2015 Season ITC Quarterly Update Poll

ITC

Time to make your voice heard! We’ve got the 2015 ITC Season 3rd Quarter Update Poll. It runs today through Sunday, October 11th.

Not a ton to vote on this quarter as we’ve had the Summer of Sigmar for most of the past quarter. Going off of the rules submission questionnaire, we got a lot of feedback but covering a very broad spectrum of topics, but there were not many topics that came up frequently. The only persistent issues brought up were those below.

Thank you as always for voting and making the ITC what it is!

To cast your vote, follow this link!

Tags:

About Reecius

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

114 Responses to “2015 Season ITC Quarterly Update Poll”

  1. Panzer1944 October 6, 2015 2:07 am #

    I’ve done my civic duty.

  2. Ivan Cho October 6, 2015 3:21 am #

    Allow use of experimental suits.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 6, 2015 8:31 am #

      They would be included in this poll question if it passes.

  3. westrider October 6, 2015 6:06 am #

    Vote early, vote often!

  4. Fraktalen October 6, 2015 6:19 am #

    Please make a vote if multilevel ruins should be using 7th ed rules instead of 6th.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 6, 2015 8:32 am #

      What do you mean by this? That could mean many different things.

      • Adam
        Adam (thediceabide.com) October 6, 2015 8:45 am #

        Maybe he means playing without any rules, since the rulebook doesn’t address multi level ruins. 😛

      • AbusePuppy October 6, 2015 10:56 am #

        Presumably he’s talking about having blast/template weapons hit all “levels” simultaneously, since in 7E levels are not actually really a thing anymore.

        • Tiberius183 October 6, 2015 12:02 pm #

          Oh HELL no. The only rules for multi-level ruins is one of the things 6th ed got RIGHT, IMO…

      • Fraktalen October 6, 2015 11:33 pm #

        From the Nova 2015 FAQ: Blast and Template weapons will hit all models underneath the blast or template. Keep in mind
        Levels of Ruins is a dated rule explicitly removed by Games Workshop as of 7th Edition. This
        includes blast weapons with the Barrage special rule.

        I would like to see a vote on using this in ITC as well.

        • Reecius
          Reecius October 7, 2015 10:34 am #

          Wait, what? You WANT blasts and templates to hit every level of a ruin? You are literally the first person I have ever heard say that, it is incredibly crazy powerful, particularly considering how many multi-level buildings we use in our format. You are free to hold whichever point of view you desire of course, and that is totally cool, but I can tell you the odds of that occurring are slim to none. I just don’t see that gaining popular support.

          • Fraktalen October 7, 2015 11:17 pm
            #

            Well it would be great if people could at least choose which floor to hit instead of always hitting the top floor with barrage. Cause right now ruins act as free indestructible bunkers.

            Countering barrage weapons by using certain terrain is not optimal imo.

          • Reecius
            Reecius October 8, 2015 9:20 am
            #

            Fair enough, but my counter to that is do you think it is fair to have barrage weapons with long range able to hit any target on the table with no way of avoiding it? That hardly seems optimal, either, IMO. It means movement has no impact on the game in regards to barrage weapons you simply hope they miss. Maneuver becomes less important. And remember, so long as you have LoS and are able to do so, you can also fire directly, enabling you to use the blast weapon rules and to choose the level you hit.

          • tiberius183 October 8, 2015 6:29 am
            #

            ^this. The 6th ed rules made more sense.

          • fraktalen October 9, 2015 11:52 pm
            #

            I get your point, but it’s still a huge nerf to barrage weapons. Going from hitting all levels to only hitting the top. Rendering it completely useless in certain situations. I just think its weird that you dont even make a vote about it since it has quite a big impact on the game.

            And besides maybe thats the design intent of barrage weapons – that you shouldnt be able to hide.

          • Reecius
            Reecius October 10, 2015 7:06 am
            #

            To be fair, gw intended for us to play 7th with unbound armies, and points limits optional, too. What they intend with their rules doesn’t really matter much unless you take every rule in that crazy book equally. You can’t pick and choose which rules should be inviolable because they were intended. That argument falls apart as soon as you disregard any other rule in the book.

