Black Friday Sale & ITC Vote!


We’ve got some incredible deals for you! Also, be sure to cast your vote for the upcoming ITC poll! The sale runs through Monday, November 30th and the poll runs through Thursday night, November 26th.


F.A.T. Mats: 20% off!


Our Brand New ITC Terrain Series Introductory Offer: Buy 2, Get 1 Free!

For customers outside of the USA, please email your order to:


Games Workshop: up to 40% off!

We’ve still got Horus Heresy Betrayal at Calth Boxes at the sale price!


Dropzone Commander: up to 20% off!


Prodos Games: up to 45% off!

x-wing logo

X-Wing: up to 25% off!


ITC Mid 3rd Quarter Update Poll!

Jump in to the web-cart to grab yours!

coffret-IRON-EMPIRE coffret-JAILBIRDS coffret-KST

There’s a big range of these beautiful, characterful models, and we’re fully stocked! The images above are just a sampling of this fantastic miniature range. These models are scaled similarly to 40k miniatures, and will fit in great in armies such as Astra Militarum. I am using some of the Jailbirds in my Catachan army, for example and will be posting pics as I get them done.


About Reecius

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

127 Responses to “Black Friday Sale & ITC Vote!”

  1. WrentheFaceless November 23, 2015 12:50 am #

    No toe in cover vote again?

    • Mike November 23, 2015 2:40 am #

      Same sentiment here. Hopefully toe in cover will make it onto the year end poll.

    • N.I.B. November 23, 2015 2:44 am #

      Because ground based Tyranids are destroying everyone…

      • 1PlusArmour November 23, 2015 6:06 am #

        It’s more for Wraithknights and Stormsurges.

        • Requizen November 23, 2015 7:24 am #

          I’m very surprised they didn’t put this in.

          • Sam November 23, 2015 3:20 pm

            I specifically brought it up because you said no one mentioned it last time. And I seriously doubt buzzgrob had more votes then tie in cover.

    • Reecius November 23, 2015 8:34 am #

      Not enough people brought it up. Be sure to post your thoughts here:

      • Vercingatorix November 23, 2015 10:36 am #

        I feel like this is a question that you can assume should be on the poll. Everyone feels like they have already asked it at this point and that’s why you probably don’t see it requested. At least that’s my feeling.

        • Reecius November 23, 2015 12:28 pm #

          We can’t work off of assumptions, unfortunately. We have established channels to handle these issues. Jump in and voice your concern now, it will be noted for the next poll.

      • Sam November 23, 2015 3:49 pm #

        I know I’ve personally sent in this question immediately after the last poll when you said no one brought it up. I find it hard to believe buzzgrob had more feedback sent in. Considering that books been out since 2008. Has a 6th Ed PDF and multiple replys from forgeworld.

        As much as this is brought up on forums and every itc poll it should be at least a question.

        • Sam November 23, 2015 3:53 pm #

          This question needs to be broken down well.
          A) follow the rulebook where GC and everyone gets cover saves/ area saves
          B) GC and mc don’t get cover saves from terrain unless 25% obscured
          C) mc are fine but GC don’t get cover saves from terrain unless 25% obscured

          • Reecius November 23, 2015 5:11 pm

            We’re more than willing to address it, but according to our feedback questionnaire, it didn’t come up that much. Don’t know what else to say.

          • Mike November 24, 2015 8:45 am

            Well consider it brought up again. I don’t put it on the rules questions because it ISNT a rules question. It’s a dumb rule that needs to be changed, but NOT an unclear one. It is quite clear in fact. Just dumb.

            Now if you had a form labeled “rules you take issues with” I’d put it on there in a heartbeat.

          • Reecius November 24, 2015 9:07 am

            The submission form is intended for that purpose as well.

    • abusepuppy November 23, 2015 9:49 am #

      Well, it’s not really in question at all. There’s absolutely zero argument about whether it _does_ work, so a vote on it would be a vote to change the rules, which is a pretty big step to take when there isn’t a huge reason to do so. I mean, it’s dumb as hell for WK/SS getting it, but it’s not wrecking the game.

      • WrentheFaceless November 23, 2015 11:39 am #

        Which would be my main concern about it, fine with normal MCs getting it, but GMCs not so much

      • Kwodd November 23, 2015 5:35 pm #

        I agree with AP, there is no interpretation in question. You’re lobbying to change core rules that don’t break the game because it is an annoyance to you.

