2015 ITC Mid Season Update Poll

VoteVintageLabor

We weren’t planning on making adjustments to the ITC format this quickly, but, Eldar forced the play. However, it is a good thing because it allows us to come back to some issues that were handled less than perfectly in the last poll. A big thanks to everyone that contributed their opinions, insights, and assistance in making this poll a very (hopefully) clear cut way to determine how the ITC wants to play 40k together!

So without further ado, here we go! You all know how this works by now. We present questions and answers based off of community interaction, feedback, discussions with other TOs, and our own personal perspectives. The answer with the most votes, becomes policy. Simple! Vive le democracy!

Vote here!

Tags:

About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

186 Responses to “2015 ITC Mid Season Update Poll”

  1. Adam
    Adam (Thediceabide.com) May 5, 2015 1:38 pm #

    A bit of inspiration for you guys before you vote.

    http://createyourownmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/1396021868535.jpg

    😀

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 5, 2015 1:39 pm #

      Don’t skew the results, dick, lol!

      • Adam
        Adam (Thediceabide.com) May 5, 2015 1:58 pm #

        Hahaha, I just found that and couldn’t resist. 🙂

      • Clayton May 5, 2015 4:25 pm #

        GZ to your team for creating a more scientific poll. The last couple were not what one would call unbiased polling. Its odd how one can not intend to skew results but by the questioning methodology still create a predetermined outcome.

  2. artfcllyflvrd May 5, 2015 1:42 pm #

    This survey is vastly superior to the previous one. Though I still think letting the player base directly vote on policy is fraught with problems :0P

    • Geg May 5, 2015 1:48 pm #

      Much like politics 😀

    • Jural May 6, 2015 2:32 pm #

      Agreed- great poll this time. Thanks for listening!

  3. Ryan May 5, 2015 1:47 pm #

    This poll is written much better than the last — That being said I think it still has some massive issues. How can the player base not have a scewed and/or biased perception of the Eldar codex when you, Reece, have been proclaiming their OPness from the mountain tops? Honestly, a $250 challenge? How, in any way, does that not scew the overall perception of the power level of this new book. If I hadn’t played against it, and only saw what you had to say about it, I would vote to cut the book apart from fear of it alone.

    I feel like I already know where these votes are going to go, and it bums me out.

    • Hotsauceman1 May 5, 2015 2:18 pm #

      Math mostly.

    • Bullwar May 5, 2015 2:24 pm #

      When the polling station and the propaganda machine are one in the same, I’m not confident that these votes can be anything other than an attempt to feign democracy.

    • droozy May 5, 2015 4:18 pm #

      Do you disagree with the perception of the new codex? I have yet to hear anyone defend the new codex, would be interested in what you have to say

      • defl0 May 6, 2015 10:35 am #

        I’ll defend it. I think it’s great that you can field almost any unit in the book, as opposed to the 3 or 4 units you used to be able to run. It also has some inherent weaknesses that a lot of people have over looked, like low leadership.

        I also think it stomps on death stars, which is actually a nice change to the meta.

        Most of the hate has been towards the wind riders, wraith knights and Str D.

        – wind riders. I’ve been playing Saim Hann bike heavy armies for years. The bikes are glass cannons. They have huge out put, but you have to jink to stay alive usually. So your fire power is heavily mitigated by that. (And no cover doesn’t cut it). Personally, I think it evens out. They are actually priced very similarly to venoms and have similar output. In addition, it’s really expensive to upgrade their leadership. So they are either throw away units or expensive death stars.

        – Wraith knights are considered cheap for what they do. I can agree with that, although the new knights seems to be more inline with the wraith knight. Truly the issue is stomp IMO. All that said, these guys aren’t really that hard to kills. A lot of units easily chew through them via shooting.

        – Str d. Let me start by saying, i don’t like removes from play rules and I don’t like variable damage. I like rolling dice, but fundamentally we already have a lot of units in the game they just remove units no matter what they look at. They just do it in the traditional grind through your units with wounds kind of way. Centurions do it. Tau do it. Thunder wolf cav do it. Etc. And that’s not including things like space wolf fliers with quasi Str D. So Str. D is just a mechanically faster way to do it.

        That said, l do think that Eldar get especially good with allies. harlies and Dark eldar have some nasty tricks.

        web way portal with D scythes is amazing! But then again, shouldn’t it be? It’s an incredibly expensive units of 3+ save T6 guys after all… And it’s not like it’s less powerful than cotaez…

        Finally, the current meta of 40K is based on huge point denial power units. I’m looking at you cent stars and daemons. I hope the eldar codex resets that a little bit. It would be nice to see chaff lists and MSU become more playable again.

        • abusepuppy May 6, 2015 12:04 pm #

          >And no cover doesn’t cut it

          Why not? Is there some reason that you can’t move behind cover with your JSJ move? It’s not like bikes are so enormous they never get cover.

          >although the new knights seems to be more inline with the wraith knight.

          The Knight Gallant is the closest equivalent, and it’s 25pts more, not as tough (six wounds is better than six HP, as there are no common Melta or Haywire equivalents for GCs), and will typically have a worse save (as the WK can get 4+ cover from all directions and has a 5++ against anything, even melee, whereas the Gallant has a 4++ against one direction and no save at all in melee) as well as being slower (as it has to roll for terrain while the WK does not.)

          >They just do it in the traditional grind through your units with wounds kind of way

          Yes, but all of those units have targets that they are bad/mediocre against, while Str D does not. That’s the fundamental difference- Str D flamers (to name the most egregious example) are excellent against _everything_, whereas even the mighty Missileside struggles to hurt T6/2+, T8/3+, AV13/14, etc.

          >Finally, the current meta of 40K is based on huge point denial power units.

          Except that it isn’t, because the lists that are winning tournaments most places aren’t those things. Deathstars exist, certainly, and are a relevant part of the meta, but they mostly aren’t winning tournaments and certainly not as often as other armies are.

          • thed nome May 8, 2015 8:54 pm
            #

            HP are better than wounds… when 30 str 3 models with poison hits (costing 150pts) you with 60 attacks 20 and wounds you 3 times (on6+) you sure wish you were AV 13 …

    • TinBane May 5, 2015 4:31 pm #

      Hey Ryan,

      Your argument assumes that Reece being neutral would be best. I don’t think that’s correct, if Reece thinks he knows what will be most fun, and by a considerable margin, he should advocate for that position. It is after all, his business on the line.

      He’s advocated other positions in the past, and lost on then. How Reece chooses to vote, or voice his opinion doesn’t in any way guarantee a win.

      However, most players have played games against the Eldar, run the math, or watched the $250 games. Reece was (no offence Reece) a terrible Eldar player. He forgot rules, he made huge mistakes every game, and he wasn’t playing slouches. He probably should have lost most of those games, if the codex was balanced.

      Mathematically, the Eldar have cheap, plentiful options that absolutely mulch light infantry (s6 spam), can negate super-high resilience units (d weapons), and deathstars. Pretty much the triple threat of 40k, and at bargain basement prices.

      Most people in 40k have an opinion, on the new eldar codex, whatever Reece says. Do you think this will be close, if Reece says he thinks they are fine? We both know it wouldn’t be. The community is largely agreed that this new codex is too efficient. So, regardless of what Reece says, the poll is likely to reflect the opinion of the community.

  4. Sunhero May 5, 2015 2:08 pm #

    was disappointed to see a unit specific nerf vote I feel if you ask the player base they always going to vote to nerf powerful non imperial units.
    point for point eldar jetbikes are no beater than necron tomb blades or flyrants while your at it wyervens, grav-centurions the grimoire of true names, thunder-fire cannon..

    the game wide special rule changes are much better way of doing things.
    was glad to see the stomp “look out sir” included.

    • Wintertalon May 5, 2015 2:53 pm #

      Stomp is a specific unit nerf as well. It only effects IK and Tyranid and Eldar GC now. I personally feel it should get the same ruling as they D weapons are getting. getting a 6 on my barbed hierodule always make me feel bad. Then, losing a 6 wound MC to a IK stomps does it too. for me Stomp is a kind of d weapon. I wished they let us change it to how D weapons work.

      • Kingpin May 5, 2015 5:44 pm #

        I really like the idea of changing the 6 on the stomp table to just being a str D stomp. That stomp 6 is crazy

      • Hotsauceman1 May 5, 2015 5:51 pm #

        Except you cant stomp other superheavies

  5. SMG Hinkel May 5, 2015 2:18 pm #

    Thanks for putting this out guys, it really helps us TO’s at running good and balanced events. Thanks for taking the bull by the horns on this.

  6. Hotsauceman1 May 5, 2015 2:20 pm #

    “Do you want to see Come the Apocalypse (CtA) allies in the ITC?
    Come the Apocalypse allies allow for players to filed combinations such as Eldar+Tyranids, or Daemons+Grey Knights.”
    You spelt something wrong, Therefore this entire poll is invalid and must be thrown out. You reece are trying to scam people in playing Frontlinehammer instead of normal warhammer, how it is meant to play

    • Wintertalon May 5, 2015 2:59 pm #

      I feel this one should have shown the good combos that come from CtA and not just the bad. Their are some really good fluffy combos that make since. Tyranids with stearler cults. come to mind. Stealer and infect any race and a fully converted army looks real cool.

      By just pointing out deamons and GK or Eldar and deamons. Is not far representation of CtA.

  7. Toranaga May 5, 2015 2:21 pm #

    So, barely a week after the Eldar codex is released, and after only a handful of test games with only one person trying Eldar you propose to dramatically alter some core game rules (D weapons) and single out a specific unit in a specific codex as being OP and in need of a nerf (scatterbikes) – which to my knowledge has had no precedent in your tournament scene whatsoever.

