ITC 2015 Quarterly Update Poll


Take the Poll, Here!

Thank you to everyone that contributed questions, feedback, and helped to proof the poll. Thanks to everyone that votes to help shape the ITC into the tournament circuit that best represents the type of 40k we want to play!

These quarterly updates will help us to stay relevant to the ever-evolving meta of the game and desires of the players. The poll will impact ITC format and certain FAQ interpretations.

This poll will run through Thursday of next week, August 6th.


About Reecius

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

97 Responses to “ITC 2015 Quarterly Update Poll”

  1. Mike July 31, 2015 12:43 pm #

    I was really hoping mc/gc “toe in cover” would be in this one. In our group, that is the 2nd most hated rule aside from random charge range.

    • Reecius July 31, 2015 12:45 pm #

      Yeah, a some folks really dislike it but I didn’t get a ton of feedback about that one specifically, this go around. If enough people bring it up, we can certainly address it for the next quarterly poll update.

      • fluger July 31, 2015 3:54 pm #

        Put me down for hating that one too.

        How many signatures do we have to get to get it on the ballot?

        • Reecius July 31, 2015 4:05 pm #

          That’s the next phase for development in the ITC rules department: how do we formalize deciding what gets voted on and what doesn’t? Right now it’s a bit of an art. I pay attention to what folks are talking about and concerned about with the game, my own opinions, the team’s, etc. and use that as a guide. However, in order to make it more fair, we may need to come up with an observable system for determining which issues “earn” a spot on the ballot, so to speak.

      • Hiveminded July 31, 2015 4:27 pm #

        The reason you don’t get a ton of feedback on it is likely because it’s not game breaking. The “toe in cover” rule is not something that needs to be nerfed.

        Keep the rules changes to those things that need to be altered to maintain game balance….just my 2 cents.

        • Reecius July 31, 2015 4:40 pm #

          Fair assessment. Some armies, like Nids, for example, rely on it.

          We try to change as little as possible and in this poll, you can see we’re actually offering to reverse some of the previous changes we’ve made.

          • Kwodd July 31, 2015 6:29 pm

            It would destroy Nids.

          • Mike August 3, 2015 8:45 am

            Eh, the MC’s may get nerfed, but venoms and mal’s would still grant shroud, and flyrants could still jink for 2+. The other MC’s could still get cover by being decently obscured. I just take issue with them being as big as vehicles and getting full blown cover by extending 1/100 of their base into area terrain. The gribblies wouldn’t be hurt by that change at all.

          • bugsculptor August 4, 2015 6:34 pm

            Yeah, it would just be a nerf that batters the units people aren’t even taking because they’re too fragile. MCs pay a premium for high toughness and armour that is pretty much useless right now.

            Most competitive nid players are running with flyrants and mawlocs, because with the amount of grav (not to mention ignores cover, auspexes etc) around you already have to be flying or able to attack from off the table to not be a dead nid.

      • z3n1st August 1, 2015 10:52 am #

        ‘Toe-in’ terrain needs to go by by, at least for GC, and Flying MC. I don’t see the issue with ground based MC so much, but it does seem ridiculous that a creature bigger than most tanks or one flying above the battle field is getting cover when a Rhino (or IG sentinel, Ork Kan) wouldn’t because 25%…

        • z3n1st August 1, 2015 10:59 am #

          Something else that needs to stop is people claiming 4+ for standing behind a ruins…you only get the 4+ for being IN ruins, this is clarified in the terrain section page 108 top left corner. “if listed as in or behind”, vs, “listed as in” clearly states when you get that cover save, and page 37 for cover indicates if its not defined (as in standing BEHIND ruins but not actually IN ruins), then its a 5+. I see this played wrong all the time and it drives me nuts.

          • Hiveminded August 1, 2015 4:41 pm

            The reason you often see a 4+ save granted is because, per the terrain rules, a model behind a “barricade or wall” receives a 4+ cover save. People assume the walls of a ruin are a wall.

