ITC 2015 Season Quarterly Update Results

itc.logo.01.1

The votes are in! See the results, here.

Thank you to everyone that cast their vote in the 2015 ITC Quarterly Update. We hold these quarterly adjustments in order to adapt the ITC format to new material as it comes out, changing attitudes in the community, and changes in the tournament meta. We believe that a democratic approach to decision making enables ITC attendees to have a degree of self-determination and a voice in defining the tournament format they want to participate in.

Once again, I find it affirming to see that time after time, folks vote not in their own interest, not to give themselves an advantage, but with what they think is fair. That’s a testament to our community. Without further ado, here are the results:

Question 1

  • Should we lift the restriction on duplicate detachments? i.e. allow 2 CADs, 2 of the same Formation, etc.
    • Note: The Battle Company will remain an exception to this restriction, regardless of the result. Voting “Yes” would allow all other armies to take duplicates as well.

1.duplicate.detachments

It took a while for folks to warm up to this, ourselves included, but there you have it. ITC participants are ready for duplicate detachments! Change ahead, and positive change at that, IMO, for armies like Tyranids who can really benefit from having access to multiple CADs. It also allows for some very interesting ally combinations that may not have otherwise been possible because a certain faction did not have access to a CAD like detachment. Conversely, this also means some powerful formations can and will be duplicated such as Firebase Cadre, Seer Council, or Skyhammer. However, after a great deal of debate and thought on the topic, the team decided that you already could accomplish essentially the same things without doubling down on most formations, or through allies. In other words, it won’t have a massive change on the way the game plays, now, in our opinions.

Question 2

  • If we do lift the restriction on duplicate detachments:

2.howmanydetachments

The ITC community was ready for change, but not ready for too much change! What this means is that you can double down on a single detachment. So, 2 CADs, or 2 of any Formation, or 2 Allied Detachments, etc. but not 3 of a kind, etc. I agree that this is a good path, and it brings us more into alignment with NOVA format events, which is awesome as it makes it easier for folks to cross over from event to event.

Question 3

  • If we do lift the restriction on duplicate detachments, should Allied Detachments go back to RAW, where they are not allowed to be the same faction as your Primary Detachment?
    • Note: this only affects the Allied Detachment specifically.

3.selfallies

The BRB states you cannot take an Allied Detachment that is the same faction as the primary detachment (which is that detachment that holds your Warlord), however in the ITC we have ignored this rule because we did not allow duplicate detachments previously and to benefit those armies with little or no access to allies. Now that we are allowing duplicate detachments, we had to ask the community if they wanted to keep the rule change or play by the book. They chose to play by the book. So, going forward, if you take an Allied Detachment, it cannot be the same Faction as your primary detachment.

Question 4

  • We currently have a 3 detachment limit in the ITC. Should we keep this or allow more?

4.3detachments

The majority decided to stay with the status quo, and stick with 3 detachments. I actually expected it to go 4, but I am fine with 3. It presents enough limitations to have to make some fun, creative decisions during list building.

Question 5

  • If we increase the limit on detachments, how many should we allow?

5.4orUnlimitted

This question is moot due to the outcome of the question above, but we see again ITC participants lean towards the more conservative option in list building.

Question 6

  • We currently treat “Multi-Detachment” Detachments (Decurion Detachment, War Convocation, Gladius Strike Force, etc.) as a single Detachment regardless of the number of Formations within them. If the ITC continues to restrict the number of detachments allowed, should we keep this structure, or count each Formation within the “Decurion-style” Detachment as a Detachment towards the total limit?
    • Note: this does not limit units which are not in actual Formations within a Decurion-style Detachment such as War Engines in the KDK Bloodhost Detachment.

6.combidetachments

I was very interested to see how the wind would blow on this one. I could see folks feeling that combi-detachments were unfair, but clearly that is not the case. So, if you play the War Convocation, or the Decurion detachment, etc.. your army is good to go!

Question 7

  • Ranged D weapons changes for ITC: are you happy with the modified table?

