ITC 2015 Season Policy Guideline Poll Results

ictlogo

The votes are in!

First of all, wow, we got a big response this year! Over 800 votes. It really shows how much the ITC is growing. It’s also a great way to get a good selection of the 40k tournament going population’s opinion on some issues that we face as a community. I always prefer to make educated decisions on things like this as opposed to just guessing or going with what I or the relatively small group of people I play with prefer to go with. It is very easy in 40k (or anything, really) to think that the opinion that is popular in your gaming group represents the global community which is often not the case.

So, without further ado, here are the poll results. I will be drafting the ITC guidelines for the 2015 season today, they will be up tonight along with Wargames Con tickets.

How many detachments do you want to see in the ITC for the 2015 season?

Well, this one was ultra close! It came down to just 7 votes, less than 1% of all the voters! However, in the end, the vote for keeping things as they are won out narrowly. 2 Detachments is the name of the game for this season as it was last season. I was actually really surprised how many people voted for a single Detachment, I didn’t think there’d be more than a handful of them. But, when we exclude it from the poll, I always get emails asking why it wasn’t an option so I put it back in. Turns out, quite a few people prefer to play 40k in “classic mode.” Also, I honestly didn’t expect 172 people to vote for unlimited Detachments as for me personally, I feel that that is too chaotic. But again, this goes to show that different gamers want different things.  Interestingly, if you add up all of the votes for 3 or more Detachments vs. 2 or less, you actually see that more players wanted more Detachments. However, with the polls, we go with whichever option won the most votes so in this case, 2 wins. Interesting as both Frankie and myself actually voted for 3 Detachments.

Detachments

 

What types of restrictions would you like to see on Detachments?

I wasn’t too surprised with the results on this one, although I was hoping to see the vote go with only a single CAD style detachment. But, again, the community wants to go with the status quo. You can take only 1 of any type of Detachment, but no limit on “CAD Style” detachments (but no double CAD, in case that was confusing to anyone).

Detachment Restrictions

 

How would you like to see “Decurion style” Detachments handled?

I was very curious to see how this one went. Decurion style detachments look like they will be a part of every codex release going forward, and are essentially Detachments of Formations. As we limit the number of these available to players, I could see how folks would see this as unfair if the army they play doesn’t have access to a Decurion style Detachment. However, as you can see, the community wants them to be treated as a single Detachment for ITC restrictions. Please note though, that you are still limited to only 1 of any type of Formation which still applies within a Decurion style Detachment. For example, you would not be able to take 2 Canoptek Formations within a Decurion Detachment for the ITC.

Decurion Detachments

 

How would you like to see Come the Apocalypse Allies handled for the ITC 2015 season?

This was probably the most contentious issue and the one that will make the most waves. However, it is important to address these issues fairly. I have been quite vocal about my position on this topic: I do not like Come the Apocalypse Allies at all, it really kills the immersion of the game for me. Some of the combos aren’t so bad, such as  Knight in a Chaos army for example, or Astra Militarum with Nids to make a Genestealer Cult. However, for every 1 cool combo you see like that on the table, we get many more where it is 3 Flyrants slapped in an Eldar list, or something similar. It turns out, most of the gamers in the ITC community also dislike CtA allies.

How to handle CtA allies

 

I also compiled the data in a different way, to show general attitudes towards CtA allies as of the 5 questions, 3 of them were generally negative towards CtA allies. When you view the data this way, it becomes even more clear that most gamers do not enjoy CtA allies in their events. While I truly do empathize with those who have modeled up cool armies that utilize CtA allies, I have to say on a personal level I am pleased with the result of this poll. Will CtA be completely gone from all ITC events this season? No, we will have certain formats at big events like the LVO, where these will be good to go for those who really want to use an army they modeled up. You will not be seeing them in the 40k Championships format events this season, though.

general attitude towards CtA

 

How do you feel about Ranged D weapons in the ITC?

This is probably the second most contentious issue in the poll as it provokes strong feelings on either side of the debate, and, both sides of the debate honestly have good points. D weapons help to mitigate some of the really powerful units in the game such as Deathstars and Knights, but can also be really unenjoyable to play against when they roll that 6. As you can see, the vote went against Ranged D weapons.

Ranged D

 

While it looks like a narrow margin, if you compile the general negative and positive feelings as with CtA, you start to get a better idea of the bigger picture on this topic. Most folks do not enjoy simply picking up their models. I can understand that. Personally though, I was neutral on this topic. I don’t mind playing against most Ranged D weapons generally (some of the mega blast versions are too just too much, IMO), but I also tend to play MSU lists where the impact is much less. The main impact here will likely be on the Lynx, which was the most points efficient D slanger, and the most accurate, too. If you bought and painted one of these, again, I 100% empathize. You won’t be seeing them in ITC 40k Championships format events this season, but we will have other format events where you will be free to use your cool models.

General attitude towards Ranged D

 

Would you like to see any changes made to the ITC Tertiary Missions?

One of the issues brought up most frequently in critiques of the ITC format are the impact of First Blood, and introducing a bit more variety into the missions. So, we included this poll question to see how much of the gaming population felt that way. Turns out a lot of folks agreed! So, we will be introducing some custom Tertiary bonus points into our format to mix things up a bit and to mitigate the always contentious First Blood point. I was actually surprised at how many voters felt this way, I thought the book bonus points would win out, but I was very wrong on this one.

tertiary points

 

Would you like to see any changes made to the Maelstrom portion of the ITC missions?

In keeping with the statements above, we often received the critique that in our format the Primary mission was too critical to success despite it only being 1 point over the secondary. However, the logic of the critique is clear in that winning the Primary and First Blood means you can only ever tie a game in the 2014 ITC format. We put forth the question on modifying the format to the community to see if others agreed. Turns out they did. This result combined with altering the Tertiary Mission points means that while the basic ITC mission format is still the same and will be intuitive to anyone that is accustomed to our missions, it has been slightly tweaked enough that we will see significant changes to mission strategy while also including a fair bit more diversity in mission format.

maelstrom

 

Conclusions

Well, there you have it. The people have spoken and policy will be set for the ITC 2015 Season (which runs through the next LVO). While not all of us will agree with all of the changes (or lack of changes in some cases), this represents the desires of the gamers in our community. We all make small compromises in order to have a baseline rule set, and to grow our events and have fun!

Tags:

About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
213 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ciaran
Ciaran
7 years ago

Own a painted Lynx, but still voted against ranged D. Glad to see its gone.

Jural
Jural
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

which one, Khorne, Nurgle, Slaanesh, Tzeentch?

Jayson Collier
Jayson Collier
7 years ago
Reply to  Jural

Where is the like button?

Jp
Jp
7 years ago

Most things came out exactly like I predicted… Come the apocalypse… Next time ask if you play imperium and would like to gimp all non imperium players! Cause that’s all that was…

I mean from a competitive standpoint if I could vote on a rule that didn’t effect my army and drastically slashed other players I suppose I’d expect the same results.

Adam (Thediceabide.com)
Reply to  Jp

*cough* Harlequins *cough* Daemonkin *cough*

Imperialis aren’t the only folks with 3 battle bros anymore.

Leth
Leth
7 years ago
Reply to  Jp

I was talking to troll gamer who wanted to play eldar allied with daemons and would only summon slanesshi daemons from the eldar side just to see every fluff gamer cringe.

