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.

 gigasnail wrote:
To further clarify and sound less like a salty whiner, my issue is there is no RAW reason for the GMC ruling, it is only people, well, being salty whiners. I do not (and will not) support house ruling according to a popularity contest.

I have been saying this for almost 1-2 months now however things all of a sudden change when its your codex that gets hit. Not saying you gigasnail but players in general, they nerf stuff to pieces than they realize hey that's going to ruin my day they get mad after the fact when I was warning them prior to voting but people tend to ignore that smart little voice in their heads!

bogalubov wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

BTW, I ran a Chaos Knight with a Legacy Relic at the LVO. They can be quite strong.

In any case, my army Chaos army remains unchanged unless I opt to run the Daemoncurions.

What did you run jy2?

Chaos shenanigans.

Daemon CAD with Fatey, D-Thirster and Daemon Prince w/Grimoire

CSM CAD with Be'lakor and Khorne Knight

And of course, the troops.

I'll have an account of my LVO experiences coming out at the end of this week.

 CKO wrote:

 gigasnail wrote:
To further clarify and sound less like a salty whiner, my issue is there is no RAW reason for the GMC ruling, it is only people, well, being salty whiners. I do not (and will not) support house ruling according to a popularity contest.

I have been saying this for almost 1-2 months now however things all of a sudden change when its your codex that gets hit. Not saying you gigasnail but players in general, they nerf stuff to pieces than they realize hey that's going to ruin my day they get mad after the fact when I was warning them prior to voting but people tend to ignore that smart little voice in their heads!

Yep everyone votes to nerf everything thats not their army. They why Ghostkeel's Holophon got nerfed and Chaos Knights can't take Legacies

Oh wait...

 gigasnail wrote:
To further clarify and sound less like a salty whiner, my issue is there is no RAW reason for the GMC ruling, it is only people, well, being salty whiners. I do not (and will not) support house ruling according to a popularity contest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:

 gigasnail wrote:
Yeah, good luck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
I can count on my hand the number of time I've seen nid players use a GMC. Let's be honest nids rely on FMC and MC to do the heavy lifting and none of those were touched by this ruling.

That's because our current choices are terrible/overcosted. Anything in the future will be equally useless now.

No the harridan is decent just not allowed
The dominatrix has no rules or model
The barbed herodule is awful cost and ability.
Oddly enough other gargantuans have invul, thier own cover, or just dirt cheap. This doesn't mean a tyranid gmc won't ever get those same abilities.

The harridans isn't allowed and the dominatrix doesn't exist. Therefore, they're not relevant to the discussion any more than a warhound titan is. The other choices, as already noted, are bad/overcosted. I'm not sure what your point is.

There aren't a plethora of invul saves in the faction, and I have zero faith any new units will have a useful one.

This was a poor decision.

Your comment on choices implies more then 1 choice.
My comment was relevant because it's all the known choices. If you were only taking about the heirodule then that's a single choice.
And it's aweful because it's a 2x cost wraithknight without str d shooting. In other words crap rules nothing to do with an unreliable cover save.

The dominatrix if they ever build it is psychic and since tyranids seem to only love telepathy means it will likely have access to invis.
If I had to guess if they ever make that model which. Is ur complaint it would likely be worth it since invis gmc are a pain to kill.

I'm well aware the issue is with undercosted units (wraithknight, for sure), letting people vote on what they want purely because they don't like something is still a bad idea.

 gigasnail wrote:
To further clarify and sound less like a salty whiner, my issue is there is no RAW reason for the GMC ruling, it is only people, well, being salty whiners. I do not (and will not) support house ruling according to a popularity contest.

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:

 gigasnail wrote:
Yeah, good luck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
I can count on my hand the number of time I've seen nid players use a GMC. Let's be honest nids rely on FMC and MC to do the heavy lifting and none of those were touched by this ruling.

That's because our current choices are terrible/overcosted. Anything in the future will be equally useless now.

No the harridan is decent just not allowed
The dominatrix has no rules or model
The barbed herodule is awful cost and ability.
Oddly enough other gargantuans have invul, thier own cover, or just dirt cheap. This doesn't mean a tyranid gmc won't ever get those same abilities.

The harridans isn't allowed and the dominatrix doesn't exist. Therefore, they're not relevant to the discussion any more than a warhound titan is. The other choices, as already noted, are bad/overcosted. I'm not sure what your point is.