        • Jural August 3, 2015 1:09 pm #

          I’d go for that- no toe in cover for Gargantuans or Fliers who are actively flying.

          • Reecius August 3, 2015 1:57 pm

            That sounds fair to me, and something we can look at for the next update, in November.

          • bugsculptor August 4, 2015 6:44 pm

            Flying MCs should not get toe in.

            If you ban cover saves for gargantuans, you might as well ban the units. They die so fast to grav weapons without cover it isn’t even funny.

            Or, make grav, deathmarks and *all weapons* that wound on non-toughness only wound gargantuans on a 6+. No point paying through the nose for toughness 8 if *everything* ignores it and you can’t hide.

  2. Novastar July 31, 2015 1:10 pm #

    Where is the vote to start the main event off with a simulated cannon sound or some other over the top noise? And when we get down to the final 8 or so we need some WWG/WCW style intro music for the armies!!!!

  3. Socks July 31, 2015 1:20 pm #

    Can we do a vote to allow more superheavy vehicles in? Regular game already has s10 apoc blasts that ignore cover and D out the wazoo, maybe its time to reconsider the bans.

    • Reecius July 31, 2015 1:32 pm #

      That Vindicator formation will almost never actually fire, though. It really isn’t a fair comparison. Seriously, try it out in practice. You will find you almost never actually get to shoot it.

      • Socks July 31, 2015 3:48 pm #

        Fair enough, it does have a short range and is easy to stun. I would still like to see everything let it as it feels like some armies are getting the shaft in terms of LOW choices.

        • Archon-Kalafex August 1, 2015 1:50 pm #

          Whats a Lord of War? I don’t have those… Lol :.|

      • Kwodd July 31, 2015 6:22 pm #

        My Harridan wants to make friends!

        • bugsculptor August 4, 2015 6:45 pm #

          Mine too. I’m so bored of codex:flyrant.

    • Zombiedon77 July 31, 2015 3:08 pm #

      Agreed +1

      • Zombiedon77 July 31, 2015 3:08 pm #

        Let more in!!!

        • Adam ( July 31, 2015 5:27 pm #

          I say let them ALL in… but my opinions are often unpopular.

          • Peter August 1, 2015 8:49 am

            I agree Adam. You should come up to Know No Mercy, October 3-4 in Sacramento. I think you’ll like the format. All is let in, and mission design and scoring will attempt to keep the bonkers stuff from dominating.

          • D-ManA August 3, 2015 5:38 am

            I agree with you Adam let them all in. I went to the Iron Halo ITC tournament and what won was the Gladious Battle Company. If a lot of the LOWs that are banned were allowed in with their large blast D weapons and big blast ignores cover weapons would have been able to deal with it better. That is my two cents which like you Adam it is unpopular in the ITC crowd.

  4. dr.insanotron July 31, 2015 1:33 pm #

    So for the securing style detachments I think they should just count as 2 of your detachments regardless of what’s in them

    • dr.insanotron July 31, 2015 1:34 pm #

      Decurion style

      • Novastar July 31, 2015 1:53 pm #

        But only necrons have a decurion, what about the warhost and slaughter cult etc?

        • Novastar July 31, 2015 1:56 pm #

          Don’t mind me, I’m just being salty at the decurion word use for every composite formation

          • Mike July 31, 2015 2:40 pm

            I call them voltron formations!

          • Hotsauceman1 July 31, 2015 2:41 pm

            I started using “Combi-Detachments”

          • ligolski July 31, 2015 7:36 pm

            It makes sense to most, its like warship classes. First boat of the class gives the class its name. Ford class aircraft carrier, Virginia class submarine, etc. So really its a Decurion Class detachment, giving a general description of the detachment idea.

          • Novastar August 1, 2015 9:54 pm

            @lig that’s the first time someone has described it in a way that doesn’t make me hate it for a generalized term, thank you

  5. fluger July 31, 2015 1:57 pm #

    I voted.