            Blasts, templates and barrage weapons really need to be put in check vs multi level buildings or it makes them useless. Things like an acheron or a lynx for example, hitting ever level of a building makes them death traps. The logistics of running a tournament mean you have a lot of standardized terrain. We have loads of multi level buildings as a core part of our terrain strategy. That rule would make our tables target ranges for blasts and templates which would alter the meta further to death stars as they’d be the only units able to operate in the open vs heavy shooting armies. It would have a dramatic impact on the game in our events. All the hard work we put into making our tables with cool, multi level buildings a waste. It really does not work for us at all. We didn’t vote on this one because this was an inherited ruling from before we votes on things but honestly, I don’t think this topic would have any chance of passing. It might make folks like yourself feel better though, as it would be a community decision, which I get. But, I play lots of barrage weapons in my AM, hasn’t slowed me down too much.

  5. Requizen
    Requizen October 6, 2015 7:00 am #

    I’m torn on the last one. I like how people mix and match rules to create something stronger than the sum of it’s parts – in fact, I think that’s one of the most fun things about gaming. But, it is pretty abusive in certain cases.

    • elphilo October 6, 2015 7:08 am #

      Yeah that left my head scratching too. What’s the thing that is jumping out at people and making them want to change that?

      • Requizen
        Requizen October 6, 2015 7:10 am #

        The current abuse case from my understanding is something like a TWC star with allied White Scars SM Bikers, giving them Hit and Run. So, you have a big scary TWC star that also can jump in and out of combat.

        • elphilo October 6, 2015 7:19 am #

          But you still can get that with DA/SW. The thing says that BA/DA/SW won’t lose their rules in a mixed unit. . . .

          • Reecius
            Reecius October 6, 2015 8:33 am
            #

            True, but only SM have the rule where they lose their CTs in a mixed unit.

          • elphilo October 6, 2015 8:46 am
            #

            Then I guess I don’t understand the point of that vote lol.

            You’ll just force players to play with Ravenwing instead of White Scars (in the TWC scenario).

            Meanwhile GKs aren’t in this CT debate. Which I’m assuming was an oversight 😉

        • AbusePuppy October 6, 2015 10:58 am #

          Actually, the poll wouldn’t change that any- as per the SM codex, you only lose Chapter Tactics that apply to UNITS, not models, so Hit and Run would be unaffected (as would Feel No Pain from IH, Bolter Drill and Tank Hunters from IF, etc.)

          • aaronaleong October 6, 2015 4:16 pm
            #

            So one major tournament win at Nova and a vote to change it is on the docket??

            Really kind of over reacting.The ITC rulings already make the list more difficult to run as it was built.

            How about things like the Grimoire, Doomstone, etc?

          • Reecius
            Reecius October 6, 2015 4:51 pm
            #

            Hey Aaron, I understand your position but I think you may be looking at this from a perspective that isn’t totally accurate. For one, the ITC staff doesn’t really choose what to put on the poll. It is based off of feedback from the community. Things that get brought up frequently are then put in front of the community for a vote. This go around we didn’t have a ton of popular topics, but of those, the mixing of CTs was the most commonly brought up, followed by the Stormsurge. Experimental rules being allowed has been an ongoing and frequently raised topic of conversation but after speaking with some of the gents at FW and seeing that they intend for Experimental units to be used in normal play, we decided to finally address it.

            While I am sure your performance at NOVA had some impact on people’s opinions, I am willing to bet it was not a huge impact. Typically these topics come up organically, and I would guess that many people out there simply feel that it is unfair for chapters of Space Marines that have chapter tactics in all but name, get to circumvent the restrictive rule. I could be wrong of course, but that is my guess.

            As for your list being tougher to run in the ITC, yeah. By popular feedback most participants in the ITC have voted consistently to bring down the relative power of Deathstars and I think this is one more example of that.

            It’s not personal. I understand that it can feel that way to you and that you can point to a number of examples of other abusive combinations that you may feel are equally powerful if not more so, but that is not what this is expressly about. This is a reaction to the feedback of ITC participants, each of whom has a variety of reasons for bringing up the issues they do and voting the way they vote.