7.ITC.Dtable

We’ve had three months to play the current ITC Ranged D table, we wanted feedback on how people felt about it. Seems from this result, folks wanted to keep it as we have it, now.

Question 8

  • If we change the Ranged D weapon table further:

8.new.Dtable

These results make we wonder if question 7 may have confused a few people. The reason being, that here, we see a clear majority in favor of a modified ranged D table that is MORE powerful than what we have, now. So, let us know if you voted and were thrown off by Question 7, because that overrides this question, meaning that as is, we stick with the current ITC modified ranged D table which is less powerful than what most folks seem to want.

Question 9

  • Should we remove the “Through Attrition, Victory” rule that grants a bonus maelstrom point for every 3 HP/Wounds done to Gargantuan Creatures or Super Heavy LoW?

9.attrition

A number of folks have expressed the sentiment that the +1 Maelstrom point we grant in the ITC for each HP/Wound you deal to a Super Heavy or GC LoW may no longer be needed. However, as we see here, the vast majority of folks want to keep it. I believe this to be a reaction to Wraithknights and Imperial Knights, personally. I voted for this rule to go away as I feel it isn’t needed any longer, but, I do understand the sentiment to keep it. Wraithknights are everywhere, and they are crazy under-priced. Folks facing against them probably feel that this rule is a balancing act to counter the power of these units. Fair enough, the rule stays.

Question 10

  • Currently, the ITC only allows FW army lists that were written specifically for 7th edition. Should we also allow FW army lists written for 6th edition as well? (6th edition lists are: Elysian Drop Troops, Elysian D-99, Necron Dark Harvest, and Death Korps of Krieg Assault Brigade).

10.6thedFW

I get asked about these army lists VERY frequently, so the results here do not surprise me. I love FW models, units, army lists, so for me, this is a lot of fun. In practice, we will rarely see these army lists. Wwe almost never do, now, at the BAO, we had 2 of 134 players actually using a FW list. There are some cool options in there, though, for players willing to investigate. I love Elysians and the D-99 lists, personally. I see this bringing more fun and variety to our games!

Question 11

  • Khorne Daemonkin: Bloodthirster/Daemon Prince summoning, can they choose to swoop or glide when they enter the game from Deep Strike? If they enter the game “flying,” they must wait 2 game turns before they may assault. Allowing them to choose to enter “jumping” means they enter play on the ground, and wait 1 turn to assault.
    • Note: they must still swoop when entering the game normally from reserves.

11.KDK

This has been a hot button issue, lately and a classic RAW vs. RAI argument (as are all of the remaining issues). I’m happy to see the community choosing to lend a hand to their KDK friends, and go with the RAI interpretation on this one. Again, this to me shows that folks do not vote in their own self interest. Obviously, 66% of all ITC participants are not KDK players, yet that many were willing to vote for a ruling that benefits them. That’s a good thing, IMO, and it means we as a community care more for doing what we think is fair than what may benefit us, personally. KDK players be stoked! In ITC events you can realistically summon your big boys and have then actually participate in the game!

Question 12

  • Do we allow Dark Angels characters on bike to gain the Ravenwing rule, as we believe is RAI?
    • Note: Currently Ravenwing detachments have access to 3 HQ’s, which must have the Ravenwing rule, but RAW no HQ’s besides Sammael have the Ravenwing rule.

12.ravenwing

Blowout community reaction to support RAI on this topic, again, just as with KDK. I think this was the right call and again, shows the community looks after its own. Hey, Dark Angels players, yes, you can actually slap some more HQs into your Ravenwing armies or take someone other than Sammael!

Question 13

  • Currently, we change Tyranid Tyrannocytes rules (i.e. Tyranid Drop Pod) to treat its weapons as if they were a vehicle’s hull-mounted weapon, each firing at the nearest target in its 45° fire arc, which is what we believed to be the RAI. Should we remove this change?