There aren't a plethora of invul saves in the faction, and I have zero faith any new units will have a useful one.

This was a poor decision.

There is no RAW reason, there is a WK reason. And clearly a RAI reason, cover is intended to indicate having a chance to hit the building instead of the target. Seeing a 6 story WK stand vaguely next to a pile of rubble does not logically mean you have a 50% chance to miss them. That's just... dumb. Super dumb.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 CKO wrote:

 gigasnail wrote:
To further clarify and sound less like a salty whiner, my issue is there is no RAW reason for the GMC ruling, it is only people, well, being salty whiners. I do not (and will not) support house ruling according to a popularity contest.

I have been saying this for almost 1-2 months now however things all of a sudden change when its your codex that gets hit. Not saying you gigasnail but players in general, they nerf stuff to pieces than they realize hey that's going to ruin my day they get mad after the fact when I was warning them prior to voting but people tend to ignore that smart little voice in their heads!

Yep everyone votes to nerf everything thats not their army. They why Ghostkeel's Holophon got nerfed and Chaos Knights can't take Legacies

Oh wait...

Or the last lvo vote that said "hey we don't allow multiple LOW should we change it just for tau to bring in multiple Stormsurges?"
Or we don't slow multiple fortifications should we allow if just for tau?
Or we don't allow fw experimental rules for 40k should we change it mostly for tau.

 gigasnail wrote:
I'm well aware the issue is with undercosted units (wraithknight, for sure), letting people vote on what they want purely because they don't like something is still a bad idea.

Not like something might be to direct? It was voted on how fun or fair it is to play against, mask it how you want. People playing the game took a vote, out of the people who bothered to vote it was decided by a very big margin.
This doesn't have to be accepted my everyone, nor will it be, it just requires compliance at the ITC events that stick to ITC rulings. People playing that tourney now know what to expect, and people being offended by the nerf are in the minority to those who wanted it nerfed...

It's Just like people have to comply with the fact, that people will complain regardless how the vote goes. Someone will be offended, and someone will argue any little metaphysical subtleties on anything said, just for the sake of arguing. People might laugh and not like it, but the internet deems the right for anyone to be offended and voice complaint whenever they want, so says the magic box, so by the word! it is done.

I'm a fan of ITC. I'm not a fan of soda in the water fountains. /shrug


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Requizen wrote:

 gigasnail wrote:
To further clarify and sound less like a salty whiner, my issue is there is no RAW reason for the GMC ruling, it is only people, well, being salty whiners. I do not (and will not) support house ruling according to a popularity contest.

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:

 gigasnail wrote:
Yeah, good luck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
I can count on my hand the number of time I've seen nid players use a GMC. Let's be honest nids rely on FMC and MC to do the heavy lifting and none of those were touched by this ruling.

That's because our current choices are terrible/overcosted. Anything in the future will be equally useless now.

No the harridan is decent just not allowed
The dominatrix has no rules or model
The barbed herodule is awful cost and ability.
Oddly enough other gargantuans have invul, thier own cover, or just dirt cheap. This doesn't mean a tyranid gmc won't ever get those same abilities.

The harridans isn't allowed and the dominatrix doesn't exist. Therefore, they're not relevant to the discussion any more than a warhound titan is. The other choices, as already noted, are bad/overcosted. I'm not sure what your point is.

There aren't a plethora of invul saves in the faction, and I have zero faith any new units will have a useful one.

This was a poor decision.

There is no RAW reason, there is a WK reason. And clearly a RAI reason, cover is intended to indicate having a chance to hit the building instead of the target. Seeing a 6 story WK stand vaguely next to a pile of rubble does not logically mean you have a 50% chance to miss them. That's just... dumb. Super dumb.

It's hardly the only dumb rule in 40k. It's not even the only super dumb rule.

gungo wrote:
Or the last lvo vote that said "hey we don't allow multiple LOW should we change it just for tau to bring in multiple Stormsurges?"
Or we don't slow multiple fortifications should we allow if just for tau?
Or we don't allow fw experimental rules for 40k should we change it mostly for tau.

To be fair, one unit of stormsurges is still one lord of war. Even if the unit had 15 Stormsurges in it, it's still one lord of war choice. The multiple fortifications got shut down by the latest vote. The experimental rules only effect the xv109 and xv107 from FW, one of which is nerfed into uselessness, so Tau get 1 model from that ruling. IoM get a few flavors of knights with silly shield rules, SM get quad-mortars and some special tanks/dreads, Chaos get their Knights and other units.