          • Black Blow Fly October 6, 2015 4:49 pm
            #

            I have to agree with Aaron. If nerfs are being handed make it universal.

          • Reecius
            Reecius October 7, 2015 10:41 am
            #

            That’s not the point, buddy. We aren’t handing out nerfs, we’re reacting to community feedback.

          • aaronaleong October 6, 2015 7:21 pm
            #

            Reece,

            Thanks for the quick feedback. I agree that overall the community sees certain combos and wants balance. I wish more people knew what daemons actually do at the highest levels of competition. The most unbalanced combo/ruleset is truly the chaos daemon codex. I just happen to play against three of the top daemon players too often. If community balance is the goal then things like seer council/screamer star, horrify/doomstone, grimoire, etc are definitely an opportunity for community balance.

            Thanks again Reece

          • Reecius
            Reecius October 7, 2015 10:39 am
            #

            Happy to provide feedback, buddy. And remember, the vote actually has to pass, it may not. And I agree with you, Daemons have it all in spades right now and your perspectives in your gaming groups will alter how you see things due to the high level of competition.

  6. Codi October 6, 2015 7:24 am #

    Why are Grey Knights excluded from that list on the final question?

    Also the way I understand chapter tactics, the only rules that are lost are those that refer to units (ie units of White Scars), however if the rules refers to White Scar models then the models keep their chapter tactics.

    • Hotsauceman1 October 6, 2015 7:41 am #

      Ikeep saying that, but no one believes me

    • AbusePuppy October 6, 2015 10:58 am #

      You are correct in that regard, although knowing the way things usually go Reece is gonna jump in and tell me the ITC changed that rule, also. 😐

    • westrider October 6, 2015 11:02 am #

      That’s my understanding as well. There are a couple of BT abilities, and I think one RavenGuard one, but the rest all specify “Models”, not “Units”, so they don’t care if the Model is in a Unit of a different type.

      • AbusePuppy October 6, 2015 11:11 am #

        White Scars let units reroll Run results.

        Black Templars units gain Rage/CA when shot.

        Raven Guard jump units gain some bonuses.

        Those are the only three Chapter Tactics actually affected by things.

  7. Hotsauceman1 October 6, 2015 7:44 am #

    Im a Tau Player, and I think more then one Stormsurge Will break the game.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 6, 2015 8:33 am #

      Then vote with your conscious, good sir!

    • Kevin Lantz October 9, 2015 2:51 pm #

      why do you think that if you don’t mind answering? you do know it’s got a 3+ armor save and toughness 6 right? not an army in the game that can’t shoot it down with just their regular guns.

  8. iNcontroL October 6, 2015 7:52 am #

    Will be interesting!

  9. jy2
    jy2 October 6, 2015 8:18 am #

    Stormsurge in a unit is no big deal. It will actually hurt the Tau army more than it will help IMO.

    The limit on Chapter Tactics with other Marine books is to limit the abuse on deathstars units. However, as someone else already pointed out here, Chapter Tactics-abuse can just be replaced by units from a different codex (so instead of allying White Scars, you can just bring in Ravenwing allies or even Cypher for Hit-&-Run).

    And I forgot what the last question was.

    Hope I’m not influencing anyone’s vote. 😉

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 6, 2015 8:33 am #

      Glad you voted!

    • Jural October 6, 2015 9:53 am #

      Personally, I’m OK with mixing chapter tactics in an ITC environment (with limits on Inivis, re-rollable 2+, etc).

      but it’s just insane without those limitations removed.

  10. Warmaster_GIR October 6, 2015 8:36 am #

    Im excited to see Experimental rules. There are so many cool things that are experimental, none of which really break or imbalance the game more that any of the official units. (I’m looking at your Wraith Knights). Changing the rules for Chapter Tactics seems a bit far reaching for my taste and it doesn’t really address the issue at heart, which to me is the problems with the allies matrix. Also three stormsurges may seem scary but I doubt it will see much play. Generally three of those guys as a single lord of war slot is probably going to run you 1200 points. Unless they change dramatically with the new book I don’t see them being overpowering. Also with 24 GC wounds that adds up to 8 possible maelstrom points for their opponent.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 6, 2015 1:57 pm #

      I’m excited at the possibility of experimental units, too. Chaos Knights! My Deredeo may see the light of day and of course, the poor Tau suits that have been languishing for so long will get some play time.

