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.

Regardless of where the Ghostkeel and other rulings go, ITC should really do decisions based on super majority, simple majority are grounds for revoting or playtesting as it is and if it's still deemed broken or unfun, put it to the vote where it should have a super majority to be nerfed IMO.

 Frozocrone wrote:
Regardless of where the Ghostkeel and other rulings go, ITC should really do decisions based on super majority, simple majority are grounds for revoting or playtesting as it is and if it's still deemed broken or unfun, put it to the vote where it should have a super majority to be nerfed IMO.

They should have an electoral vote based on region and population. And that electoral college should be able to vote on rules!

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Alan what do you think should be nerfed ? I really want to know !

From the looks of things at the LVO it seemed like there was a good spread of armies in the top 8/50.

If I was to nerf something it would be to limit armies to 3 squads of warp spiders. The fact that some army builds can spam one of the best units in the game without too much trouble is not too good. The armies that took 45 warp spiders went 14-2 at LVO and won the tournament.

I think it's funny to see questions about the Chaos Knight coming up now. Just more of a litmus test as to how screwed up this "voting process" has become. Most people did not even know what this rule vote was but still had to vote.

Alan,

I agree Warp Spiders are rediculously strong, but nerfing a specific codex unit/ limiting them opens a huge can of worms! Next we should limit Space Wolf HQs to only be allowed max 2, Daemons limit to 15 PD, etc.

Each army had its own unique flavour. Bare in mind, Warp Spiders CAN die, they arnt an invincible deathstar!

The 2 players bringing the list are also ETC players, myself and Matt, so stating our record doesnt justify just the list!

As for the results of the new ITC vote, im intrigued to see the points limit!

But that is exactly what they did to the Tau kill switch.

Nerfing a specific codex is definitely something to be wary of - but I think that's exactly what a lot of the things being voted on are doing... so that ship has sailed a bit (not saying you shouldn't try to call it back into port though lol).

KillswitchUK wrote:
Alan,

I agree Warp Spiders are rediculously strong, but nerfing a specific codex unit/ limiting them opens a huge can of worms! Next we should limit Space Wolf HQs to only be allowed max 2, Daemons limit to 15 PD, etc.

Each army had its own unique flavour. Bare in mind, Warp Spiders CAN die, they arnt an invincible deathstar!

The 2 players bringing the list are also ETC players, myself and Matt, so stating our record doesnt justify just the list!

As for the results of the new ITC vote, im intrigued to see the points limit!

Limiting Warp Spiders to 3 units does not limit the EldR Codex at all. It limits a formation and FW addition, but not the Eldar CAD.

Of course Warp Spiders can die, though hard to do sometimes. That is why taking 45 mitigates the dieing. Even killing half of them still leaves more Warp Spiders on the table than most any other unit.

Constant, targeted nerfs at the Tau codex? Everyone's fine with it. Good for the game. Tau players are just WAAC whiners who don't want their win buttons taken away.

Taking a moment to target another overpowered army and reign them in a bit, an army that we actually have evidence of being too fething strong? Nooo, that opens a whole can of worms and takes away from that army's "unique flavor"! Leave them alone!

If I had to rank them in order of severity I'd say taking 45 warp spiders is several orders of magnitude worse than the issue with ghostkeels holophoton countermeasures. Why wasn't that on the fething poll?

Have an exalt Sid as you hit the nail on the head. As J2Y posted earlier....this is less about clearing up rules and more about "how they want to play". The bias is so clear and evident but ignored. Point it out and suddenly you are TFG and a whiner. I just started a Tau army that is not built to be over the top, I just like the looks of the suits. Every time I get a unit or two done there is a sudden ITC vote which is soooo frustrating as they are targeting everything new in the codex.

Warp Spiders have already been reigned in by the ITC in the similar sense as the Firestream formation being reigned it. By RAW, Warp Spiders have unlimited Flickerjumps, which is just plain stupid. But in the ITC, they have been limited to just 1 Flickerjump a turn.

Limiting the number of Warp Spiders is, while not totally impossible, something the ITC is very unlikely to do. Just like they won't limit how many Riptides you can take, how many IC's can join a unit, how much Warp Dice you can have in your army, etc. With the exception of Super-heavies/Gargantuans, that is just not their style. The only time that they ever tried to put a cap on a non-Super-heavy unit was the vote on Scatter Lasers on Eldar jetbikes.

Then again, if their Inboxes get inundated with a bunch of complaints about Warp Spiders. Who knows? Maybe they may do something about it.

Thank goodness they don't limit riptides.....it's about the only thing you will see competitively on the table for Tau the way they are going. At this point I will personally boycot FLG and encourage others to do it. I will vote with my dollars and encourage others to take their business elsewhere. I can appreciate their effort to clarify the game but at this point they are manipulating the game to their standard and manipulating the voting process through bias and uniformed balloting. I don't think they are bad people but I do think they, and this magical silent minority that seems to agree with them on everything and vehemently defend them whenever their name comes into a negative light, are negatively influencing the game. This will become 30k (marine on marine) and Eldar at competitive events simply because that is the way they want to play and they will nerf everything to make it that way. In an ITC event the only thing left is the Stormsurge and Riptide that leave the army semi competitive....and isn't that the way Frankie plays the list any way?

