3rd Quarter Mid-Season ITC Update Poll Results


The results are in!

The ITC continues to roll forward and evolve as player feedback shapes the format. Here are the results of the latest poll.

First of all, a foreword on changes we made to our methodology this go around. For one, we required that voters verify their identity. We did this as we had discovered that in previous polls, some folks had been voting more than once or were asking friends to vote that didn’t participate in the ITC and had no stake in the outcome. So, we adjusted our procedures to eliminate this type of behavior. As a result, we got less votes than last time, but, probably close to the same umber of unique voters. And more importantly, these votes came from people that are either actively participating in the ITC, plan on doing so in the near future, or use the guidelines but have not participated in an actual event, yet.

Question 1: How do you wish to play Tank Shock as it pertains to Crunch?

tank shock

Wow, that was close! Only 5 votes separated these two camps. This to me is understandable as you can read the rule both ways: as being a very powerful tool to destroy enemy units or simply a means of displacing them and in rare occasions, destroying them.

So, what this means is that when a unit is Tank Shocked, we will be playing it as displacing enemy models by the shortest path but also keeping them in unit coherency and on the table if possible. The Crunch effect will occur occasionally, but not often.

Question 2: How do you wish to play the Tau Coordinated Firepower rule in regards to contributing Tau units sharing special rules?

coordinated firepower shared rules

This was probably the most contentious ruling we had to deal with this go around. People have very strong feelings on this and so we intentionally worded the question as a preferential choice, not a definitive answer as to what the rule does or does not say as there are so many different interpretations of what this rule actually communicates.

In the end, narrowly, the more conservative reading of the rule won out in regards to not sharing buffs from different units. I thought this would be close, actually predicting that the more powerful interpretation would win out but it did not. Rarely do we see votes to go with a weaker reading of a rule pass, but as with Tank Shock above, this was regarded as being too powerful but a majority of ITC participants.

Question 3: How does the Tau Coordinated Firepower rule interact with rules that allow a unit to fire at multiple targets?

coordinated firepower and split fire

This one didn’t surprise me at all, honestly. The ability to potentially share so many special abilities across so many different weapons at a multitude of enemy targets was just too much for most players to accept. This was the aspect of the rule that most players expressed concern about before the poll and as such, the outcome feels appropriate.

Question 4: How does Darkstrider’s “Structural Analyser” special rule interact with Coordinated Firepower? This rule lowers the Toughness of a unit targeted by Darkstrider’s shooting attacks by -1.


Again, we see the more conservative reading of the rule win out. This one was a bit more cut and dry in my opinion, as Coordinated Firepower applies to the Hunter Contingent specifically, and Darstrider is not in it, but that pesky “ICs joinning a unit become a part of it for all rules purposes” which causes so many issues, reared its ugly head again and caused the confusion. We deemed it only fair to vote on it and the ITC community voiced their opinion. This is consistent with the above poll results in that it appears most ITC participants read Coordinated Firepower as being more restrictive than permissive and that contributing Tau units act as individual components with specific rules shared between them and not becoming a single unit.


So in the end, the most conservative reading of Coordinated Firepower was the will of the majority of players. I was actually surprised by this as my gut told me we’d get shared rules against a single target only, but, I was wrong on this one.

While some Tau players will be upset by this outcome, the take away in my eyes is that Coordinated Firpower is still extremely powerful. Frankie has been playing the most conservative reading of the rule and obliterating people with his double Stormsurge list, including top level players and lists in tournament settings, and even defeating a Necron Deathstar with it in a close game, an army which typically runs right over Tau. The only time we see these types of reactions from the ITC community is when a rule is deemed to be too powerful to the point of taking the fun away, such as with the 2+ reroll saves and max power Invisibility. Instead of being upset at the perceived “Tau hate” which some players claim, instead try to see it from the other player’s perspective and try to understand their point of view that this was regarded as being a bit too much for the majority of ITC participants. I know that is easier said than done, but, this is where we are. Also, the new Mont’Ka detachment provides some very powerful tools for Tau players that are not so ambiguous in interpretation.