        • WrentheFaceless November 24, 2015 3:41 pm #

          Which is different than the changes to rerollable 2+ saves how?

          Its an abusive mechanic

          • abusepuppy November 24, 2015 8:58 pm

            2+ rerolls cause significant game problems in tournaments; toe-in-cover does not. That’s the difference.

      • Adam ( November 24, 2015 3:42 pm #

        IK armies weren’t ruining the game either, but people found it fit to make sure they can’t win Maelstrom. 😉

        • abusepuppy November 24, 2015 8:59 pm #

          Yes, well, not everyone agreed with that vote. 😐

      • Warmaster_GIR November 26, 2015 1:27 am #

        This is actually one of the rules im for. The toe in cover mechanic causes very few rule discrepancies. 25% is annoying and can cause the game to bog down. I just wish toe in cover was the basis for all models cover saves. For simplicity’s sake.

  2. Happy_inquisitor November 23, 2015 2:51 am #

    Good job on wording those tricky questions.

    My first ITC tournament is in January (not much ITC in UK yet, grumble, grumble) so not able to vote but I have to agree with the anti-spam measures and I appreciate all the work it must involve.

    • Reecius November 23, 2015 8:35 am #

      Still vote! We have a workable solution for letting everyone cast their vote but keeping out the spammers.

  3. messy0 November 23, 2015 4:42 am #

    Do you have to be ITC ranked to vote? If so that petty much excludes anyone not in the USA (apart from a small minority) even though the vote will effect gamers world wide…

    • Reecius November 23, 2015 8:35 am #

      No! We came up with a solution.

  4. wannabe November 23, 2015 4:55 am #

    I voted even though I don’t have an ITC ranking, as I live in the UK, but our play group do use the rules and mission from the ITC. So I thought I would add my opinion to this. I know it wont be counted. Perhaps the team could create separate graphs for votes for ITC and ITC ranked players, just to see if there is any major differences between the two, or if it would not have changed the voting.

    • Reecius November 23, 2015 8:25 am #

      We’ve come up with a way to verify individual votes, even if you aren’t in the ITC currently for most voters. We don’t want to reveal our system though, as the cheaters may still figure out how to circumvent it. Your vote will most likely count!

      • elphilo November 23, 2015 8:34 am #

        That’s good. I just voted because of this comment. I’ve been in a few ITC events that haven’t submitted their scores, but I run monthly ITC RTTs at my store. And I am going to LVO 2016!

        Super glad to see you found a way. Thanks guys!

  5. Requizen November 23, 2015 7:31 am #

    For the last question, I think you’re missing an opition. Right now, the only choices are “Only allowed to take the Big Mek Stompa in an all Ork list” or “Can be brought no matter what”.

    Why is there no option for “Can bring this in a Detachment where you could otherwise bring a Stompa?”. As in, you couldn’t bring it in an Ork Allied Detachment with Necron CAD, but you could bring it in an Ork CAD with Allied Necrons. That makes the most sense to me.

    • 1PlusArmour November 23, 2015 7:53 am #

      We’re talking about a 35pt difference between those options (a single unit of Gretchin). Also, keep in mind that you can run double CAD in ITC now.

      • Requizen November 23, 2015 8:20 am #

        Still, it doesn’t quite make sense that they would be the only army that could bring a SHV in an Allied Detachment.

        • Reecius November 23, 2015 8:36 am #

          The Boss Mek Buzzgob is an HQ choice, not a LoW choice (although he disallows any other LoS from being taken).

  6. Aythir November 23, 2015 7:35 am #

    Is the discount on the 40k items for blackfriday just the standard 20-25% or is that an additional on top of your normal discount?

    • Reecius November 23, 2015 8:36 am #

      It is 25% off of retail for most items.

  7. tag8833 November 23, 2015 7:47 am #

    Now that ITC ranking is included in the poll it would be interesting to know if most of the votes come in from people ranked high or low or in the middle.

    I find that at my events the people ranked outside the top 25% but in the top 50% tend to contribute the most feedback, and it would be interesting to know if that is an anomaly.

    • Reecius November 23, 2015 8:37 am #

      That would be interesting to look at. We have more data to mess around with this time.