Reece's first step is to publicly admit that they are not working towards a FAQ but rather manipulating the game the way they see fit. The only person I have seen admit this is J2Y. Then maybe fewer tournaments will use their "FAQ", which is less of a FAQ and more of a personal house ruling.

In the past I thought they were doing a good job but recently this is just not the case.

I think the bummer for me is that new units are so susceptible to preemptive rulings under the system... whereas powerful existing units are not. I think that risks stagnating the meta, whereas new releases normally advance it and change what is optimal...

If we just see Riptide spam Tau being the best / most prominent build going forward, that would be a huge bummer, and feel like we're frozen on how you can best run the army despite the new releases. That's my concern in general - we're okay with the devil we know, but not the one we don't, using this system.

Still, fingers crossed for the Ghostkeel sounds like it has a chance of making it through depending on the final tallies!

That's the thing, ITC is simply an FAQ.

It takes a hell of a lot of work to house rule 7th edition so it's more convenient to just take the work ITC have done and use that. Modify it as you see fit according to how you think the game should be played.

Granted, if you go to an ITC tournament then you'll have to abide by their rules, but hey if you're going to boycott, then what they say about rules shouldn't affect you right?

Besides, we still don't know how the votes went for Tau. Ghostkeel was 50:50 so that might come out in favour of per model.

Tau nerfs were just that, NERFS to the RULES through an FAQ. Limitations is completely different which changes the codex in it's entirety. Limiting the amount of units you can take is basically creating a Highlander format, which is neither competitive or balanced.

The sad part Ritides is it should not have even been close. But they did not post both sides of the discussion so people vote on perceived power rather than actual play leading to what we are seeing. Where is the knee jerk reaction to the wulfen? Will they word the vote better to influence the outcome? I fully expect that if/when they vote more effort will be put into it simply because they like it. The last two voting ballots have been train wrecks leading to a manipulation of the voting process. The best one they ever did was the Tank Shock video that showed both sides to the discussion with clear voting options. The last two just seem rushed with little investment in effort.

Kill switch it has been clearly stated they are not interested in balance or competitive standard. They are simply FAQing to make the game the way they want it to be. They limited the Wraithknight where multiples could be taken in a formation...how is that different?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frozone they have moved beyond FAQ and moved to changing rules. So no....it is not just an FAQ

I just want to put this out. While I am a friend of the FLG guys, I am in no ways involved in the ITC rules and polling process (other than I voted in their polls).

The opinions that I put forth in these types of threads are just that - my own, personal opinions - and do not reflect the actual opinions of the ITC founders.

KillswitchUK wrote:
Tau nerfs were just that, NERFS to the RULES through an FAQ. Limitations is completely different which changes the codex in it's entirety. Limiting the amount of units you can take is basically creating a Highlander format, which is neither competitive or balanced.

So limiting Warp Spiders to 30 in an army is now Highlander?

And going up to 45 Spiders is NOT in the Eldar codex. It is part of a Forgeworld supplement.

 Sidstyler wrote:
Constant, targeted nerfs at the Tau codex? Everyone's fine with it. Good for the game. Tau players are just WAAC whiners who don't want their win buttons taken away.

Taking a moment to target another overpowered army and reign them in a bit, an army that we actually have evidence of being too fething strong? Nooo, that opens a whole can of worms and takes away from that army's "unique flavor"! Leave them alone!

If I had to rank them in order of severity I'd say taking 45 warp spiders is several orders of magnitude worse than the issue with ghostkeels holophoton countermeasures. Why wasn't that on the fething poll?

Hear hear. I agree.

DarthDiggler wrote:

KillswitchUK wrote:
Tau nerfs were just that, NERFS to the RULES through an FAQ. Limitations is completely different which changes the codex in it's entirety. Limiting the amount of units you can take is basically creating a Highlander format, which is neither competitive or balanced.

So limiting Warp Spiders to 30 in an army is now Highlander?

And going up to 45 Spiders is NOT in the Eldar codex. It is part of a Forgeworld supplement.

You can easily get to 45 Spiders in a Warhost using a Windrider Core and still have about ~400 points to spare for other units.

PanzerLeader wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:

KillswitchUK wrote:
Tau nerfs were just that, NERFS to the RULES through an FAQ. Limitations is completely different which changes the codex in it's entirety. Limiting the amount of units you can take is basically creating a Highlander format, which is neither competitive or balanced.

So limiting Warp Spiders to 30 in an army is now Highlander?

And going up to 45 Spiders is NOT in the Eldar codex. It is part of a Forgeworld supplement.