    How premature. Initially I respected your patience and objectivity in your willingness to test things out and see how they worked, but it was quickly evident from watching your live streams that you were simply reinforcing a pre-conceived prejudice against Eldar and echoing the hysteria and mania spread like a plague around the ‘net by the usual outspoken rabble. If this was a science experiment, you guys would be laughed out of the laboratory, your reputations besmirched and professional licences put into question. You simply need to take more time and do more work to get a lot more results – such as data from several major tournaments. I appreciate you making the effort, and that you have to come to a conclusion quickly, but these questions have the potential to seriously divide the community and it would be a shame to not let it play out in a natural way at first.

    I agree with Adam. He seems to be a voice of reason when it comes to these controversial topics. Let Codex Craftworlds go unchanged for now. Allow D weapons in all their forms as written. After six months and all the power creep that comes with it, if you still believe things are so terrible as you think they are now, then you would be justified in proposing these drastic rules changes to the tournament scene.

    • Nova star May 5, 2015 2:26 pm #

      Ranged D has been a hot topic well before codex craftworld eldar

    • Adam
      Adam (Thediceabide.com) May 5, 2015 2:44 pm #

      Haha, rarely am I called, “the voice of reason” but I appreciate it when it happens. 🙂

      I think that no matter how this is voted for now, it’s going to end up that Destroyer weapons are going to be in the game, and hopefully not nerfed forever. Sometimes things just get eased in, like FW units.

      I do however get anxious about nerfing units before they even have a chance to make the change in the meta. I’d prefer that the meta changes to adapt to deal with jetbikes with scatter lasers (weird concepts like shooting at them to make them jink), or to deal with Destroyer weapons (try not putting 1000 points in a Stompa). Then if after a good amount of time where people attempt different strategies to adapt to the situation, if the Eldar book is still so egregiously powerful, then it should be addressed. So far cries of being OP have happened with one codex release after another, and it has never been the case, except maybe for the 7th ed fantasy daemons book, which GW even admitted was totally bonkers and fixed with an entirely new edition of the game.

      • Sunhero May 5, 2015 4:01 pm #

        well said.

        • Adam
          Adam (Thediceabide.com) May 6, 2015 7:51 am #

          It also is the difference between looking like one of the many internet trolls whining about the next new codex, and looking like someone who has put rational thought into a decision based on a solid set of data and community response. 😉

          If jetbikes were left alone, they’d be out there, people would complain, then people would adapt. It has happened with nearly every codex release.

    • Mike May 5, 2015 4:10 pm #

      The “Wait 6 months and watch the entire tournament scene fall apart that they’ve worked hard to build up” idea is a complete non-starter.

      I’m glad the FLG guys aren’t as short-sighted as you seem to be. Things that threaten to cut tournament attendance nationwide by huge swaths need to be handled IMMEDIATELY. This isn’t magic the gathering. We don’t have a crazy healthy tourney scene with hundreds of willing tourney players per state, with probably 100 times as many casual players per state. 40k’s tourney scene is too small as is, and needs to be growing.

      There are several people in my group that have refused to take part in any event that doesn’t nerf eldar in some way. I’m trying to get a decent ITC rank this season, and I got a pretty great start, but I would be tempted to drop out if unmodded eldar made it in. Spending all that money on tickets and travel just to be a speed bump for an OP codex would just be stupid.

      • Adam
        Adam (Thediceabide.com) May 5, 2015 4:28 pm #

        Assuming it’ll fall apart is where the problem is. There have been “OP” books as long as there has been 40k. People complain about it, then people learn to beat it, then the meta shifts and the world keeps turning. People threaten to quit every time, people threaten to not play in events every time, events still sold out.

        • Mike May 5, 2015 6:00 pm #

          Assuming it won’t is where the problem is. Even bad magic sets have brought down tourney attendance. Urza’s block was considered a bad block for that reason, and mirrodin block especially, because it brought forth the absolutely dominating affinity deck, and the DCI had to ban SEVERAL key affinity cards just to make the tourney scene not be “50 guys show up with affinity, the other normal players thought that was stupid and just stayed home.”

          The problem is that this is not a meta shift, it’s a meta breakdown. I’ve played for over a decade, and, while I’ve seen some more powerful and less powerful books show up, I’ve never seen anything on the scale of this eldar book, where a competent general running a competent list is virtually unbeatable unless the dice gods hit him with their most unholy of plagues.

          Several people around here have decided to stop attending any events until an edition change or an eldar nerf, thus hamstringing our local attendance. I can’t say I disagree. I’m halfway tempted to drop out of the ITC this season if some concessions aren’t made. Thankfully, the FLG crew is experienced with tourney play and can see the rather obvious problems, so I’ll probably be continuing in the events.

          The only eldar losses I’ve seen since the codex have either been soft lists trying to tone down their craziness for a decent game and took it down a little far, or made phenomenal levels of mistakes that could easily be considered throwing the game by a serious player. And even then, most of those still end up as eldar wins anyway.

          • Adam
            Adam (Thediceabide.com) May 6, 2015 7:47 am
            #

            Honestly nerfing eldar is more likely to make me stop coming to tournaments than leaving them totally unchanged (I’m all for meta disruption, it makes the game more interesting than playing the same list for years on end). Once we start targeting specific books we are headed down an ugly path, the same route that lead to ETC adoption in fantasy which totally killed it where I live.

      • thed nome May 5, 2015 6:24 pm #

        Or you could simply learn how to beat it… 5 wraithguard with 12 d weapons melt under a squad of 1000 sons for instance… a wraithknight dies just as fast to str 7/2 plasma and to gravguns as it did last edition and shooting 30 orks with two jeavy wraithcannons still kills only 2 orks… of course if they allow me to use TEMPLATES for stomp maybe I will play more ITC events…

        • TinBane May 5, 2015 6:27 pm #

          You are serious? thousand sons, are an example of a competitive counter to Eldar?

          The wraithguard can zero scatter alpha-strike. Thousand sons have poor manoeuvrability options, relatively short range, and are hugely expensive. They are nearly as much as the scatbikes.

        • TinBane May 5, 2015 6:29 pm #

          By the way, even rapid firing, 1000 sons do less damage against marines per point, than scatterbikes. And that assumes they are compared, within 12″.

        • abusepuppy May 5, 2015 6:33 pm #

          > 5 wraithguard with 12 d weapons melt under a squad of 1000 sons for instance

          Lessee here:

          5 Wraithguard, getting 3 hits each with their flamers (a very low estimate, but fair) is 15 hits, 10 wounds, ~7 failed invulns (assuming the ‘6’ result still ignores saves.)

          If you took a squad of ten 1KSons, that leaves you with three models, which Rapid Fire back with six shots, four hits, and .66 wounds.

          In other words, your strong counterunit probably loses the entire squad without killing a single one of the Wraithguard while still costing a similar amount.

          • TinBane May 5, 2015 6:36 pm
            #

            Chaos can’t even get interceptor, aside from fortifications.

          • thed nome May 5, 2015 8:52 pm
            #

            Why would the 1000 son player let some flamer templates get anywhere near him… maulerfiends and helldrakes shoud take out thier transports… and btw the helldrake will also melt wraithguard … and CSM isnt even “top tier” in your tiny competative world… open up and let anything play you will find eldar are easy to beat. If you try… put half as much imagination into being creative and not focusing on your own perception of units….

          • punchymango May 6, 2015 12:04 am
            #

            You’re right, the wraithguard will never get anywhere near the 1k sons, because the 1k sons will be sitting on my shelf at home. Unless I steal my opponent’s wraithguard models. Then they might end up near one another.

            Seriously, 1k sons? 1/10, would not read again.

            Might see some more people allying in CSM for a helldrake; we baleflamer your scatterbikes to seal in that imcomparable taste of Eldar fanboyism.

          • IndigoJack May 6, 2015 12:04 am
            #

            Don’t worry, the eldar player can bring the d-scythes right to you, courtesy of a webway portal.

          • TinBane May 6, 2015 3:09 am
            #

            You need to read the codex, thed. There’s no need to transport them.
            They can zero scatter deep strike whatever they like. I play CSM, the lack of interceptor means you are stuffed. At least Mortis dreads, and tau can interceptor fire.

          • fluger May 6, 2015 11:18 am
            #

            “Seriously, 1k sons? 1/10, would not read again.”

            So much LOL.

    • TinBane May 5, 2015 4:47 pm #

      When you have a running system, and there’s a big change, a scientist won’t tell you to make NO changes until they complete a two year study and find the best result.

      ITC will change their format in line with the vote, which is good, because currently ranged-D is banned under the ITC format.

      There will be many alternative tournaments that allow full eldar, just as there are many tournaments with more than two detachments. The ITC and those other formats, will in time likely borrow learnings from each other.

      It’s easy to say they are acting too fast, but as it currently stands, Eldar have a bunch of units they can’t use. So the ITC is forced into making a snap decision to start with. Don’t make the mistake of thinking it will be permanent. If more codexes come out with this level of power, then we will see over time, all tournaments adopt similar restrictions or lack thereof.

      • thed nome May 5, 2015 6:24 pm #

        Heres a radical “snap” decision… play 40k not 40k lite…

        • TinBane May 5, 2015 6:27 pm #

          Unbound FTW!

