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.

The problem is later in the same FNP rule it refers to FNP as a save

I'm not saying that that is proof that its a save, I'm just pointing it out

I like that there were two totally different responses to my saying "Slippery Slope" and both giga and CKO got it wrong.

It is indeed a slippery slope to change rules, but not to the insane ends CKO has been attempting to take it. By the way CKO, I googled your name in relation to 40k and you've got a very interesting career

Please take any further FNP reading discussion to the rules discussion forum here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/15.page

Thanks

Ugh that first question alone.
Restricting armies by detachment and at the same time counting decurion like detachments as one might be the most top tier list protective measure to take.

What is the worst that can happen if you allow it, a playable inquisition or harlequin force ?

That question was for allowing more detachments, not less.

Jup would you like to allow more detachments = Would you like to keep giving decurion detachment armies an unfair advantage above INQ, Dark eldar and Harlequins.

Necrons can spam the gak out of anything they want and still be in 1 detachment while Inq's and Harlies are having a hard time just fielding 1850 points in 3 detachments ( that are not even close to a decurion in size or power but still count as 1)

Wait wut. How does more detachments make decurions worse? It doesn't change what you can take within a decurion, just what you can take instead.

Decurion -> Everuting that you can put into it is in the decurion. So if you crammed 100 formations into it it is still only 1 detachment. and you can still use 2 other detachments

armies who don't have these monsters detachments don't have this advantage.

No, I understand. How does increasing the formation limit change that fact though?

Swampist, I think you're responding to something that is the opposite of what oldzoggy is saying. My understanding of his point is:

1. The poll results ended up not increasing the detachment limit, leaving it at 3 (instead of 4 or unlimited).

2. Therefore, armies with access to a Decurion (a group of multiple formations / etc which counts as a single detachment) can in effect field more options than armies without access to one.

3. His argument is that the detachment limit should be increased, or Decurions should not count as a single detachment if keeping the detachment limit at three.

I hope that makes things clearer . Not really sure what I think - I definitely don't want the detachment limit increased so if anything, counting a Decurion as more than one detachment (perhaps count it as two) would be my preferred solution if this really proved to be a problem.

The real thing that should have a low limit is the number of factions that you can include in your army. Not the number of detachment.

Right now allowing 4 or more detachment also allows you to use 4 or more different codex to make up your army. Basically it's super-friends time ultimate edition : crazy interactions all over the board, etc... That is something a lot of people don't like.
However allowing 4 or more detachment but keeping a maximum of 3 factions like it is right now is very different. It allows a lot more variety without power-creeping (at least a LOT less than allowing 4+ codex in your army).


Plus it makes little sense to restrict the number of detachment you can play when *some* armies can have detachment of detachments (= decurions) that somehow count as 1.

It'd be even better if armies had to be selected from a maximum of 2 Codices.

Personnaly I like it with 3 factions like it is right now.

But whatever our favorite number is, the point is that the limit on the number of factions you can play is way more important than the limit on the number of detachment we can play.

And I really think the ITC guys should assess those 2 points separately.

Hey guys, sorry I have not been able to swing by earlier to address some of these issues and concerns brought up, but just been too busy. Finally getting into a normal routine, again.

So just for full disclosure, I didn't read this entire thread, or even most of it, but I will address what I think are some of the main concerns.

Also, please do not PM on Dakka, I would turn it off if I could, I can barely keep up with my personal email, and I currently have 75 unread PMs on Dakka, I just don't have time to read them. Sorry if you have tried to reach out to me here and heard nothing back, not trying to be rude, but I have to focus on the work email for any type of official correspondence.

So, as for voting, we do have a fairly rigid process for determining what questions go on the poll, it is not random. We have a rules question submission sheet which you can use here to ask us questions or issue concerns: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1W8A22qTts0p9CIkhxZIefmicHr7J2RoWlJmPqGQFiZo/viewform

We do our best to communicate that that is how you reach us but obviously we can't reach everyone. That is the main way we determine how important a topic is to the ITC community.

We try to answer all of the questions we get via email but it sometimes just isn't possible. For example, we had roughly 600 rules questions in there prior to the LVO. The volume is pretty nuts.

