumes to me, I know it can all be conceive a different way and I will be made to look a certain way but do confident individuals care about the way others think they look!? I will continue to do what I feel is right, am I wrong for fighting for an army I don't play?

 CKO wrote:


They gain 2 uses of seeker missiles in a game that last 5 turns. You have 2 turns to take out marker light sources, do you know what a seeker missile is without a markerlight a bs 3 Hunter Killer Missile! Do you know what a Hunter Killer Missile is, most likely not you will have to look it up because its an upgrade that Imperial Players don't use.

What happens when warp spiders shoot at this unit of piranhas with seeker missiles do they jink? If they do they fire at bs 1 regardless if they use a marker light or not another nerf that ITC blessed Tau with but I actually like that one! So they shoot 10 bs 5 str 6 shots at side armor 10 if they jink they lose seeker missile use if they don't math says 4-5 hull points with possible explosions due to being open top so at a minimum you kill 2 piranhas. Do you know how much a 5 man piranha unit with 10 seeker missiles cost 280, do you know how much the bs 5 warp spiders cost 105 points. If I take 2 warp spider units 210 points and shoot at this unit 280 point unit numbers say they are dead unless they jink which they lose their fire power I wrote an article on this formation the formation is good broken no!

In my opinion there is pride involve with the decision to nerf this formation even further. I wrote a thread about ITC Flaws at the same time as their LVO event was happening that put some negative light on the ITC and it wasn't even the purpose of the thread. I than write a thread about the Piranha formation to show why its not broken and players do not understand it, I than receive a lot of hate and I think maybe I am being to hard on the ITC I than try to eradicate my mistake by making another thread called ITC Flawless and its immediately shutdown. I than try to contact them to explain the situation I get no response but when the poll comes out they randomly have a question asking do you want to nerf the piranha formation even further!

I don't have pride I have confidence the fact that this question is even on the poll speaks volumes to me, I know it can all be conceive a different way and I will be made to look a certain way but do confident individuals care about the way others think they look!? I will continue to do what I feel is right, am I wrong for fighting for an army I don't play?

I'm not sure you're understanding the situation here... There's no downside to the Piranhas jinking, they fire their seeker missiles the turn they come in from ongoing reserves. Then they sit through one enemy shooting phase, and in their next movement phase they leave the table. The next movement phase, when they arrive again, they're back to full ballistic skill.

You keep claiming that the people voting to nerf Tau aren't aware of the Tau rules, or don't know how they work... are you sure you do?

 CKO wrote:

 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.

Turn 1:They Shoot the originals
Turn 2:They Leave
Turn 3:They Shoot bonus seeker missiles
Turn 4:They Leave
Turn 5:They Shoot bonus seeker missiles
Turn 6:They Leave
Turn 7:They Shoot bonus seeker missiles

They gain 2 uses of seeker missiles in a game that last 5 turns. You have 2 turns to take out marker light sources, do you know what a seeker missile is without a markerlight a bs 3 Hunter Killer Missile! Do you know what a Hunter Killer Missile is, most likely not you will have to look it up because its an upgrade that Imperial Players don't use.

What happens when warp spiders shoot at this unit of piranhas with seeker missiles do they jink? If they do they fire at bs 1 regardless if they use a marker light or not another nerf that ITC blessed Tau with but I actually like that one! So they shoot 10 bs 5 str 6 shots at side armor 10 if they jink they lose seeker missile use if they don't math says 4-5 hull points with possible explosions due to being open top so at a minimum you kill 2 piranhas. Do you know how much a 5 man piranha unit with 10 seeker missiles cost 280, do you know how much the bs 5 warp spiders cost 105 points. If I take 2 warp spider units 210 points and shoot at this unit 280 point unit numbers say they are dead unless they jink which they lose their fire power I wrote an article on this formation the formation is good broken no!