  6. Will Grant July 31, 2015 2:09 pm #

    Hmm if 4 plus detachments is a thing may want to look at modifying the ally table for demons and nids not to hate everyone.

    I understand no Eldar with nids and wolves with demons and that there is no such thing as fair in the grim dark.

    But the bad guy disavantage is currently like a Michael Bay transformers movie.

    • Reecius July 31, 2015 2:22 pm #

      It’s getting to be less of a discrepancy with things like Renegades. However, some armies really do get left out in the cold…poor Tyranids! Alas, not much we can do about it. Folks really dislike CtA allies, we have a lot of data proving that.

      • Will Grant August 2, 2015 8:55 am #

        Right, but is it Good with Evil they cant stand?

        As someone said below, something like the Lord of War list.

        Orks, Necrons, Tyranids, and combined Chaos should all really get some level of alliance with one another even if it’s desperate.

        Can’t have the Super Friends without the Legion of Doom:

    • Ct Rickey August 1, 2015 10:16 am #

      I would second this. It would Be a exception for like Nids with Guard or even orks to fit Fluff like Genstealer cults and the Ork tribe that seeds plants for they can have a good fight.

      I am sure there is Some CtA armies people don’t have a issue with.

      It would be like the Limited LoW list you have now.

      Other wise 4+ sources only make for more super friends list that the Zenos can’t compete with.

  7. Ibushi July 31, 2015 2:13 pm #

    Yeah for the decurion style detachments, I was surprised there wasnt a “counts as ALL detachments” option.

    Counting each formation within them as a detachment doesn’t seem great, unless you blow open the number of detachments allowed in an army, which right now 3 seems fine.

    Also changing D to D3 or 3 wounds seems good. D2 is odd.

    • Reecius July 31, 2015 2:22 pm #

      Counting the individual components as a detachment each, effectively makes them all of the allowed detachments. But, we’ll see. The way the questions are set up, it allows for a wide range of possibilities.

      • bigpig August 2, 2015 11:33 pm #

        I would have gone with a “Decurion style formations count as 2 choices” approach rather than their component pieces. Brings some extra cost but still allows options if the cap is set at 3. I get it though. Will see how it plays out.

  8. Hotsauceman1 July 31, 2015 2:38 pm #

    Reece, Thank you for putting the Forgeworld Army list thing up there.
    If it says yes we can use them, great.
    If not, I will accuse you of mind control powers 😛

    Nahh, thanks, it will be what people think is allowed and isnt. I wont be upset if they say no.

    • Hotsauceman1 July 31, 2015 2:43 pm #

      Also, The Armored company is a 6th edition aswell

  9. WrentheFaceless July 31, 2015 2:40 pm #

    I hope War Convocation gets left alone =/

    • Ct Rickey August 1, 2015 10:23 am #

      I really hope this is changed. It is already 3 codex to play. With a possible hundreds of free upgrades. Your no longer playing 1850 vs1850. It’s 1850 vs 2000+ easily.

      Then you add 2 more codex’s that takes away the weekness of the formation for a total of 5.

      That’s 5 different sources for one army. How in anyone’s mind is that fair or balanced

      Sorry ranting.

      • iNcontroL August 2, 2015 8:46 am #

        Already have that kind of stuff going on in this game.. daemon summoning, battle company and things like decurion giving army wide advantages to the formation as well. The only difference is War Convocation hasn’t won a major tourney yet. What War Convocation list have you seen where you were like “THOSE TWO CODEXES WITH THE FORMATION BUST THE GAME!” Culexus? Drop Pods? Without either of those things the list has major holes.. now that is fine and good WH40k has countless lists with “holes” in it (all of them in fact) but again.. is the War Convocation breaking the meta? Is it dominating top tables? No and no.. so I would save your anxiety.