When we address rules issues we aren't always trying to determine what a rule says. I think that is a big part of the confusion with folks. The rules for 40k are not written for anything even remotely close to tournament play, they're written for a casual, cinematic gaming experience. We have found that trying to play the game RAW leads to absurd experiences.

For example, if you really play RAW, the literal "most important rule" in the game according to GW is to resolve a rules dispute with the toss of a D6. If you reject that rule (and of course, in tournament play you must) then you have rejected what RAW tells us is the most important rule in the game. You undermine any pretext to basing every other judgement on a strict RAW reading.

Another example is setting up a game, if you choose to use points, or forgo Unbound, etc, you are diverting from RAW. I use silly examples purposefully as it shows that a strict RAW reading of 40k is unplayable in an organized setting.

Therefore, we all choose to change some of the rules in the game and it comes down to which ones we choose and to what degree. That is where the conflict comes in as we all disagree on where to draw that line in the sand.

The ITC isn't mean to dictate to players how to do that, it is meant as a starting point to help facilitate organized play, and to grow the community. A lot of folks may get upset about this or that rules interpretation but seem to forget the first rule of the ITC: you can choose to change any of it to suit your local community.

You like most of the format but dislike a certain rule call? Play it the way you like, we don't care. You can still participate in the ITC, but play the game the way you like to. A lot of our largest circuit events diverge from the ITC policy in minor to major ways and we could honestly care less, lol, it's about having fun.

Our philosophy as TOs here at FLG, and the way we choose to run our events is to go with a mix of what we feel is RAW and RAI with the support of community driven decisions. We want those participating to have a voice in important rules interpretations. We feel personally, and have found that most gamers prefer to play what they feel a rule means, not always what it says specifically. They in general also want a fair game as opposed to a maximum power game. Again, that can be interpreted many ways, and can cause conflict as not everyone sees those issues the same way, which is why we vote instead of dictating.

We do verify the poll data to ensure that no one is ballet stuffing. I won't go into the ultra specifics of how we do that because someone smarter than me may see a way to circumvent our protective measures, but the data is verified. As for ITC member emails, yes, TOs collect that data for us to both verify your score and to go into the ITC email database. But, we also gather data for that purpose from other sources, too. We didn't add a open question to the poll this year for player feedback because to be blunt, we wouldn't even be able to read thousands of comments. It would have been a bit of a hollow gesture.

We strive for transparency with everything associated with the ITC but communication is challenging. Prior to the LVO we had some rules calls we had to make for the event and so we made interim rules calls among our judging staff. I am restructuring the FAQ to reflect interim rules calls so that everyone can more clearly understand what stage a rules call is at. But for the event, we voted among judges as to how to make a call and some of the calls were made at the event itself as with the incredible complexity of this game, you simply cannot prepare for everything.

So, hopefully that answers some questions and/or concerns. Thanks to everyone that participated, last year was crazy for the ITC, we grew like mad! 800% increase in events, 400% increase in players, it lead to the largest 40k championships event ever at the LVO, we saw ITC events in a ton of new countries even, it was very cool.

We do listen to feedback and value the critiques. The ITC is not about telling everyone how to read every rule or what have you, it is a tool set to help grow the community, and one that is free to be modified as the individuals using it see fit. We're working on a free app to run ITC tournaments, we offer discounted terrain and F.A.T. Mats to TOs, offer free marketing to help promote their events, etc. We're using it as a tool to make going to events a little more exciting with rankings and prizes and to grow the hobby we all love enough to spend time arguing about it online, haha.

Thanks again to everyone that participated.

 Reecius wrote:
Prior to the LVO we had some rules calls we had to make for the event and so we made interim rules calls among our judging staff. I am restructuring the FAQ to reflect interim rules calls so that everyone can more clearly understand what stage a rules call is at.

Ah, that is a great idea!

That whole post is great, there is just one thing I wanted to point out - some of the things that got the most people animated were not really a question between RAI and RAW, but rather "how folks want to play it" to adjust the power level of something. It also seems like this question comes up most frequently (to me, at least) on new releases, since those are the things people haven't really played with yet.