In my opinion there is pride involve with the decision to nerf this formation even further. I wrote a thread about ITC Flaws at the same time as their LVO event was happening that put some negative light on the ITC and it wasn't even the purpose of the thread. I than write a thread about the Piranha formation to show why its not broken and players do not understand it, I than receive a lot of hate and I think maybe I am being to hard on the ITC I than try to eradicate my mistake by making another thread called ITC Flawless and its immediately shutdown. I than try to contact them to explain the situation I get no response but when the poll comes out they randomly have a question asking do you want to nerf the piranha formation even further!

I don't have pride I have confidence the fact that this question is even on the poll speaks volumes to me, I know it can all be conceive a different way and I will be made to look a certain way but do confident individuals care about the way others think they look!? I will continue to do what I feel is right, am I wrong for fighting for an army I don't play?

You make it sound like it is easy to take out the markerlights which is not always the case... especially against good Tau players.

I don't have pride I have confidence the fact that this question is even on the poll speaks volumes to me, I know it can all be conceive a different way and I will be made to look a certain way but do confident individuals care about the way others think they look!? I will continue to do what I feel is right, am I wrong for fighting for an army I don't play?

@ CKO, I don't really have a horse in this race but I have read all of your threads on this subject and the quoted sentence speaks volumes. Let me first say I agree with you the formation does not need to be nerfed anymore, past limiting the ability to leave on the same turn they arrive, but dude your writing style makes you come off as a petulant child. Saying you know you can be perceived that way, stating that this question is only on the pole because of some conspiracy to stick it to you, and you don't care because you are right and no one else's opinion matters and you will continue to tell them that! Really? I would almost vote against what you want just because I don't like you and I don't even know you. Word of advice have a neutral party read your posts before you hit send because you are not doing this issue any favors. I think plenty of other people would vote against because you sound like some TFG trying to get his OP rules accepted by everyone, and I know that's not the case. Take a breath, reread or have someone else read your posts before you send, and if you feel people really are ignoring what you have to say why are you wasting your time with this.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 CKO wrote:

 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.

Turn 1:They Shoot the originals
Turn 2:They Leave
Turn 3:They Shoot bonus seeker missiles
Turn 4:They Leave
Turn 5:They Shoot bonus seeker missiles
Turn 6:They Leave
Turn 7:They Shoot bonus seeker missiles

They gain 2 uses of seeker missiles in a game that last 5 turns. You have 2 turns to take out marker light sources, do you know what a seeker missile is without a markerlight a bs 3 Hunter Killer Missile! Do you know what a Hunter Killer Missile is, most likely not you will have to look it up because its an upgrade that Imperial Players don't use.

What happens when warp spiders shoot at this unit of piranhas with seeker missiles do they jink? If they do they fire at bs 1 regardless if they use a marker light or not another nerf that ITC blessed Tau with but I actually like that one! So they shoot 10 bs 5 str 6 shots at side armor 10 if they jink they lose seeker missile use if they don't math says 4-5 hull points with possible explosions due to being open top so at a minimum you kill 2 piranhas. Do you know how much a 5 man piranha unit with 10 seeker missiles cost 280, do you know how much the bs 5 warp spiders cost 105 points. If I take 2 warp spider units 210 points and shoot at this unit 280 point unit numbers say they are dead unless they jink which they lose their fire power I wrote an article on this formation the formation is good broken no!

In my opinion there is pride involve with the decision to nerf this formation even further. I wrote a thread about ITC Flaws at the same time as their LVO event was happening that put some negative light on the ITC and it wasn't even the purpose of the thread. I than write a thread about the Piranha formation to show why its not broken and players do not understand it, I than receive a lot of hate and I think maybe I am being to hard on the ITC I than try to eradicate my mistake by making another thread called ITC Flawless and its immediately shutdown. I than try to contact them to explain the situation I get no response but when the poll comes out they randomly have a question asking do you want to nerf the piranha formation even further!

I don't have pride I have confidence the fact that this question is even on the poll speaks volumes to me, I know it can all be conceive a different way and I will be made to look a certain way but do confident individuals care about the way others think they look!? I will continue to do what I feel is right, am I wrong for fighting for an army I don't play?