My only complaint with this recent round of votes is the Chaos Knights taking Legacies. I don't have a problem with the knights taking legacies, as long as they're not also upgraded with a daemon rule. Knights are already stupid tough, they don't need a reliable 2++ on every side.

 jy2 wrote:

 gigasnail wrote:
To further clarify and sound less like a salty whiner, my issue is there is no RAW reason for the GMC ruling, it is only people, well, being salty whiners. I do not (and will not) support house ruling according to a popularity contest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:

 gigasnail wrote:
Yeah, good luck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
I can count on my hand the number of time I've seen nid players use a GMC. Let's be honest nids rely on FMC and MC to do the heavy lifting and none of those were touched by this ruling.

That's because our current choices are terrible/overcosted. Anything in the future will be equally useless now.

No the harridan is decent just not allowed
The dominatrix has no rules or model
The barbed herodule is awful cost and ability.
Oddly enough other gargantuans have invul, thier own cover, or just dirt cheap. This doesn't mean a tyranid gmc won't ever get those same abilities.

The harridans isn't allowed and the dominatrix doesn't exist. Therefore, they're not relevant to the discussion any more than a warhound titan is. The other choices, as already noted, are bad/overcosted. I'm not sure what your point is.

There aren't a plethora of invul saves in the faction, and I have zero faith any new units will have a useful one.

This was a poor decision.

Just wanted to point out that most people voted on this with the Wraithknight in mind. That unit is the biggest offender.

Exactly, Jy2

@gigasnail
I sincerely applaud employing a local favored set of rules. Srsly. I have posted it before, GameEmpire Pasadena uses the harsher Crunch! Tank shock and we like it. So a non sarcastic kudos to you on that.

But otherwsie your posts are all pretty much out of California's Napa Valley.

You can see *my* WK's foot in my dakka avatar, stepping on a speeder. His name is Skippy, and he's enjoyed toe-in cover since 6e.

I have felt toe-in cover is a ridiculous rule since 4e. I play a WraithKnight, a Riptide. Back in 4e I played bugs, giving my tyrant and carnifexes Cover. I thought it was lame, but went with the ruling convention. It has been a non fluffy, honked up, counter intuitive rule for years. And I helped vote it down, and so did my buddies.

Hide your gmc behind the terrain, roll your gmc MoveThroughCover and assault from the open. Skippy will adapt.

 CrownAxe wrote:

bogalubov wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

bogalubov wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

bogalubov wrote:

The relic that gives a bonus to the invuln save says that Khorne daemon models around the vehicle get +1 to their invuln save. It doesn't say that the vehicle gets the bonus.

The legacy says "Daemon of Khorne within 6" get +1 invul". The vehicle is within 6" isn't it?

I think that more speaks to the fact that the community got the vote wrong here. You shouldn't be able to add the relics to something with the daemon rule.

Not what the rules say. Says you can't put a relic on a Daemon Engine. There is no rule that a vehicle with the daemon rule is a Daemon Engine. So by RAW it works.

Oh I understand the RAW, I just don't agree with it. Based on how awkward the wording is, I don't FW anticipated having a Knight that can be upgraded with the daemon special rule. But hey, the community has spoken so I'll trudge forward with my 4++ chaos knight.

Considering that the Daemon Knight rules were already in IA13 (on Chaos Titans) its obvious that they already knew about giving chaos vehicles the daemon rule and if they didn't want Daemon Titans to have Legacies they would have said so.

That sets a precedent that they don't have a problem with Chaos Knights taking legacies either.

That is actually a great reference Crown and I really appreciate you putting it in there. This would have been great info for the ITC crew to put on the poll and again I am glad you provided it here!

Do you guys want me to apologize? Like 2-3 people have quoted me and I do not believe I have said anything malicious.

I usually dont have a problem with the results, I have a problem with the way the questions are asked or when a question is on the poll that I am not sure where it came from. Why is the piranha formation nerf again? I believe both Nova and Adepticon are allowing the piranhas to come back. Who asked about the GMC cover save? I think they should literally have a poll where the public can submit and look at questions that are already submited and we can discuss them on their forum.

I feel that every player that voted to further nerf the piranha formation dont know the game well enough and I can beat them easily. If you cannot exploit the weakness of this formation your player skill is beneath me. The crazy part is that this formation would be able to beat msu warp spiders easily but you guys voted against it, so the scissors to their paper has been demolished. This entire segment you got to see a side of me I usually do not expose but whatever, deal with it! I do apologize however!

