ITC Q1 Poll Up - Results Now Posted (OP Updated)

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.

**luke1705**

Blackmoor wrote:
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?

The rules should be stated, or there should be an abstain option, definitely.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gamgee wrote:
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.

The only reason why Tau have had a number of rules come up for a vote is because the codex and supplement has had some of the most poorly-worded rules in recent memory. They tried to do a bunch of stuff and a lot of it is cool and works. But many of the rules could be a LOT more clear. I thought that very thing when I first read the codex, so I'm not shocked that many of them have come up for a vote

**Hulksmash**

Swampmist wrote:
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.)

Let's be honest though, they never presented rules without their opinion or that that hadn't thrown their opinion out on previously. Specifically Coordinated Firepower actually.

I don't know what the answer is. I do feel like there is a fairly substantial bias, either amongst the voting population (probable) or accidentally by the authors, against some armies and for some others.

**Fishboy**

Swampmist wrote:
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.)

I don't think they were criticized for too much information. They were criticized for a bias in the rules and using their bias to lead the discussion pre vote for their intended outcome. Blog discussion is fine but you need to be unbiased which I don't think Frontline is emulating. When they did their blog in tank shock they did a great job showing both sides of the argument and why each side thought the way it did. When you only put one interpretations spin on it you affect the perception of those voting.

**jy2**

This poll itself I don't find biased. However, people who write editorials elsewhere always have an opinion that they want espoused. The FLG guys are no different. Just because they run a business doesn't mean they are completely neutral with regards to how they think the game should be played. They are human themselves. However, externally from the poll, other people are free to give their counter-views as well. Then there are the Comments sections where a lot of people oftentimes pose strongly contradictory views as well.

Think of it as an election. The election/polls itself need to be fair, but anyone before that can lobby to persuade the public, either via articles or campaign advertising. And if you don't agree, you can opt to do air your views publicly as well (as so many people have already done).

Btw, for those complaining how the polls (and how they are worded) influence people because they aren't questions based on RAW, well, that ship has sailed long ago. If you think the ITC FAQ is completely about RAW, then you are surely mistaken. It is as a much a How-you-would-like-to-play-it series of house rules as well as a collection of rules clarifications.

**Fishboy**

True JY2 but you can't campaign within 50 feet of an election center. FLG is campaigning all the way up to and including the ballot. I get what they are trying to do but if they are trying to fudge things to suit the way they want to play fine....they need to admit that. Instead they pride themselves on community input when they themselves are heavily influencing the community with one sided stances. FLG can't have it both ways.

**jy2**

FLG's views on Hunter Contingent came out a couple of weeks before their poll on the HC. Plenty of time for people to post their contrasting viewpoints online as well as on the Comments of their article. Trust me, it was all over the various blogs. Plenty of time to give the viewers both perspectives on the rules. The people voting weren't uninformed. They just didn't like the stronger interpretation of the pro-HC crowd.

**thejughead**

jy2 wrote:
FLG's views on Hunter Contingent came out a couple of weeks before their poll on the HC. Plenty of time for people to post their contrasting viewpoints online as well as on the Comments of their article. Trust me, it was all over the various blogs. Plenty of time to give the viewers both perspectives on the rules. The people voting weren't uninformed. They just didn't like the stronger interpretation of the pro-Tau crowd.

JY,

Why was there no middle ground presented? It was only two extremes. Given how broken sharing buffs with units that can target lock or shoot at other targets, it was a given that that vote would not pass. Rational Tau players do not want that version re-evaluated. Middle ground versus conservative poll would suffice.

- TJM

**jy2**

thejughead wrote:
jy2 wrote:
FLG's views on Hunter Contingent came out a couple of weeks before their poll on the HC. Plenty of time for people to post their contrasting viewpoints online as well as on the Comments of their article. Trust me, it was all over the various blogs. Plenty of time to give the viewers both perspectives on the rules. The people voting weren't uninformed. They just didn't like the stronger interpretation of the pro-Tau crowd.

JY,

Why was there no middle ground presented? It was only two extremes. Given how broken sharing buffs with units that can target lock or shoot at other targets, it was a given that that vote would not pass. Rational Tau players do not want that version re-evaluated. Middle ground versus conservative poll would suffice.

- TJM

My guess is that they didn't want to present too many options to the viewers as it could lead to more confusion.

I suggest you email them or submit a request with regards to changing HC to the "middle-ground" solution:

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

contact@frontlinegaming.org

or

Frankie@FrontlineGaming.org

**Crimson Devil**

The take away I'm getting from this thread is; "If you can't be perfect, then don't try. And if you still try and I don't like it. Then you need to die in a fire."

I seriously think the only thing worse than the rules for 40k are the people who play it.

**kronk**

Crimson Devil wrote:
The take away I'm getting from this thread is; "If you can't be perfect, then don't try. And if you still try and I don't like it. Then you need to die in a fire."