        • Pablo August 3, 2015 3:38 pm #

          I agree with everything you said, except for the “War Convocation hasn’t won a major tourney yet” bit as a viable argument. I heard there was this really great 40k player named Geoff who almost went the distance with it at the BAO. I think the war convocation list needs a bit more exposure and people will start running it. It also is a hard army to build for people who can’t just be godly starcraft players and great casters with a “war convocation building budget”

          As for the 1850 vs. 2000 points argument, we would see that already even without detachments and formations that give free units. We would see that in cost effective units. 140 point tacticals aren’t as valuable as 140 point blob squads are they? It’s just easy to make that cookie-cutter argument when the numbers are so clearly displayed.

          Reece I love what you guys are doing, and clearly enough people go to your tournaments and use the ITC format to warrant some sort of need for these public polls. You guys are trying your best despite dealing with one of the toughest groups of people for event organizers to deal with, gamers.

        • Ct Rickey August 3, 2015 7:28 pm #

          The codex are made with Major holes in their abilities. (Except maybe Eldar) War Convocation is a good formation on its own. Even with out the free upgrades getting to have the abilities of both Skitarii, Cult Mechanicum effect each other and the IK they get is really really good and worth taking just for it self.

          You almost won BAO with it at and from what I understand it was your first Tournament with them. Your a good player and you are skillful. You have every right to pourd of you showing there. I know I would be.
          Your viable argument that it hasn’t won yet,,, isn’t all that viable as you went 5 and 0. and lost by a few point from being in first place.

          Skitarii with drop pods have won two of the larger tournaments in the northwest with having IK or a bunch of free upgrades. We know they can be amazing when you give them the right tools.

          Summoning starts off on the same footing and can be countered before it gets going. That army takes a lot of skill to play right and few people can pull it off at the top players. Also summoning comes from the same codex. Not 5 differ ones.

          Battle company starts of with 6 to 10+ free OBS units that you have to kill to be able to win objectives. Recce even says it is a top tier formation/ list. Honestly if it didn’t give you 250+ points of free units is the formation worth it?

          Both are great formations and top players are running them. But honestly would be running them if you didn’t get the free upgrade and the advantage it gives.

  10. Hotsauceman1 July 31, 2015 2:44 pm #

    May I also say something? I think adding the Ravenwing rule, rerolling Jink saves, is too OP
    Can we instead give them the ability of “Counts as having the Ravenwing rule for purposes of the detachment”

    • Reecius July 31, 2015 4:06 pm #

      We used the example of Deathwing.

    • westrider July 31, 2015 8:39 pm #

      Or just amend the Detachment to allow “Units with the RavenWing Special Rule and ICs with the Dark Angels Faction and a SM Bike”.

  11. Ct Rickey July 31, 2015 4:57 pm #

    Great you put the Tyranids pod question. I am praying people go with the RAW as it make them decent. And the upgrade viable.

    • Kwodd July 31, 2015 6:26 pm #

      Fingers crossed.

    • N.I.B. August 2, 2015 6:46 am #

      In Sweden we FAQ it to what we think is RAI – Tcyte pod guns can fire independantly and will always target the closest enemy measured from the gun, but in everything else follows the rules for MC’s (360 LOS). This will often lead to the Tcyte shooting different targets, when close to several units, but at a distance usually shoots all guns at the closes target.
      Still not a great unit (too expensive) but decent, and could make its way into some lists.

  12. Black Blow Fly July 31, 2015 5:00 pm #

    Really good poll this time around !

  13. z3n1st July 31, 2015 5:34 pm #

    Great job on the poll this time!

  14. iNcontroL July 31, 2015 6:16 pm #

    Voted! Can’t believe it but I am voting for a buff to D.. think it got nerfed too hard would like to see the “B” table where a 6 is still deadly but not D6+6 no nothing deadly 🙂

    Interested to see the results!

    • Julnlecs July 31, 2015 11:55 pm #

      I voted for the unnerf as well. D3 on 2-5 and 3 wounds on 6 is good.

  15. Kwodd July 31, 2015 6:24 pm #

    Great poll, you guys are the best.

  16. No-wegian77 July 31, 2015 6:50 pm #

    I can’t believe you guys nerfed the Tyrannocyte to begin with. I hope people vote for RAW.