Yea……

winterman
7 years ago

“Well, this one was ultra close! It came down to just 7 votes, less than 1% of all the voters! However, in the end, the vote for keeping things as they are won out narrowly.”

Seems pretty clear that was not the consensus at all. 3 + Unlimited > 2 + 1. By a large margin people want to see more than 2 detachments. I am sure the unlimited folks would change their vote to 3 if it meant not having two detachment limits.

winterman
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

Fair enough. I know we get asked for an extra detachment more than any other policy change so I will hear about it going forward.

Is what it is, no rest for the TO when the community is so divided.

Jural
Jural
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

Agreed- impossible to know how they would have voted. I would recommend a re-vote though, as I tend to see the most likely result is the same as winterman saw it.

Jural
Jural
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

yeah, in that case maybe just pay more attention to the poll options next year?

I can help if you need, just ask.

Avi
Avi
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

I notice you didn’t do a “General Feelings” break down on that result; seems pretty clear most people want more than 2 sources…

EnglishJody
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

Just like you didn’t have time to vote on Invisibility two months before LVO?

Raw Dogger
Raw Dogger
7 years ago
Reply to  Jural

Jural, I always read these comments with your voice in my head. It makes me smile.

Jural
Jural
7 years ago
Reply to  Raw Dogger

Are you sure I am who you think I am??? Because I know who you are, but have never met you.

Avi
Avi
7 years ago
Reply to  winterman

Just what I was going to say there, Winterman; it seems ‘more than 2’ is much more popular than 2.

Avi
Avi
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

When the results are that close (less than 1%) and a run off is not feasible (by your choice) then crunching the data in a different way seems extremely reasonable…

Jim
Jim
7 years ago
Reply to  Avi

Also, don’t forget the poll was only run short enough that the sampling is mainly people that follow and prefer the ITC format and probably isn’t representative of the larger population.

AbusePuppy
AbusePuppy
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

Presumably the people who wanted unlimited detachments would favor three detachments as a restriction over two detachments.

NickW
7 years ago
Reply to  winterman

Yeah, I agree 100%. This is a truly terrible way to do it. The large majority of respondents wanted at least 3 detachments. I would have voted differently if I’d known that we’d get stuck like this, and so would many people I know. The worst thing about the ITC is that it’s being adopted in my area increasingly, which wouldn’t be bad in and of itself if it wasn’t for this terrible “2 detachments only” thing the ITC has had for the past year. This voting result is a combination of poor instructions and poor options to begin with (they could have put “at least 3 detachments” or something creative as an option to avoid getting in this hole).

Limiting detachments (especially to as little as 2) flies completely against how 7th edition is designed and how all the newer codexes are designed to function (not to mention all the new stuff always coming out in WD and online). Some “detachments” can have hundreds of models, others are formations with 1-3 models…in modern 40k, points make the limit and not detachments. It’s an artificial, TO-invented idea that is on temporary life support, and this poll reflects that the significant majority of respondents against 2 or less detachments.

Now big tournaments nationally, and some local tournaments, will be stuck for a year with this turkey rule that is a huge competitive handicap to some armies and merely a pain in the butt for enjoyable list-making for others 🙁

Mark Aksel
Mark Aksel
7 years ago
Reply to  NickW

Thats because he uses the data to focus on what he wants to. These polls are nothing but a farce to manipulate to further his own idea of Reece-Hammer.

Not to mention, things like the number of allied detachments, etc. He’s nerfing books before they even get a chance to get used properly.

TrueKnight
TrueKnight
7 years ago
Reply to  Mark Aksel

Or, ya know, he’s trying to make 40k into a tournament viable product… Someone has to take leadership. If you don’t like it the simple solution is to not play in itc events?

NickW
7 years ago
Reply to  TrueKnight

Well, I’ve already heard a few people saying they will boycott WGC in protest of this format.

…These are 40k players FROM AUSTIN who have gone almost every year.

Jural
Jural
7 years ago
Reply to  Mark Aksel

That’s BS. I take Reece 100% at face value here, I just think there was a flawed methodology in that question.

You don’t spend that much of your life suporting a community just to push an agenda through on 2 detachments vs. 3….

Want evidence? Note 2 things:

1) Reece is the grandmaster of wanting to treat monstrous creatures like walkers. This didn’t even make the list
2) He allowed CtA in after a previous vote, despite being totally against it.

bridges60
bridges60
7 years ago
Reply to  Jural

let’s not forget as reece stated, he voted for 3 detachments. So yeah, he is not trying to manipulate anything and he and his whole staff have collectively put in the hard work to have more competitive format for everyone willing to give it a shot. I stand by these choices, even though i do not think 2 sources are the answer.

bridges60
bridges60
7 years ago

Wow this makes me excessively happy, So this means no more summoning Eldar?! lol

Jural
Jural
7 years ago
Reply to  bridges60

Why is that?

bridges60
bridges60
7 years ago
Reply to  Jural

Well i guess that leaves me wondering how they would handle that. Since daemons are CTA and I figured summoning them would be the same thing since they are still CTA if Eldar summon them

Bronouns
Bronouns
7 years ago
Reply to  bridges60

I’m curious on this one as well. Will eldar keep demon summoning?

PFOL
PFOL
7 years ago
Reply to  Bronouns

How come this hasn’t been answered yet?

masos
masos
7 years ago
Reply to  Bronouns

If you think Eldar can’t summon daemons because of this ruling. I’m scared to see what you think is RAW. Haha.

Of course army’s can summon daemons still. Summoning daemons is not purchasing a CTA ally. Come on guys……

AbusePuppy
AbusePuppy
7 years ago
Reply to  bridges60

I think that’s a pretty absurd way to read that, because it turns one question (do you want CtA allies) into a completely different one (do you want to ban Maelific Daemonology from the game.)

Will Grant
Will Grant
7 years ago
Reply to  AbusePuppy

You’re right ab. This would take malefic out of the game since currently eldar do it way better than csm and arguably better than chaos demons

The rich stay richer while the poor lose options.

Black Blow Fly
7 years ago
Reply to  AbusePuppy

Exactly – it’s what the sour pusses say.

Jural
Jural
7 years ago

I am skeptical on the detachments, I think FLG may be seeing what they want to see.

As I see it, the vote for 3 or more Detachments was overwhelming vs people who wanted 2 or 1, About 450 to 300 (65%) preferred 3 or more detachments! In other words, the majority of the population wants more, but they split on wanting unlimited or 3.

The best resolution would be to re-run this poll and only keep the top two options.

It looks like the other results have a pretty clear resolution. I mean CtA and Ranged D were kind of messy, but that’s because nobody really knows what to do with them if they are included.

Jp
Jp
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

I voted for two detachments but I aggre that the majority want more then two. As much as Id like to keep it at two it’s pretty clear in my mind that 3+ won the vote…

I mean if you wanted unlimited that definitely want 3 over 2.

Avi
Avi
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

So the people who voted unlimited might as well have just voted for Pat Buchanan…

Adam (Thediceabide.com)
Reply to  Reecius

Voting doesn’t work that way but that’s exactly how you interpret user surveys (this is a survey, not a poll). They weren’t voting for a person and your answers aren’t always mutually exclusive… When you survey you need to use the data to make educated assumptions on what the surveyed are asking for.

Jural
Jural
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

Well, I’m kinda in favor of 2 detachments over 3 or unlimited, so I’m going to not argue any more 😉

But if you want to chat offline or would like to look at a different way of putting together the poll next year- look me up!