Question 5: Ork special character, Mek Boss Buzzgob has the option to take a Big Mek Stompa super heavy walker as an upgrade at 530 points less than the unit typically costs. We currently do not allow this upgrade in the ITC, should we allow it?

cheap stompa

Bucking the trend of conservative rulings this time around, we see the ITC community boosting their neighbor in this case and voting for a more powerful army specific rule. Interestingly, this is actually just a reversal of an old ITC rule change from the days before all of the free point armies. Orks now gain access to Boss Mek Buzzgob and his cheapo Big Mek Stompa, which is quite powerful. This didn’t surprise me as Orks are largely percieved as one of the weaker armies in the game. While extra points are often a hot topic for many players, due to the rise of Battle Company, War Convocation, etc. the community seems open to giving a “weaker” army a boost, or at least, put them on equal footing.

What this means though, is that a LOT of tournament Ork lists will be packing a Big Mek Stompa. This is a powerful LoW and will provide quite the challenge for many opponents! Orks will–with the speed of a single rule change–rise up the tiers in power level. Be prepared to deal with this! If you can handle Imperial Knights, you should be good to go, but know your enemy so you don’t get caught off guard by this beast. Note, Boss Mek Buzzgob counts as a LoW choice when taken with this upgrade.

Question 6: If the above vote passes, should Boss Mek Buzzgob be allowed to take the discounted Big Mek Stompa upgrade in an army with non-Ork faction models?

buzzgob as an ally

Again, no surprise here. The ITC community predominantly wanted to boost Orks, not anyone that slapped a few cheap units and Boss Mek Buzzgob in his bargain basement priced Stompa in their list. This feels fair to me. While you could make the argument that some armies could also use this boost, like Chaos Space Marines for example, the fact of the matter is that you’d see him shoe-horned into already powerful armies such as Daemons, who’d be taking advantage of their ability to summon in units on top of the huge points bonus granted by Buzzgob. If the intent was to help Orks, then that is what this question was for, and that is what we got.

ITC Mission Change

Mission 2 and 3 have been swapped in the lineup, and mission 2 has been modified slightly. Mission 2 is the “Kill Point” mission, 3 is the “Relic” mission. We swapped these in the lineup to make the Kill Point mission occur later in a multi-round tournament. In a Swiss style format, each round reduces the number of undefeated players by half the current value. So, going from round 2 to 3 means the field just theoretically got twice as tough. We also altered the Kill Point mission to be more about, well, killing stuff! Before due to a design choice, it actually ended up being more about board control which runs counter to the overall intent of the mission so we altered the Tertiary mission objectives back to the classic: Linebreaker, Slay the Warlord and First Blood.

The reason we did this was because of the inherent advantage MSU style armies gain in the current ITC format. We felt that the balance had slipped a bit too far in their favor and decided to alter the missions just a touch to bring the balance back towards the middle. We didn’t want to go too far with it though, and felt that this fine tuning was just enough to level the scales a bit. These changes have already been reflected on the ITC format page.

As always, thanks to everyone for participating in the ITC and shaping it into what it is.



About Reecius

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

309 Responses to “3rd Quarter Mid-Season ITC Update Poll Results”

  1. Mike November 29, 2015 4:46 pm #

    Good stuff. Thanks once again for taking point and being the internet flame-magnet that we need to keep the game playable.

    My main wish is that the precedent of “boosting a weak army” set by the orks just now gets carried on to other armies that are in desperate need of assistance, like dark eldar without their cousins as allies, Blood Angels without bringing the rest of the imperium, etc. I look forward to seeing what solutions arise for those and other bottom tier armies to further increase variety in the tournament scene.

    • Reecius November 29, 2015 4:57 pm #

      Thanks for the kind words, it means a lot. Yeah, we catch a lot of crap for doing what we do from a small number of players that get upset at not getting a ruling they wanted, but in the end, it provides a common ground to work from to facilitate organized play and not simply having a fractured community where everyone is playing a different game.

      • Ken November 29, 2015 6:22 pm #

        I do think it is funny how this will effect a small number of players, namely tau players. You could have easily gone straight to question #3. That is the root of the whole problem. Simply put, if you are not shooting at the same target you do not get any buffs. We are dealing with one enemy unit.
        Lastly, it is kinda naive to think that “Tau-Hate” did not influence this decision.

        • Reecius November 30, 2015 3:18 pm #

          Well Ken, not everyone saw it as just question #3. There was an entire spectrum of readings folks had for this rule. So, we created a series of questions to cover as many variations as we could.

          And yes, this does impact Tau players primarily, but everyone that plays Tau is also impacted by it, too.