        • sindrix May 6, 2015 6:35 am #

          So what you saying is play ITC or play everything else. I would be Embarrassed to win an ITC event that starts making these changes, yeah that right everyone I’m the best of what people aren’t afraid of

          • TinBane May 6, 2015 12:01 pm
            #

            I’m saying, there are no popular events that use book rules. So calling something 40k lite, is disingenuous. Competitive 40k has been 40k lite since 3rd ed, when we restricted Forgeworld and changed book missions.

      • Variance Hammer May 6, 2015 12:25 pm #

        “a scientist won’t tell you to make NO changes until they complete a two year study and find the best result.”

        So this is what I do for a living, and yes, I would tell you not to make any major change until there’s at least enough data to make that change based on something other than off the cuff speculation and an N of zero post-Eldar Codex tournaments.

        • TinBane May 6, 2015 2:41 pm #

          I’m a scientist that works for a company.

          The level of burden of proof you are requiring for action, is too high. Has to be a tournament? There’s plenty of pretty serious games played with the new codex, plus you are completely discounting any analysis.

          By your logic, theoretical physics doesn’t exist, and climate change is best dealt with by waiting and seeing how bad it really is, then acting.

          You are saying it’s completely equivocal that the new codex will be negative to the meta???

          • Variance Hammer May 6, 2015 4:27 pm
            #

            No – ironically, I work in a part of science that deals with how to make decisions on the clock, and without much data, for questions somewhat more important than 40K tournaments.

            But even there, you do need *some* data, and while people are playing the game, I don’t think that it’s necessarily clear what should be done. And that’s the problem – I don’t think we know the magnitude of response, if any, that is needed.

          • TinBane May 6, 2015 5:10 pm
            #

            I can’t comment on you profession, but that seems like quite a convenient claim to make 😉 How much information do you think we need? By what basis do you think we require tournament results, and how do you weigh that up against the risk of people having fully painted, unmagnetised Saim Hann forces in the next 8 weeks?

            We don’t have a lack of data though, do we?
            The rules are accessible, and lots of people have been smashing out games.
            Reece and FLG have played more games than just the $250 ones on display.

            I really don’t feel like this codex is a matter of “suck it up”. Unless you have a butt-load of interceptor, you are at an immediate and large scale disadvantage.

            The ITC rules, as it stands now, don’t allow ranged D, so if players want to field newdar at nearby ITC events, there needs to be a ruling to allow that. Is your main complaint the change to scat bikes?

            Honestly, in terms of firepower, they beat out most elite units. They are in most cases ahead of specialists units, in damage per point, and that assumes those elite units can get into their often, more restrictive relative placement with the opponent. The scat bikes can do it all from 36″, on one of the most mobile platforms in the game. On top of this they have obsec, fill the compulsory role, and are awesome with proper use of cover.

            In my testing, they are absolutely devastating. Even if you do invest in units that can destroy them, given the combined capability for zero-deviation D-powered deep strike, it’s a nightmare to every carry it off in an actual battle.

            That’s my experience.

            From your posting, it seems like you are an eldar player. What have you struggled with, with Newdar?

          • Variance Hammer May 6, 2015 5:36 pm
            #

            Replying to your last here, because it looks like we’ve nested down as far as we can get.

            I’m a computational epidemiologist – the last six months or so of my life have been consumed with Ebola response stuff. It notes that on my blog. If it’s a convenient claim, it’s also a very long con for a cheap win in the discussion section of FLG 😉

            To address some of your questions:

            1. I think we do lack data – I’ve talked to some tournament players, and they seem less worried about it. In the category of “Yeah, those are tough”, but that’s not worth an ITC ruling all on its own. People have been coming up with solutions, but the meta is both constantly changing (a revision to the Knight codex, which is the epitome of the High Value Single Model armies the Eldar are meant to fight following right on its heels…) and I think it takes more time than we give people credit for a codex to really sink in.

            I was listening to an old podcast, once with Reece on it, talking about the 6th Ed codex. They called it a “Sidegrade”.

            2. I dislike the Ranged D change because I dislike tinkering with the rules, and in fairness, I disliked the original Ranged D ban. I think it does need a ruling, and that ruling should be “Man, GW clearly wants Ranged D in the game”. On the same note, I think events requiring CADs in this era are also silly.

            3. The Scatter Bike change annoys me more, because at least the Ranged D change I can see people worried that they too will get Ranged D weapons in their codexes. The Scatter Bike ruling targets a particular unit, and changes something pretty clearly written about it.

            I am an Eldar player. And a Space Wolf player. And on occasion a Sisters of Battle player, when I feel like grinding my teeth in frustration at having $90 troops choices. And to be perfectly honest, Newdar hit my army decently hard – I used very small, largely disposable units of bikes, which if you do go with heavy weapons on them become pretty damned fragile for their points – and Wave Serpents carrying Guardians. An a Mantle-Autarch.

            There were some pretty big changes – the amount of S6/S7 shooting the army puts out via Serpents was (justifiably) knocked down a fair amount through the changes to the shield and laser lock but it needs to get made up somewhere. Either the things coming out of the Wave Serpent need to be scary, or there needs to be another gun platform. And yes, I think they probably overshot in providing those – but I’m both ideologically and practically opposed to targeted changes coming as a pick-n-mix.

          • TinBane May 6, 2015 6:14 pm
            #

            That’s fair enough.

            But I have a different perspective.
            From the position of where are we now, the eldar have a heap of units they can’t use. I think the “no D” ranged weapon ban is actually fair enough. Not sure how much you’ve played against ranged D, but D is a BIG step up from str 10 on a weapon, and it seems like any time GW thinks “Str 10 just isn’t enough”, they bump it up to D.

            If the ranged D ban stayed in place, and the wraith units went back to their old stats, I think a lot of people wouldn’t mind about the scatbikes. But the benefit of zero-scatter deep striking D templates, at no cost over their old stats, is a MASSIVE buff. By itself, it takes a scary short range infantry clearer, it gives it the method to alpha strike with impunity (interceptor lists aside), and then it buffs it by basically making it better at it’s core job (4+ to 3+ to clear MEQ), but then also making it scale with the enemy. What I mean is, before, the toughness impacted the damage, now it’s completely unlinked, and this thing causes multiple hullpoints/wounds on top of that too.

            The synergy is huge.
            Scatbikes favour mitigation through investment.
            Prevalence of D favours mitigation through under-investment.

            Now maybe everyone will be doing this in 6 months, in which case I’m pretty sure FLG will unwind their changes. D will be commonplace, and everyone will be running attack-bike analogues as troops (except for chaos, they’ll get a new type of forgefiend or something…). But as it stands now, this codex is head and shoulders above the rest, in terms of power level. Yes, necrons aren’t slouches, but I’m pretty sure we are overestimating their abilities in many cases.

            There’s also precedent, that this “nerf” will be temporary, in that it will give everyone a chance to get familiar, and give GW a chance to release codexes at the same or similar power level.

            Now I think it’s a pretty prudent idea, to be having this discussion. Who knows, the eldar might well romp it in, and remain unchanged.

            Bear in mind, they normally don’t revise this stuff just because a new dex is released, but as it stands, it would make some wraithknight builds, and a bunch of other wraith units illegal under ITC.

            If the “fear mongers” are right, Eldar will be filling the top table, even with these changes. If they are wrong, we’ll see a general move towards the codex, I’d be pretty sure. I know these kind of changes aren’t something that Reece turns to as an initial response, and that he’s normally the one calling for calm when a new book comes out.

  8. PFOL May 5, 2015 2:55 pm #

    Wow if I would have known you guys weren’t gonna go by the codex on wind riders I wouldn’t have bought them.

    Can I return the stuff you nerf? Since I bought them from your company to use in you ITC events.

    • cuddles May 5, 2015 3:14 pm #

      LOL. Crocodile tears, are they salty?

    • CharlieThrotle May 5, 2015 3:18 pm #

      This guy is kidding himself. He wasn’t going to use any of the other Eldar troop options anyways.

    • Mike May 5, 2015 4:12 pm #

      By not nerfing them, you nerf entire books from standing any chance at all. Are you willing to buy them all some eldar models to compete?

      • droozy May 5, 2015 4:22 pm #

        +1

    • PFOL May 5, 2015 7:44 pm #

      Actually no all I bought was 10 boxes of wind rider and 3 wraith knights. So yeah they kinda nerfed my list before I have even received my models.

    • IndigoJack May 6, 2015 12:07 am #

      I’m just going to point out the obvious, but magnets are a thing. The weapons on the new windrider kit aren’t even that hard to magnetize.

    • Wren May 6, 2015 9:43 am #

      Do you hear that sound? Thats the sound of the OP Armyjumping Bandwagon crashing. Its glorious.

      • Variance Hammer May 6, 2015 12:27 pm #

        I think it’s legit to be a little annoyed at the people who were totally happy to sell you a bunch of new jetbikes, and a few weeks later now want to tinker with whether or not you can actually bring them.

        • TinBane May 6, 2015 12:34 pm #

          They aren’t banning them. If you don’t magnetise, especially given the nerf discussion going on, then you take that risk. In 6 months, or whenever Eldar players feel it would be finally fair to review the codex you’ll be changing completely painted and used lists…

          • Variance Hammer May 6, 2015 12:59 pm
            #

            “In 6 months, or whenever Eldar players feel it would be finally fair to review the codex you’ll be changing completely painted and used lists…”

            I didn’t say there weren’t circumstances where I would be more annoyed.

          • TinBane May 6, 2015 1:04 pm
            #

            So, you uncompromisingly want the new book as is? I don’t think that’s a very rational position 🙁

  9. cuddles May 5, 2015 3:12 pm #

    The vote on the eldar stuff could have very easily been:

    Shall we require Eldar to use the old rules, with the only current rules being those applicable to wave serpent?