Gordon
Gordon
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

Normally, I find negative critiques of your polls to be mostly thinly veiled complaints that people didn’t vote the way the critic personally desired, but for once I agree. The unlimited detachments would universally vote for 3 detachments, I best, making that a clear winner. But because of the way the question was worded, it split the vote.

A more appropriate question would use run off voting. The single detachment would be eliminated as an option, and they would revote (likely for two). Unlimited detachments would be eliminated, leaving 3 detachments with more than 50% of the vote. And, of course, if people really didn’t like 3 detachments for some reason, then their retallied votes might instead go to 2 detachments, but in this case that isn’t likely.

Gordon
Gordon
7 years ago
Reply to  Gordon

Not that I’m complaining, I voted for 2.

Adam (Thediceabide.com)
Reply to  Reecius

If most people wanted more than 2, then how did 2 win? I see what you’re saying about the single entry winning, but you’re not voting for an indivisible entity, 3 plus unlimited far bear 2, by over 100 votes from the looks of it… The results should reflect the wishes of the voters.

PS – I voted 2.

Ben Nelson
Ben Nelson
7 years ago

I dont believe in the case of this vote you can lump people into groups as easily as the other votes. I voted for three, but would definitely prefer two over unlimited detachments.

Adam (Thediceabide.com)
Reply to  Ben Nelson

Unfortunately while it may not be representative of the result you wished for, due to the way the questions were asked you actually cannot come up with a definitive solution other than “more than 2”. Like you said the difference between 3 and unlimited is massive, but the amount of people who want more than 2, is the vast majority. If I were advising a client on this user survey I would suggest 3 as the majority of the voters do want more than 2, not 2 or less.

dr.insanotron
dr.insanotron
7 years ago
Reply to  Ben Nelson

Exactly

artfcllyflvrd
artfcllyflvrd
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

If you had a three way vote for dinner between a) salad b) sausage pizza and c) pepperoni pizza, and the vote was 10,9,9 respectively, I would say the group wants pizza. You’re giving them salad.

I’m not a fan of community polls setting event rules anyway, for tons of reasons. But the way you structure the questions matters so much. Constructive feedback, the structuring could be a lot better, and it needs to be if you are going to use a straight plurality as your decision rule.

dr.insanotron
dr.insanotron
7 years ago
Reply to  artfcllyflvrd

Have to agree here. They way this polling came out you really need now to have a vote just between 2 and 3 detachments to get the real answer of what the majority of people want

Castle
Castle
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

Next time you run this poll a simple solution to the question with lots of options would be to have subset questions, so like;

Question 1. Do want 1-2 detachments or 3+?
Question 1A. If you answered 1-2 detachments would you prefer 1 or 2?
Question 1B. If you answered 3+ detachments would you prefer 3 or unlimited?

Just an example since you won’t split the vote to change like this poll did, if staying the same is truly what people want it will stay but in this case it would result in a change by a majority vote.

Really this can be applied to most the questions, have options to remain the same or changed and if changed is chosen have another question asking how to change. This would also allow people who don’t want something to change to have an impact on how it is changed. For instance on the detachment question the people who vote for 1-2 can still have an impact to prevent unlimited if they don’t want/like that option.

Jural
Jural
7 years ago

For me personally- I like all the results, but I wish there was some way to get in actual fluffy CtA rules. But practically speaking I’m not seeing it; that’s a lot of work for a TO before an event, and it opens up the process to A LOT of judgment on the part of the TO…

best to blanket allow or blanket disallow, and the community is pretty clear on their preference it seems- it’s awesome when these sorts of things resolve themselves 😉

derptau
derptau
7 years ago

I am super happy about the CTA, while I understand the ridiculous combos out there. Still stinging from an ad-lance/wraithknight/daemonsummon army I fought. Not knocking the dude while I’m at it, but I’m very glad that I can play csm with knights. We really just need chaos knight rules.

Hotsauceman1
Hotsauceman1
7 years ago

I was just about to order a macro Cannon………
if you ban d weapons, can you also ban deathstars?

Hotsauceman1
Hotsauceman1
7 years ago
Reply to  Hotsauceman1

And hieradules in cover.

Jural
Jural
7 years ago
Reply to  Hotsauceman1

with malanthropes!

AbusePuppy
AbusePuppy
7 years ago
Reply to  Jural

Also flyrants, and Wave Serpents, and Centurions, and Scouts, and Green Tide, and anything else that anyone has ever disliked. Everyone else is a WAAC cheater asshole, I have the only legitimate army.

Hotsauceman1
Hotsauceman1
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

I’m just saying, d mitigates the insanity.

artfcllyflvrd
artfcllyflvrd
7 years ago
Reply to  Hotsauceman1

I also think the west coasters think D (particularly the lynx) is better than it is because of the invisibility nerf. Truly invisible deathstars (which are easy to get with FW characters) crap all over it (and similar units). Nothing like 430 pts that can’t hurt the one unit it is optimized to shoot at.

AbusePuppy
AbusePuppy
7 years ago
Reply to  artfcllyflvrd

I would say it’s more because a ton of people seem to confused about how Str D blasts actually work.

Dave
Dave
7 years ago
Reply to  artfcllyflvrd

As a west coast player, the Linx on a landing pad to me is a joke. I played against a few at LVO and was not phased by it a bit. There a weapon that you play against. What suprizes me is there is no qq over the D strength assaults. I play competitive and fun. Can complain and point fingers, however in the end, rules will be made and will be followed.

Jim
Jim
7 years ago
Reply to  artfcllyflvrd

Indeed. Funny how when you start changing how rules work, that other rules need “fixing”. Maybe you should try fewer restrictions and let this edition evolve a bit.

Black Blow Fly
7 years ago
Reply to  Hotsauceman1

It is the insanity

Clint H
Clint H
7 years ago

suggestion for next years poll. Don’t give so many options for each choice. Looks like a lot of the changes were watered down by to many options. Also, maybe a brief write up about the reasoning and theory as to the fix as I truly believe that enough of the voters were confused to throw off the results.

Jural
Jural
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

It’s impossible to write a representative poll with that many options, you really need tiered polling. If you had an infinite amount of time you would send out really basic questions first, then follow up with a more detailed breakdown for some questions.

For example

Ranged D is currently banned. Should it continue to be banned, or would you like us to look at implementing it?

If the majority of people want it banned, case closed. If the majority want it implemented, then out come the options.

This year probably wouldn’t work though with you guys not having a ton of time.

Jural
Jural
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

Right- that’s why I am talking about next year’s poll, and offering assistance if you would like it.

z3n1st
z3n1st
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

Maybe have a running poll over the season on your website. You can add questions as they come up and everyone else can clearly see how things are evolving over time. Then at the end of the season you clarify the poll to address the uncertain areas

Adam (Thediceabide.com)
Reply to  Reecius

After every poll you post, I know someone who surveys people for a living that offers to proof read them before you post them. 😉

Chip
7 years ago

While I don’t love some of the results conclusions, I can at least understand their value in the competitive arena of the ITC.

However, the Necron Decurion one I completely disagree with, and feel that you are ruling outside of the results of the poll. I don’t think your question, when in the context of the other two options, was to make all sub-formations 0-1. Further, I think that many upcoming books will be decurion based (Khorne is, already) and that making sub-formations 0-1 when taken in the larger decurion-style detachment will have serious ramifications on new books.