    • abusepuppy November 23, 2015 9:51 am #

      That actually fits with what I would expect as well- though the top players in competitive events are often very visible (in any game, not just 40K), by any numerical measure they are a very small percentage of things.

  8. NotreDameGuy November 23, 2015 8:01 am #

    Very disappointed in the way the questions were asked.

    Should have simply been: The rule states that multiple units can combine fire and “fire as if one unit”. Does this mean special rules from one unit will be shared to the other units.

    You phrased convoluted paragraphs that most people will pick one answer just because it seems easier.

    • Reecius November 23, 2015 8:40 am #

      Lol, always, always critics of how we write the questions. Always.

      Seriously, try doing it yourself, it is so much more difficult than you can understand from the outside looking in. We have to try to present all the pertinent data in an unbiased fashion. There’s a lot to say, for these issues, especially for people voting that are not Tau players nor that are ultra familiar with the intricacies of the topic.

      And your conclusion there doesn’t hold water and is actually fairly insulting to your fellow gamer, lol. They’re so lazy and/or stupid they’ll simply pick the shortest answer to avoid reading it all? Haha, come on.

      I understand you have a dog in this fight as a Tau player, but calm yourself a bit. Trust that your fellow gamer will vote for what is fair.

      • Vercingatorix November 23, 2015 9:22 am #

        I think you made the right call erring on the side of verbosity. So far all the re-counts or most disputed questions came from doing exactly what notredameguy suggested. I thought this was the best poll yet.

        • 1PlusArmour November 23, 2015 9:26 am #

          Agreed, the wording is fantastic.

          • Reecius November 23, 2015 12:29 pm

            Thanks, guys!

      • NotreDameGuy November 23, 2015 9:51 am #

        I understand and appreciate you taking the time to word the questions. I just know from past experience (master’s courses in Biostatistics and statistic analysis) that the wording of questions can almost guarantee the outcome of a poll (think political straw polls). I wasn’t insinuating anything, I was just worried that just saying all the buffs that would be conferred without actually explaining the rule could lead to people just saying “nah ill go with the more conservative reading”

        • Vercingatorix November 23, 2015 10:41 am #

          I think that the population that is being polled is much more aware of the relevant information than your average political telephone survey. Just like I wouldn’t worry about so much about wording on a poll of several policy debate team members on a policy issue. They’ve already read an article or something on the subject and have made up their mind. I think most ITC poll participants have read something on each subject and are not entirely uniformed.

      • abusepuppy November 23, 2015 9:54 am #

        I would have preferred to see it as a single question with four options for the Coordinated Fire options (share rules full split, share rules no split, no share full split, no share no split) but I don’t actually know from a perspective of trying to judge people’s preferences accurately whether that would have been a better way to handle it.

        Still, I think you’ve improved the formatting on things overall since the early polls, so kudos on that much.

        • Reecius November 23, 2015 12:30 pm #

          Thanks, the polls have improved I think, although I freely admit I am still learning how to do it most effectively.

          The problem with a single question with multiple outcomes is ambiguity. This way, you break every iteration down into a binary outcome, and then combine the results to get the end interpretation.

          • Norren November 23, 2015 5:22 pm

            Is there a way to re-read the questions after you’ve already voted, or will I need to wait until the results are posted?

            Seeing this reply thread made me want to re-read the answer phrasings, because I’ve forgotten the wording.

          • Reecius November 23, 2015 7:47 pm

            Unfortunately, no. Once you vote, you vote.

          • abusepuppy November 23, 2015 7:50 pm

            Yeah, I was just on the flip side of that- I think that if you’re going to allow splitting fire, you shouldn’t allow sharing rules (and if you disallow splitting, you should allow sharing.) Since my votes were contingent on each other, it would make more sense (from my point of view, at least) to combine them into a single question.

          • Reecius November 24, 2015 7:43 am

            Yes, but some people want shared rules and target locks. Some want neither. It isn’t a binary question for everyone.

          • Norren November 23, 2015 10:09 pm

            I wasn’t asking to change my vote, this reply thread just made me want to look at the wording again because it so verbose. The fact it had to be so specific made me want to study the situations the phrasing was written to preemptively address.

            It’s not a big deal either way. I’m just glad to see the rule coming to vote. I’ve been dreading the arguments that the rule as written will cause at my local game shop, and this vote’s results should prevent those.