      • Warmaster_GIR October 6, 2015 2:53 pm #

        Yay Doritos Dreadnought, that thing is so cool, also I like the concept of being able to use my Y’vahra and R’varna so I may have been just a wee bit biased.

  11. Rolling thunder October 6, 2015 9:05 am #

    What about changing rules for cover so that Gargantuan MC do not get a save for “toe in” cover?

    • Sam October 6, 2015 9:34 am #

      This ^
      I am sure this was a popular submission request
      I know it hurts tyranids but my goodness is this tactic abused and makes no sense.

      • Jural October 6, 2015 9:56 am #

        Hurts Tyranids in the sense that it makes manyof their builds unplayable and forces them to be all Tyrants.

        But I think a good middle ground would have been- FMC and Gargantuan MC use the vehicle requirements for cover (25% or more of the model obscured). MC retain the current ruling.

        Heck, I would be in favor of making walkers act just like MC in this regard.

        • Mike October 6, 2015 10:14 am #

          I just don’t think it hurts the nids as much as people say. It’s pretty easy for walking tyrants, fexes, and the other codex MC’s to be 25% obscured and still get the same save they always have. They’re still small enough that things like venomthropes and zoans in front would cause cover, as well as ruin walls.

          • AbusePuppy October 6, 2015 11:00 am
            #

            It does hurt the Heirodule, though, which is one of like four playable units in the Tyranid codex these days.

          • N.I.B. October 8, 2015 10:16 pm
            #

            So not only am I handicapping myself by playing footslogging Tyranids, now I’m forced to shove my Venomthrope/Zoanthrope IN FRONT OF my big MC’s, were it will die in a heartbeat, and leave my MC’s unprotected again.

            Or be forced to play with other horrible T4 models to act as the most expensive screen in 40K.

            Thing is, this was a decent tactic in 5th ed when Hive Guards didn’t suck and the Tervigon/Termagant synergies weren’t nerfed into oblivion and Intervening cover saves were 4+ and FNP was also 4+ and guaranteed because it was available as a purchasable upgrade for 15 points for all Tervigons. You could run an onion layered build with good staying power.

            Gants in first line, 6-9 Hive Guards second line, MC’s third line. Everyone except cannonfodder Gants were 25% obsured.

      • Reecius
        Reecius October 6, 2015 1:58 pm #

        There was not even 1 submission on this topic, which surprised me.

    • Mike October 6, 2015 9:54 am #

      I was quite sad to see that toe in cover was skipped as a question yet again.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 6, 2015 12:05 pm #

      Nobody brought it up on the questionnaire. That is how we gauge how prevalent a topic is.

      • Jural October 6, 2015 3:06 pm #

        It isn’t really a rules question though, it’s 100% clear what is intended based on the rulebook (Unlike- can a GMC fire more than 2 weapons, for example.)

        It could be that people are submitting proposed rules changes, only requests for clarification.

      • Mike October 6, 2015 10:08 pm #

        Wait, you mean the rules submission form? That’s a bad way to gauge it. We KNOW how the rule works. We don’t need to ask about it. That doesn’t mean it’s not one of the sillier rules in the game at the moment.

      • Rolling thunder October 7, 2015 6:03 am #

        Hey Reece,
        I think people did not bring up the GARGANTUAN MC issue because, as stated above, it is not a rule question.

        In my mind, with allowing DA characters on bikes to get the RW rule, the ITC made one if it’s first big RAI changes (yes there have been some before, but never specific to one army), since RAW it is wrong (I agree with the change, BTW). Now that the ITC has “dipped it’s toes” into changing rules for RAI, I think it is reasonable to consider some other egregious rules, like gargantuan and swooping MC with a toe in cover. Note I am not referring to regular MC, they can still get their ridiculous benefit over vehicles

  12. Novastar October 6, 2015 9:42 am #

    Where is the add “Warhound Titan” option!!!!