My .02

Jural
Jural
7 years ago
Reply to  Chip

Chip- I think we have no idea what is coming with Decurion’s. We will all look back at this in 12 months and it will seem stupid or smart, but we don’t have the data to know for sure either way.

That’s what I’m seeing anyway.

Will Grant
Will Grant
7 years ago
Reply to  Chip

Yah I agree with Chip here.

I Understand that we don’t want RP wraiths running around, but this makes all new codexes subpar going forward. Is there a possibility this will be revisited as I don’t feel this was clear to the voters?

I like that first blood is being revisited. Maybe we could vote in a poll on which to include?

Of the ones I’ve seen in other formats I enjoy “slay the rank and file”, “last laugh”, and “big monster hunter” (which might have been a FLG original?)

dr.insanotron
dr.insanotron
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

The problem is that that is not the question you asked and we answered. we said it counts as 1 formation.

AbusePuppy
AbusePuppy
7 years ago
Reply to  dr.insanotron

Yeah, that one feels really bait-and-switch to me.

Agenntp
Agenntp
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

That ruling basically forces a quasi-highlander format upon every book released with Decurion style list building. That is currently Necrons and Khornekin, but will assuredly be all books going forward.

I had no idea that was contemplated by these poll questions.

Leth
Leth
7 years ago
Reply to  Chip

Why should the sub formations be any different than other formations that are 0-1 for everyone else?

Honestly I dont see it being to much of a problem considering the number of points involved in many of them.

AbusePuppy
AbusePuppy
7 years ago
Reply to  Leth

Because the sub-formations are equivalent to other codices FoC slots, which are not limited to 0-1 on everything.

elphilo
elphilo
7 years ago
Reply to  Leth

Its like saying you can’t take more than 2 HQs in the base Space Wolf detachment that allows up to 6 because it skirts around the ITC format of limiting HQs by limiting the amount of detachments you can take.

The question asked if it should count as one detachment. It wasn’t should it count as one detachment but the sub detachments can still only be taken as 0-1.

Castle
Castle
7 years ago
Reply to  Chip

Ya the Necrons Decurion is getting shat on with these rulings and I would be surprised to see any players using it since it’s almost unfieldable. The decurion detachment is already difficult to build uniquely and with these rulings it’s almost forcing it into 1 or 2 builds.

CAD crons can take 3 units of wraiths Decurion can take 1, CAD crons can take 3 units of heavy destroyers Decurion can take 1, CAD crons can take 3 stalkers decurion crons can take 1.

This is forcing the decurion into a highlander format essentially(with a couple exceptions) whereas all other armies are free to spam as they see fit. There is no room for making an army your own with the decurion in this setting since everyone running a decurion will be forced to take essentially the same army as 1 another.

The way the votes questions were worded it was implied that the decurion would take up 1 of the detachments not that it would have it’s formations(which make it up) gimped. I mean what is abusable in the formations are still going to be abused by the CAD crons, a decurion list can fit in probably 3 harvests if abused like that but legal CAD cron lists are going to have 1 harvest with 3 wraith units anyways. This won’t fix anything just stagnate the new codexes by not allowing them to run the new detachments which seem standard with each new release since no one wants to intentionally gimp themselves by playing highlander against spam armies.

Agentp
Agentp
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

Except Reece, you’re comparing apples to oranges. The formations that compose a Decurion are more akin to Force Organization Slots. You’re not limiting 1 selection from Heavy in a CAD for instance.

I’m not super unhappy with this, as it reduces spam in armies. But Decurion style is the way of the future, and this limitation is going to have wide ranging effects to all armies going forward.

Castle
Castle
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

Only issue with that is it gets quite pricey for decurion crons to ally in a CAD. The minimum for a decurion and CAD army is around 800pts and that’s a huge chunk of your army, then considering each auxiliary for a decurion costs around 250pts depending on how you equip it. And the whole point of allying in the CAD was to get more power units which you’ll probably want to run 400pts of leaves you with not much to flesh out your decurion at which point why even run the decurion over just allying in another CAD.

Regardless it’s very very difficult to run a decurion almost impossible to run a pure decurion and still be competitive with the restrictions indirectly imposed upon it.

droozy
droozy
7 years ago
Reply to  Castle

You crazy. Decurian detachment is still nasty. Duplicate Canoptek Harvests is too damn much. Come on bro, Necrons are still in the top two meanest codices in the whole of 40k. Bad example if you’re trying to put a negative spin on the ruling.

AbusePuppy
AbusePuppy
7 years ago
Reply to  droozy

You seem to be forgetting about Eldar, SM, Daemons, Tyranids, and Tau, all of which have been actually winning tournaments, while Necrons have not.

There’s definitely some potential in the book, but calling it “the top two meanest codices” is a huge exaggeration.

droozy
droozy
7 years ago
Reply to  AbusePuppy

I don’t think it is. New Necron hasn’t had a chance to stretch its legs yet. In my opinion it is a stronger stand alone codex than SM, definitely stronger than Tyranids and Tau. Daemons and Eldar are the only ones in it’s league. In the Necron Codex there are tools to deal with just about everything at a reasonable price and ways to make incredibly tough units even more survivable and deadly. I’m not complaining, I really like the new codex but come on, some of those combos are ludicrous.

Fxeni
Fxeni
7 years ago

Your logic for suggesting that people did not want CtA allies makes no sense to me.

First of all, there are 3 categories that are OK with CtA – no restrictions, theme, and okay assuming restrictions. Those 3 categories, when added together massively outnumber the votes from people who said “No CtA allies whatsoever.”

Second, why do you assume that people who want restrictions on CtA allies are against CtA? That’s like saying people who are against ranged D are against super heavies in general – it’s a sweeping generalization.

The reality is that people are against things like 3 Hive Tyrants (unmodified) taken alongside of things like a Tyrannic War Vet formation, and most people would agree – that’s really stupid.

However, if people want to do an Astra Militarum army alonside of Chaos Daemons, which is a 100% fluffy theme, that’s perfectly acceptable and not at all broken.

In reality, you would please MORE people in the CtA chart by allowing restricted AND theme based CtA allies. That pleases 3 of the groups voting for CtA, and dissatisfies one. On the other hand, completely removing CtA dissatisfies 3 groups voting for CtA, and satisfies one.

The fact that you have 3 options for “CtA is AOK, but only with…” shouldn’t change the fact that those votes outnumbered the people who just said CtA is totally not allowed.

I would strongly urge you to reconsider banning all CtA allies entirely, and just enforce a theme based, restricted CtA list.

Fxeni
Fxeni
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

While I understand your reasoning, what you get in e-mail and conversation is just anecdotal evidence. Furthermore, the AM and Daemons was merely one example of many.

If you were to redo this poll, and ask: “Would you prefer NO CtA allies, or would you prefer CtA allies that reinforce a theme and are restricted?” – based on your results, you would find the latter to be more popular.

And, while I understand your reasoning for Pluraity Votes, you are weakening the possibility that CtA being allowed would win out when you provide 3 options for them being allowed and 1 option for them NOT being allowed.

Again, if you want to disprove my argument, put out another poll about CtA allies, and provide only two options:

1. Would you prefer NO CtA allies?
or
2. Would you prefer a theme-enforced, restricted CtA list?

That is a simple, unbiased way to solve this argument.