You make it sound like it is easy to take out the markerlights which is not always the case... especially against good Tau players.

Let's not forget the formation gets its own marker light (+1 bs) from the leader for any point on the table 36" away of LoS and a 6 inch radius. The issue here is the are votes like this, http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/681213.page#8479977 from the public. When you have voters not voting for what is best for the game but their perceived biases it waters down credibility.

The first ruling on the piranha formation I agree. There was no need to nuke it. I have no doubt it will be nuked. So now my detachment will sit there on my shelf.

This is a precedent on formations rules in general. Only one unit (Eldar jettbikes) and one formation (Imperial Knights) have received any consideration to be nerf/assisted. This marks the 5th formation for Tau within 4 months (Hunter Contingent *nerf*, Dawn Blade *buff*, Ghostkeel unit *Nerf* by proxy nerds 2 formations (OSC, GK Wing), Piranha Wing *nerf*) that have received isolated attention. All other nerfs to formations have come from general rules, etc. If I missed any please let me know.

Now FLG is not repeating their hastiness, but I expect the same detail to be used for Space Wolves and Daemons. Daemons specifically can expect a vote for the Tetrad, scoring corruption, and a clarification on the Khorne weapon gift that phases enemy models in and out of the game.

...This is a precedent on formations rules in general. Only one unit (Eldar jettbikes) and one formation (Imperial Knights) have received any consideration to be nerf/assisted. This marks the 5th formation for Tau within 4 months (Hunter Contingent *nerf*, Dawn Blade *buff*, Ghostkeel unit *Nerf* by proxy nerds 2 formations (OSC, GK Wing), Piranha Wing *nerf*) that have received isolated attention. All other nerfs to formations have come from general rules, etc. If I missed any please let me know....

I am curious on what is the Dawn Blade *buff*?

These polls are terrible.

You ask people who for the most part who do not have the Tau codex to vote on Holophotons when most people have no clue as to what Holophotons are or do.

Same thing with Chaos Knights being able to take Legacies of Ruin. WTF are legacies of ruin?

How can we vote on something that impacts tournament play without know what the heck we are voting on?

They need to go into depth with this questions and spelling out the rules and what impact (Pro and Con) these have on the game.

 Blackmoor wrote:
These polls are terrible.

You ask people who for the most part who do not have the Tau codex to vote on Holophotons when most people have no clue as to what Holophotons are or do.

Same thing with Chaos Knights being able to take Legacies of Ruin. WTF are legacies of ruin?

How can we vote on something that impacts tournament play without know what the heck we are voting on?

They need to go into depth with this questions and spelling out the rules and what impact (Pro and Con) these have on the game.

We vote for politicians with less information. What the does the state comptroller do? Most people don't know, but we all get a voice about whether Bill Frampton or Jack McColvoy will make a great one!

I'll tell my next point to anyone that will listen. The actual results of these polls are unimportant. Whether one army gets a "buff" or a "nerf" is irrelevant. The fact that we show up to an event and can find a clear answer (even if it's dumb) is the most important outcome.

It's not like the text of the rules are particularly hard to find. I've already seen multiple dissenting opinions on the ghostkeel suits crop up naturally in games several times completely independently of any discussion about ITC for example (which is why I just chuckle when someone claims the rule is clearly written).

 Blackmoor wrote:
These polls are terrible.

You ask people who for the most part who do not have the Tau codex to vote on Holophotons when most people have no clue as to what Holophotons are or do.

Same thing with Chaos Knights being able to take Legacies of Ruin. WTF are legacies of ruin?

How can we vote on something that impacts tournament play without know what the heck we are voting on?

They need to go into depth with this questions and spelling out the rules and what impact (Pro and Con) these have on the game.

You mean like the little note below the question that states "Conflict: The Holophoton Countermeasures rule indicates that the rule is activated on both a per model and per unit basis, creating ambiguity."? Admittedly, the Chaos Knight question is a little difficult, because they neglected to differentiate between a stock Chaos Knight and one that's been upgraded to a Daemon Knight, but again, if you don't have an opinion, why are you voting? Even then, they gave you a little blurb about why it's in contention. I'm sorry that you're apparently too lazy to go out and actually look into the rules before you vote on them, and that you have such a low opinion of other players that you expect they would do the same.