    ( ) Yes

    ( ) No, because I play eldar

    • Jp May 5, 2015 3:34 pm #

      Truth,

      Even better
      Do you okay eldar
      ( ) yes
      ( ) no

      • Christian May 5, 2015 3:52 pm #

        Basically. The people who think they vote against Eldar, not because they play a different army, but for “the good of the game” are deluding themselves.

        • Adam
          Adam (Thediceabide.com) May 5, 2015 3:57 pm #

          My fear is this turning into a trend of getting the people you beat to vote on what you’re allowed to take against them.

          • Adam
            Adam (Thediceabide.com) May 5, 2015 4:07 pm
            #

            Such as if they voted to allow more than 1 knight in an army… there’s no way in hell that would have passed based on the amount of whining on the internet when they were released.

          • defl0 May 6, 2015 10:51 am
            #

            Lol. It already happens on all these votes 🙂

            There are always more people that don’t play an army than do, so the results are always pro nerf bat.

    • abusepuppy May 5, 2015 4:09 pm #

      Is cuddles a gigantic crybaby who will complain about literally anything?

      ( ) yes
      () god, yes

      • cuddles May 5, 2015 4:20 pm #

        No, not everything. Like I don’t complain about not having any females around…

        • abusepuppy May 6, 2015 10:18 am #

          Yeah, I bet you’re so used to that at this point that it hardly even registers.

          • cuddles May 6, 2015 10:22 am
            #

            That and your article

    • sindrix May 6, 2015 6:23 am #

      Maybe we should just vote on if we should play 6th cuz I’m afraid of change and my busted combo I terrify my group with is in danger of not being the best on the block anymore, what a bunch of cry babies….

      If you want to ignore a release it should have been Astra militariam, or the last maybe 3 CSM books. But your right I also hate chapter tactics so I think the marine book should be made obsolete as well

  10. thed nome May 5, 2015 3:13 pm #

    So… this is in no way biased… ROFL. My question is if you cant even tell the difference between a TEMPLATE and a MARKER (see the stomp question) how the hell are you qualified to TO an event that is supposedly” one of the nations premiere 40k events? I wouldnt let you judge my jr league.

    • Jason
      Raw Dogger May 5, 2015 4:55 pm #

      Thanks for the feedback, Thed! I would let you judge me ANY time….wink

    • TinBane May 5, 2015 4:55 pm #

      I think you are completely right. Reece should drop everything, and focus soley on making sure that the spelling, grammar and terminology of the questions was perfect.

      Or alternatively, everyone who isn’t just looking on something to jump on knows what is meant, and knows that these guys are busy, and deal with it.

      Did it make you feel better, writing that? You are very smart.

      • thed nome May 5, 2015 6:15 pm #

        I don kare bout spellin or grammar even… but to completly get a RULE wrong when asking a question about the rule is probably not askin 2 much os it? (Sarcastic use of bad grammar and misspellinf is intentional)

        • Adam
          Adam (Thediceabide.com) May 6, 2015 7:44 am #

          Markers are those things you’ve been sniffing, I think you mean Blast Marker, how the hell are you qualified to complain about terminology if you can’t even get it right. 🙂

          • thed nome May 8, 2015 9:15 pm
            #

            Read page 158 of the rule book (Blast) the words “Blast Marker” AND “MARKER” all by itself are used interchangebly throughout the page for instance… “… place the 3″ BLAST MARKER with the hole entirely over the base of the target model (see diagram) or its hull if the target is a vehicle. The hole at the center of the MARKER must be within…” so I guess you are in Reeces boat not knowing the difference between marker (blast or no blast) and template … also see stomp itself “blast marker” and “marker” are used interchangebly there… but TEMPLATE nowhere in the stomp rule… unless thats another part of 40k lite?

    • droozy May 5, 2015 5:44 pm #

      Why you mad bro?

  11. XZealot May 5, 2015 3:36 pm #

    How is it that you can run 5 Knights, but can’t run a Harridan

  12. Matthew Prindle May 5, 2015 3:53 pm #

    Nice poll, but you left out the most important question: should FMCs summoned with blood tithe be able to change flight modes in the turn the are summoned?

    A) yes, because that’s what the codex says

    B) no, because Reece is too busy freaking out about Eldar to actually read the Daemonkin book.

    😛

  13. abusepuppy May 5, 2015 4:11 pm #

    I’m pretty fine with things as posted with one exception, Reece: why not allow Str D attacks to continue counting as S10 for Instant Death? I think that was one of the good changes that 7th made, because it removed absurdities like a Harpy or Daemon Prince taking FEWER wounds from a Str D attack than it would from a S10 one. As S10 is intended to be a “step up” from S10, it only makes sense and it stops weirdness like that from happening. Buying your Wraithknight or Knight a better weapon should not be a downgrade.

    • Narfwak May 5, 2015 4:15 pm #

      Agreed, that really stood out to me. It seems very odd that Str D – supposedly stronger than S10 – would suddenly no longer cause instant death to T5 and below.

    • winterman May 5, 2015 4:26 pm #

      Agree. That threw me for a loop.

    • Sam May 5, 2015 6:13 pm #

      Also, that actually makes it weaker than the old codex version of the weapon for most circumstances. ID on 6 was a given, and hasn’t really been game breaking in the many instances where it appears in many codexes.

      If it’s really that big a deal, copy / paste from the old codex and call it done.

    • Wisdomls May 6, 2015 4:07 am #

      Agreed, that seems a little strange, perhaps a typo in the question?

    • Bellerah May 6, 2015 9:16 am #

      I also agree with this, they should keep the str 10 element

    • tag May 6, 2015 11:42 am #

      My guess is that the reasoning is to more directly nerf Eldar. Too many things went up in firepower without a corresponding points increase, and so mitigating the increase in firepower and making it a targeted increase rather than a global one they offset the lack of a reasonable points costing of the units.

  14. Christian May 5, 2015 4:28 pm #

    Still a little bit to be desired in terms of poll writing. I like the one:

    Eldar Windrider Jetbikes currently are able to take a heavy weapon on each model in the unit. Do you think that unit should be changed to restrict the number of heavy weapons to 1 in 3.

    I agree [with Reece] and would like to see Windrider Jetbikes limited to 1 heavy weapon per 3 bikes.
    I do not agree[with Reece], and think Windrider Jetbikes should be played as written in their codex, with a possible heavy weapon on every unit member.

    Fixed it for you as the kids say

    • Jason
      Raw Dogger May 5, 2015 4:56 pm #

      I’m not sure if you can hear me from the mountaintop, but I’m playing the world’s smallest violin right now.

      • Christian May 5, 2015 6:04 pm #

        The question as written doesn’t even make sense, is Reece asking whether people agree that they are now allowed to take 3 heavy weapons?

        • abusepuppy May 5, 2015 6:35 pm #

          All parts of language have implied assumptions, because that’s how language and communication works. As Reece (and the ITC committee) are the ones presenting the questions, it seems rather redundant for him to append his name to everything.

          • Christian May 5, 2015 10:10 pm
            #

            I don’t think that is the implied meaning. There is nothing to agree or disagree with: it is a question.

    • Hotsauceman1 May 5, 2015 5:32 pm #

      It would be true if……before even hearing reece say that, I was suggesting the same thing.

  15. Loopy May 5, 2015 5:18 pm #

    You forgot to just put a blank text box to let people just give their opinion. You wouldn’t have had to read it… it just makes people feel good. LOL!

    And my opinion is, I think smaller, targeted polls are better than huge, involved ones that try to answer all the questions.

  16. Matt M May 5, 2015 6:13 pm #

    I think this poll isn’t that good. The stomp solution is just bad because no matter what you do, stomp is a bad mechanic. The only reason stomp was added is because non superheavies can lock superheavies in melee and prevent them from shooting.

    My solution has always been remove stomp from the book and make superheavies not be able to be locked in melee except by other superheavies. If we’re going to go out of our way to completely change how rules work, then lets actually make rules WORK.

  17. Sam May 5, 2015 6:15 pm #

    I would have loved to have seen a question about permitting battle brother allies to join one another’s units.

  18. Jp May 5, 2015 6:41 pm #

    i have two problems with the jetbike vote…

    1: where do we stop? If we are going to change basic units in Codexes it’s only fair to look at more options then. Hive tyrants are disgusting! Centurion stars are unfun to play against… Gilmore of true names is horrendous… At this point it’s only fair to “balence” everything instead of one thing…

    2: now the ITC meta is no longer 40k meta. By nerfing the most powerful unit you’ve just alienated ITC from every other tournament packages even more so. Now I need to build lists with and without the jetbike nerf to prepare for different events… So far the ITC FAQ has done that to a point. But now we are talking completely changing a codex and how it is supposed to work…

    I honestly believe GW should have left the bikes the same, but much as the serpent in 6th, we will find a way to meta it and move on eventually… Until the next curveball is thrown.

    • TinBane May 5, 2015 6:48 pm #

      It’s not 40k if you limit FW.
      It’s not 40k, if you can’t take unbound.
      It’s not 40k, if you don’t use book missions.
      It’s not 40k, if you don’t allow double detachments.
      It’s not 40k, if you limit number of factions.

      The ITC is taking a position, that position is likely to change. Other tournaments allowing full Eldar rules, might change their rules to place changes/limitations, bringing them in line with ITC, or vice versa.