 CKO wrote:


I usually dont have a problem with the results, I have a problem with the way the questions are asked or when a question is on the poll that I am not sure where it came from. Why is the piranha formation nerf again? I believe both Nova and Adepticon are allowing the piranhas to come back.

That's not true adepticon doesn't allow respawning. I thought NoVa ruled against it also but they haven't said anything regarding that formation yet.
This is the adepticon ruling:
Mont’Ka Campaign Supplement
• Models in the Piranha Firestream Wing formation may not leave the table using the Rearm and Refuel special rule the same turn that they arrive from Reserves or Ongoing Reserves.
• The phrase “at full strength” in the Piranha Firestream Wing formation’s Rearm and Refuel special rule refers only to regenerating hull points, removing damage effects, and replenishing drones and seeker missiles. Piranhas that have been destroyed, abandoned due to an Immobilized vehicle damage result, or were never part of the unit to begin with are not added back to the unit when they return to play

Dude it doesnt matter the formation was mediocre pre-nerf and useless after nerf, the inablility to see its weakness is all about player skill.

 CKO wrote:
I feel that every player that voted to further nerf the piranha formation dont know the game well enough and I can beat them easily. If you cannot exploit the weakness of this formation your player skill is beneath me. The crazy part is that this formation would be able to beat msu warp spiders easily but you guys voted against it, so the scissors to their paper has been demolished. This entire segment you got to see a side of me I usually do not expose but whatever, deal with it! I do apologize however!

I'm not going to totally divulge what you told me via PM, but if you've only been to 5 or 6 tourneys in the last two years, I can't quite understand how you can claim to be beating tourney-level Piranah-Recycle enough to crow about it. It's only ... 4 months old? More than one opponent using it? Which RTT or GT in the last 4 months?

And "You guys" seems to be about 1714 people (vs the other 914).

"Suck it, but I'm sorry." You're not sorry.

Do you have to play the game to know how powerful something is? Its all about unit analysis my friend, I never said I beat it I said I know how to beat it, I know its strengths and weaknesses these are skills all players have.

I also like how I gave you something in a PM and you decide to use it in a negative manner, stuff like that reveals alot about peoples character and others wonder why I come off a certain way!

 CKO wrote:
Do you have to play the game to know how powerful something is? Its all about unit analysis my friend, I never said I beat it I said I know how to beat it,

So what did you mean by this:

 CKO wrote:
I feel that every player that voted to further nerf the piranha formation dont know the game well enough and I can beat them easily. If you cannot exploit the weakness of this formation your player skill is beneath me.

Can beat the Piranhas or the players?

 CKO wrote:
I know its strengths and weaknesses these are skills all players have.

All players *don't* have that.

Theory Hammer is only as good as the player giving it. If PJ, Sisk, B. Perkins, Nanavati, Brandt, Simpson, etc. and those guys tell me Theory Hammer, I'll listen. That Reece guy might know something.

Given that I've played more tourneys than you in the last 6 months (GTs and RTTs)... it leaves me to wonder about how credible your critiques are.

I'm logging 12+ RTTs and 3 or so GTs a year.

 CKO wrote:
I also like how I gave you something in a PM and you decide to use it in a negative manner, stuff like that reveals alot about peoples character and others wonder why I come off a certain way!

Your tourney attendence is hardly a confidence betraying bit of info. And no where didja say, "Hey, couldya keep this outta the forums?"

And I'm not being negative with the info, just pointing out much tourney experience you have.

Maybe people should ignore my posts entirely (and often do) since I often finish mid-field or near the bottom of GTs. That's all I'm doing if these last couple posts, CKO, wondering just how credible you are and if your advice is based on solid evidence.

If you have now admitted that you haven't played against Piranha Recycle and that your conjecture has you beating it in your mind. Okay. Thanks.

This is why I have more or less given up on posting a lot here. Lots of opinions from a lot of non-attendees who argue as if it's an academic exercise.

Seriously Casey, look at just how different this Dakka poll is from the ITC one and you'll see how out of touch this forum is with the actual tournament scene. Arguing on the net is fine, especially when it lacks real world teeth.

Back on topic:
I think a local guy gets to bring the Chaos Knight. A number of guys are Ghostkeeling up. And my WK has a little more fear for grav guns ... that have the Hunter Relic that Ignores Cover. Oh, neverdmind.