My experience has been that the people I see at large events (including you!) are actually pretty knowledgeable about the rules, and have the resources to make an informed decision.

Tautastic wrote:

...This is a precedent on formations rules in general. Only one unit (Eldar jettbikes) and one formation (Imperial Knights) have received any consideration to be nerf/assisted. This marks the 5th formation for Tau within 4 months (Hunter Contingent *nerf*, Dawn Blade *buff*, Ghostkeel unit *Nerf* by proxy nerds 2 formations (OSC, GK Wing), Piranha Wing *nerf*) that have received isolated attention. All other nerfs to formations have come from general rules, etc. If I missed any please let me know....

I am curious on what is the Dawn Blade *buff*?

The ruling was a small one, but it applies to the entire army not only the detachment.

The killing blow special rule was ruled to affect the whole army? When/where was this ruled?

Tautastic wrote:
The killing blow special rule was ruled to affect the whole army? When/where was this ruled?

Oh terribly sorry that was the NOVA ruling :(

That's just how the "killing blow" rule works - its a buff to the player "you may etcetcetc".

It's never really mattered much because while nice, it's not groundbreaking like coordinated firepower was pre-nerf

 somerandomidiot wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
These polls are terrible.

You ask people who for the most part who do not have the Tau codex to vote on Holophotons when most people have no clue as to what Holophotons are or do.

Same thing with Chaos Knights being able to take Legacies of Ruin. WTF are legacies of ruin?

How can we vote on something that impacts tournament play without know what the heck we are voting on?

They need to go into depth with this questions and spelling out the rules and what impact (Pro and Con) these have on the game.

You mean like the little note below the question that states "Conflict: The Holophoton Countermeasures rule indicates that the rule is activated on both a per model and per unit basis, creating ambiguity."? Admittedly, the Chaos Knight question is a little difficult, because they neglected to differentiate between a stock Chaos Knight and one that's been upgraded to a Daemon Knight, but again, if you don't have an opinion, why are you voting? Even then, they gave you a little blurb about why it's in contention. I'm sorry that you're apparently too lazy to go out and actually look into the rules before you vote on them, and that you have such a low opinion of other players that you expect they would do the same.

My experience has been that the people I see at large events (including you!) are actually pretty knowledgeable about the rules, and have the resources to make an informed decision.

I disagree here. Blackmore is 100% correct and I have said the same thing in another post. The initial Tau votes took place before the codex was out there for any level of consumption. The question about the corsairs army is in a book most people don't have. How would you expect us to know anything about this? We can't all be oniscient like you and know everything about everything. Of note we have four days to vote in these things right? I don't have anyone local with the new Forgeworld book and I think it would take more than four days to get it. The tau voting process has been ridiculously biased especially when I saw an ITC list today that took grey Knights, librarian conclave (white scars so they get hunters eye), and cent star (red scorpions for lothan). All these special rules combine and work together but ITC then nerfs the Tau when they get a rule allowing units to benefit from the commanders special rules when firing att he same unit. It is complete bias and the way the rules are being presented in the voting process is confusing, misleading, and pushes towards a result. You have thousands of people voting on rules that some have no idea about....and you expect fair results!?!

Edit: I also want to add the vote for the piranha wing was voted for because "it was not fun to play against" (clearly stated in an earlier ITC post). Well I don't know many people that will have fun playing against wolf formations that can charge 42" and get almost a guaranteed first turn charge, or an army getting 25% of their army for free (OS), that can alpha strike in the first turn, or the super friend lists that are out there because we allow marine formations and CADs to share rules. Let's vote in all that crap too if this is "to keep the game fun".

You disagree that people should do their homework before voting, or disagree that the rules were availabe for people other than Tau players to read?