    • Novastar October 6, 2015 9:52 am #

      It had a change.org petition!!! Lol 😉

  13. Jural October 6, 2015 9:51 am #

    Just so I understand, is the current ITC “1 Lord of War per army” actually a LOW limitation or is it a limitation on Super heavies and Gargantuans?

    So can I field Azrael and a Knight, for example?

    • jy2
      jy2 October 6, 2015 9:55 am #

      With the exception of a Knight detachment, apparently the LoW restriction is a 1 model per army restriction.

    • jy2
      jy2 October 6, 2015 9:56 am #

      No matter if it is a LoW character or Super-heavy/gargant.

      • Jural October 6, 2015 9:58 am #

        Darn, I wish we could have voted on this… Maybe LoW models who aren’t Super heavies or Gargantuans can be fielded as either LoW or as HQ’s? Or just change the limit from LoW to SH/GC?

      • Mike October 6, 2015 10:16 am #

        I thought it was strictly referring to superheavies, because I’ve seen some lists run with both a SH and character lord of war a few times.

      • jy2
        jy2 October 6, 2015 10:34 am #

        Oops….my bad. The 0-1 restriction is on LoW Super-heavies/Gargants only.

        • Jural October 6, 2015 3:05 pm #

          Thumbs up for that.

    • Novastar October 6, 2015 10:20 am #

      It’s on super heavier or gargantuan

  14. Jural October 6, 2015 10:04 am #

    It is so hard to consider rules for Gargantuans in a world where a Hierodule, a Wraithknight, and the new Tau’nar are all “Gargantuans”… just what the hell GW/FW?

    • jy2
      jy2 October 6, 2015 10:35 am #

      Unfortunately, it’s called Codex Creep. Sucks to have the old stuff.

      • Jural October 6, 2015 10:42 am #

        True dat

      • AbusePuppy October 6, 2015 11:01 am #

        Nah, Tyranid GCs have always sucked, that’s nothing new. They sucked in 4E, they sucked in 5E, and they have continued sucking all through 6th and 7th.

        It’s comforting to have some consistency, innit?

        • Jural October 6, 2015 3:05 pm #

          Yeah, but there weren’t other “mid level” Gargantuan type things around either, right? Back when 7th launched you could compare the Hierodule to a RipTide and a Wraithknight, maybe a Dreadknight and C’Tan… but while they were overcosted the benefits of the GC status gave them some decent points…

          Now there are so many units to compare them too, all of which are about half their cost, have similar firepower, better toughness, and synergize with their army better.

        • jy2
          jy2 October 6, 2015 9:44 pm #

          That’s not true AP.

          The bio-titan was awesome back in 5th and was much feared. But that was back when D “only” caused Instant Death and gargants/SH’s couldn’t be locked in combat. Nowadays (before the modification to the current D), the bio-titan would just get one-shotted by a lucky D or killed in 1 turn by a gravstar.

          • AbusePuppy October 7, 2015 1:15 pm
            #

            The Heirophant was only available in Apocalypse during 5th, and balance in Apoc is wonky to start with. With the weakest save of any superheavy (6++) it was actually pretty likely to just get blasted by Rending, Railguns and Lascannons, as it would never have a cover save (needing 50% obscurement) and could not benefit from psychic powers.

            The Heirophant wasn’t awful the same way the others were, but this was before Stomp and, as you pointed out, when GCs couldn’t be locked in combat and weren’t immune to most special rules, so it wasn’t a blowout, either.

  15. Bigpig October 6, 2015 10:34 am #

    I think the vote on the Tau suit is premature and you need to consider pulling it from the poll before you get too far along. As it stands without a codex yet and no real experience playing with or against it I cannot make an educated vote. For all I know this will be a broke as fuck 3 GC unit that will suck the life out of competitive play or it could be a waste of time. We just don’t know.

    So instead we now end up with tau players voting for it because it is theirs, including a bunch of tau players who never set foot in an itc event, and eldar players who hole this means they will be one step closer to using 2 wraithknight in a double cad.

    Votes should be educated and based on what is best for the competitive community, not based on what gives the voters the most advantage. Without sufficient information that’s what we are left with as our motivations. We see what happens in the real world when people vote strictly for what best lines their pockets. I really think you should consider pulling this and including it in the next vote.