          • Reecius November 24, 2015 7:48 am

            Ah, OK, I misunderstood you. Yeah, I tend to err on the side of verbosity just to try my best to convey the information completely. And that is one of the benefits of the ITC: you can pass the blame for a ruling off on to us! haha

          • Venkarel November 24, 2015 7:28 am

            I am with AP here, I am totally down for the Tau to go Super Saiyan Super Saiyan against one target, but not if they get to target lock. So how should I vote in the first question? If I vote to share all the rules and then they get target lock that is an outcome I do not want (nor do I think the rules support it). If I vote for only BS +1 and marker light support with target lock or single target that is an outcome I don’t want (nor do I think the rules support it), but one that I like better than sharing all the rules with target lock. So really comes down to if I want to risk them getting all the rules and with target lock, which I definitely do not want (nor do I think the rules support it). So I voted for only +1 BS and marker lights. Then what do I vote for the second question? To be insure an outcome I think would be disastrous for the game (target lock with all rules) I was forced to vote for only one target.

          • Reecius November 24, 2015 7:46 am

            There is a risk, yes. But, there are so many interpretations of how to play this rule, we had to allow for multiple interpretations. Vote with what you want to see/how you believe the rule should work, don’t try to meta-game it.

          • Venkarel November 24, 2015 9:03 am

            I was doing my best not to meta game which was what I was trying to convey. But to find the best answer when you are presented with less than optimal answer often requires compromise. I was forced to make said compromise because of the the vote being two questions. I am not saying this is incorrect, I am just pointing out that you have a hard job.

          • Reecius November 24, 2015 9:09 am

            Ah, OK, sorry if I misunderstood you. Yeah, writing these questions is not fun at all. You think you have it all sorted out, then other people read it differently than you wrote it, haha. That’s why I always test them out first to see if I am saying what I think I am saying. It still doesn’t always work perfectly, though.

  9. Liam November 23, 2015 8:06 am #

    If that stompa vote passes I’m ordering one from FLG. Just saying. 🙂

    • Reecius November 23, 2015 8:41 am #

      Haha, nice!

    • abusepuppy November 23, 2015 9:55 am #

      Getting a superheavy for a trivial cost is kinda a big deal, yeah. >.>

      • Hotsauceman1 November 23, 2015 11:24 am #

        getting free 700pts is a big deal….but we dont vote on that one.

        • Reecius November 23, 2015 12:31 pm #

          700 free points? What are you referring to?

          • Bogalubov November 23, 2015 1:17 pm

            Battle company, War Congregation, etc.

          • westrider November 23, 2015 3:03 pm

            Those Formations have fairly heavy Tax Unit requirements, and frankly, a lot of the stuff you’re getting for “free” there is pretty badly overpriced to start, so the actual value that you’re getting is substantially less than the raw numbers would suggest.

          • Adam ( November 24, 2015 3:44 pm

            @westrider, that explains why they don’t do well in competition, clearly the tax is high enough to compensate for the free stuff, amirite?

          • westrider November 25, 2015 8:40 am

            Not saying they’re not strong, just that they’re not game-breakingly strong.

            In particular, the ones that are really cramming in the free stuff don’t seem to do as well from what I’ve seen. Nobody’s actually taking the 700 Points of free stuff that was being tossed around. Usually, it’s less than half that. And frankly, the other top Armies in the Game get enough good stuff either from their Detachments or just inherently that I’m pretty sure it balances out pretty well at 1850. I haven’t heard anyone complaining that Eldar or Tau or Necrons, or even DaemonKin, just can’t deal with Battle Company Lists.

            Also, what’s the breakdown you’re seeing on the ones doing well between White Scars/any other Chapter Tactic? Pretty sure I’d rather go up against an Iron Hands Battle Company than a White Scars CAD most of the time.

        • Mike November 24, 2015 8:50 am #

          You mean paying 700 points for bland crappy marines just so you can have free transports that otherwise have no business being on a tourney table? Big difference there.

    • Sam November 23, 2015 3:33 pm #

      I find this question odd. Personally I don’t feel it’s op in any way at that price however I am under the impression IA8 second Ed is being done currently making this question redundant also I was fairly certain fw clarified the cost on this unit. It will be fine if it passes but I wouldn’t vote for it.