13.Tyrannocyte

Our closest vote! I got asked about this one much more frequently than I thought I would. Apparently a lot of Nid players really wanted their Tyrannocytes to be able to shoot a single target! I get it. I think RAI is clearly against that, but, I am totally cool with this rule being overturned (which the ITC inherited from the FAQ Council/INAT). Tyranid players, get pumped! You now have some options for alternate ways to deliver your beasties into the fray that will also pump out some damage in the shooting phase.

Question 14

  • Currently, we disallow the Blood Angels, Angel’s Fury Spearhead Force Formation to charge the turn they come from Reserves, as we believe it is RAI. Should we lift this alteration, and play RAW, allowing them to charge the turn they arrive from Reserves?

14.blood.angels

Another inherited ruling that ruffled quite a few feathers when we made the call. This is again, a RAW vs. RAI debate. RAI is, IMO, quite clear that this formation should not allow a combo charge out of reserves using it and Drop Pods. However, RAW is clearly that yes ,they can. We presented it to the ITC community and for the 4th time on 4 topics, the community voted to help out their neighbors and the Blood Angels do get to use their cool Formation in the way most folks probably want to use it. Just be prepared, this means Hammernators potentially first turn charging out of reserves if you happen to find yourself facing it.

Well, there you have it! The ITC continues to evolve. The next update will be the first week of Novemeber and will be the final fine tuning before the LVO!

Tags:

About Reecius

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

61 Responses to “ITC 2015 Season Quarterly Update Results”

  1. coblen August 7, 2015 3:47 pm
    #

    I’m really happy to see duplicate detachments/formations. I wanted unlimited duplication, but am happy with two for now. I remain hopeful that it will become unlimited in the future.

    I was really hoping that the detachment cap would be removed. I think some kind of limit is necessary, but would strongly prefer a faction limit as apposed to a detachment limit. Its less punishing on small formations, puts less power in Decurian style detachments, while still maintaining a certain level of army cohesion.

    The D-table results are disappointing. I can see ranged D needing to be nerfed, but I felt as though table b was a much fairer nerf.

    I’m happy to see all the army specific changes. I originally voted for the RAI tyranocite, but regretted it when I realized it might actually see play if it was changed to the RAW. I’m pretty skeptical, but I would love to see some tournament lists running it.

    I love that you go to the community when looking for these things. Each person might not get what they want, but I think as a whole it helps maximize the fun, and competition in your tournaments

  2. pascalnz August 7, 2015 3:59 pm
    #

    Wow….I love it.You guys have improved the questionnaire so much:)! the only weird result is the D result, I hope I wasn’t confused by it;). Oh well, it definitely warrants another question next time eh??

    I’m dying inside that I can’t come to LVO next year. I said yes to doing a festival in Auckland and the dates have been changed to a week earlier.. right on top of the tourney dates…Super gutted
    Maybe I’ll try a BAO LVO double for next season:)

    • Adam
      Adam (Thediceabide.com) August 8, 2015 5:52 am
      #

      I won’t get to see Pascal?! NOOOOO!

    • Raw Dogger August 8, 2015 10:19 am
      #

      Ahh that’s a bummer we won’t be able to see you! 2017 start planning now (though I know you just had/are soon to have the baby.

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 10, 2015 1:02 pm
      #

      Won’t be the same without you both!

  3. Freeman August 7, 2015 4:32 pm
    #

    In my opinion these were really predictable results.

    The only shocker to me was the allowance of thirsters being allowed to deepstrike and charge the turn after. I thought the rules were very clear.

    Luckily it doesn’t matter ‘cos they’re still shit.

    Really looking forward to LVO. The community involvement in rules decisions is commendable.

    • Adam
      Adam (Thediceabide.com) August 7, 2015 9:47 pm
      #

      There was a lot of ambiguity in the rules actually… The Swooping requirement for deep strike is explicitly when coming from reserves, which the KDK rules make no mention of (so you cannot intercept summoned KDK daemons), unlike how everything else that comes in from reserves is explicit. Similarly people had a fairly solid argument (which I disagreed with) about them coming in swooping, but being able to change modes in the movement phase. I strongly disagree with that second interpretation, but the result is the same.