    • jy2
      jy2 October 6, 2015 10:37 am #

      If only Jaws of the World Wolf was still a thing….

    • jy2
      jy2 October 6, 2015 10:38 am #

      Oh wait….it is. It just sucks now.

    • AbusePuppy October 6, 2015 11:03 am #

      Sinking 1000pts into three models that have to remain in 2″ coherency, are weak in melee (because you’ll usually get at least two turns without Stomps) and are relatively short-ranged is not going to create a Tau uber-list. Sorry to burst your bubble.

      • Bigpig October 6, 2015 11:05 am #

        You need to reread my post. You clearly miss the point

        • AbusePuppy October 6, 2015 11:12 am #

          You need to reread the rules for the Stormsurge.

          • bigpig October 6, 2015 2:50 pm
            #

            Arrogant little fella aren’t you. Again, you miss the point. Not surprised based on what I normally read from you and your running around this thread posting your opinion. You’re almost treating this like one your “tactics” articles where you without fail go in the comments and try to argue with anyone who gives an opinion contrary to yours. Makes dialogue difficult.

            Let me clarify for you;

            My comment has nothing to do with the perceived power level or balance one, two, or three Stormsurges. I am not saying the Stormsurge is OP. I am not saying it is weak. I am not saying it is just right. I am saying that without knowing what the codex will bring and how that will interact with the Stormsurge rules present one cannot make a fully informed vote on topic. Do you know all the formation rules? Do you know the support system rules? Do you even know what marker lights will do? You can speculate based on what they did on the last codex or some rumor/white dwarf editorial, but won’t know for certain until the codex is out.

            It’s not about whether a Tau “uber list” will be created. It’s about the process and asking people to vote without enough information. The LACK of knowledge probably will play towards more “no” votes.

            Did that help you? Sorry to burst your bubble…..

          • AbusePuppy October 6, 2015 3:15 pm
            #

            I didn’t miss your point, I just think your point is meaningless.

            Just because we don’t know every single rule and permutation it has doesn’t mean we can’t judge the majority of its strength. It was pretty easy to assess Imperial Knights when they were previewed, and Militarum Tempestus, and all the other units. While the specifics of exactly what the rest of a Tau list may affect the _viability_ of the unit, they won’t change anything about its raw statline or abilities.

            Do you really think it’s likely that Markerlights are going to fundamentally change after all this time? They’ve been doing the same thing since 3E. Likewise, look at the 6E -> 7E changes made in the Eldar and SM codices- sure, there were lots of important things added and altered, but none of them were in the generic unit upgrades (i.e. Support Systems.)

            So sure, you can sit off there in “IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW ANYTHING” land, but the rest of us are gonna go ahead and make choices based on the knowledge we have. And if there is a Support System that gives the unit Ignores Cover and a 2++ save for 15pts? Guess what, we can change our minds later! That’s the great thing about having a human brain, you can alter your opinions on a subject when the available information changes.

    • Tiberius183 October 6, 2015 12:09 pm #

      Unnecessary. The rules for it are already out and official. The only thing that would change in the new codex is what support systems it can and can’t take (already betting it won’t be able to take shield generators).

      • Jural October 6, 2015 3:01 pm #

        The formations might have a huge impact, or some wargear/special rule changes which haven’t come to light yet.

        I haven’t heard any such rumors, but there is a nonzero chance that the unit of Stormsurges will get an unforeseeable bump we have no line of sight to when the codex drops.

        Now I think it’s really unlikely… really unlikely! So I voted to allow the 3 in one unit with similar thinking to AP. But there is a (slight) chance I’m kicking myself when the codex drops.

    • Codi October 6, 2015 5:03 pm #

      The question needed to be asked and I appreciate that they did.

  16. OverwatchCNC October 6, 2015 11:17 am #

    RAW!!!!!!!!!!!

  17. Bellerah October 6, 2015 1:46 pm #

    I voted to remove all rules, as rules are just a method to oppress. In the spirit of GW and AoS, We should just be able to bring anything we want and use any rules we see fit points and balance be damned. DOWN with rules!!!