  10. Venkarel November 23, 2015 8:57 am #

    For the Mek Boss Buzzgob question, doesn’t he become a LoW if he takes the stompa upgrade? This would naturally limit the detachments that can take him.

    • Reecius November 23, 2015 8:58 am #

      No, he is an HQ choice that disallows any other LoW choices.

      • Venkarel November 23, 2015 9:02 am #

        Just wanted to make sure as it says, “When this option is selected, Buzzgob counts as a Lords of War choice and an army that includes him may not select another Lords of War choice.” Just didn’t know what counts as a Lord of War meant.

        • Reecius November 23, 2015 9:04 am #

          Fair question. I read it as he remains in the HQ slot but “takes up” the LoW slot as well even if that normally wouldn’t fit in a given Detachment.

          • Venkarel November 23, 2015 9:08 am


          • 1PlusArmour November 23, 2015 9:25 am

            It literally says “Buzzgob counts as a Lords of War” choice. He would be a “Lords of War” choice, not HQ, or it would say nothing or clarify that he remains an HQ choice.

            If the detachment does not have a LoW slot, there is no way to “take up” the LoW slot as it does not exist.

          • Codi November 23, 2015 5:05 pm

            Thanks for including Buzzgob in the poll, more viable options for orks is always better!

            However, taking up two slots doesn’t seem right. I agree with 1PlusArmour, he counts as a LOW not an HQ.

  11. Venkarel November 23, 2015 9:45 am #

    This was a good poll over all. One item for future consideration, would it be possible to include references to the pertinent rules, dataslate location and page number, an article on Frontline gaming that contains the rule or a link to Forgeworld rules were available. I had to go hunting through the etherwebs to find the exact language for all the rules in question.

    • Reecius November 23, 2015 12:31 pm #

      Links would be good, yes. I will do that next time.

  12. NotreDameGuy November 23, 2015 9:55 am #

    One question that keeps coming up on forums and at my local gaming stores that has had a lot of arguments has been the firing order for GC.

    Do you have to select every target first before you fire each of your weapons? Or can you select a target, fire a weapon, resolve the shooting sequence, and then select another target and repeat.

    I.e. I have 4 weapons. I have to decide before I fire any that I am going to fire at units A, B, and C with those 4 weapons. Or can I fire weapon 1 at unit A, then after that is done, i choose to fire weapon 2 at unit B because unit A has already been killed.

    • Reecius November 23, 2015 12:32 pm #

      Yeah, that is an interesting one, right? The book doesn’t say. But, I would infer from the order of operations of firing multiple weapons in the shooting section, that you resolve all like weapons at the same time, moving on to the next ones.

    • winterman November 23, 2015 12:54 pm #

      It isn’t clear but I think a strong argument can be made that you have to select all targets at once, since there is a clear ‘select target’ step and it happens before any other resolution like selecting a weapon and repeating selecting another weapon. But its not clear cut RaW

      • NotreDameGuy November 23, 2015 3:59 pm #

        I agree, the problem is step 2 is select “target” as in singular. So do you change step 2 to select “targets”? or do you change step 7 to say “repeat steps 2-7” instead of “repeat steps 3-7”?

        • Reecius November 23, 2015 5:13 pm #

          Yeah, true. We may have to address it in the FAQ.

      • Reecius November 23, 2015 5:12 pm #

        Yeah, that is a fair point. It will matter now with Coordinated Firepower. Before it wasn’t ultra relevant beyond being a little less efficient with your shooting.

    • abusepuppy November 23, 2015 7:54 pm #

      7th Edition has weapon firing sequentially. When you declare firing a particular weapon, you must choose all targets you will be firing those weapons at- but as you have not fired any other weapons for the unit, you do not have to choose those weapon targets yet.

      So a Knight Paladin could choose to first fire its Icarus Autocannon at one target, then fire its two Heavy Stubbers (choosing the targets for both before making the to-hit rolls for either), then the Rapid-Fire Battle Cannon. It’s entirely legal to wait to see the results of one gun’s shooting before you decide whether or not to use one of the other guns- though you CANNOT fire your weapons at a target that disembarked from a transport destroyed by that same unit’s shooting attacks, as per the superheavy vehicle rules.

      • Reecius November 24, 2015 7:43 am #

        That’s how I read it, too.