On one hand, Frontline gets criticized for not providing enough info in the polls. On the other, they get critisized for providing too much information which biases the poll. Just can't win.

It's also kinda funny that you think a centstar is still a meaningful cheese build. That ship sailed a while ago. It's not bad, but it's far from a top tier army. Especially when you're comparing giving ignores cover and invis to a single unit to granting your entire army ignores cover, twin linked, monster/tank hunter, or whatever other rules you feel like to your entire army basically just for taking a formation. Regardless of whether or not that's a broken formation, that's a silly comparison.

 Fishboy wrote:
I disagree here. Blackmore is 100% correct and I have said the same thing in another post. The initial Tau votes took place before the codex was out there for any level of consumption. The question about the corsairs army is in a book most people don't have. How would you expect us to know anything about this? We can't all be oniscient like you and know everything about everything. Of note we have four days to vote in these things right? I don't have anyone local with the new Forgeworld book and I think it would take more than four days to get it. The tau voting process has been ridiculously biased especially when I saw an ITC list today that took grey Knights, librarian conclave (white scars so they get hunters eye), and cent star (red scorpions for lothan). All these special rules combine and work together but ITC then nerfs the Tau when they get a rule allowing units to benefit from the commanders special rules when firing att he same unit. It is complete bias and the way the rules are being presented in the voting process is confusing, misleading, and pushes towards a result. You have thousands of people voting on rules that some have no idea about....and you expect fair results!?!

Edit: I also want to add the vote for the piranha wing was voted for because "it was not fun to play against" (clearly stated in an earlier ITC post). Well I don't know many people that will have fun playing against wolf formations that can charge 42" and get almost a guaranteed first turn charge, or an army getting 25% of their army for free (OS), that can alpha strike in the first turn, or the super friend lists that are out there because we allow marine formations and CADs to share rules. Let's vote in all that crap too if this is "to keep the game fun".

There are two kinds of questions on the poll: 1) clarifying unclear rules, and 2) changing clear rules. The gargantuan creature cover question was the latter- there's no question regarding how to book rules it, but it's considered abusive enough that we're voting on whether to change it for the purpose of balance. All of the questions you referenced in your post are the former. I'm most certainly not omniscient, but I can look at a rule question (let's take the one about the Eldar Corsairs, for example), compare it to my experience playing 40k (Eldar have a similar rule involving running and shooting, Tau have a character, Darkstrider, who does pretty much the same thing for overwatch, etc) and decide what I feel Forgeworld intended. This isn't about nerfing Eldar Corsairs, it's about the community deciding how they want to interpret Forgeworld's vague wording. The same is true for all of the Tau questions on the poll- the book and formation aren't clear, so we as a community are deciding. Would you rather Frontline didn't poll the community, and instead just decided how they were going to FAQ these?

Personally, I'm not a fan of modifying clear rules (like the changes to Invisibility, Stomp, rerollable 2+ saves, etc) but I recognize that for the tournament environment Frontline Gaming wants to foster, they find it necessary. I fully expect the same will happen with the new Space Wolves models you find so abusive. What bothers me is the persecution complex people seem to have regarding these changes, and the fact that they aren't able to step back and examine the situation from an objective standpoint and recognize that most of the questions on the poll they have issue with fall under the first situation, and not the second.

Edit: Swapped things- oops!

 DarkLink wrote:
Especially when you're comparing giving ignores cover and invis to a single unit to granting your entire army ignores cover, twin linked, monster/tank hunter, or whatever other rules you feel like to your entire army basically just for taking a formation. Regardless of whether or not that's a broken formation, that's a silly comparison.

That ship sailed too. Most Tau players are not upset or want that ruling for a re-vote. The initial voting had two extreme views on the Hunter Contingent. What I'd like to see is a vote with the current HC ruling against the middle view - All units participating on can share buffs on a single target of the attack.

I see a lot of them are beginning the goading in here too. I'm definitely no stranger to that. I also agree with everything CKO has been saying. The ITC is in need of a lot of improvements. I know a lot of people in the general discussion forum think me a troll but I like the ITC and I think it can become something great, but not down the path its going.