Hotsauceman1
Hotsauceman1
7 years ago
Reply to  Fxeni

Actually, I still think the polling wrong. It shouled be doing ordinal variables, not nominal. Like. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you feel about a cta allies

Hotsauceman1
Hotsauceman1
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

To respond, fair enough reece. You do what you think you can do the best you can.
and I probably can’t do it better.
But right now it’s really just that you are running into a problem a lot of social researchers are, underrepresentation, or fuzzy answers

AbusePuppy
AbusePuppy
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

>As for Astra Militarum and Daemons, you can do that as BB in our format as we allow FW. You can play Renegades.

While I appreciate what you’re saying, Renegades isn’t the same as IG. They don’t have tons of the stuff that IG have (and vice versa.) They are similar mechanically in the same way that SM and CSM are similar- but I hardly doubt you would suggest that someone who wants to play a Bike army “just use CSM, it’s the same thing.”

As for “not changing or blending the votes,” the WAY you phrase your questions will, in many cases, determine what answers people give. When you subdivide certain categories into multiple options but not others, the subdivided answers will almost inevitably each receive fewer individual votes than the united ones.

Mark Aksel
Mark Aksel
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

“Different ways of looking at data result in different perspectives. We can only speculate as to what aspects of CtA bug people, all I know is that that is, by far, the most frequently brought up point of contention in emails and conversations I get, and typically for different reasons.”

Why even make a poll then? You’re basing your decision off the most frequently brought up point in emails? This poll is just as bad as your other one. You give us a poll, but no one knows what the results will change. You have ‘0-1 CAD and Unlimited’ outweighing the ‘no duplicates’ within the formations question. Yet you ban any duplicates from Decurion. One would assume, that if 2 of the 3 summed results in favor the other side, you would go that way. But you didn’t.

Once again, this is just another poll designed to put your ideas into 40k, while having some sort of nonsensical ‘evidence’ to support your claim.

You’ve gone directly against so many of these, and interpreted data in some sort of Reece-Vacuum, that no one had any idea what would have happened to the ITC rulings no matter how they voted.

Will Grant
Will Grant
7 years ago
Reply to  Fxeni

Yah, the votes were selectively split on a number of these in order to a preferred option

Hotsauceman1
Hotsauceman1
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

I mean reece, you have the ability to see the future.

Fxeni
Fxeni
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

I wasn’t implying you did something underhanded (certainly not on purpose), I’m arguing that the way you put out the poll unintentional weakens the likeliness that CtA allies would win out against CtA not being allowed.

Galahad911
Galahad911
7 years ago
Reply to  Fxeni

Can’t reply to Reece.

When you give 3 options for one side, and only 1 for the other, and then require on 1 of the options to win out, then the side with just 1 option had an inherent advantage simply because all of the votes for that side are concentrated on a single option. Case in point: No CtA had only 1 place to put their votes, whereas pro CtA side’s votes are naturally going to be split among the 3 various options. Since the way you are tabulating the results requires that 1 of the 4 options wins, and pro CtA votes are slipt up between 3 options, then unless there is an extremely overwhelming majority for pro CtA, anti CtA is going to win. Yes, you presented all the various options, and that’s cool and all, but the way this question was set-up and requiring 1 of the 4 to win, rather than posing the question as a straight yes/no is, more or less, predetermining the result.

Galahad911
Galahad911
7 years ago
Reply to  Fxeni

Also, would like to point out that I don’t like CtA myself, and am not saying this with motive besides pointing out the issue with the question.

dr.insanotron
dr.insanotron
7 years ago
Reply to  Fxeni

Yes I agree it was poorly done. The way it should have been done is as fallows

CtA: yes or no

Fallow up question

If you answered yes above would you like to see Cta with restrictions or with out.

The fact that they are unwilling to look at the big picture on some of these questions is silly

TinBane
7 years ago
Reply to  Fxeni

Isn’t that based on the assumption that people randomly select an answer though?

If you have five options, four of which agree, and one which disagrees, you don’t expect 20% on all four. If the issue is 50/50 you expect that the one dissenting option will have half the votes.

AbusePuppy
AbusePuppy
7 years ago
Reply to  Fxeni

>Isn’t that based on the assumption that people randomly select an answer though?

No, it’s assuming that people have a variety of different reasons for why they support a position (which is typically true.)

Say you ask the following question:

Q: Do you like Warhammer 40K?
1. No
2. Yes, because I like playing with toys.
3. Yes, because I like building models.
4. Yes, because I like painting.
5. Yes, because I like reading the fiction.

The significance of the “no” answer will be disproportionately represented if you merely take the individual answers for each group and considered them wholly separately. Even if “yes” is vastly in the majority, the division of the “yes” answers into four separate subcategories will, from a superficial perspective at least, diminish its relevance.

That’s what people are objecting to.

Adam (Thediceabide.com)
Reply to  Fxeni

Perfectly put AP.

The problem is that it’s a survey treated like a strict vote. The questions didn’t have answers that were mutually exclusive, not were all the possible answers represented. Survey data isn’t supposed to come down to a strict vote, it’s supposed to help create informed ideas about what a set of people want. The data gathered by the questions does not even come close to representing the interpretation that was presented. Most people want more than 2 detachments, most people want ranged D in some manner, most people want CTA in some manner… That’s the most accurate information you can get based on the results, and even then it’s skewed due to the way the questions were written…

Most of these questions are compound and really need to be re surveyed to get good data.

Q1) do you want CTA allies in the game? Yes/no
Q2) if CTA allies are included, do you want restrictions on them? Yes/no

That is going to create much more accurate results than what we got.

droozy
droozy
7 years ago
Reply to  Will Grant

It’s all those chem trails…

Black Blow Fly
7 years ago
Reply to  Fxeni

AdLance and Levithan ruined it for everyone.

Chris Hadden
Chris Hadden
7 years ago

most of the results came out as I expected after seeing the results after LVO. I was super surprised to see how close the detachments one was. The only one I’m actually sad about is the ranged D… I don’t use anything with it, but I think it does keep a lot of the stronger units in check.

My only problem now…. The tournament software has to be changed lol but I’m sure I’ll just bug you for it again!

Btw the first Horus Heresy book has some really good alternative Tertiary objectives if you are looking for ideas. For instance one is the person with the most units left on the board gets a point.

westrider
7 years ago

For future polls, do you have the option to do some kind of ranked voting or something? “Pick one” voting from a list of more than two options opens up a bunch of odd possibilities as far as interpretation is concerned (as demonstrated here). Something with automatic runoff, ranking in order of preference, or simple Approval Voting would likely get you more representative results.

ChanceT
ChanceT
7 years ago

These came out almost exactly how I expected except for the detachments one. Although to be fair like has been said I feel like that one DID come out how I expected but because of the limitations on the polling format it isn’t giving the true answer.

With all that being said I love this format of democratic decision making Reece and please don’t let any bad words dissuade you guys from what you’ve been doing, top notch product as always! Can’t wait till their are more east coast ITC events.

Alan Bajramovic
Alan Bajramovic
7 years ago

I think if you look at the numbers there is a definite middle ground on Come the Apoc Allies.

Feeling negative about it is obviously going to win the votes there will always be more people against things like this than for something things like this.

Make a poll that says how do you feel about more than 6 wave serpents on a table and you will get the majority feeling negative about it.

But with CTA allies you could argue that if you set some restrictions what is and is not okay and then force the players to thematically make the armies flow or convert the models and have a realistic theme I think the majority of players would be cool with it.

For example, I think Orks with a Looted Knight Titan is a cool theme and should be something allowed.