    • Reecius August 3, 2015 8:57 am #

      That was the FAQ Council, not the ITC specifically, it was an inherited ruling. That said, i think the RAI on it is quite clearly that they all shoot different targets, but, who cares? If it gets more variety in Nid lists I am happy for it.

      • Jural August 3, 2015 9:39 am #

        RAI/RAW is a strange concept when GW forgets one of their models is a MC and not a vehicle! I’m good either way though, and for the record, voted RAW.

      • bigpig August 4, 2015 8:43 am #

        I agree on the RAI. Reading from the original white dwarf makes it pretty clear. That said, the Tyrannocyte needs a little bump as it is a very expensive taxi and giving that massed shooting option could give it a little bonus.

  17. Iago August 1, 2015 1:47 am #

    I don’t think that the Ravenwing HQ rule needed a pole entry since several people already got answers from GW and BL stating that it is in fact a mistake in the codex and people should play “HQ choices taking a bike get the Ravenwing special rule”.

    • Freeman August 1, 2015 2:01 am #

      Who are these people?

      • Iago August 1, 2015 3:05 am #

        Everyone who asked them. But to be more specific, here is the answer I got from black library:

        “Hi There,

        Thanks for your email, we are aware of this issue and will be addressing it as soon as possible.

        For the time being (before an update is issued) we are suggesting to our customers that a “House Rule” is applied that allows any generic HQ choice such as librarian or chaplain be allowed to use in the formation and gain the Raven wing special rule. “

        • Nexus_Crawler August 2, 2015 9:03 pm #

          It is best posted here since correspondence from GW is not the same as an official FAQ. Did it need to be in the survey? Maybe not. But this is a good precedent for the community to have a say if GW will not make an official statement.

    • bigpig August 2, 2015 11:28 pm #

      So….. an errata maybe GW? Until then, it isn’t official and hence the need for an ITC ruling. Voting is easier to defend than a bright line decision on their part so I I get it.

    • bugsculptor August 4, 2015 6:50 pm #

      Pole entry? Quit sharing inner circle secrets.

  18. Prindlehaven August 1, 2015 12:06 pm #

    Finally! Addressing KDK Bloodthirsters! I hope everyone who votes has actually read the codex…

    • Adam ( August 1, 2015 2:18 pm #

      Agreed! It’s pretty much the difference between me yanking the hands off my second thirsted or not.

    • bigpig August 2, 2015 11:29 pm #

      and the rules for summoning/deep striking fmcs. This is a big deal and really needs to be addressed from a common sense standpoint

  19. Ct Rickey August 2, 2015 9:58 am #

    You should have a counter for we can see how many people are voting. Can’t wait to find out the total.

  20. Jp August 2, 2015 8:02 pm #

    Where do we vote to ban free points??? That’s the first thing on my list, I’d even give up summoning to stop playing vs 2500 point armies in an 1850 tourney….

    • Hotsauceman1 August 2, 2015 8:32 pm #


    • Trasvi August 3, 2015 3:54 am #

      What qualifies as ‘free points’?

      Sure its easy to say War Convocation, or Battle Company, or Summoning. But Decurions formation gives a ~50% increase in durability. If you had to pay for +1FNP as upgrades to your entire force that would set any other army back a couple hundred points easily.

      Where do you draw the line between free points and free abilities?

      • Mike August 3, 2015 8:51 am #

        Agreed on this. Even free preferred enemy marines and tank hunter for firebase formation is “free.” If you want to get rid of some of the big offenders, if only go along with it if you cracked down on ALL the offenders. IE no formations at all.

      • Jp August 3, 2015 11:18 am #

        I just did draw the line, it’s an easy line… Free units!!

        Every army has “free abilities” and what not… It’s part of the game. But not paying for upgrades or 10 free obsec vehicles… So your free units are getting free abilities!
        Just wait until free point armies start taking over… Gladius just won their first of many GT

        • Reecius August 3, 2015 11:39 am #

          The sky i snot falling, my friend =) Battle Companies will be very powerful, but they won’t be dominating. We’ve seen them in action many times, play with and against them frequently, and I can say that they are top tier (not a bad thing) but won’t steamroll the game or anything like that.