I'm simply trying to point out where it's all starting to go wrong so it can be improved and there is a bias against the Tau. Not only that but we have members on this very forum that admit to voting biased against the Tau just because they don't like me. It's getting silly and they're not listening to any sort of reasonable debate points.

At this point for the past year the Tau have been a mid tier army and getting lower. With the data at hand I've been following tournament results and even after their new codex dropped they are still only mid tier, granted the top of the mid tier armies and close to joining their ranks. I think there is insufficient evidence to nerf them without testing. Okay if we unnerf them and they run rampantly out of control sure nerf them again but as of right now any Tau player wanting to compete in an ITC event is looking at an uphill battle against any of the big 4. That being Eldar, Necrons, Marines, and Chaos Deamons.

These public polls are not the way to do this. I don't think so at least. Or they should have a public poll and an internal poll only for registered ITC players. Then they can see the difference between the two voting crowds.

Maybe an "abstain / not informed enough to vote" option for each question would be interesting... I wonder how many people would use it.

 DarkLink wrote:
It's not like the text of the rules are particularly hard to find. I've already seen multiple dissenting opinions on the ghostkeel suits crop up naturally in games several times completely independently of any discussion about ITC for example (which is why I just chuckle when someone claims the rule is clearly written).

If you do not have the codex the rules are hard to find. It took me a while to look up what holophotons countermeasures do.

So looking at the Tau codex there is nothing in it about the Firestream Wing, so your argument that these rules are not hard to find is pretty stupid, because I can't find them.

Also the forge world items like Eldar Corsairs Reckless Abandon, and Legacies of Ruin are hard to find as well.

All the had to do was state what reckless abandon does by quoting the rule.

I want to have an informed vote instead of people voting on things out of ignorance, is that an unreasonable request?

Abstain was my suggestion earlier in this post but I too wonder who would use it.

@somerandomidiot- I don't feel persecuted at all. What people are trying to show you is there is a leaning in the polls that is bias but you just put your blinders on, cover your ears, then call people whiners. People vote based on their PERCEPTION of the power of the rules rather than the wording of the rules. Maybe I am missing something but I do not remember the rule for the corsair being on the voting page. Without the specific wording i can't see any way to knowledgeably vote on this. I know nothing about the Chaos Knight question and have no idea where to find it.

@darklink-your question shows your ignorance. At no point did I question people looking up the rules. My post clearly states the rules are not available to everyone so stop trying to poke the bear. I don't see anyone criticizing Frontline for providing too much info. We are saying the exact opposite. We can not vote on a clear ruling when we don't have all the information. In those instances we should have an abstain option rather than being forced to vote in ignorance. Show both sides of the rules perception and why it is not clear.
You also missed my point on the cent star. Yes it is still a powerful build but the point was the imperial armies get to cherry pick from all their codex/formations to get all the special rules they need to dominate the table. When you fire an entire army at one unit and can't wound it due to invisibility and all the other stacking rules how is that any different than the HC rule for Tau...oh yeah it's an imperial army. The one option that Tau had to do that was nerfed before it was even thoroughly tried. Of note this only worked on one unit being shot at unlike the Imperial stacks that can be army wide.

The frustration here is that these rules don't only affect the LVO. TO's around the country use these FAQ's and it affects people who have no idea they can vote. Also people vote on their perceived power of a rule based on the rage of the inter webs rather than experiencing and trying it out themselves. Not everyone is as plugged in as some people on this forum, has the opportunity to try out the rules, or has access to all the rules. When a local community disagrees but the TO uses the ITC FAQ for ease all you can do is wring your hands. When Frontline has a one side blog about a rule just before a vote you have to question their agenda. All things being equal the Wulfen would already be receiving their nerfs but I fully expect this won't happen.

Yes there is a group becoming frustrated

Actually, people did criticize them for providing info because when they did they discussed it, and people where annoyed that it was swaying opinions of specific rules (Like Coordinated Firepower.)