Also not allowing Nids to ally with anything again hinders nids a lot and that kind of sucks in the grand scheme of things and especially in the competitive side of things.

Krieg XXIX
Krieg XXIX
7 years ago

The problem with CTA allies is they don’t feel right unless you are playing a narrative type game. In a mainline tourney I would expect some consideration to the fluff as this is a hobby and not a pure-competitive game. Some CTA allies make sense (IG/Knights with Chaos) and there are new avenues opening up to allow them (renegades and hertics from FW). We do need Chaos Knights which would be super cool. However, allying with Tyranids does not make sense and I would argue that they don’t need it with the multitude of detachment and formations.

I think a better way to ready the CTA results is to notice that people who don’t want or have restricted CTA allies far outweigh those who want them without restrictions.

Lord Alchemy
7 years ago

OK speaking from a guy who planned on running the new khorne daemonkin book, the poll results just killed my idea of running 3 maulerfiends if I wanted to run a blood host detachment, now I have to run a normal CAD, I can see the nerf to buffed out wraiths but maulerfiends? Oh well…

dr.insanotron
dr.insanotron
7 years ago
Reply to  Lord Alchemy

yeah it really hurts the Khorne book

Adam (Thediceabide.com)
Reply to  Lord Alchemy

The War Engine choice is not a Formation, you won’t find a data slate for it anywhere in the book. It’s just an option along side some other formations. If you notice the rules say “it has a Force Organisation Chart whose slots are a combination of specific Formations and Army List Entries instead of Battlefield Roles.” The War Engines are just an example of a specific army list entry, not a formation.

dr.insanotron
dr.insanotron
7 years ago

That is a good point

Adam (Thediceabide.com)
Reply to  dr.insanotron

Occasionally i get one right!

Vidar
Vidar
7 years ago

I love Infinity.

dr.insanotron
dr.insanotron
7 years ago

The people are clearly telling you they want more then 2 detachments. They just haven’t agreed on how many more. You really need to take that into account or put out a second poll just asking 2 vs 3 etc to get the real answer

Ghost Valley
Ghost Valley
7 years ago

I felt the intention was clear. The selection with the most votes will be the choice. 2 detachments was the selection with the most votes. Unlimited and 3 detachments were separate choices. The most votes in a single category wins.

I voted for 3. 3 lost. I don’t have any issue with this. Just my take.

pascalnz
pascalnz
7 years ago

yup, I voted unlimited[I’m such a crazy bastard:P] but I sure as heck would have taken 3 over 2.

My voice might not mean as much as I wanted the change, but really, more people didn’t want 2, By a huge majority. It’s a fault in the poll. do a graph for overall feelings on the subject and it’ll come out pretty in favour:)

It has to warrant a quick vote just on that topic, It has a huge impact on how people play especially now that there are more and more armies that rely on muliple detachments to function well.

Johnny
Johnny
7 years ago

So just to be clear because I didn’t see it answered yet, can imperium/eldar summon Deamons as they are CTA allies? Yes or no?

PFOL
PFOL
7 years ago
Reply to  Johnny

Yeah really want an answer to this!!!!!

masos
masos
7 years ago
Reply to  PFOL

If you think Eldar can’t summon daemons because of this ruling. I’m scared to see what you think is RAW. Haha.

Of course army’s can summon daemons still. Summoning daemons is not purchasing a CTA ally. Come on guys……

Johnny
Johnny
7 years ago
Reply to  masos

Sry dude my question was to vague for you, I could care less about RAW but I figured since a lot of the stuff eldar use as a crutch to win games are being removed I figured summoning was a valid question, I’m not sure why SOME not all eldar players summon Deamons units other than to cheese out their list, take all the big powerful units from eldar and board control with Deamons especially since they can summon Deamons with only 2 warp charges. I like the idea of where ITC is going, more fluff lists and skill trumping list, yes there r some cheese builds still like super friends and centstar but I’ve seen those lists getting beaten by many other things aside from a Lynx or CTA allies, I see them lose a lot to mission design so defiantly looking forward to what comes from the design changes here, but also playing devils advocate I do feel for the players that built armies using these rules allowed to them but I’m sure there are many other tournys that will accommodate. For ITC the wants of the many outweighed the wants of the few.

jy2
jy2
7 years ago
Reply to  Johnny

I’m pretty sure that they can. The vote for the CtA-ban is regarding the list-building phase. It doesn’t pertain to summoning units in game.

Hulksmash
Hulksmash
7 years ago

Awesome. Banning people’s armies who built them based on the rules in the rulebook because “FLUFF” reasons. Because our hobby isn’t expensive enough as is…..

The only other rule that affected currently allowed army building was a single model (the Lynx). Nothing else got “taken away” other than CtA allies.

Also the “No Duplicate Formations” option was incorrectly worded if that’s the way you’re taking it. I read it as no Duplicate Formations. Formations are Canoptek Harvest, Kharnes Butcherhorde, Unrelenting Hunt. You wrote up your ruling as no Duplicate DETACHMENTS which is a completely different thing.

And most other people have hit on the 3 detachment thing. If you don’t have the time to do a quick poll on

-2 Detachments or Less
-3 Detachments or More

Which we know how the vote would go but you do have time to institute game changing rulings after people have purchased tickets I’m not really sure what to say.

Imperium unite. To hell with Nids and to a lesser extent Necrons 🙂

This probably comes off harsher online than in person. It was good seeing you guys at Adepticon. Love ya!

AbusePuppy
AbusePuppy
7 years ago
Reply to  Hulksmash

Strictly speaking, there are actually a pretty significant number of ranged Str D weapons in the game, even under ITC restrictions: the Lynx, Shadowsword, Kustom Stompa, Thunderhawk, Gauss Pylon, and of course Vortex of Doom. The Lynx is the only one that is really very relevant to a competitive perspective, but the others do exist.

Hulksmash
Hulksmash
7 years ago
Reply to  AbusePuppy

I knew they existed in game. I didn’t think there were that many (outside of the psychic power) in the ITC but I accept the correction 🙂

That said the only one brought was the Lynx 😀

Requizen
Requizen
7 years ago

The only thing I dislike the the Detachments result. This really limits certain armies. If someone wants to run a force of multiple, different detachments, they can’t do that. If someone wants to bring a “main force” CAD, and then a couple one-model Detachments (like an Assassin + Coteaz + small formation from another dex), they can’t do that. It’s too limiting. And, it highly favors the armies that have more powerful core codices, like Eldar and Daemons. Other armies, especially with the way GW is building Formations and Detachments to mix and match now, are going to get messed up by this.

It’s really limiting to unique lists and army ideas. I can see removing CtA to stop certain things (unfluffiness, Knights/Flyrants/Jetbike Farseers in every army), but cutting Detachments I think hurts the meta more than CtA does.

Chuck
Chuck
7 years ago

I feel like many of these poll questions are flawed.
I will use the number of detachments as an example as I think it is easiest to illustrate what I am getting at.
The conservative vote is to maintain the 2 detachment limit as it is which is right where it should be. The vote for change is spread out over 3 sections. I think it is logical to believe had the vote been 2 or 3 detachments that the vat majority of those that voted for 1 detachment would have voted for 2 and those that voted for unlimited would have voted for 3.
In that scenario would have seen change win out, and 3 detachments for this years ITC season.