You can easily get to 45 Spiders in a Warhost using a Windrider Core and still have about ~400 points to spare for other units.

Can you do it in 9 units of 5 to maximize MSU shananigans? Or are you forced to clump them together into larger less efficient units.

DarthDiggler wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:

KillswitchUK wrote:
Tau nerfs were just that, NERFS to the RULES through an FAQ. Limitations is completely different which changes the codex in it's entirety. Limiting the amount of units you can take is basically creating a Highlander format, which is neither competitive or balanced.

So limiting Warp Spiders to 30 in an army is now Highlander?

And going up to 45 Spiders is NOT in the Eldar codex. It is part of a Forgeworld supplement.

You can easily get to 45 Spiders in a Warhost using a Windrider Core and still have about ~400 points to spare for other units.

Can you do it in 9 units of 5 to maximize MSU shananigans? Or are you forced to clump them together into larger less efficient units.

9 units of five with 3 aspect hosts. Depending on army construction guidelines, you can do 2 aspect hosts and a small CAD with Autarch, min. bikes and the last 3 spiders.

 jy2 wrote:
I just want to put this out. While I am a friend of the FLG guys, I am in no ways involved in the ITC rules and polling process (other than I voted in their polls).

The opinions that I put forth in these types of threads are just that - my own, personal opinions - and do not reflect the actual opinions of the ITC founders.

Sorry J2Y. My intent was never to implicate you in that way. After our discussion at NOVA last year I Know how close you are to the FLG group and have been referencing your statements in their absence as you know their true intent.

If your coming to NOVA I'll buy you a beer....still disagree....but buy you a beer hehehe

DarthDiggler wrote:
And going up to 45 Spiders is NOT in the Eldar codex. It is part of a Forgeworld supplement.

PanzerLeader wrote:
9 units of five with 3 aspect hosts. Depending on army construction guidelines, you can do 2 aspect hosts and a small CAD with Autarch, min. bikes and the last 3 spiders.

How about 2 Aspect Hosts, and then a near fully stocked Fast Attack in the C.A.D. ? 81 Spiders, 27 that shoot at BS4

C.A.D.
Farseer on Jetbike
Jetbikes
Jetbikes

Fast Attack
Warp Spiders x9, including exarch
Warp Spiders x9, including exarch
Warp Spiders x9, including exarch

Aspect Host
Warp Spiders x9, including exarch
Warp Spiders x9, including exarch
Warp Spiders x9, including exarch


Aspect Host
Warp Spiders x9, including exarch
Warp Spiders x9, including exarch
Warp Spiders x9, including exarch


1848

Did I miss something in the ITC construction rules?

@brotherkerose: You're correct. That is the maximum number. I was just responding to Darth's question about whether you needed the FW army list to do spider shenanigans.

PanzerLeader wrote:
@brotherkerose: You're correct. That is the maximum number. I was just responding to Darth's question about whether you needed the FW army list to do spider shenanigans.

Absolutely! You and I are on the same page.

I posted that to help you show Darth just how many Spiders I'll be bringing to ITC events. Err, I mean, showing how many are possible to bring ...

Srsly, if one chops the JetSeer down to a throw away foot-Warlock, there can be a few full 10 Aspect Host units.

And for the record, I proposed this 81 Spiders list to my local TO at our RTT. Which was the weekend after LVO. He smirked. He is/was also head judge at LVO.

Ironically the best answer I have found to Warp Spiders is Mawlocs. Maybe we will start seeing 6 Mawlocs list now to counter the warp spider spam heheh

Aizen returns just to highlight something this person says, was this caused by my relentless pursuit to show injustice or do I hate FLG?

Fishboy wrote:Reece's first step is to publicly admit that they are not working towards a FAQ but rather manipulating the game the way they see fit. The only person I have seen admit this is J2Y. Then maybe fewer tournaments will use their "FAQ", which is less of a FAQ and more of a personal house ruling.

In the past I thought they were doing a good job but recently this is just not the case.

Earlier on in this thread or the other thread that is discussing the same thing I mention that their pride is involve that is why they want to further nerf the piranha wing. It was out of their hate of me (I hope I am wrong) that is why the piranha wing question about not regaining models is even on the poll! Now they are being expose by the guy who won the entire thing I am assuming Fishboy is Alan!

Funny how Aizen can use Karma to get his point across!

If you are Alan do you remember playing a black guy on table 1 day 2 at War Games Con like around 6 years ago.

Any way they need to hurry up and release the results so I can build my army that might beat Alan when I am not hung over!

No I am not Alan (I know of him and he is a far superior player than I am). I did not attend LVO this year. My concern comes in the fact the ATC has attaptd to the ITC FAQ.

I doubt any of these ruling are directed at you.

The majority of players love their marines. The non astartes chapters ICs were given a pass by voters. Wulfen - IC will get the same pass.