        • Gunfex November 25, 2015 12:06 pm #

          Apologies in advance for the essay, as I have a lot of thoughts on this and it is quite complicated in my view. Unfortunately this is not RAW (and the rules for GCs and Target Lock especially break the normal shooting rules without providing a new formal way of resolving such shooting). The order of operations is not “1. Select weapon; 2. Select target(s)”, but in fact the opposite where Step 2 is select target (singular), Step 3 is select weapon where all models in the unit with the same weapon fire, and Step 7 is repeat Steps 3-7.

          As stated above by Winterman, the primary issue is the BRB only contemplates a unit being able to fire at another single unit. The rules work well here. The rule also works when a model or models in a unit have Split Fire, since the Split Fire rule specifically tells you to resolve the Split Firing model’s shooting first, and then the rest of the unit can fire as normal, but NOT at the same target and not at a disembarked unit. Fine, Steps 1-7 apply to Split Firing model, and then Steps 1-7 apply to all other models in the unit.

          The rule begins to break down when using Target Lock, as a Target Lock, unlike Split Fire, merely states that a model can shoot at a different target to the rest of his unit. As people have noted in other contexts, Target Lock is not the same as Split Fire as per its wording. The question is then, and as generally stated here, does Step 2 become “select eligible target units (plural)” and a certain weapon fires simultaneously even at different targets, or should we treat Target Lock exactly like Split Fire, and each model with Target Lock would resolve its shooting using Steps 1-7 independently of the rest of the unit. Obviously it is much more beneficial to the shooting player to be able to fully resolve shooting against an additional target before assigning shooting to other targets or further firing into said additional target, but the RAI is not clear. This of course is not RAW, but RAW provides no formal rules for a unit that can target more than 1 unit. So right there we need a FAQ answer to govern that scenario.

          It gets worse with Gargantuan creatures. These are single models which may fire each of its weapons at a different target. This shares almost identical wording to Target Lock, with the analogous effect of having Target Lock for each of its weapons as if it was a multi-model unit, despite being a single model. So what do we do now? Shooting phase Step 2 does not apply to multiple target units, as previously stated. Step 3 breaks down further, as you only have one model “equipped with a weapon with the same name” as the selected weapon.

          Using a tangible example, we have a Stormsurge who is looking to fire when faced with 3 enemy Rhinos: what are the Tau players options? We must choose a viable target per Shooting rules, and GC rules says we can shoot at different targets with each weapon. At this stage, it is entirely unclear if we say “I am selecting all 3 enemy Rhinos as targets to my Stormsurge single model unit”, or if we say “I am selecting 1 Rhino now, which I will proceed to shoot with gun X, and will select a different Rhino to shoot with gun Y afterwards”. If we go with the first option (which I believe is closer to RAW as it only infers unit singular means unit plural), then when you get to Step 3, and select “Destroyer Missiles”, do you then say “Out of 4 missiles, 1 will fire at Rhino1, 1 missile at Rhino2, and 1 missile at Rhino3” and then proceed to resolve each missile shot as allocated? The Step says that each firing model fires at the “target”. What is the target? You have selected three possible targets. You should probably get to pick which weapon is firing at which available target during Step 3 for a GC, but that is not really clear. Step 2 is also fraught with issues because what is the limit to targets you can select at Step 2? The maximum number of targets you have considering your available weapons? With a Stormsurge can you select 8 targets and only end up firing at 2 of them?

          I was going to draft suggested language to clarify the order of operations to remain as close to RAW as possible, but realized that this is just a mess due to GW’s writing and lack of reviewing old rules when writing new ones. Sadly, perhaps the clearest, cleanest way would be to draft a material change and reverse Step 2 and Step 3 and state as an overarching rule that unless a special rule specifies otherwise, a unit with more than one weapon (single model or multi-model) can only ever target a single unit. This leaves us with the same effect for a “normal unit” like a tactical squad with single heavy weapon (select missile launcher, fire at Target A, select bolters, must also now fire at Target A), would fix GC’s (select pulse driver, fire at Target A, select D missiles, fire simultaneously at Target A, B and C, select cluster missiles, fire at target D), and would work for Target Lock (Unit of 2 Crisis Suits with a fusion blaster and missile pod each: select missiles, fire simultaneously at targets A and B, select fusion and must fire simultaneously at targets A and B again).
          Interestingly, this method of shooting resolution is what AbusePuppy and Reece were saying already, and while I agree it makes SENSE I think it needs a ruling since it is not RAW.