Overall, the local meta won't shift too much. And with BAO months away, things will change altogether before that comes around.

I do like the communal sense agreeing how to play something.

I also like the lack of comment from FLG. Just post the info and let the the 'Net rage.

This was the last GT I attended my name is Chad Knight.

http://www.wargamescon.com/2012/06/wargamescon-2012-40k-grand-tournament.html

I placed 5th I also got hammered one round in sportsmanship because the player did not believe a word I said and we constantly had to call a judge. The previous year I was on table 1 vs Alan on day 2 but I was hungover and late and ended up getting last place out of the top tables lol, but its all about fun right!

I thought everyone had theory hammer I guess I have a gift!

At the top tables it doesnt matter at that point its all about skill and match up luck. Do you really think taking piranha foramtion away from the top players is going to prevent them from winning? No its all an illusion to make players feel like they can win this time because of a rule change!

Your not going to win or lose a game because you brought a certain formation when your up against the players that can theory hammer your list before you are deployed.

I would list more touranments I won or placed well in but who cares about that as you have pointed out its all about what have you done for me lately.

Trust me you should not fear the piranha formation, now you dont have to play against it unless your opponent is being fluffy.

I have alot of tourney experience I mean alot just not so much recently but the game hasnt changed much thats why I went and got some tune ups.

gungo wrote:

 CKO wrote:


I usually dont have a problem with the results, I have a problem with the way the questions are asked or when a question is on the poll that I am not sure where it came from. Why is the piranha formation nerf again? I believe both Nova and Adepticon are allowing the piranhas to come back.

That's not true adepticon doesn't allow respawning. I thought NoVa ruled against it also but they haven't said anything regarding that formation yet.
This is the adepticon ruling:
Mont’Ka Campaign Supplement
• Models in the Piranha Firestream Wing formation may not leave the table using the Rearm and Refuel special rule the same turn that they arrive from Reserves or Ongoing Reserves.
• The phrase “at full strength” in the Piranha Firestream Wing formation’s Rearm and Refuel special rule refers only to regenerating hull points, removing damage effects, and replenishing drones and seeker missiles. Piranhas that have been destroyed, abandoned due to an Immobilized vehicle damage result, or were never part of the unit to begin with are not added back to the unit when they return to play

You won't see NOVA say anything on it, because they're playing it by the rules - neither one of the above nerfs will apply, as neither is a rules question. Same reason they don't say anything regarding nerfed invisibility - there's no need to, they just play it by the rules. Saying there is a rules issues with "return the unit at full strength" is just disingenuous, as it's what the rule has said, verbatim, for a couple years. It is a clear statement to begin with, but to further it GW had a clarif for the original rule. This new rule removed *only* the clarifying statement and left the rest of the text untouched, because the unit size is no longer capped (it used to be a unit size of 5, and it was stated they returned at full strength (eg 5 piranhas)). Somehow, although no words changed, we've decided it was unclear and need to be voted.

Un-nerfed piranha formation -> Takes a relatively weak unit, makes it into a very strong formation
Nerfed to not come/go same turn -> Takes a relatively weak unit, still leaves it a worthwhile formation if it fits the army build
Nerfed to not come/go, remove the ability to return at full strength -> Takes a relatively weak unit, leaves it a relatively mediocre choice. And we all know how frequently tournament lists field mediocre choices. Seen a lot of striking scorpions lately?

 CKO wrote:
This was the last GT I attended my name is Chad Knight.
http://www.wargamescon.com/2012/06/wargamescon-2012-40k-grand-tournament.html

That's more like it!

 CKO wrote:
I would list more touranments I won or placed well in but who cares about that as you have pointed out its all about what have you done for me lately.
*snip*
I have alot of tourney experience I mean alot just not so much recently but the game hasnt changed much thats why I went and got some tune ups.

" the game hasn't changed much ", that'd be from 5e to now. Okay, thanks again, CKO.

Lol I guess you are right taking allies isnt that big of a deal! lol

Atleast you still hit on a 4+ right?

 CKO wrote:
I usually dont have a problem with the results, I have a problem with the way the questions are asked or when a question is on the poll that I am not sure where it came from.

I generally agree with this. I'd like to see a more formalized process for adding questions to the list. Supposedly they choose them from the rules questions, and emails that come up most often, but it seems to me based on the degree of pushback to adding the Faction Classification question to previous polls, that it was probably one of the most requested questions from the very beginning of the formalized ITC polling.