          • Tau Shas November 30, 2015 5:35 pm

            Reecius your right this does completely affect Tau players, because basically what it is saying is that you would rather deal with 6 riptides, or 3 riptides 2 stormsurges and 2 ghostkeels, over anything that could actually be tactically sound and make sense, But if you open the BRB and look up the shooting phase, you must 1) have LoS, and 2) be in range with a weapon in that unit. Per the BRB you are not even able to “fire if you don’t meet these 2 requirements.

            Then how target lock works per the book “A model with a target lock can shoot at a different target to the
            rest of his unit.” Which according to the BRB it is a model and since it is firing at a different target from the Unit then it and the unit does not gain the benefit of any special abilities nor the benefit of the Hunter Contingent as it is a model and not a Unit which is specifically stated in the Coordinated Firepower.

            But you know this just requires folks to actually read a codex and open the BRB before they jump to conclusions and actually know how the Shooting Phase works

    • adam Fasoldt November 30, 2015 5:35 am #

      For the record, I voted No on the Ork question. I think it’s a bit much. Just changing the Gorkanaut and Morkanaut to superheavies with no other adjustments would have been a lot less extreme from an impact perspective and take up a lot less room in your luggage. LOL. But I get it, allowing existing rules before making up rules seems to be preferable regardless of the in-game impact. Cheers for trying to give the ol’ greenskins a leg up. I’ll be trying it out soon.

      • Reecius November 30, 2015 3:19 pm #

        Yeah, this is an actual rule that we simply said: hey, let’s just see if people want to play it RAW.

        • Kevin lantz November 30, 2015 7:08 pm #

          Can I have supremacy suit available now?

    • Hiveminded November 30, 2015 4:50 pm #

      In a sense, the weak BA army was already boosted by the community when they voted to allow their triple Stormraven formation to grant turn one assaults out of deepstrike reserve.

      • Mike November 30, 2015 10:59 pm #

        I’ve been looking to see if any BA players were brave enough to throw that into the ring at an event, but I haven’t seen it happen yet. I would’ve done it myself, but failing that rerollable reserve roll on turn 1 and getting your plan wrecked instantly is just something that would not sit well with me. I did have a couple lists written up for it even, both before and after the vote to buff it.

        Have you seen it pull any weight? If so, what event? I’m still interested to see it in action somewhere, and I’m all out of funding for this year’s ITC-travel fund. 🙁

  2. Tim Hacker November 29, 2015 4:55 pm #

    Can u explain tank shock in full detail?

    • Adam (thediceabide.com) November 29, 2015 8:30 pm #

      It works the way the book describes, you move the shortest distance that gets you out of the way WHILE maintaining coherency.

      The only way to outright kill models with no roll with tank shock is now only really when they’re cornered and there’s no possible way for the displaced models to move into a position that’s in coherency.

      • Rawdogger November 29, 2015 9:55 pm #

        I think that is how most people were already playing it anyways.

        • Adam (Thediceabide.com) November 29, 2015 10:07 pm #

          Yeah I never heard of it being played the other way, though I’m surprised how close the vote went.

          • Mike November 29, 2015 10:30 pm

            It is scary how close we came to rhinos running down riptides with just a pod or something behind them. I’m not entirely convinced that 460 of the voters playtested it. :p

          • Adam (Thediceabide.com) November 30, 2015 6:53 am

            You actually don’t even need a pod if the riptide has a drone! Park your rhino right between them, they both move, and are now out of coherency from each other, so both die!

      • adam Fasoldt November 30, 2015 6:46 am #

        I actually can’t think of any situation where a model will be crunched. There should always be a way to escape if there’s always a space for a tank-shocking model to move through. There’s almost literally NO reason for the rule to exist under this ruling. There should have been separate options for the two parts: shortest distance and maintaining coherency.

        • Adam (Thediceabide.com) November 30, 2015 7:02 am #

          Here is a quick diagram that would cause crunch:

          Crunch seems more like a catch all to prevent awkward situations, instead of automatic death vs death or glory. If you play by the other ruling, these situations occur:

          Park rhino between two MC’s:

          Also note that if you do this to GMC’s the game breaks by that ruling, as they are not slain automatically, but suffer D3 wounds, so if the shortest distance forces them on top of other models, what happens? Put it some place else? Stop the vehicle? Automatically slain despite the GMC rule preventing it?