    I also voted…

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 6, 2015 1:59 pm #

      Lol, Anarchy!!! Wait, that pretty much is 7th ed 40k out of the book…

      • Bellerah October 6, 2015 2:08 pm #

        unbounded fun for all!!

      • Jural October 6, 2015 2:55 pm #

        Nonsense, take away point values and then you have anarchy… or just use the wraithknight point scale on a handful of powerful units around the game and leave the rest untouched…

  18. Hotsauceman1 October 6, 2015 2:27 pm #

    I love that the itc is becoming more inclusive.
    After reading about rumored corsairs, I wanna start them, so I’m happy fw lists are allowed.
    The r varna is my favorite model, so I’m happy.
    Reece, just keep crazy in check

    • Codi October 6, 2015 2:44 pm #

      What find interesting is that the ITC is becoming more inclusive, but other groups that used to say “play whatever you want” are becoming more restrictive.

      Maybe one day they will meet in the middle, and we will all be playing the same game.

      • Jural October 6, 2015 2:56 pm #

        This edition clearly needs some restrictions to allow for tournament play. Even if it’s only “no unbound”…

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 6, 2015 4:40 pm #

      We try, my friend, we try.

  19. Greg October 6, 2015 3:12 pm #

    Notwithstanding Forgeworld’s recent email responses, there are a number of free to download PDF rules that do not have the “Experimental Rules” stamp. The Cerastus Knights do not have printed (see: found in a rule book) rules for 40k. The Stormblade’s PDF rules are the most current rules, as the IA book rules are outdated (I also confirmed this with FW via email). I’m sure there are more examples. I personally like the idea of opening up the use of models that have been sitting without official rules for ages, but it seems fairly clear to me that the experimental classification was, at least originally, intended to denote rules that were not official and subject to change. It is one thing to have official rules change between editions or codexes. It is a tad different to have experimental rules change once they are officially published. I don’t think it’s game breaking, but my 2c.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 6, 2015 4:43 pm #

      Good catch, but what I think FW means is that the Experimental rules no longer are intended to mean: these guys aren’t done yet. That is the gist of what we got from the conversation.

      • jy2
        jy2 October 6, 2015 9:55 pm #

        Gosh. Why the hell is FW so damned lazy! All they need do is to remove the experimental tags from some of the pdf’s and then they won’t have to deal with the constant nagging from their customers. Moreover, they’ll see a shit-load more sales from some of their models. Sometimes, I just can’t believe the iodicy in some of these companies.

        • Hotsauceman1 October 6, 2015 10:50 pm #

          Welcome to Corporate…..Uk

  20. Mike October 6, 2015 11:11 pm #

    I can’t support the tau gargantuan unit. I don’t particularly care if the actual unit is too good or not (actually I think the storm surge is priced pretty accurately for what it does,) but I care that the game might become all about that single 720/1080 point unit. That’s very similar to having a single 24 wound super heavy that could actually degrade as it takes wounds. (Albeit it’s highly likely the storm surges will musical chairs their wounded brethren to the back when possible, so they might not degrade in firepower until the last few wounds.)

    • AbusePuppy October 7, 2015 1:17 pm #

      If the Stormsurge isn’t good, why would the game “become all about it”, as you say?

  21. W October 7, 2015 1:41 am #

    My pet peeves with the ITC format are the changes to core rules that don’t need to be changed, like: deploying Fortifications before the rest of your army. Breaks with the core rule book and it’s unecessary.
    Adding the +1 to Seize and VP for destroying an enemy super-heavy LoW. Also an unecessary change to the core rules.

    I understand your changes to Invisibility, ranged D, limiting sources and the number of LoWs. I don’t agree with them, but I understand why they’re implemented. But I really don’t understand why the above things are changed. It’s just confusing and weird.

    • Fraktalen October 7, 2015 5:31 am #

      +1

    • C-Stock October 7, 2015 9:27 am #

      +2

      If my Lynx gives up VPs for losing hull points then people’s death stars that are way more powerful than my Lynx sure should.

    • WrentheFaceless October 7, 2015 11:23 am #

      They’re rules from Escalation, they didnt pull them out of thin air.