I'd love to see that kind of question reserved for things that really need adjusting - toe-in-cover for GMC could be that, for instance, whereas something like the Ghostkeel ruling (which was only for the event and addressed in the vote right after, so no real harm done) wasn't. I have no problem going with RAI where the reading isn't clear... but adjusting the power level of things I would hope to be reserved for cases where after some play it's clear that it needs addressing.

Thanks for your hard work on the ITC, Reecius - it's definitely appreciated!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
It'd be even better if armies had to be selected from a maximum of 2 Codices.

I had a similar thought. I think that would help out a lot. Maybe even allow armies that use a single codex four formations. That would help my Coven and since Eldar have their decurian style so it would not hurt them or change many list there that I can think of.

CKO I don't understand your comment to me. I stood up for the Tau too....not just my army. I am however currently building a tau army.

The GMC change is unfortunate, as is the cry for FMC and regular MC losing cover saves in area terrain as well. Most people don't really understand half of the 20? factions this game has. The implications in people's head are always only on the big nasty lists they just played against.

 Reecius wrote:
We strive for transparency with everything associated with the ITC but communication is challenging. Prior to the LVO we had some rules calls we had to make for the event and so we made interim rules calls among our judging staff. I am restructuring the FAQ to reflect interim rules calls so that everyone can more clearly understand what stage a rules call is at. But for the event, we voted among judges as to how to make a call and some of the calls were made at the event itself as with the incredible complexity of this game, you simply cannot prepare for everything.

After reading Reecius post I understand their mentality towards rules and changes that are made and the pill is not as hard to swallow. Yes, there are going to be things I disagree with but who cares about that now that I understand the process I can live with the changes a lot easier. Thanks for clearing it up I hope that you can understand why I put a lot of effort and energy into creating threads and discussing the topic because I don't think players realize how important their votes are. I was on the Tau complain train because it appeared that the judging staff decisions were all against Tau at that particular event. Anyways keep up the good work and I hope that the ITC will grow another 400% and this time I might win the entire thing!

Fishboy I was using you as an example, if I had said that I know at least one person would have jumped all over me!

 mugginns wrote:
The GMC change is unfortunate, as is the cry for FMC and regular MC losing cover saves in area terrain as well. Most people don't really understand half of the 20? factions this game has. The implications in people's head are always only on the big nasty lists they just played against.

There is currently a policy that instead of fixing specific problem units, game mechanics are tweaked to compensate for them.

In this case, in an effort to bring the Wraithknight's abilities slightly closer to its points cost, GMC's take a nerf. That hurts Stormsurges (Though not much, because they generally rock the 4++ invul), Gargantuan Squiggoths, and Heirodules. Squiggoths and Heirodules in particular are collateral damage of the change because they are obscenely overcosted when compared to the wraithknight, or even the Stormsurge, however, a nerf to them is largely irreverent, because they are overcosted and thus don't show up in Tournament meta. I think many people understand this, and are OK with it.

One of the obvious flaws to this approach is that it drastically reduces list diversity. It diversifies the codexes that show up at top tables, but it drastically reduces the builds that those codexes can play competitively. I would rather they more directly address the glaringly problematic units directly without consequence for other units that aren't a problem, but I am still in the minority for now.

tag8833 wrote:
There is currently a policy that instead of fixing specific problem units, game mechanics are tweaked to compensate for them.

In this case, in an effort to bring the Wraithknight's abilities slightly closer to its points cost, GMC's take a nerf.

What about that S(D) nerf, which affects Eldar the way that nerfing ATSKNF would affect SMs...

tag8833 wrote:

 mugginns wrote:
The GMC change is unfortunate, as is the cry for FMC and regular MC losing cover saves in area terrain as well. Most people don't really understand half of the 20? factions this game has. The implications in people's head are always only on the big nasty lists they just played against.

There is currently a policy that instead of fixing specific problem units, game mechanics are tweaked to compensate for them.