DCannon4Life
DCannon4Life
7 years ago

Just to clarify: Reecius, you posted in this thread that the ITC allows FW, and referenced Renegades. Does this mean you allow FW Armies? Because the Renegade units are part of an army (Renegades) and cannot be taken piecemeal into CSM, Daemon, or IG lists.

I continue to disagree (apparently, with most players) about the inclusion of Ranged D, particularly in the form of the Lynx. Would be nice to know how many people have actually put in play (practice) time against one. Seems likely that people either a) bump into one for the first time in a tournament, getting an unpleasant, ‘it does WHAT?’ moment that can last a long time or b) hear about someone else’s, ‘it does WHAT?’ moment (still ongoing–maybe call it PTLS [Post-Traumatic Lynxed Syndrome]?) and their bowels get a little loose. /shrug

As for the number of detachments, 3+ really is the sport of the future even though the last 2 major tournaments (LVO and AdeptiCon) were won by single detachment lists. The reason is because 3+ detachments lets people bring more toys (where ‘toys’ = an assassin, Harlequins, an Inquisitor, a single Imperial Knight, etc.). One (and two) detachment lists will continue to win tournaments. Everyone on the middle boards will get to bring more toys.

I am excited to see that the ITC Missions will get another iteration. I look forward to play-testing them.

Cheers!

Bellerah
Bellerah
7 years ago

Does the no Ranged D then Ban the Ctan shards/Tran Ctan as well. would this also ban anyone that rolls Vortex of Doom.

As a necron player, being the only army that is getting core CAD units disallowed from the codex is disturbing.

Requizen
Requizen
7 years ago
Reply to  Bellerah

I would be pretty offput if they banned random Strength D powers. I could see having to reroll them or changing them to S10, but banning models because of chance is probably not going to happen.

Jural
Jural
7 years ago
Reply to  Bellerah

Banning Codex entires in the Elite and Heavy slot seems to be going a step too far. The ITC would be well served to either make a ruling ASAP (yes, no) or modify the weapon.

Obviously the psychic power is not an issue as you can choose the psyker and roll differently, but the ITC should make a clear judgment on how to handle Vortex.

z3n1st
z3n1st
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

That actually seems daft. If the community voted to ban the ranged D then it should all be gone. Regardless if random. If getting it is the result of a random roll why can’t you just roll again in order to maintain the desire of the community and remove ranged D?

Jural
Jural
7 years ago
Reply to  z3n1st

I agree in the case of Vortex of Doom (as the other psychic powers are nice, and there are a ton of tables to roll on anyway if you have access to Sanctific)

But for the Necrons, the D option is offset by having some crappy shooting options on 3/6 dice faces. If you remove the best option, then you need a point reduction…

Personally, I’m OK with these 2 being the one exception to ranged D

Bridges60
Bridges60
7 years ago
Reply to  Jural

I agree with you, they are also pretty squishy for what you get. I am fine playing against them.

KAPcom
KAPcom
7 years ago

Reece, thanks for putting so much work into making the ITC a great format that’s easy to use for everyone. I do think CtA should be redone as a yes/no, then specifications (for all the reasons above), but in the end it’s up to you guys. Whatever you decide to do, I’m just happy someone has stepped up to the plate to make this game a more tournament friendly endeavor.

D-ManA
D-ManA
7 years ago

This makes me glad that my local store does not follow the ITC rulings. Unfortunately it also means that I don’t travel to ITC events. IMO 7th ed is made to be played with more than two detachments.

John Parsons
John Parsons
7 years ago

I am disappointed in the decision to ban cta allies, IMO its been the greatest thing that has happened to the game since they allowed allies. It made the game much more skill based then it has ever been. (I am currently playing single cad eldar, so I can honestly say I didnt vote based on my army, but for the overall health of the game)

How will you be handling daemon summoning eldar?

Raw Dogger
Raw Dogger
7 years ago
Reply to  John Parsons

Anyone with access to Daemonology can summon Daemons, they just perils on any doubles. Not a CtA rule, it’s a Psychic rule. The reason Eldar can do it so well is that they are the only army that has a way of negating a perils roll.

Steve Turner
Steve Turner
7 years ago

Lots of forward progress !!!

Raw Dogger
Raw Dogger
7 years ago
Reply to  Steve Turner

I’m sure we will see you at plenty of ITC events this year, Steve.

Castle
Castle
7 years ago

Got a question about the ranged D ruling. If I am running a c’tan there is a 1/6 chance that it will use the profile with a ranged D weapon. Whats the ruling on this? Are c’tans banned from ITC events or do we ignore the D result? Is there an alternative profile or is it one of the few cases where D strength is allowed?

Jural
Jural
7 years ago
Reply to  Castle

I think this also applies to the Tesseract Vault, and maybe something else in the Necron codex as well?

Seriously, this needs to be addressed ASAP, it would suck to buy those models and find out that they are not fieldable.

Bellerah
Bellerah
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

I only roll 5’s so it really is a 100% chance

Raw Dogger
Raw Dogger
7 years ago
Reply to  Bellerah

You can drill the 2’s into 5’s and a winner is you!

Jural
Jural
7 years ago
Reply to  Bellerah

Why stop there? Any dice face can be turned into a 5 except for the 6 I think!

Having five 5’s and one 6 would also be perfectly legal for rolling Termagaunt saves!

Bellerah
Bellerah
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

So I am reading this as you may/will be allowing the Tesseract Vault?

Jural
Jural
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

Good call!

Dave
Dave
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

Can the Tesseract Vault be used? We have an ITC this weekend and would love to see that on the table.

AbusePuppy
AbusePuppy
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

So why not just remove the Lynx specifically from the allowed superheavies list, if it’s the only problem? Because none of the other units with ranged Str D weapons have… shown up really at all, as far as I know. I’ve never seen a Kustom Stompa or Shadowsword, the Gauss Pylon is an absolute rarity, and most people forget the Thunderhawk even exists. Why not just ban the one problem unit rather than trying to pretend that it’s some sort of evenly-applied and equally-fair thing?

Wintertalon
Wintertalon
7 years ago

Reece. First thanks for even having these polls. It takes a lot of guts to go with a setup and then stick to it.

I do think you should have a new poll in say 4 to 6 months to help streamline the choices made here. As you have said you where running a little out of time in trying to get rulings for the tournament season.

Personally I like most of the ruling. The rest I can live with as it gives us a set rule set to play with. Will it evolve as new codex’s come. Of course it will. You all have been reasonable for what I have seen.

morella
morella
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

In order for a poll to have any meaning it needs to be designed well. This one was not. Which is further compounded by a poor choice for analyzing poll data by using plurality.

I have read your rebuttals throughout this thread, but please stop using the line “in order for this data/poll to have meaning…” because it is not good data in the first place due to the poll questions and answer choices not meeting any reasonable standard for effective surveying. The results are meaningless no matter what.

I understand you have deadlines and such, so why waste time defending bad data collection?

Jural
Jural
7 years ago

I always forget how much Reece gets hammered over these polls…

Castle
Castle
7 years ago
Reply to  Jural

True but it’s nothing personal it’s just this sets the stage for the next year of games. Even if you don’t participate in the ITC many local gaming stores follow the ITC rules so it affects alot of people. This is really the only time people have to affect change for the next year of their gaming and it affects the armies they’ve bought and the models they will buy for the next year. So lots of complaining and nitpicking about the poll will be had.

Jural
Jural
7 years ago
Reply to  Castle

Many of these responses are indeed quite personal.

Disagreement is one thing, but personal attacks are another.