    • Samuel sanchez August 8, 2015 7:31 am
      #

      I’d like to see the d weapon questions again and see if I messed up. Pretty sure I voted correctly to change it to the almost book version.

  4. Freeman August 7, 2015 4:36 pm
    #

    Is the option to choose reserve entry status going to apply to other fmcs?

    • Adam
      Adam (Thediceabide.com) August 8, 2015 5:51 am
      #

      It is only an issue for summoning in the KDK book, as the rule that specifies Swooping also specifies when coming from reserves. Conjugation psychic powers makes it a point to explicitly say that they count as coming from reserves (as well as deep striking), while the KDK summoning makes no mention of this.

      Additionally KDK summoning happens in a different phase, which has made some people argue that they are allowed to pick flight modes, since they are summoned before flight modes are declared.

  5. Mike August 7, 2015 5:07 pm
    #

    I think the “everybody voting to help everybody else out” thing is sort of an escalation reaction. When you look at most of those and ask yourself… “is this more ridiculous on the table than skyhammer, 7e eldar, firebase cadre, harvest wraiths, etc?” …It’s hard to say no to them in that light.

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 10, 2015 1:03 pm
      #

      I agree. I think people vote for what is right most of the time, but yeah, there is a lot of “why the hell not?” at this stage.

      • Jural August 10, 2015 4:59 pm
        #

        Yes, I voted “why the hell not” a few times and “when in doubt, closer to the rulebook” a couple times more.

  6. Jon August 7, 2015 5:29 pm
    #

    Yeah, Ranged D has been nerfed too hard – the question didn’t give room for that option.

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 10, 2015 1:03 pm
      #

      It did give room to make it better, but I think we didn’t work it clearly enough.

  7. MisterMeatball August 7, 2015 6:32 pm
    #

    My DA Libby and Chaplain ride again!

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 10, 2015 1:04 pm
      #

      Nice!

  8. Venkarel August 7, 2015 7:27 pm
    #

    Good job FLG! The poll was much improved in both quality and clarity of questions. I do think you should do a another poll regarding the D results as the question and its follow-up where the only one that had conflicting results. Otherwise, wow just wow, keep it up!

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 10, 2015 1:04 pm
      #

      Glad you liked it!

  9. No-wegian77 August 7, 2015 8:03 pm
    #

    Bravo gents! I only hope my local GT this December follows suit!

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 10, 2015 1:04 pm
      #

      Thanks!

  10. westrider August 7, 2015 8:27 pm
    #

    I am a Nid Player, but I think I actually would have preferred an intermediate ruling on T-Cytes and Sporocysts, giving them maybe a 135* arc of fire off each Weapon or something. Limited fire arcs do seem to fit the intention of the Rules, but 45* is far too limiting, given the way they’re arranged.

    • Kwodd August 8, 2015 3:40 pm
      #

      Maybe if playing them RAW turns out to be game breaking, otherwise they’re making something mediocre into something terrible for the hell of it.

  11. ccrraazzyyman August 7, 2015 9:13 pm
    #

    Through Attrition, Victory is an outdated 6th edition rule in a book that isn’t valid any more. Why we keep using it is beyond my comprehension. No one uses the Escalation Warlord Traits table (because it’s garbage) and for every SH except Wraithknight you’re handicapped if you take them because of how bad they are for their points.

    • Jural August 10, 2015 5:00 pm
      #

      Yeah, I think it’s becoming moot as more and more Superheavies, etc get allowed into the game. But a few armies still have pretty crappy choices, and I can see them wanting the balance, especially if they have to go against multiple Wraithknights…

  12. Hotsauceman1 August 7, 2015 10:47 pm
    #

    Im al glad for the FW army list thing. I hope it will bring some creative lists. Like my Artillery spam/DeathRider list.
    And yeah. Duel Firebase is terryfying, especially because I am running Droppod salamanders

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 10, 2015 1:06 pm
      #

      Dual Firebase will be a thing, for sure. It has a lot of weaknesses, though, like Skyhammer will dookie on it.