      • AbusePuppy October 7, 2015 1:18 pm #

        Yes, but they are specifically only applied to the Escalation missions as per GW’s FAQ; ITC choosing to use them in all missions feels like a weird choice (and ditto on fortifications.)

      • W October 8, 2015 4:21 am #

        Yeah, but as AbusePuppy said they’re for Escalation missions, not regular 40k. There is no reason to implement random rules from Escalation, just like you wouldn’t include Apocalypse formations, Planetstrike, etc. (I’m tempted to say Death from the Skies but I don’t know the wording in that book and have seen people use the Aerial Aces upgrades in regular 40k)

        It’s just spreading confusion as there are a lot of players now who believe that this is a part of standard 40k, when it’s just a strange and unnecessary house ruling.

        • Reecius
          Reecius October 8, 2015 9:29 am #

          It’s not house ruling, a house rule is something you make up to modify the game. We did not make this up. Hair splitting aside, we implemented these rules from Escalation (which was “normal 40k” at the time) in order to ease the transition from not using LoW in tournament play to adding them in. At the time, LoW were very scary to many people so that was a way to make it a smoother transition. In the last poll, we offered to remove that rule from the ITC but the vote was to keep it. People want it to give them a way to counter LoW, particularly the popular and underpriced WK. I understand the sentiment, even if I don’t agree that we still need it in the ITC (I voted to remove it, myself as I think it is fair vs. the powerful LoW but hamstrings the weaker ones). So no, it is not spreading confusion, nor is it strange or unnecessary. You may feel that way about it, which is totally fine, but the majority of players in the ITC do not.

          • W October 8, 2015 9:50 am
            #

            Perhaps house rule was the wrong term, but it’s still implementing a rule from a non-standard expansion. As I don’t own the Escalation book myself I don’t know if it’s stated to be for Escalation missions or not, but if it is, how does it it differ from allowing some armies to bring Apocalypse Formations to give them a needed boost?
            I think it’s great that you guys have a voting system and listen to the community, even when I end up disagreeing with the results, but I think a lot of people here have immediately thought of the Wraithknight and how they don’t like it. I think you’d see more of the sub-par super-heavies (like pretty much every IG tank) if they didn’t get even more penalized for bringing them.

            You didnt adress the Fortification deployment though; why do the ITC missions tell us to deploy them before the armies when the rule book tells us to deploy them at the same time? Especially with the powerful fortifications being banned in the ITC format, I really struggle to see why you’ve changed this. Surely this must pass as a house rule 😉

          • Reecius
            Reecius October 8, 2015 12:16 pm
            #

            I agree that the LoW vote was in all likelihood a reaction to the WK, but, can you blame folks? As I said, I don’t agree with it, personally, but WK and IKnights are by far the most common LoW, but are very powerful and folks feel perhaps a bit TOO powerful. We have found people tend to vote with their conscious and this is one of the rare occasions where a vote to nerf went through. I have to believe it is for good reason. I agree it would be cool to see more of the Super Heavy tanks like the Baneblade on the table, but even without the +1 Maelstrom per 3hp rule, would you see them? I actually wonder if we would. A lot of them just straight up aren’t very good which is a bummer as I have quite a few of them, lol. I still think players gravitate towards the most points efficient units and many of the LoW aren’t.

            As for the For issue, thanks for pointing that out. I changed it to be during deployment but the missions on the site now don’t reflect that. It must have reset to an older version when I had to roll the site back to an older version to fix a problem.

    • BBF October 8, 2015 6:39 am #

      +1

      • Sam October 8, 2015 10:26 am #

        I think the escalation rules can be removed if the cover rules for gargantuan creatures are changed to 25%. Generally GC don’t have an easy time of claiming vps regardless but are extremely durable. So it’s an adjustment that makes sense. These are two questions that should be in the next vote.

        • Reecius
          Reecius October 8, 2015 12:10 pm #

          If you want something in the next vote, be sure to submit your ideas and comments. Otherwise, we don’t know what you feel should go into the ITC.

  22. Tiberius183 October 9, 2015 10:48 am #

    Question: will the Stormsurge be added to the approved LoWs list soon, or will you be waiting for the codex to drop?

Leave a Reply