What we need is a Reddit-style upvote / downvote for questions we think should be addressed.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Yep everyone votes to nerf everything thats not their army. They why Ghostkeel's Holophon got nerfed and Chaos Knights can't take Legacies

Oh wait...

(:V)

 JimOnMars wrote:

 FeindusMaximus wrote:
Must be quite the large shipment that needed to unloaded all weekend . No signals or poll results.

Note that they didn't say what kind of shipment it was...Maybe it was a shipment of beer, and it took them all weekend to put it away.

I was thinking "Hookers & Blow" left over from LVO

We're getting a bit far afield here - please stick to discussing the results of the poll and not individual posters... thanks.

Overwatch - Just because the demographic posting on Dakka isn't the same as that on Frontline doesn't mean something polled here isn't relevant... I would guess there are more casual players participating in the poll here, but isn't that the point in some ways?

Over and over again I've seen mention that adjustments are made with the normal / casual player in mind. I'm all for having an expert council make decisions, but barring that, if you're doing a public vote you probably want to consider the full public opinion.

I'm bummed about lower points - I think that could have wide support, and did quite well in the poll. Maybe next time! Another interesting result to me was the emphatic "No!" to increasing the number of detachments, which if you listened to certain subsets might have expected to go the other way.

So in both cases, folks voted to continue as-is, but the points question was much closer - making me think folks might be open to that if current trajectories continue. The results were really interesting, regardless and thanks to Frontline for doing all this work!!

Target wrote:

gungo wrote:

 CKO wrote:


I usually dont have a problem with the results, I have a problem with the way the questions are asked or when a question is on the poll that I am not sure where it came from. Why is the piranha formation nerf again? I believe both Nova and Adepticon are allowing the piranhas to come back.

That's not true adepticon doesn't allow respawning. I thought NoVa ruled against it also but they haven't said anything regarding that formation yet.
This is the adepticon ruling:
Mont’Ka Campaign Supplement
• Models in the Piranha Firestream Wing formation may not leave the table using the Rearm and Refuel special rule the same turn that they arrive from Reserves or Ongoing Reserves.
• The phrase “at full strength” in the Piranha Firestream Wing formation’s Rearm and Refuel special rule refers only to regenerating hull points, removing damage effects, and replenishing drones and seeker missiles. Piranhas that have been destroyed, abandoned due to an Immobilized vehicle damage result, or were never part of the unit to begin with are not added back to the unit when they return to play

You won't see NOVA say anything on it, because they're playing it by the rules - neither one of the above nerfs will apply, as neither is a rules question. Same reason they don't say anything regarding nerfed invisibility - there's no need to, they just play it by the rules. Saying there is a rules issues with "return the unit at full strength" is just disingenuous, as it's what the rule has said, verbatim, for a couple years. It is a clear statement to begin with, but to further it GW had a clarif for the original rule. This new rule removed *only* the clarifying statement and left the rest of the text untouched, because the unit size is no longer capped (it used to be a unit size of 5, and it was stated they returned at full strength (eg 5 piranhas)). Somehow, although no words changed, we've decided it was unclear and need to be voted.

Un-nerfed piranha formation -> Takes a relatively weak unit, makes it into a very strong formation
Nerfed to not come/go same turn -> Takes a relatively weak unit, still leaves it a worthwhile formation if it fits the army build
Nerfed to not come/go, remove the ability to return at full strength -> Takes a relatively weak unit, leaves it a relatively mediocre choice. And we all know how frequently tournament lists field mediocre choices. Seen a lot of striking scorpions lately?

I'm supportive of what ITC has done for the tournament scene, and NOVA is one of the larger ITC-points-earning events. We do things a lil differently with our FAQs and such, and Target is right. If a rule is clear, we generally/usually don't try to change it, with the occasional exception. The game is not more or less balanced with the various ITC changes, just bar-shifted. One could argue it's better with the bar-shift, and certainly LVO is a shining example of a well-run event that people love attending. But Target is right in that's why you aren't likely to hear much about the Piranha formation from NOVA.

Overall, I am pretty happy with the results.


Hurts my Wraithknight a bit but most quality events have sufficient LOS blocking terrain. Against strong Grav armies, I tend to keep my WK in reserve anyway unless I get the 4+ Invul save or Shrouding powers and first turn.

A WK with a 2+ Cover save from shrouding (due to being "toe in" Ruins) is pretty ridiculous. Was fun while it lasted =).