In this case, in an effort to bring the Wraithknight's abilities slightly closer to its points cost, GMC's take a nerf. That hurts Stormsurges (Though not much, because they generally rock the 4++ invul), Gargantuan Squiggoths, and Heirodules. Squiggoths and Heirodules in particular are collateral damage of the change because they are obscenely overcosted when compared to the wraithknight, or even the Stormsurge, however, a nerf to them is largely irreverent, because they are overcosted and thus don't show up in Tournament meta. I think many people understand this, and are OK with it.

One of the obvious flaws to this approach is that it drastically reduces list diversity. It diversifies the codexes that show up at top tables, but it drastically reduces the builds that those codexes can play competitively. I would rather they more directly address the glaringly problematic units directly without consequence for other units that aren't a problem, but I am still in the minority for now.

The issue with targeted nerfs is that they are harder for people to remember. Say there were 20 units that needed fixing, now you are asking players to remember rules changes to 20 units many of which they may never play. When you do this it becomes much more likely that someone misplays the rules. Say the player fielding the unit forgets the change during play, his opponent may not even know it existed in the first place. It is much easier for players to remember broad game rule changes than specific ones as they will come up more often and apply to more units. I understand the desire to not hurt things that are already not up to the power curve, but on the same token those already were not seeing much play. I also agree it probably impacts diversity a bit, though not a ton as bad units getting worse does not really impact how often they show up on the table.

tag8833 wrote:
a nerf to them is largely irreverent, because they are overcosted and thus don't show up in Tournament meta. I think many people understand this, and are OK with it.

I don't agree. Just because something is not used much now does not mean it can be made even worse with house rules. Especially when said house rules cause people to start talking about changing more rules for more unit types.

tag8833 wrote:

 mugginns wrote:
The GMC change is unfortunate, as is the cry for FMC and regular MC losing cover saves in area terrain as well. Most people don't really understand half of the 20? factions this game has. The implications in people's head are always only on the big nasty lists they just played against.

There is currently a policy that instead of fixing specific problem units, game mechanics are tweaked to compensate for them.

In this case, in an effort to bring the Wraithknight's abilities slightly closer to its points cost, GMC's take a nerf. That hurts Stormsurges (Though not much, because they generally rock the 4++ invul), Gargantuan Squiggoths, and Heirodules. Squiggoths and Heirodules in particular are collateral damage of the change because they are obscenely overcosted when compared to the wraithknight, or even the Stormsurge, however, a nerf to them is largely irreverent, because they are overcosted and thus don't show up in Tournament meta. I think many people understand this, and are OK with it.

One of the obvious flaws to this approach is that it drastically reduces list diversity. It diversifies the codexes that show up at top tables, but it drastically reduces the builds that those codexes can play competitively. I would rather they more directly address the glaringly problematic units directly without consequence for other units that aren't a problem, but I am still in the minority for now.

I voted against GMCs gaining Cover Saves because quite frankly, that mechanic is stupid for GMCs. I'm fine with MCs gaining cover that way, but GMCs are just too large. Let em run on a 25% obscured rule like other large units (vehicles).

Now we just need to let dreadnoughts have 'toe in' and maybe they will be playable

As much as I love my dreadnoughts and would like to see them playable, that would be doing a bit too much "kingmaker" with the rules, I think! Although maybe you were joking

 RiTides wrote:
As much as I love my dreadnoughts and would like to see them playable, that would be doing a bit too much "kingmaker" with the rules, I think! Although maybe you were joking

I was mostly serious. The ability for dreads to take cover saves by being in terrain would go a long way to increasing how long they survive. They will still be susceptible to one-shot-kills, as they're still vehicles, but they would get a save which is what I miss the most about running them.

@RiTides

Yeah, we're going to restructure the entire FAQ into modules so that folks can see what are clarifications, rules changes and temporary judgements. Although, lol, I am SURE there will be endless arguments about what are clarifications and rules changes as often RAW is so unclear, but, the goal of it will be break the ITC FAQ up into chunks so that folks can use the parts of it they want or don't want, easily.

That way you can have an ITC Hardcore event (or whatever the heck you'd want to call it) that doesn't use any of the rules changes for those that prefer the rules that way, you could.

Or, you could have a Full ITC event for a community that likes the changes, you can.