          Wiping out whole squads:

          It no longer becomes passing a LD test to move out of the way, because in doing so, you’re automatically killed, so the only option becomes a single death or glory attack or your entire unit will be killed.

          • Mmimzie November 30, 2015 12:10 pm

            I agree crunch feels more like catch all for any weirdness than trying to be a sure fire way to kill stuff. Many MC such as kastlans can stop, pick up, and throw a tank. So why would a whole cohort cybernetica get popped by a stupid rhino?

            Also crunch causes a lot of issues. For instance; who dies if you mess up unit corency? If you cut.my unit in half which half dies. Etc.
            So crunch just makes things simpleer not more complcated

          • Loopy November 30, 2015 8:11 pm

            I would have voted that you must move the shortest distance with each model, but also would have voted the lack of coherency wouldn’t destroy models. That makes the most narrative sense, in my opinion.

    • 1PlusArmour November 30, 2015 5:53 am #


      ^ This is a good reference for how it works based on the wording of the rule as it appears in the BRB.

    • Tau shas November 30, 2015 7:57 am #

      It’s sad that folks can’t read a basic rule book which explains everything or a codex before screaming that’s broken l. But if folks would read target lock only lets a model fire at a different target. Where coordinated fire power specifically says units who can fire. You have to declare where the target lock is going when you shoot the unit the model with target lock shoots at. But you know folks again not reading rules or codecs before jumping the gun and screaming

  3. Noah November 29, 2015 5:00 pm #

    I’m really surprised that people made the Stompa Ork only. As a dedicated Ork player I felt that we shouldn’t enter the realm of only allowing certain models to be taken by certain armies. Oh well more power to Ork players!

    • bigpig November 29, 2015 5:35 pm #

      Stompas can still be taken in an allied ork force. Two min units of gretchin and a cheap HQ allow you to take one. You just can’t tack in the low cost version of the stompa in with any force of necrons etc based on this vote. It’s not really limiting access to a model. It is just limiting access to what if perceived to be an army specific benefit of getting it at a reduced cost.

    • Adam (thediceabide.com) November 29, 2015 8:31 pm #

      Yeah, I think that question was weirdly asked, at first read I thought it was asking if they should just allow any army to take Buzzgob, which wouldn’t make any sense. But apparently taking an Ork primary force with a small detachment of some other faction now precludes you from taking Buzzgob? I think that’s how they ruled it?

      • 1PlusArmour November 30, 2015 8:25 am #

        You can take him, but you cannot take the cheap Stompa upgrade.

  4. 1PlusArmour November 29, 2015 5:05 pm #

    Broadsides retired… double Stormsurge + Riptide wing ready for action.

    • ccrraazzyyman November 30, 2015 8:27 am #

      They pretty much killed any of the interesting lists you could build with Tau.

      • Kwodd November 30, 2015 2:13 pm #


  5. Mark November 29, 2015 5:24 pm #

    Guess tau are being shelved. Might as well abuse the IoM.

    • Rawdogger November 30, 2015 8:03 am #

      If this Tau ruling actually is causing you to not play the army anymore and this post is hyperbolic you may need to find a new hobby there, dude.

  6. Sam November 29, 2015 5:40 pm #

    Surprised with the tau conservative ruling. I guess we will see how it plays out.

    • abusepuppy November 29, 2015 9:42 pm #

      I really doubt we’re gonna see any Tau lists doing well with the way stuff has been ruled. It means that Tau are gonna struggle a lot with many types of armies, including Battle Company, death stars, and more.

      • 1PlusArmour November 30, 2015 5:33 am #

        Yeah… I’m very impressed with how well Frankie has been doing with it, but I fully expect Tau to continue to get steamrolled in most GTs.

        The fact that Corsairs can apparently remove your Stormsurge unit with a single psychic power doesn’t help much either 😛

        • Adam (Thediceabide.com) November 30, 2015 7:03 am #

          Agreed, I thought they had a chance sharing the rules but only firing at one unit, but now I’m guessing they’ll just be a spoiler army. But hey, I love playing spoilers. 🙂

        • Tau Shas November 30, 2015 7:36 am #

          I’m actually suprised considering the only real thing that got screwed is the buff commander, but hey these votes happen this way when folks don’t read the codex nor understand how the signature systems work when target lock is model not unit, and coordinated firepower requires units to fire to gain the benefit. but what do i know i haven’t been playing since rogue trader for nothing.