  13. tiberius183 November 23, 2015 11:40 am #

    As far Coordinated Firepower goes, I think we’ve barely scratched the surface on what needs to be clarified and ruled on. For example, one of the choices is whether or not to allow units with target locks to fire at a different target that isnt the target of CF and still get the benefits granted by Cf; OK, the wording of the ruling is “target of the coordinated firepower attack”; what if multiple enemy units are selected for coordinated firepower (there’s no rule that says you can only declare it against one)? Also, (and this would apply in either case), in the situation where multiple Cf targets are chosen and target locks are used to fire at each of them, does that single unit count towards the required three units to use CF for EACH target? Like I said, there’s a ton of things we still need to work out here…

    • Reecius November 23, 2015 12:33 pm #

      Fair points, but we can’t wait forever to explore every nuance of any given rule, unfortunately. We have ITC events every weekend and we try to wait as long as we can, but some of it we just have to work out as we go.

  14. winterman November 23, 2015 12:57 pm #

    Thanks for working out a way to vote without being ranked. I have played in two ITC events but their scores aren’t recoreded yet. And I run two 50 man ITC events but that doesn’t mean I am ranked. Would like at least my one vote!

    • Reecius November 23, 2015 5:13 pm #

      Yeah, we didn’t want to exclude anyone but wanted to stop abuse of the system. Tough to do both.

  15. Sam November 23, 2015 4:00 pm #

    Regarding the tank shock I think the current book rules all make sense except for model destroyed for breaking unit coherency. The rule really should just force this model to move the next turn if needed to maintain unit coherency. recklessly diving into enemy units should kill you however.

    • Reecius November 23, 2015 5:14 pm #

      I think that is a fair reading of the rule.

  16. Tautastic November 23, 2015 4:54 pm #

    Finally a vote! Crosses fingers and hope what I voted on will be the majority!

  17. Hotsauceman1 November 23, 2015 5:54 pm #

    I voted for the most powerful interpretation of all the rules.
    Cause I hate myself.

    • abusepuppy November 23, 2015 7:55 pm #

      If it’s any consolation, I’m sure lots of other people will hate you, too.

      • Hotsauceman1 November 23, 2015 9:48 pm #

        Meh, its likely to least powerful interpretation will come through.

        • NotreDameGuy November 23, 2015 10:16 pm #

          yup. Already seeing people saying in forums they picked the least powerful interpretation merely because they didn’t want to face it.

          • Trasvi November 23, 2015 11:23 pm

            The beauty of the ITC format is that it purposefully aims to keep the game ‘in line’, regardless of what is actually in the rules. There have been many changes to Invisibility, 2++ rerollable, D-weapon and Superheavies to make the game more enjoyable rather than blind adherence to a poorly thought out and terribly balance rulebook.

          • Reecius November 24, 2015 7:45 am

            Precisely. The further we go the more we see that it doesn’t even really matter what the rule may or may not say (which as we see, is highly debatable, anyway) but more what we want to play. It tends to gravitate towards the middle ground which makes for a more enjoyable play experience.

          • abusepuppy November 24, 2015 8:48 am

            I dunno, I think it _does_ matter what the rule says, because otherwise why even bother playing 40K? Why not just write our own game, a better game, with blackjack and hookers?

          • Reecius November 24, 2015 9:07 am

            Perhaps I should clarify: we don’t mean we just make shit up left and right, of course, you stick to the established rules as much as possible. What we mean is that when something contentious comes up like this, then yes, we should go with what we want.

          • Mike November 24, 2015 8:55 am

            I wish they would just write ITC hammer so people would stop being so hung up on playing the game “GW’s way.” Even though the same people complain about GW rules the rest of the time. Those people are silly.

            I’d gladly play a game written by experience TO’s/players over the mess that GW have brought up with their “let’s have Ezekiel turn into a daemon prince today!” antics.