Jim
Jim
7 years ago
Reply to  Jural

Why shouldn’t it be personal? You have one or two people setting the poll and doing questionable interpretation of the results and then those rules become de facto local tournament rules for stores that don’t pay attention.

That sai, I haven’t seen any personal attacks other than “I think you are reading the results wrong” which is absolutely a legit criticism.

Dave
Dave
7 years ago
Reply to  Jural

No kidding.

droozy
droozy
7 years ago

Alternative tertiary missions would include big game Hunter, I assume. How is that handled with summoned units? For example, your khorne Lord(130 points) dies and becomes a blood thirster(260 points?). You never paid the points fit the blood thirster, does he still count toward big game Hunter?

droozy
droozy
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

I imagine when you guys make these decisions you are all in a dark, foggy room around a circular table. Some of you are there while others are represented by holograms.

AbusePuppy
AbusePuppy
7 years ago
Reply to  droozy

SOUND ONLY
SEELE 01

Dave
Dave
7 years ago

Should make Blood Angels and Necrons desperate allies in the FAQ. Would be in line with a few rule supplements. Just a thought for fun I guess.

Wintertalon
Wintertalon
7 years ago

When will the new missions be up for we can play test them?

Wintertalon
Wintertalon
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

Sweet will keep a look out for them.

Thanks guys keep up the good work.

tag
tag
7 years ago

I really appreciate this poll. I was in the minority on several questions, but I feel listened to and respected, and the thing I like most about polls is when the results don’t match my expectations.

The only result that I found truly surprising was CAD + CAD-like detachment. Being that the top 2 lists at LVO used this list building technique, and a majority of pure Tyranid lists (that I managed to photograph) included 4+ flyrants.

I wonder if there is someone who voted in favor of CAD + CAD-like detachments who might make a case for the benefit of allowing them in a “Championship” type event, or perhaps they instead feel like it is not a problem that needs a solution.

Jural
Jural
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

It actually went just the way I wanted it too, aside from removing that bastion of fluff- Knids and Knights… lol!

Jim
Jim
7 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

Out of curiosity, which ones? Giving you own would help contrast with what we ended up with.

TinBane
7 years ago
Reply to  Jim

Listen to the latest podcast. From memory Reece voted for 3 detachments, CtA based on fluff, and was happy for ranged D to be in?

Loopy
Loopy
7 years ago
Reply to  tag

Some armies need the extra slots to be competitive while maintaining a good mixture of list types at an event rather than a cookie cutter from player to player of “must have” units. Multiple CAD-like detachments are more fun to play. The people who will abuse the double CAD will kick my ass no matter how few or how many CADs are allowed. It also removes the need to specify allowing self Allying using the Allied detachment because if you aren’t allowing double CAD, then seallying is a must if you want to see some armies or list diversity in other armies.

Wintertalon
Wintertalon
7 years ago

While I don’t agree with everything. I will say at lest they asked. They could have made some odd ruling like with the Tyrannocyte gun ruling. As for saying people wanted more detachment. If you added them together maybe. They had 4 options only one can win. it doesn’t matter if two are similar to each other. Could the voting format been done better yes. I have never seen a case where it couldn’t have been better.

The big thing here is that there was voting allowed. They use a simple way of interpreting it and apply it over all the question.

There are some very smart people that play this game that can and have offered to help them do a better job next time. I hope they take that offer of help..

For now we have a rule set to use. Lets be glad for that and look forward to the year ahead.

Johnny
Johnny
7 years ago

So I’m assuming that’s a yes on imperium/eldar still able to summon Deamons?

Jural
Jural
7 years ago
Reply to  Johnny

Yes- (that is clarified somewhere above by Reece and others.)

Raw Dogger
Raw Dogger
7 years ago
Reply to  Johnny

Anyone with access to Daemonology can summon Daemons. It’s not a CtA thing it’s a Psychic thing.

Loopy
Loopy
7 years ago

QQ

Agent_42
Agent_42
7 years ago

My gaming group has been using the ITC rules since we got back into the hobby in early 6th Ed. Your FAQs and mission packs have proved to be invaluable! Obviously you cannot make everyone happy, especially when so much is at stake (in regards to GTs/Champs/etc) but I find it admirable that you guys have the guts to make those tough decisions.

The motives behind many of the rulings seem to be fun, clarity and balance. Keep up the good work.

Loopy
7 years ago
Reply to  Agent_42

Agreed. I’m glad not every ruling is RAW… that’s what always bugge the crap out of me about other community FAQs. We don’t have to agree with every ruling… parity is invaluable.

Jural
Jural
7 years ago

Have the ITC rules been updated only partially? Because it looks like I can now take two CAD’s as my two detachments, as long as they aren’t CtA nor the same army book (depending upon what “same” means)… And I’m not clear as to whether I can take one of the special (Leviathan) CAD’s to couple with the standard CAD (Codex:Tyranid) ; or whether I can take a CAD of CSM and one of Crimson Slaughter…

I see the LoW list is missing, so maybe it’s a work in progress- but if not you may want to look at what’s there again to clarify.

Of course it could just be me…

Jural
Jural
7 years ago
Reply to  Jural

The word that needs clarifying is “duplicate.” One could imagine that a SM CAD is not a duplicate of a Dark Angels CAD, or that the special Leviathan CAD isn’t the same as the normal CAD as taken by Leviathan.

Jural
Jural
7 years ago
Reply to  Jural

or maybe I’m the only one who is confused by this?

Wischfulthinkung
Wischfulthinkung
7 years ago

Bitch bitch bitch. Just deal with it & don’t play in the events if it pisses you off that much.

Raw Dogger
Raw Dogger
7 years ago

Haters gonna hate hate hate hate. If the votes had gone the other way we would see just as many personal attacks from people who would never say these types of things in person. As a true American I didn’t even vote for the poll. Sorry to say these are the things we have to do if we want 40k to have even a modicum of balance in a competitive environment. 40k CANNOT BE PLAYED competitively the way that GW has written the rules. If you believe it can you are either a) delusional and no amount of explanation will change your mind or b) a player that wants to abuse the poorly written rules for advantage. Just remember that for every vocal rage quit tournament player who is upset they can’t add a third faction to their list to make it even more powerful there are vastly more players who are happy that SOMEONE is making the effort to balance the game so that it is enjoyable for casual gamers as well.

TinBane
7 years ago
Reply to  Raw Dogger

I was going to say “hear-hear”. But then I realised it was Raw Dogger, so I thought I’d take this opportunity to bitch about how I hate the style of your posts instead 😛

Raw Dogger
Raw Dogger
7 years ago
Reply to  TinBane

It means a lot to me since I’m such an awful player.

Bridges60
Bridges60
7 years ago
Reply to  TinBane

When I grow up i want to be juuuuuuust like him! <3

Black Blow Fly
7 years ago

I feel this shows both Reecius and the majority want to have an enjoyable time playing at ITC events. Ranged D is no fun if you’re on the receiving end – good bye and good riddance Lynx on the Skyshield ! While CtA could be cool unfortunately AdLance and Levithan ruined it for everyone. There are other super heavies accessible to CSM just as good or even better than Knights such as the Greater Brass Scorpion and Typhon… Typhon is really well costed for what you get.

I would have liked to see up to three detachments – Orks got screwed but with the new trend for Necrons and Daemonkin TOs can no longer prevent it any longer for new armies. Imperial codices should do just fine with two detachments.