  13. chad August 8, 2015 4:09 am
    #

    You’re allowing everything else, why not allow cta allies at this point. What cta list is any worse/more powerful than anything you’re currently allowing. Revote!!

    • Adam
      Adam (Thediceabide.com) August 8, 2015 5:46 am
      #

      This has been voted on multiple times before and failed by a massive margin each time, why do you think it be any different this time?

      • Hulksmash August 8, 2015 6:36 am
        #

        It’s actually only been voted on once and it wasn’t a massive margin but sure 🙂

      • Jural August 10, 2015 5:01 pm
        #

        It was voted on twice, allowed the first time, then dropped the second time, right?

        I liked it, but really it just meant that everyone allied with a Knight 😉

  14. 420blazer August 8, 2015 4:25 am
    #

    I thought it was interesting that you didn’t let a tone vote to have d weapons played raw. I guess these polls mean little anyways because people vote to nerf the army they don’t play.

    • Adam
      Adam (Thediceabide.com) August 8, 2015 5:48 am
      #

      My guess from the data is that the first D question was possibly misinterpreted as playing RAW vs Nerfed for some people, since the second table won by a clear margin in the follow up question.

    • Mike August 8, 2015 6:22 am
      #

      The votes show pretty clearly that people don’t just vote to nerf armies they don’t play. Unless you think that somehow 70% of the voters play BA AND daemonkin, while a little over half play tyranids, and 80% of them play dark Angels. Somehow I sincerely doubt it.

      • Reecius
        Reecius August 10, 2015 1:09 pm
        #

        Exactly, people do not only vote in their own best interest.

  15. tag8833 August 8, 2015 6:33 am
    #

    Very happy about the Tcyte. It may seem like it was a minor nerf, but in play-testing it was gigantic.

    The Tcyte was clearly a vehicle that got changed to an MC very late in the rules writing. They upped the cost appropriately, and for it to be denied some of the basic MC rules made it significantly overcosted.

    I still don’t think the Tcyte is that great. It needs the Drop Pod Assault rule, or the ability to get Objective secured. As it is, you basically can’t use it with assault based units, because all Tyranid assault based units are slow compared to other armies, and so Tyrannocyting one in basically means it can’t be effective until turn 4.

    But I’ve got one kit and 3 converted pineapples, so I’m going to be working on building a Tyranid list I’m currently calling “Pineapple Express” that I hope might have a shot as a unbalanced meta-buster.

    • Adam
      Adam (Thediceabide.com) August 8, 2015 8:25 am
      #

      Clearly a vehicle? When was the last time Tyranids got something that was even almost a vehicle?

      • westrider August 8, 2015 8:54 am
        #

        2nd Ed, as I recall. And even that was through Armorcast 😉

    • Kwodd August 8, 2015 3:37 pm
      #

      Between the t-cyte and double CAD this nids player couldn’t be happier.

      • Reecius
        Reecius August 10, 2015 1:09 pm
        #

        The Nid player in me was happy, too!

      • Jural August 10, 2015 5:03 pm
        #

        Totally stoked here, but I did like the ability to use allies as well. Minor point as double CAD vs ally is the cost of a spore though…

        All in all, ‘Nids went from garbage at the start of this edition to fun now; although if I have one complaint its that the rules are scattered over so many sources…

  16. Lex August 8, 2015 10:36 am
    #

    I think there is a strong possibility that many read the first D-Weapon question as “keep it nerfed” or “change it back to the book table”. It seems extremely incongruous with the second question results. Perhaps poll that question again this week, or throw it out and go with the second question’s results since it was more definitive as to the potential responses.

  17. Variance Hammer August 8, 2015 2:05 pm
    #

    I personally found the D question to be a little confusing – I voted correctly, but it took more thought than the other ones to map out “What is the closest option to ‘Put it back to RAW’?”, and trying to figure out if voting for changing it inevitably supported changing it further.

    I’d suggest redoing that as a single, multi-part question, rather than a series of “Yes/No” nested questions.

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 10, 2015 1:10 pm
      #

      Follow up poll question has been posted.