          • Norren November 30, 2015 12:33 pm

            It also screws up Drone Controller bearing units. Before the ruling, a Firesight Marksman could CF with a marker Drone unit or two to free up a commander that would ordinarily be relegated to Mark’O duty.

    • Tau Shas November 30, 2015 7:33 am #

      I’m actually suprised considering the only real thing that got screwed is the buff commander, but hey these votes happen this way when folks don’t read the codex nor understand how the signature systems work when target lock is model not unit, and coordinated firepower requires units to fire to gain the benefit. but what do i know i haven’t been playing since rogue trader for nothing.

  7. Tautastic November 29, 2015 5:42 pm #

    Well that’s some disappointing results, but it is what it is…

  8. NotreDameGuy November 29, 2015 5:58 pm #

    Absolutely crap. The wording of the questions lead to only one specific outcome. How about we actually try out the rules for longer than 3 weeks before we freak out and try to nerf 1 specific army.

    How about we remove +1 Reanimation with the Decurion?
    How about we add 100 points to the wraith knight?
    How about we remove the free 500+ points Gradius Strike Points gets in free transports?
    How about we remove the 800+ points Skittari get in free upgrades?

    It is ridiculous nerfing a rule that only affects one specific army and not a broad rule and I am ashamed of the community. I cannot tell you how many people on forums and at my club said they voted to nerf Tau because they either A) Hate Tau or B) just didn’t want to play against the rule because it looks too good.

    Again, Disappointed

    • Pablo November 29, 2015 7:09 pm #

      I agree with you, however not on the “nerf specific armies” argument. I generally tend to favor a permissive competitive structure where nearly everything is allowed and only the best players and lists can come out on top. Obviously I love the ITC and I think they do a great job balancing the game, I think this problem lies with a general community mindset. “Nerf everything I see that’s too OP!” I think it would be safe to say that if any of your “How about we…?” questions were to come up in an ITC vote, they would all be on the conservative side. That’s a problem right there, because I know a lot of hardcore, great, professional players (not just in 40k) who don’t want to see things nerfed, and instead see Wraithknights, Battle-Companies, etc. as tough opponents that need to be bested instead of unwinnable match-ups. Anyways, I think judging by how close the votes were, Reece made the right call to put these up to a vote.

      • Hotsauceman1 November 29, 2015 7:15 pm #

        Reece and Frankie has said though that they want to make the ITC for all players and not for just the top tables. I know several that say a warhound/surpremacy suit would be a fun match up because then they can cut their teeth at it.
        But they know that, with nearly 300+ players in the Open alone, most are there to have fun and rack up a few wins. If it was just about who is the top players and what they think, then the LVO would just be an invitational for the best ITC players.
        But it isnt, because these tournaments are meant for fun, not to see who can bring the biggest cheese.

        • Adam (Thediceabide.com) November 29, 2015 9:57 pm #

          Not sure what you mean by the top tables, the armies affected the most by these polls tend to be mid-tier at best, there hasn’t been much in the way of nerfing top-tier armies since the Invisibility vote.

    • Mike November 30, 2015 11:05 pm #

      They didn’t target the rule due to its power. They pulled it into a vote because there was mass confusion on how it worked. There wasn’t a clear consensus, and most rule debates ended with “nuh-uh, this is raw, yours is wrong.” “Nuh-uh, MINE is raw, YOURS is wrong!” repeated forever.

      If the decurion had been worded in some silly way that made it unclear as to what it actually did, it probably would’ve been voted on. “Everybody gets tougher” is about as clear as it gets, though.