I seriously think the only thing worse than the rules for 40k are the people who play it.

Crimson Devil = Joshua!

Spoiler:

**Crimson Devil**

Thank you kronk for putting into perspective for me.

**bogalubov**

The posting of the results is delayed! I bet the Tau votes are close and they are just delaying things to allow anti-Tau voters more time to submit their nerfs!

**thejughead**

bogalubov wrote:
The posting of the results is delayed! I bet the Tau votes are close and they are just delaying things to allow anti-Tau voters more time to submit their nerfs!

Come on, enough of this....I hope you are joking

**kronk**

bogalubov wrote:
The posting of the results is delayed! I bet the Tau votes are close and they are just delaying things to allow anti-Tau voters more time to submit their nerfs!

Oh, you!

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crimson Devil wrote:
Thank you kronk for putting into perspective for me.

Love to the family.

**bogalubov**

thejughead wrote:
bogalubov wrote:
The posting of the results is delayed! I bet the Tau votes are close and they are just delaying things to allow anti-Tau voters more time to submit their nerfs!

Come on, enough of this....I hope you are joking

I was hoping the italics would help identify it as a joke. But yes, I'm joking.

**Crimson Devil**

Signals is delayed today too, because of a huge shipment to their warehouse. Its probably all of the hate mail and IEDs Tau plays have been sending them.

**DarkLink**

Crimson Devil wrote:
The take away I'm getting from this thread is; "If you can't be perfect, then don't try. And if you still try and I don't like it. Then you need to die in a fire."

I seriously think the only thing worse than the rules for 40k are the people who play it.

I'm not sure if it's more or less funny that Reece and Frankie have legitimately recieved actual death threats from tau players over this. Either way, that's pathetic.

**Gamgee**

The irony is I've seen everyone but Tau getting stupid. We have one person in general discussion voting to nerf Tau because they hate me. They don't even play in the ITC, don't like tournaments, and play Eldar. Welcome to your average public voter. So the ITC is basically a popularity contest and a pissing contest all in one.

**Swampmist**

One person = the community, Aparently

**Gamgee**

I've also seen more in other communities best not named here saying they will do the same. I rarely see as much hate for other groups being voted for. Something about Tau being 'anime fan communists who deserve this'. It's usually Eldar and Space Marine players too.

It's silly not to think there are some going to do it. I'm not and haven't (not that I have any proof) but still it pisses me off.

**somerandomidiot**

Gamgee wrote:
The irony is I've seen everyone but Tau getting stupid. We have one person in general discussion voting to nerf Tau because they hate me. They don't even play in the ITC, don't like tournaments, and play Eldar. Welcome to your average public voter. So the ITC is basically a popularity contest and a pissing contest all in one.

I hate to break it to you, but your recent posting history may have something to do with the harsh backlash you're seeing... Seriously man, you started a thread titled "ITC Nerfs Tau Again. Avoid the ITC if you can folks."

**Dendarien**

somerandomidiot wrote:
Gamgee wrote:
The irony is I've seen everyone but Tau getting stupid. We have one person in general discussion voting to nerf Tau because they hate me. They don't even play in the ITC, don't like tournaments, and play Eldar. Welcome to your average public voter. So the ITC is basically a popularity contest and a pissing contest all in one.

I hate to break it to you, but your recent posting history may have something to do with the harsh backlash you're seeing... Seriously man, you started a thread titled "ITC Nerfs Tau Again. Avoid the ITC if you can folks."

Not to mention the Operation Pitchfork thread a while back. Seriously, what an embarrassing and childish read that was. You can hardly be surprised you call for all 40k players to refuse games against Eldar, then complain when an Eldar player votes to nerf your army.

**JohnHwangDD**

And Gamgee wonders why people don't like him...

**Gamgee**

Are you implying something? Last I checked you made a few people angry yourself John.

**DarkLink**

There's a funny saying from Lucky Number Slevin; "if somone says you look like a horse once, call him a jerk. If somone says you look like a horse a second time, punch him in the face. If someone says you look like a horse a third time, well, maybe it's time to go shopping for a saddle".

**Gamgee**

DarkLink wrote:
There's a funny saying from Lucky Number Slevin; "if somone says you look like a horse once, call him a jerk. If somone says you look like a horse a second time, punch him in the face. If someone says you look like a horse a third time, well, maybe it's time to go shopping for a saddle".

Good thing no one has said I look like a horse yet. Though I'm guessing you would prefer donkey right? I know a lot of people think the noble ass is underrated but as a species it is very hard working to earn its reputation.

**DarkLink**

Yes, no one in this entire thread has critisized your opinions or posting behavior in any way whatsoever

.

**Gamgee**

That's what we're talking about? I thought we were talking about horses and donkeys?

**Dozer Blades**

It was figurative.

**DarkLink**

I guess metaphors are a little too complex a concept for this discussion.