    • sindrix May 6, 2015 6:28 am #

      FRONTLINE use the invisible hand theory, let the meta fix itself

      • Deuce11 May 6, 2015 9:51 am #

        That would require house-ruling.

        The player base cannot work as a market place which is what the invisible hand is referring to.

        The ITC could play-test suggested house-rules from the player base and THEN determine how to proceed. To do this they would need to accept house-rules for some window of time. Then the ITC would need to play-test the rules to adequately determine which house-rules best fulfill the goals set forth by the ITC, and share those findings with the player base.

        Such a system would be more in line with the invisible hand theory.

    • Deuce11 May 6, 2015 10:16 am #

      Your point is valid however it breaks down under these circumstances involving “hyper-efficient” units like 7th Ed. Eldar Jet-bikes. Why? Because the points are so far off that you are no longer player WH40K. I will try to explain:

      The point system is akin to a currency. Each point has value. The player must expend valuable resources (points) to “purchase” a unit for a given list. When units are priced too low or too high, it creates problems. If a unit is priced too low, its likelihood for use increases. If a unit is priced too high, its likelihood for use diminishes. This occurs even without a player knowing it at times. Better players actively seek to include those units which are under-priced and thus undervalued. Those units perform better, point-for-point, than other units.

      What happens when a unit is so undervalued that it not only is an auto include but breaks the game; when facing an Eldar army that should be equivalent to your non-Eldar army, assuming two reasonably competent players, intending on playing at similar levels of competition, and having the same information as each other? This cannot be fixed by adapting tactics.

      Why? Because the game relies on the very point system that the Eldar codex is not truly following.

      In essence, playing Eldar is not playing WH40k, because it is using its own point system. The point system, the valuation system, governing the units found in the Eldar codex does not match 1:1 with any other faction in WH40K.

      You may argue that no two faction codexes are truly 1:1. My reply would be to agree but explain that the points have never been so far off that it renders all other codexes near obsolete.

      For this reason, in order to continue playing with our adult toys as opposed to “talking with our feet/wallets” and not playing at all, we need to rely on a collective to determine how we, as a community, will play WH40K.

      • Sam May 6, 2015 11:11 am #

        I’m going to disagree a bit here. While unbalanced, it’s not as bad as it’s ever been.

        http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/GameBreaker/Warhammer40000

        • Variance Hammer May 6, 2015 12:30 pm #

          Seriously, it’s far from as bad as it has ever been. At no time in this edition have I wondered if it was even worth unpacking both armies. I cannot say that for some previous edition.

          • Jural May 6, 2015 2:48 pm
            #

            I have not had this experience in this edition, but now with Eldar, I think I will!

  19. NickW May 5, 2015 6:43 pm #

    I’ll just leave this here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MQTcV8pcZo&feature=youtu.be

  20. MikeD May 5, 2015 8:48 pm #

    For the record nerfing a codex before it’s even hit the tourney meta is incredibly dense.

    Since everyone playing an army not named Eldar that wants to become better players, sorry I meant get easy max point wins at tourneys (see above posters rant about New Eldar hurting his rankings) it’s gonna pass…

    Form your opinions by play testing the crap outta the codex and against optimized lists not the stuff you guys have been tossing up as sacrificial lambs lol.

    You need to let this codex play out and if it ends up ruining everything then sure nerf it/limit it whatever but changing BRB rules and changing core codex rules/units is some lame stuff imho.

    • IndigoJack May 6, 2015 12:19 am #

      Maybe you’re not aware that doug johnson is a multiple GT winner, and went to the finals at adepticon this year with a very similar list that he ran against the seer council. Also, james played a pretty tooled up daemon list that was allowed 2++ rerolls and natural invisibility. If we’re going to call those sub-optimal, I’d like to hear what you think is optimal.

      These comments are full of people complaining about FLG’s playtesting of the eldar book, yet I haven’t seen any batreps of eldar losing If people are going to say eldar aren’t as bad as everyone else thinks, show some evidence.

  21. iNcontroL May 5, 2015 9:23 pm #

    I don’t know how.. but I am still surprised by the amount of whining I see in 40k threads. Range D is bad for the game guys.. it was outright banned previously but is now being allowed in the game due to it’s abundance with Eldar (alone.. btw for ITC purposes FOR THE MOST PART) yet here we get a toned down version of it and people are upset? Limiting the best troops in the game to 1 in 3 taking a really really good gun? yeah.. that is a nerf but it’s a nerf to a unit that is STILL REALLY GOOD. Wraith Knights are going to walk around soccer kicking everything off the table and pose the ultimate threat to iKnights for 100 points less. Eldar can slog with troops that shoot a million shots and can rend if they take the formation OR they can take bikes the fastest obsec units in the game with decent shooting for minor cost OR they can take 3 flyers that are virtually invincible OR they can take a new and improved Seer council that shoots a horde destroying mega blast power that they can’t fail to cast… like… I dunno. You really wanted to drop down flamers and kill anything in the game? You wanted to roll 300 dakka dice per shooting phase then assault move back behind a wall? You can still do all these things just it will allow for some interaction with your opponent… what is so bad about that?

    • Hotsauceman1 May 5, 2015 9:26 pm #

      For some odd reason, codexes are considered sacrosanct and not to be messed with, but the core book isnt.

      • Variance Hammer May 6, 2015 12:35 pm #

        I think the issue with messing with the codex, especially in this particular case, is that the proposal is messing with army building rules. Without taking anything fancy, or particularly interesting, you’re putting players in the position of having to keep track of an “ITC legal” and an “Actually how the book was written legal” army. And buy and paint a whole bunch of extra bikes.

        • TinBane May 6, 2015 3:56 pm #

          or magnetise?
          I know it suits your purpose, to make out like this is invalidating people’s painted miniatures. But honestly, that’s just so you can insist everyone play the book uncompromisingly, exactly as it’s written.

          • Variance Hammer May 6, 2015 4:29 pm
            #

            Yes, insane rogue that I am wanting to play a game with the rules as they were written.

            And while I can magnetize, the points will change, meaning I’ll still need to keep an extra stock of something around. Will the 40K Friendly next year use these nerfed rules, or will they be more flexible, as they were this year.

            It’s a pain in the ass, built off FUD.

    • TinBane May 5, 2015 9:32 pm #

      What you don’t realise, Geoff, is Eldar players have been doing it tough, and this is their one chance to shine. You really want to take that away from them?

      Seriously though, you make good points. I see a lot of Eldar players commenting on grav stars, and other scary units. Those are still scary, and the ones that are 2++/2++ get a nerf in ITC already. But the eldar list, has killer units in just about every role, and just about every bit of the force organisation chart. The eldar roster is almost entirely depth! It’s freaking breathtaking.

      Unfortunately, it means that “tax” units are almost non-existent. There’s no forced selections that fail to carry weight in this codex. It is like a delicious sandwich entirely made up of meat. Fuck bread, this is ALL meat. And it’s going to get messy!

    • Jason
      Raw Dogger May 5, 2015 9:40 pm #

      Geoff, by taking away my ability to limit my opponents enjoyment in the game, you are limiting my enjoyment of the game

      • iNcontroL May 5, 2015 9:59 pm #

        hahahaha

    • Mike May 5, 2015 10:09 pm #

      What Incontrol said totally. Most of us just want to see the game in a state where one book out of 20 doesn’t hold a completely dominating lead in championship rankings.

  22. GTA May 5, 2015 10:18 pm #

    You fools

  23. Uroneous May 5, 2015 10:58 pm #

    I think this survey was well written. The D weapons need to be nerfed. Also, the bikes are too impressive, especially considering the rest of the book. I do think a more simple solution would be require the old book to be used, with the wave serpent getting a slight nerf, like the one in the new book. However, this may change as further codexes come out. The new Chaos book is actually pretty sweet, so the future is uncertain.

  24. Dev42 May 5, 2015 11:31 pm #

    I would like to see the codex go unchanged here is why, warhammer 40k isn’t some candy ass free loving hippy game,its war , In war you have to make changes on the fly, I am not sorry Eldar now have a unit that can take care of tanks in one shot I am not sorry that bikes can fire 4 shots each or the fact that we will have to deal with apoc sized blasts once a turn and aircraft built to kill aircraft.

    At the end of the day I would rather figure out a way to beat Eldar then give them the excuse that “ITC nerf me before I had a chance to run my list”. In all the games I have played and turnaments I have attended there are always those guys, you know them they are the power gaming meta humping trash talking players that will always use the most broken thing they can. So be prepared for 20 bikes getting 4 shots each,20 warp charges and no scatter D-templets . I know I didn’t start playing 40k for balance I play it for the challange so bring on the space elves, If its not them it will be just another shrouded invis cen star or knight that can get in to your back field turn one or 27 warp charge deamon list.

    Just my two cents.

  25. Marsyas May 5, 2015 11:53 pm #

    re: scatterbikes
    I think a change from the current setup back to the old rules of one heavy weapon per three bikes is a good and necessary change. I think that the fact that 2/3 of the eldar jetbike squad had weapons with a range of 12″ was a necessary limiting factor to a fantastic unit, and that once that was removed the unit was completely broken. For that matter, I also think that Strength D has no place in 40k. Apocalypse? Sure, go wild. 40k? Ban it.

    That said, I have some… concerns.

    Let’s assume the changes go through. Okay. Eldar have now been nerfed. Scatter bikes have been fixed and d-weapons at least addressed (though I vastly prefer an outright ban of ranged D). A precedent has been established that would be very easy to build on. So. What gets nerfed next? Necrons? I mean, their unnegatable 4+ rerolling 1s resurrection save creates negative play experiences at least as bad as scatter lasers. How about we rule that it works exactly the same as feel no pain, and therefore can’t be applied against instant death attacks? Maybe that’s reasonable, maybe it’s not. What gets nerfed next? Shall we start buffing underperforming units as well?