          • Hotsauceman1 November 24, 2015 11:41 am

            Problem with that mike is, agreeing to get people to play the same written game. I know several high profile tournaments, while ITC, did not use ITC rules, missions or the allowed list.
            The game provides a standard.
            Think about this, is reeces crew decided to re-write the game, it would be their job to do it. a job they dont get paid for.
            Does it suck that Incubi dont get grenades, sure. but if you cant get everyone to agree whether a warhound is allowed, imagine a major game change

          • Mike November 25, 2015 12:49 am

            There are always people that disagree HSM. Even with the most obvious courses of action.
            Plenty of people still insist on playing with older edition rules, no lords of war, no formations etc. That shouldn’t stop us from actively pursuing a better state of the game despite GW’s persistence in giving us a sub par one.

            I’m willing to hop out past the fire to get out of the frying pan. Are you?

        • Reecius November 24, 2015 7:44 am #

          History tells us that is typically not the case, but we’ll see.

      • Reecius November 24, 2015 7:43 am #


    • tiberius183 November 23, 2015 11:34 pm #

      I voted for it as well just to shut everyone up…

    • Rawdogger November 24, 2015 2:17 pm #

      I already hate you

      • Hotsauceman1 November 25, 2015 6:19 am #

        I have always known that

  18. Orock November 24, 2015 2:03 am #

    When is the vote on allowing gladius strike force, or if eldar should have to pay 100 more points for the wraithknight.

    Oooh how about we vote to disalow wraiths from getting reanimation protocols from the decursion formation? Its only fair, they dont have it stock, and I dont like that rule.

    how about not letting white scars add hit and run and blood angels apothecaries to add to a thunderwolf calvary for a super mega deathstar with a librarius conclave from white scars too?

    Look, balance is fine, when its handed out evenly. Nerfing invisibility, or blasts on flying monsters, or the strength of D weapons is fine. Those affect everyone the same. But targeted nerfs, once they start, do you really think its going to end.

    if we are voting on a VERY clear rule, why not these other game changers? You say its to preserve fun. I dont find the things I listed fun. If the community is as fair as I am sure this vote will go, SURELY these other armies wont be wrecked too.

    • Reecius November 24, 2015 6:18 am #

      What rule do you think is very clear that we’re voting on?

    • blight November 24, 2015 1:23 pm #

      Based on how every forum for 40k has had huge debates on the subject I would see this as far from clear. People are reading this multiple ways and then defending their readings to the death. The vote is necessary. Won’t help me with my group but maybe it’ll help others.

  19. Codi November 24, 2015 8:59 am #

    On a side note you should have a poll so we can decide what phrases like “counts as” and “resolve as if” mean. 😛

    • Reecius November 24, 2015 9:08 am #

      No kidding, right?! haha

  20. CaptainA November 24, 2015 9:09 am #

    I appreciate the work you guys do to make my TO’ing life easer so I don’t have to think about these rules conundrums.

    • Reecius November 24, 2015 9:11 am #

      Thanks, and you are welcome, good sir!

    • 1PlusArmour November 24, 2015 11:54 am #

      Amen. It makes running a tournament a breeze.

  21. Eldar Greyknight November 24, 2015 1:21 pm #

    Hey i must be blind vut ive been looking all over and cant find an actual link to get to the vote. Can somebody help me out here?

    • Reecius November 25, 2015 8:50 am #

      Click the link or the picture in the post.

  22. C-Stock November 25, 2015 3:43 am #

    If the toe in cover thing changes then already-bad Tyrannids are horribly, horribly screwed.

    • Mike November 25, 2015 6:50 am #

      It’s possible to change without killing Tyranid MC’s. I mainly want FLYING MC’s and 2 story+ tall GC’s to not benefit from it unless they’re actually obscured like a vehicle.

      • Sam November 25, 2015 7:12 am #

        If they ever do a vote on it I am certain they will at least make a two part question the differentiates GC and MC.

        Honestly the rule just needs to be changed to remove GC and super heavies from benefiting from area cover unless they are 25% obscured. This kinda sucks for a few super heavies that really are not worth the points right now anyway but that’s more to do with poorly costed superheavy units.

  23. JasonD November 25, 2015 3:28 pm #

    As a player who is still waiting for the ITC to appeal to me, I’m just glad that you guys found a way to keep the whole 40k Community involved in the process.

    While the Tau thing isn’t an issue for me, I’m hoping Reecius does another review showing the results and the thoughts on it. I’m interested in the numbers as much as anyone. I’d also like to see how many for/against are from both the participants and non-participants.

  24. Jam November 26, 2015 6:24 pm #

    How long does it take for results after voting is closed?

Leave a Reply to Sam