          • Ct Rickey August 3, 2015 7:47 pm

            Without the free units you would not see battle company’s. Giving every unit in the formation OS is big in of it self. But with out the free transports you wouldn’t see it on the board as it would have to many tax units for people.

            It’s top tier as you say. But only because of the free units.

          • Jural August 3, 2015 9:53 pm

            One other cool thing I haven’t heard anyone mention- but battle companies really give a gateway back to the game from people with older marine lists. You can now field your 2008 Ultramarine list and add a few pieces and it’s competive (unless you were LR heavy.)

      • Ct Rickey August 3, 2015 7:51 pm #

        Necron durability is their thing has always been that way. They don’t get that and free transports. Think about it if they got free transports too.

        It is true as new books come out this may all change as more armies get formation that improve their ability to kill stuff or get free stuff too. We will have to see. for now it is in many ways unfair to the older codexs

    • Ct Rickey August 3, 2015 7:42 pm #

      Will +1 this also.

  21. Infernoed August 2, 2015 8:13 pm #

    Hope my new army I just bought watching pod casts from front line does not get tanked that would suck. Here’s to praying

    • Infernoed August 2, 2015 8:22 pm #

      Referring to my new war convocation

  22. Jural August 3, 2015 9:35 am #

    I would add only two notes-

    1) If allies go back to RAW (and I think they should); Tyranid should have an exception. This is a minor issue with the silly formations Tyranids have, typically an ally detachment is a nerf!

    2) The second to last question (about Tyrannocytes) reads wrong to me. Should yes and no be reversed? I voted based on the text, not the yes/no.

  23. Pablo August 3, 2015 3:48 pm #

    Just voted, I thought; the D nerfs were a bit too harsh and the ITC should at least bring back the ‘ignores cover on a 6’ rule. Ignores cover should be placed on expensive D slinging behemoths. I mean it kills expensive units that rely on 2+ jink saves to survive but can still be mitigated by LOS blocking terrain. Something every table should have anyways.

    One issue I have is with the terrain cover issue. I don’t mind the toe in giving cover, but only for ruins. Area terrain should never give a cover save for just simply being in it.

    A happy medium for the rule might just be something like “A model is considered as being in a ruin/piece of terrain if their base is in contact with the base of the terrain and if its base is also partially obscured by the terrain it is currently in.”

    that way you can still have a toe in the terrain and claim the cover save, however if there is a unit standing right next to you with clear un-obscured LOS they can blast you without having to worry about you getting a cover save. It might also make the game slightly more tactical.

    • Reecius August 3, 2015 3:58 pm #

      It is ignore’s cover on a 6., currently.

    • Jural August 3, 2015 4:22 pm #

      That’s more cinematic for sure, but it really gives a bonus to Deep Striking (WWP, or Drop Pod…) lists. Essentially it makes a terrain light board a huge advantage, or gives a ton of advantage to one side over the other.

      In a world where bikes get a 4+ cover save (even up to a 3+ re-rollable), I’m OK with this abstraction for general troops. Not for MC, but it would hose Tyranids (who aren’t flyers or GC) otherwise.

    • Sirus the Virus August 3, 2015 8:26 pm #

      Pablo where is Area Terrain the BRB? There isn’t any… The toe in cover thing only pertains to Crater (6+ Whoopee!) or Ruins… Remember there is no Area Terrain anymore.

  24. Ibushi August 3, 2015 5:13 pm #

    My last question regarding the poll is when would the collated results be expected to get published?

    Whatever way the polling decides, I’m a huge fan of what you guys at FLG are doing, streamlining and involving the gamers at large to come up with a concrete FAQ packet.

    Keep up the good work!


    • Reecius August 5, 2015 4:44 pm #

      We always publish the results, yes!

Leave a Reply