    Maybe the outright codex changes won’t go any further than just fixing jetbikes and addressing D weapons. But it sets a precedent; stare decisis is a thing. And it is my sincere hope that the frontline guys will be mindful of that, and extremely careful in how they proceed; what is done cannot easily be undone.

    • Deuce11 May 6, 2015 6:27 am #

      I wish people were this concerned about judicial activism and the ‘evolving constitution’ approach to constitutional interpretation.

      Stare decisis is not “a thing” because this is not a U.S. court of law deciding matters based on the tenets of common law.

      • Uroneous May 6, 2015 7:01 am #

        Even if there is “stare decisis,” there are always new ways of interpreting rules and Courts often have to come up with new ways to deal with new things.

      • Marsyas May 6, 2015 7:08 am #

        While I think the term, “judicial activism” is unhelpful, politically charged, and unnecessarily polarizing, I am, in fact, considerably more concerned than this about judicial decisions that set new or overturn long established precedents. But that has no relevance to this discussion. My use of the phrase, “stare decisis” was probably unhelpful, but precedent is a big deal even in nonlegal settings. The slope may or may not be slippery, but it remains a slope; walking down it is always easier than walking back up.

  26. Sevier May 6, 2015 2:03 am #

    I think the destroyer nerf is a bit harsh on superheavy/gargantuan things, but okay for the rest.

  27. MVBrandt May 6, 2015 5:36 am #

    Much better poll and will be leveraging the information. Only curiosity is eldar jetbike question. The answer, given I doubt anywhere near the majority plays eldar, seems foregone. Not a criticism, just, why bother asking the question? Either decide that the group of organizers don’t want the new ejb or do. Asking the question in the fashion presented simply Confirms most people don’t play eldar. That said, isn’t too say I disagree with the question’s foregone conclusion. Overall very good stuff.

    • MVBrandt May 6, 2015 5:45 am #

      Extrapolation, as has been shared, you would probably get a downvote of summoning if you phrased a question about whether the mechanic was desired in games or presented a less powerful alternate.

      You probably would get a downvote of Centurion stars. You probably would get a downvote of Flyrants with TL Devourers even.

      The opinion from the organizer p.o.v. may be that Scatterbikes are WAY more powerful than all of those things and thus the only ones in need of such a poll question. Which is actually fine – I’m not sure I disagree 🙂 … just, since the question is leading / self-answering by nature, why bother asking … why not just make the change? Seems to invite some of the above critiques.

      Reiteration – strong supporter of all our convos lately and of the much better phrasing in this poll. Very excited for results, and will use them to help inform my own format decisions.

    • tag May 6, 2015 11:19 am #

      Your premise of people only voting in their own interest is flawed.

      There is an established track record of people voting against nerfs to units of that nature even when a large majority of players don’t use the units in question. See the previous poll results. They are rife with this sort of thing.

      A recent example from the LVO results there was a question to restrict CAD + CAD-like detachment which really only affect Tyranids (5 Flyrants) and a few Blood Angel players. Theoretically some Dark Eldar, but I’ve never seen Realspace Raider + CAD at an event. The results were against restricting it by a fairly wide margin, and thus Flyrant Spam is alive and well at ITC events.

      That is a specific refutation of your followup post, because in essence the question was, “Ban 5 Flyrants?” and the majority voted “no”.

      • fluger May 6, 2015 11:49 am #

        I agree with tag from the other point of view. I play Eldar and I voted for 1:3 heavy weapons on jetbikes. The 1:1 ratio is unprecedented and insanely powerful.

        As well, unlike wraithguard any jetbikes with scatterlasers were only bought in the last few weeks, so it’s not like someone has had these cherished models forever or something.

      • abusepuppy May 6, 2015 12:06 pm #

        You don’t play Eldar, fluger, they’re not a horde army. 😛 You play Orks and IG.

    • Jural May 6, 2015 2:53 pm #

      I can’t speak for everyone, but I don’t own a single Eldar model and I voted to make the game as close to the core rulebook as possible (3 detachments, CtA, no change to D, no change to Eldar.)

  28. Trent May 6, 2015 6:10 am #

    Not to be a wet blanket, how do you decide which items to vote for? It seems odd that you would look to change things in the eldar book right after the release, is it just based on people’s fear mongering? There are lots of other terrible combos (drop pods demon flying circus….)
    There
    There are 2 points if you are going to change things at least make sure it’s not just based on fear of what could be, and you are starting to make some real changes to the game,there are some that are good but when there are such targeted modifications its a bit much

    There are a lotpeople who seem to want to play 6th Ed, well I would love my sixth Ed IG and if they start making changes to eldar why not let the, play the 6th Ed serpent spam, or the 3.5 Ed chaos marines, my point if they do this they should just start undercutting all armies, 0-1 demon prince, no fate weaver, 0-1 grav cents, no blood points for demon kin book,

    People got along before during and after addy lance, they will get over the eldar

  29. Deuce11 May 6, 2015 6:24 am #

    Something is better than nothing but I feel this was a missed opportunity and result of group-think.

    Why no change to the ally chart so that Eldar and DE are no longer battles brothers?

    Why not consider a points increase in the WK? (LR+Rhino=WK…)

    This was not the result of codex creep. The Edlar codex is something else entirely and needs to be dealt with. Why even unpack your minis against Eldar if you are a Chaos, DA, Sisters, or Ork player?

    • Sam May 6, 2015 7:45 am #

      But why limit to only DE & Eldar battle brothers? Many of the current over the top lists exist because of the synergies you can get with battle brother allies. I point to the Dual centstar list that went up against the eldar with succubus webway portal wraithguard list right on this site.

      Both armies were using mind bending abuses of the battle brother allies system. A simple disallowance of that system across the board would make many of these problems disappear.

      • Sam May 6, 2015 7:49 am #

        A follow up to this point. Is our goal here to maintain the dominance of the current meta? Or is it to remove abusive elements, creating a more level playing field for all armies, and an environment where a variety of lists are competitive?

        In either case, I voted for the nerfs – and I’ve been primarily an Eldar player for 20 years. I want to win games based on playing an army that requires a high degree of player skill – that’s not what I see in these jetbikes currently.

        But – I want to play that army against someone else playing something without Draigo, Tigerius, and a Blood Angel Sang Priest in a unit of centurions. That is also dumb.

        • Deuce11 May 6, 2015 9:26 am #

          I totally agree!

        • thed nome May 8, 2015 9:28 pm #

          As someone posted above the point is so those with high rankings can hold onto them (because as one player put it he cant win unless eldar are nerfed)

    • tag May 6, 2015 11:22 am #

      I think they are trying to strike the balance between the very vocal group of “Do nothing” and the less vocal, but larger group of “Balance the game”.

      There is certainly a scenario where the Eldar codex is revisited in some fashion in the future.

      • Jural May 6, 2015 2:55 pm #

        yeah, the poll will definitely tell if you are right about the relative size of those groups or not!

  30. Z07 May 6, 2015 8:31 am #

    To add to Sam’s point, people are against CTA allies for fluff reasons (myself included), but are ok with the unkillable Gray Knight, Ultramarines, Blood Angels and centurion groupies teleporting around the table? Seems just as unfluffy as Tyranids and Tau fighting together. Battle Brothers are a hugely abusive part of the game, especially for the Imperium.

  31. DCannon4Life May 6, 2015 8:32 am #

    Given the options presented, I voted ‘no’ to the D-Nerf. I also voted to allow CTA. It’s distasteful from a Fluff standpoint, but from a competitive standpoint, CTA make sense (to me).

    D3 Wounds/Hull Points, @ S10 AP2, with a ‘6’ ignoring all saves, is what I would prefer. D2 wounds is a nerf too far.

    Eldar have been (were) mid-tier monsters for the past couple of years. The bulk of the player base is (nominally) ‘mid-tier’. This is where the D-Bullying will have the greatest impact–not on top tables. Top tables will/would be able to deal with it.

    • Sam May 6, 2015 11:16 am #

      Actually, I think Eldar are going to have the largest impact on the top tier lists. D strength is most impactful on ultra-elite deathstar types of lists.

  32. Z07 May 6, 2015 8:33 am #

    GW clearly has no interest in balance or supporting any level of competitive gaming, I think these changes are great and if anything would support even more.

  33. Marsyas May 6, 2015 8:50 am #

    I think it is a very bad idea to put nerfs for any army up for popular vote. Even when those nerfs are entirely warranted, as I believe they are in this case, nerdrage and well-considered, rational decision making combine about as well as toothpaste and grapefruit juice. I do fully support these proposed nerfs, mind you, I just think that determining whether or not they go into effect via the results of a poll is a bad idea.

    • Deuce11 May 6, 2015 9:38 am #

      *Not trying to troll or anything*
      I noticed, here, you advocate for a centrally planned rules change; but earlier you lamented change to the rules by popular vote because the practice would be used as precedent for future changes.

      Meanwhile, you support the posed changes…

      So which is it? How would you like these scenarios to be worked out in the future?

      • Marsyas May 6, 2015 10:02 am #

        My position is as follows:
        1 – GW completely dropped the ball and produced a broken codex to which nerfs are a reasonable response.
        2 – The idea of changing codex rules by a tournament organization is a very dangerous one and raises many concerns. If it is to be done at all it must be done very carefully and with great restraint. It sets a very dangerous precedent.
        3 – In accordance with “very carefully and with great restraint,” nerf by popular vote is in nearly all ways and all cases worse than nerf by centrally planned changes.