  18. Fearfire August 8, 2015 3:02 pm
    #

    Hey I think instead of having one question ask “Should ranged D be changed or kept the same” and a separate question asking “should ranged D increase or decrease in power,” just have one question with three options:

    1)Slight decrease in power of the ranged D table (hardly anybody will choose this tho)
    2)Keep the ranged D table the same
    3) Slight increase in power (to the proposed table).

    Problem solved. It sounds like players like how it is, but then you made them answer a second question assuming they wanted the rule changed, and the only two options were “more strong or less strong,” so, being forced to choose one players would choose to increase the strength a bit more.

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 10, 2015 1:10 pm
      #

      Follow up poll question has been posted.

  19. Jet August 9, 2015 5:45 am
    #

    I think we should poll questions number seven and eight again just to take out any ambiguity in the questions.

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 10, 2015 1:10 pm
      #

      Follow up poll question has been posted.

  20. masos August 9, 2015 8:52 am
    #

    So I can have a daemon CAD and a Daemon CAD. But I can’t have a daemon CAD ally lied with daemons?????

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 9, 2015 2:57 pm
      #

      Yes, You can if your primary detachment also, daemons. If your primary detachment is daemons, then you cannot have an allied detachment of the same faction per the BRB.

      • Jural August 10, 2015 5:05 pm
        #

        You can also have a CSM CAD (as your primary), a Chaos Daemon CAD, and a Chaos Daemon Ally if you really want to. So you just can’t have 2 Chaos Daemon CAD and a Chaos Daemon Ally detachment.

    • pascalnz August 9, 2015 3:32 pm
      #

      slightly off on the terminology. you could have 2 daemon CADs but you couldn’t have have a a Daemon CAD and a Daemon Allied detachment
      If you just use the strict names of detachments it’s way less confusing:)

      Allied Detachment has very specific rules.

      Being “allied to something” just means you have an army with different factions.

      • Reecius
        Reecius August 17, 2015 9:23 am
        #

        Actually, you could have a Daemon CAD and Daemon Allied Detachment, the allied detachment simply cannot be the same faction as the primary detachment, which houses your warlord.

        Confusing, I know.

  21. Sam August 9, 2015 10:55 am
    #

    I rather see the question in three parts for str d.
    Keep it as currently is in the its.
    Slight buff so d counts as str10 for insta death and 3 wounds hull on 6.
    And use the book rules.

    However personally I rather the itc make the 2-5 results on the d table count as 2 hull wounds. Mostly because I think the rules have excessive dice rolling it’s a waste of time.

  22. Asmodius August 9, 2015 7:54 pm
    #

    I think that d weapons and stomp results should just use wound pools. It would make them my ch simpler.

  23. Jim August 11, 2015 7:47 am
    #

    Will these updates be reflected in the faq and if so when

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 17, 2015 9:22 am
      #

      Already done!

  24. Kartr_Kana August 11, 2015 9:16 am
    #

    Not sure why the Tcyte was nerfed to begin with. After all its an MC so it can only fire two weapons without a special rule granting it more.

    • N.I.B. August 17, 2015 6:54 am
      #

      “After all its an MC so it can only fire two weapons without a special rule granting it more.”
      – Which it has.

      I think us Swedes has the correct interpretation on the Tcyte rules. It’s obvious that GW want each gun to be able to fire independantly, so we measure from each gun to the nearest enemy unit. This often leads to the Tcyte firing at different units when close by, but at a distance it can shoot all guns at the same unit. And we rule it as 360 LOS of course.

      • Warmaster_GIR August 17, 2015 9:17 am
        #

        That’s always how I thought it was supposed to work. I’m pretty sure that’s how the Deathstorm Drop Pod works as well. It would have been easier if GW just made a rule that in each shooting phase every enemy unit within X” takes like D6 or D3+3 hits at weapons strength and AP. Much easier way representing a giant blob with guns firing in all directions. But Conciseness, Clarity and Constituency have never really been GW’s thing.

        • Warmaster_GIR August 17, 2015 9:36 am
          #

          *consistency not Constituency