We've found a majority of folks like to play with slightly toned down rules as it is more enjoyable to a larger portion of the 40k community. I cannot tell you how many first time tournament goers we had at the LVO this year, it was awesome! So many people that were intimidated to go to 40k tournament came out because they were comfortable with the ITC format and saw how fun it could be to travel to a 40k tournament. That is mission success for us! That is what we want to see happen.

But, there are folks who want the most hardcore competitive experience they can get because that is their nature and is totally cool, and may want to not use some of the rules changes we implement. No big deal, we're going to make it easy for people to do that with the ITC, but not have to rewrite the entire FAQ and then update it constantly (which is a HUGE pain in the ass, let me tell you).

Like I said, we don't give a rip how folks play, we just want to make it easy for people to go out and run an event by helping tackle the crazy aspects of dealing with the mountains of rules issues and missions in 40k, helping promote the event, draw in traveling players to get their ITC points, and offering cheaper ways to get terrain and mats to make the event look good (which is also a nice boost for our business, too!). We want it to be inclusive and appealing to a broad audience.

We actively try to encourage players to go to other tournaments, whether they use the ITC format or not. I mean, it's awesome when folks like the ITC format and use it "out of the box" so to speak, and it makes it easier for traveling players to know what to expect, but it isn't a requirement and we understand different groups will want subtle changes to reflect their preferred play style, which is 100% fine by us. Variety is fun, too.

We really just want to see organized play 40k grow and thrive. We're working on a narrative version of the ITC too, that operates like the old global 40k campaigns GW used to run! That will be bad ass when we get it going, I am very excited for that because it will bring in the truly casual players into the overall organized play experience, which is awesome.

And thanks for the kind words! I know the ITC can cause controversy with some folks who may not agree with every aspect of it but it is working which is fun! We will continue to fine tune as we go to more accurately represent what folks want.

@Muggins

The GMC toe in cover rules change came about as a result of a HUGE amount of feedback from ITC participants asking for it for a long time. We were a bit resistant to it at first but people kept asking in large numbers so we knew it was an important topic. As a player, I totally agree with it, personally for what it's worth. I think it is silly that a giant monster standing on something gets a save when an iKnight (or whatever) does not.

We've found that most players do not approach the rules literally as some do. They prefer what feels makes sense as opposed to a literal reading. YMMV, of course, but that is the trend we've seen with these rules. I honestly feel it is less targeted at the Wraithknight (although for some players I am sure it was) but more about a rule making sense to them.

@CKO

No problem, happy to help clarify. And the critical feedback is really appreciated, we do pay attention (even if we can't always join the conversation) as we are trying to give people what they want, it;s just hard sometimes as folks don't all want the same thing! haha

We'd love to have you participate in the ITC if you choose to, and good luck winning it all. We will have an even bigger award for the winner of it this year!

@tag8833

Yes, you have it. We try to apply any changes evenly to all parties to make it more fair, but that is hard to do as I am sure you can imagine.

@JohnHwangDD

That was not targeted at Eldar, Eldar just get impacted by it most as they have the most access to D. We've found that players really don't like the 6 result on ranged D, it is seen as having too much of an impact on the game and being too random.

@Thread

Yeah, Dreads need something, I agree.

 mugginns wrote:
The GMC change is unfortunate, as is the cry for FMC and regular MC losing cover saves in area terrain as well. Most people don't really understand half of the 20? factions this game has. The implications in people's head are always only on the big nasty lists they just played against.

Most people do understand, and hence the Vote shows were the majority went on the matter, to de-value anyone who didn't see it your way doesn't lend much credence to your position either.
Accept it was a vote, and the fact is in some cases in life our views are not shared with the majority, and hence by default the view falls into the minority.

 Reecius wrote:
@JohnHwangDD

That was not targeted at Eldar, Eldar just get impacted by it most as they have the most access to D. We've found that players really don't like the 6 result on ranged D, it is seen as having too much of an impact on the game and being too random.

If that's the case, you should change a Penetrating 6 to doing d3 Hull Points.

good luck convincing a TO or gaming group to use the ITC FAQs, except for this one little bit you don't personally agree with regardless of how clear it is the opposite of the rule as written. that's...not going to happen.