        • Deuce11 May 6, 2015 10:30 am #

          Agree with 1 and 2, but not 3.

          That is not to say your critique is without merit.

          Instead of running ITC FAQ/Errata/whatnots like an election via popular vote, it should be done more along the lines of an administrative regulation notice & comment period. (FLG this would be great for you as it would create a whole new avenue for content!)

          Basically, the ITC, through its many online media outlets, could (a) post a proposed rule change. (b) The community would have the opportunity to comment. (c) Said media outlets, FLG for example, could publicly play-test the proposed rules and any helpful suggestions received during the comment period. (d) at the end of the comment period, the ITC could then release their final determination and official ITC rule change.

          Such a method would engage and include the community, fulfill the goals of the ITC, and open up a new avenue for media content.

          win-win-win

          • Marsyas May 6, 2015 11:01 am
            #

            I would be considerably more comfortable with what you describe than with what we appear to have now.

  34. TurboPenetrator May 6, 2015 9:13 am #

    I think changes to D weapons are ok but I think this would impact superheavy / gargantuan creatures abit too much as their weapons are more destructive really. How about this:

    Infantry, vehicles, mc:s etc roll for destroyer as suggested (D2 wounds…)
    Superheavy / gargantuans roll for the old table but result of 6 is changed to D6 wounds/hull points with a penetrating hit, ignoring all kinds of saves.

  35. Mark Aksel May 6, 2015 9:15 am #

    Better poll that previously….

    But question #1 should be “Do you play Eldar at Tournaments?” This would allow you to at least visualize the data being cast by people who do/do not play Eldar.

    • Variance Hammer May 6, 2015 12:38 pm #

      *That* is something I would be genuinely interested in seeing.

  36. Bellerah May 6, 2015 9:21 am #

    Why did the poll not include “keep the ban on D-str ranged weapons” The ITC group was pretty clear that they did not want Ranged D, and just because eldar come out with an army that gets lots of it comes out does not mean we want it.

    I still do not want to face off with a Reverent titan or jetbike/WG/lynx army.

    • Deuce11 May 6, 2015 9:40 am #

      Probably because ranged D is so widespread that not allowing it would require major changes to the 7th Ed. Eldar codex. Allowing Ranged D with a tweak is the path of least resistance as compared to a blanket ban on ranged D, at this time.

    • Jural May 6, 2015 2:57 pm #

      Honestly, that point was already clearly spoken to. I’ hoping the previous poll is still kept in mind… otherwise… yeah, all LoW are in play except those which were banned for unspecific reasons, like the Harridan (and a smart ban on that one, lol!)

  37. mortetvie May 6, 2015 9:51 am #

    Interestingly enough, the proposed change to D weapons makes Wraith Knight shooting less scary than when it had the old Distort rules against things like a Rip Tide or other MCs because a “6” will no longer cause ID. With the D2 changes, since it only has 2 SD shots a turn, it only ever has 2 chances a turn to do 1-2 wounds to a target per shot-even if a 6 comes up (so a max of 4 wounds per turn). Now perhaps the old Distort 6 result was rough-I know it was when I lost Riptides and Wraith Knights to another person’s “6” roll to wound-but at least you got cover/invul against it so perhaps it evened out.

    Changing Distort to D and having D changed to d2 wounds might be the better and more balanced approach, however. It makes penetrating/wounding ANYTHING easier which is a plus and you have a more consistent but not over the top damage potential which rewards players for good use of multiple sources of D weapons in an Eldar army but doesn’t unfairly penalize anyone who plays against these weapons by having to face many potentially game-breaking “6” results.

    Personally, it never felt right killing something on a “6” or losing something on a “6” and mechanics that can remove a model in a single shot because of dice just simply are not fun-as Reece and Frankie pointed out in their last video. So I voted for the D2 rule as I think it would make D weapons useable but not broken.

    Unrelated but I would be curious to see how D-Weapons with the d2 changes compare to Grav weapons in terms of damage out-put.

  38. DCannon4Life May 6, 2015 10:35 am #

    Along the lines of MVBrandt, entirely tongue-in-cheek:

    Dear Santa, Please nerf Jinking Daemon Princes of Nurgle, Please nerf Jinking FMCs that aren’t actually flying. Please Nerf Imperial Knights. Please nerf MCs and FMCs and GCs and GFCs getting cover saves from having a ‘Toe In’. Please nerf CentStars. Please tell Lias Issadon to p*ss off. Please tell Draigo to go back to sniffing Warp Dust. Make Reanimation Protocols feel more ‘interactive’. Please tell Bel’akor he’s not allowed to cast Invisibility on a D-Swinging Bloodthirster (yeah, that’s a thing coming down the pipe where I play).

    The furor over Jetbikes, and the very real possibility that they will be nerfed in the ITC, is disappointing. I understand the concerns about ranged D. But if ranged D is nerfed AND bikes are nerfed…that makes it seem like the changes are meant to preserve a Status Quo, except F* the Wave Serpent, amirite? So: Preserve the Status Quo, but preserve it the way I think it should be…. Disappointing.

    When Imperial Knights came out (and holy moley they’ve got a new codex about a YEAR after their inaugural one! must be a money maker, that one), I argued that they should grant access to the Escalation Warlord Trait table, as well as a bonus to steal the initiative (or bonus to get first turn, whichever it was) and bonus VP for every 3HP done to them. I was told that, despite having every single characteristic in common with what is properly understood as a Lord of War, because GW did not designate them as such, it would not be ‘fair’ to the Imperial Knight codex to implement those changes. In short, I was told to (kindly) stfu and deal with it.

    I’m not telling anyone to L2P or just deal with it. I am saying there is a considerable difference between the effects of D on the (competitive) game and the effects of 27 point Scatbikes. They should not be treated with the same hand.

    If we’re taking away from the ‘top’, can we give to the ‘bottom’? How about some love for CSM (Daemonkin of Khorne doesn’t cut it)? They could use access to buyable skills like Tank Hunter or Monster Hunter for Havocs. They could use a point reduction (and stat-line adjustment) for Obliterators. The rules for Mutilators need an almost complete rewrite. They could use point reductions almost all the way across the board. They could use access to drop pods (‘What? We forgot how to use Drop Pods? Son of a…’). Giving a Daemon Prince or a Sorcerer (or ANY HQ a specific mark) should unlock Cult Marines as Troops (far less of an issue in an age where everything scores, I know). Etc.

    Eldar won NOVA last year, right? What won Feast of Blades? LVO was won by Nids. What won the BAO? Daemons won AdeptiCon.

    Perhaps asking whether there should be an ‘Open’ Championship (Least Restrictive Ruleset) and a ‘Reserves’ Championship (Restrictions Galore) would be informative. /shrug

    • defl0 May 6, 2015 10:47 am #

      Lol. Yeah, these votes always sound a lot like whining 🙂

      But i agree with you.

      I don’t really like the idea of the ITC changing rules for units… The last thing I want is to have to collect different sets of models for ITC and non ITC events…

      Core rules? Ok, I don’t necessarily like it either, but at least it effects everyone.

      I’m actually surprised no one is running mirror tournaments where everyone literally runs the exact same list.

    • Kelshin May 6, 2015 12:26 pm #

      Yeah. Pretty much my entire issue with this at it’s core. People who are voting on this, and probably the people making the polls up to a point, are not actually interested in “fun” for everyone. That’s not the desired end-state no matter what they say. I don’t buy it. People want to be able to WIN more consistently with their other armies vice a powerhouse. Big difference between being able to win more and wanting more fun.

      Much as I really do like what the FLG guys have done for the game consistently at large, and despite the explanation post Reece just put up, I think this thing in particular is kind of a mistake that’s buying into fear mongering.

      There have been unfun units and armies pretty much since the game started. But you never hear a rattling of sabres about it because you can beat those armies. FMC spam, Grav-cent-stars, Decurions with Canoptek Harvests, Ad-Lance. The list goes on. How much fun do you REALLY have playing those armies? Probably not a lot because they suck to play against even if you win. But no one has ever pushed hard to neuter those because everyone already knows that they can be beaten, fun or not.

      But now Eldar threaten to come along and threaten the status quo and everyone loses their minds.

      Nerfing invisibility I can get behind; because it affects everyone who wants to use Telepathy equally, and there are a great number of codicies that can do that; moreso than can’t I think.

      This is a whole new direction that I don’t particularly like.

      Using wraiths as an example, I would say they’re easily more powerful in a Harvest than scatter bikes are. They soak up many times their points in shooting and still keep coming, hit like a ton of bricks, and are pretty much guaranteed to assault turn 2, and are a match for pretty much anything. There wasn’t a huge call to nerf them, despite them having VERY few counters in the game. But man, gotta nerf that unit who’s worst enemy is a drop pod or a Nemesis Strike force; or a couple morale checks. Fun fact, this will remove the Eldar’s one decent counter to said Harvest Wraiths. There really is no other unit(s) that can handle them before they do their damage.

      The net result of this is going to be a few pissed off Eldar players, a ton of Seer councils, and ton of units STILL getting taken of the board by deep striking WG.

      But hey, when you’ picking up your models as that Seer Council and friends roll all over, at least you can say it wasn’t cause those damn OP scatter bikes you never bothered to adjust to counter didn’t ruin your game.

      And to think everyone just kinda let the Wave Serpent train ride along for years and apparently didn’t quite complain enough to get it adjusted. Or something.

      • TinBane May 6, 2015 4:02 pm #

        So one of your argument for not intervening, is that the previous eldar codex didn’t get messed with?

        Would you be happier if FLG proposed to limit heavy weapons on troops choices that are jetbikes, to 1/3? That way they aren’t targeting eldar?

        How many Canoptek Harvests have you seen topping tournaments? Have you actually played against them, or did you just read about how unfair it all is on the Eldar facebook group?

        • Sam May 7, 2015 11:40 am #

          Well, to be fair here.

          How many Eldar Jetbike lists have you seen topping tournaments? Have you actually played against them, or did you just read about how unfair it all is on the <> facebook group?

          There haven’t exactly been a ton of tournaments since the necron release. The codex ought to do exceptionally well, and a lot of that will feature wraiths. I’m not defending jetbike heavy weapon spam, just that your point is kind of obvious from the short amount of time either codex has been out there.

        • thed nome May 9, 2015 3:27 pm #

          Because other codexes have troop choices that are jetbikes? oh yeah thats so much better than simply targeting eldar jetbikes… facepalm*

  39. Variance Hammer May 6, 2015 10:38 am #

    My take on the new poll, which I’m…not a fan of…even if it is well written. http://variancehammer.com/2015/05/06/on-portability/

    • Bullwar May 6, 2015 11:40 am #

      Well written. This is exactly how I feel as well.

    • TinBane May 6, 2015 12:28 pm #

      My personal opinion is that ubiquity is a lame excuse. How many championships run book missions only with unbound? It’s by common agreement, that unbound is banned, but if it wasn’t I’d want FLG to spearhead that push.

      FLG have pushed for more units to be involved in 40K. They’ve pushed for inclusion of Forgeworld, etc. which most events didn’t allow. 40K hasn’t been fully portable since early 1998.

      You don’t need to buy new models, just magnetise your bikes.

      Nobody plays GW’s idea of 40K competitively, because GW’s idea of 40K is that it’s a friendly (roll a dice to determine a rules outcome) game. Is there a single reference to a tournament judge in any 7th ed GW book?

      40K isn’t ubiquitous, people can deal with the rules changes. It’s been happening for years. You can magnetise your bikes. GW isn’t a gold standard for tournament rules. If there’s a gut reaction to what’s happening, it’s a gut reaction from Eldar to hold on to what they’ve got in this codex. A list where their required selections are an order of magnitude better than 90% of the other factions, in every section of the book.

      Better to change it now, rather than once people have used it and painted it up.

      If FLG kept the status quo until the end of the ziTC in Feb, there would be no wraith anything, due to the D weapon ban. So the change was required.

      Further, changes that benefit factions that aren’t popular have passed in nearly every ITC vote. 5 flyrants for example, passed, despite being no benefit to the majority imperial/Eldar/tau factions.

      • Variance Hammer May 6, 2015 12:43 pm #

        I think the difference between the “Flyrants” vote and what people are talking about is it’s possible to imagine wanting to be able to take the kind of detachments that would run into that rule in the future, even if your army doesn’t have them at the moment. It was still a general rules based vote.

        “Do you play with lots of jetbikes” is a much more direct question.

        • TinBane May 6, 2015 1:07 pm #

          Maybe.
          just like GW might release more CADlikes, they might make more stupidly broken, fast, jinxing, heavy weapon troop choices for cheap.

  40. Pedant May 6, 2015 11:44 am #

    I personally cannot wait for a disgustingly OP Chaos, or Marine or Tau codex to drop and none of these fuckers bat an eyelid. It’s gonna happen for sure.

    Complete knee jerk reaction, with absolutely no chance given to see how Eldar would do in the Tournament scene.

    • Bellerah May 6, 2015 11:59 am #

      That is a pretty weak argument, I have never seen a 100 megaton bomb detonated on a city, so perhaps trying to ban them until we see them play out a bad idea.

      Humans are capable of simulation and can indeed predict performance

      This is not about Eldar doing well on the tourny circuit, This is about are players going to enjoy playing them. IF they don’t enjoy them, are they going to continue to go?

      Your argument will be circular, cause in 6 months when there is the data, Eldar players will be” oh we went out and bought all these things to use and now you are banning them”. You should have done this up front.

      • Kelshin May 6, 2015 12:30 pm #

        The enjoyment argument is circular too, since that isn’t what it’s really about. There are a dozen armies I don’t particularly enjoy that are allowed in the format. Can we nerf those too? I sure would like that.

        Or, I could just play them like I do, and still manage to have good times with people and give a game.

        This about people looking at THEIR army(s) and saying in their head. “Man, that’s going to REALLY f**k me up as it is, but IIIII don’t want to have to buy some new stuff and paint and adapt…so it must not be fun….GET RID OF IT!”

        • Bellerah May 6, 2015 12:52 pm #

          True,

          But on the highest level, will this Eldar codex bring more players in or drive more players away. If you believe the first then play it out. If you believe No, then you have to look to do something. FLG is a business as is the tourny scene. They need to do what is best for the health and growth of that scene.

          Something I would like to see, say at BAO, is offer both tourny types, a no holds bar play the book as you want tourny, and the ITC rule bound tourny. I think the players votes would speak loud and clear.

          • TinBane May 6, 2015 1:09 pm
            #

            They have in the past, IIRC. IT DIDN’t get many sight ups. There are lots of tournaments that will allow book Eldar. It will be interesting to see if ITC mellows on Eldar, or if the others take up the nerf bat.

    • Variance Hammer May 6, 2015 12:40 pm #

      I’ve played less powered armies before, I will play less powered armies again. Hell, I’ve even lost to every one of the armies you just mentioned at least once.

      I look forward to not batting an eyelid.

      Or more accurately, looking at the codex, going “Ouch…” and then thinking of some way to deal with it.

  41. Sindrix May 6, 2015 12:01 pm #

    Can we also vote on demon Kin, they no longer suffer from instability, and I like the way it used to be……

  42. Logan May 6, 2015 12:53 pm #

    I still think GC/SH/SHW should be able to take FNP and Invuls on any D Result.

  43. ChosenOfKhorne May 6, 2015 2:06 pm #

    I would also agree that the allies rules could use revisiting. Teleporting d-scythes wouldn’t be an issue if armies weren’t allowed to join units that are not part of their detachment. Seeing Coteaz in every centurian unit wouldn’t be a thing. Armies with few allies would be at a smaller disadvantage in general. How many people truly bring allies because they are fluffy, vs. bringing a special rule to a unit in another list that it wasn’t designed to have?

    Getting rid of battle brothers would be a simple fix to balance things, and would make the game easier to balance in the future as you don’t have to predict how the next codex will change the meta by bringing a combo to a previous book that wasn’t expected by the designers.

    • ChosenOfKhorne May 7, 2015 11:03 am #

      A brief continuation of the thought….. Why is CtA allies so bad for the game for fluff reasons, but buying marine drop pods to throw your skitarrii/centurians/etc. ok by fluff standards? Is there any justification in the fluff that factions loan out their gear to other factions on a routine basis? My impression is that a lot of the factions have rivalries due to differing views, leadership, priorities, etc. I think a lot of the allies are used to create abusive combinations and have nothing to do with fluff, but use fluff as justification. If you want to get rid of CtA allies (which I personally don’t like), then you should also downgrade all battle brothers to allies of convenience as well, and the balance and fluff will be better off. People can still bring variety if they like, but it won’t be the same 2 or 3 allies over and over for game straining combos. Especially if they increase the detachment list to 3, how are you going to nerf all of those combos as they come about?

  44. Wren May 6, 2015 3:19 pm #

    So the Imperial Knight codex leaked and all Knights are now LoW

    The ITC ruling of 1 SH/GC LoW allowed kills things like Ad Lance or any of the new Formations in the IK book that were leaked.

    Any comment from the ITC folks on if Adlance or more than 1 knight is not allowed anymore?

    • PFOL May 7, 2015 5:07 pm #

      We will just have a new poll after every new codex

  45. The Mediocre Gamer
    Agentp May 6, 2015 4:40 pm #

    Take heart Eldar players, at least your codex isn’t completely banned. It looks like Imperial Knights are just screwed.

  46. Sevier May 7, 2015 12:48 am #

    It looks like my gauss pylon will finally become a terrainpease.

  47. Will Grant May 7, 2015 4:39 am #

    Several thoughts:

    1) ITC Rules are optional. They have said plenty of times you can run your local ITC, and change something up. Look at Wargamerscon, they have included 3 sources which isn’t currently legal in ITC

    2) Tournament Organizers needed a ruling now on whether Ranged D would come back? Ranged D was banned out by the majority in the last poll. They could have just left it at 1) full power scat bikes 2) No ranged D whatsoever. People are acting like they are being to too proactive, when they are actually being reactive to a dex full of D.

  48. Chris May 8, 2015 2:53 am #

    My 2 cents.
    I’m fine with the changes, but if you don’t touch the other codexes, you’re in danger of creating an underpowered codex.
    Are you going to restrict Space Wolf Cav to just one hand held weapon, no more PF/SS?
    What about restricting the number of T6 FMC for the nids?
    Or even restricting spawn/summon abilities so they can only do it once per game, serpent shield style?
    I did get a chuckle out of the comment “d-flamer are awesome at killing everything!” Let me know how you go against a flying nid list……….

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. On Portability… - May 6, 2015

    […] Eldar Codex Review is still being written, but in the meantime, a brief rant, inspired by the ITC Mid Season Update Poll released today be Reece and the good people at Frontline […]

Leave a Reply