  9. Hotsauceman1 November 29, 2015 5:59 pm #

    Normally I’m dead on with my predictions of the rulings. I called the last one pretty well Lol.
    Im bummed the hunter contingent got nerfed. Its a bummer. I honestly feel that it is not too OP because it is forced against one unit. I feel that in the world of WraithKnights, Numerous deathstars and free points, extra firepower like that is par for the course and needed for them to survive, as is the numerous Tax units you have to take makes it balanced.
    I have been thinking the Dawnblade detachment anyway, looks for fun with a more reasonable CORE.
    The Stompa both surprised me. I voted to allow it. a Stompa is one of the more reasonable LOW, easy to kill, but very killy. The only allowing Orks to take it to me is ODD. I feel as if that is the point of allies. To take the good stuff you need. Could there start being votes on not allowing you to take allies to just get a certain benefit? And the wording is kinda sad. What if the Orks want to take an Assassin to stop those psychic powers? Or Coteaz for weird reasons. I feel forcing buzzgob to be the warlord would have been a better pick(And no, I did not plan on getting an ork stompa reece)

    • Sam November 29, 2015 7:29 pm #

      Your ruling is how I voted and felt the rule was meant; for shared USRs but not multiple targets using split fire type rules however that wasn’t the only interpretation. As a lot of tau players felt it should be allowed on all targets.

      I don’t think a single target would of been unbalanced either, but I guess we will see how it plays out and if it seems like the wrong call it wouldn’t be the first itc rule that was reversed in a future vote.

      I was also confused on the Ork vote to not allow Orks to ally if they take the reduced stompa just seems odd overall. However I am patiently hoping IA8 is going to be rereleased soon.

      • Hotsauceman1 November 29, 2015 8:08 pm #

        Considering that Doom of Mymeara came out of no where, who knows. its no longer one the website.

  10. Queenageandbob November 29, 2015 6:07 pm #

    With regards to the Big Mek Stompa thing…did nobody ever point out that the Stompa was never supposed to be that cheap?

    I know GW has a standing rule in general that FAQ’s and Errata are not a thing they do anymore, and likewise any sort of customer interaction & social media, however when Forgeworld *used* to have a Facebook page where they answered questions (back when the book that we’re talking about wasn’t massively outdated), they made it very clear that the Big Mek Stompa was a mistake and it should have been printed as (IIRC) 750pts, not the 430 or whatever it is.

    • tag8833 November 30, 2015 7:56 pm #

      Forgeworld will gladly answer rules emails. They definitely didn’t mean for the Stompa to cost 300 points. But that is kinda irrelevant to the decision made.

      I’m an Ork player, and I’m not a fan of the ruling, because now every Ork army is going to include a big Mek Stompa. Any change that limits list diversity isn’t for the better in my opinion, and I hate to blend into the crowd.

      Breaking one thing to bring Orks into line with other broken things isn’t my idea of balance. I’d rather see undercosted things (like Wraithknights) gets a points increase while overcosted things (Like morkanauts) get a points decrease. Maybe that is what we will see in the future.

  11. Steve November 29, 2015 6:13 pm #

    Now I am completely confused on how tank shock works. So I am guessing models can move through the tank to stay in coherency?

    • Adam (thediceabide.com) November 29, 2015 8:34 pm #

      It’s basically played as the rules say, they move the shortest distance possible while maintaining coherency. It’s not all that complicated. If the shortest distance would move you in a position that isn’t in coherency, you’re not following “while maintaining unit coherency”.

    • tag8833 November 30, 2015 7:58 pm #

      No moving through the Tank, but they can move around it if needed to maintain coherency.

      This post might explain it:

  12. Norren November 29, 2015 6:16 pm #

    It’s a sad weekend to play Tau, between this ruling and Mont’ka’s removal of Riptide Signature Systems.

    At least now we know, which is more than can be said for the situation before.

    • westrider November 29, 2015 9:34 pm #

      You’re still way better off than you were two weeks ago. Stop whining because you only got a +18 buff instead of a +20.

      • abusepuppy November 29, 2015 9:48 pm #

        “Way better” meaning the best formation was removed, the only ability in their signature detachment was severely downgraded, and the army arguably left without any competitive builds?

        Tau were not exactly a tournament blowout at this point. Considering that their codex didn’t really change anything, just introduced formations (none of which themselves are game-changing and certainly aren’t enough to form whole new builds), I don’t know why you would think they got a major buff. With the ruling, the Hunter Contingent isn’t a terribly attractive proposition (as it will perform poorly in maelstrom and doesn’t actually compare all that well in a shooting match to other existing armies) and only the Optimized Stealth formation has a realistic chance of getting used as an ally-in option for other armies.

        • Rawdogger November 29, 2015 9:58 pm #

          Oh chill out dude. Tau are just fine and the world isn’t ending.

          • kontraktkiller November 29, 2015 10:04 pm

            definitely agreed.

          • abusepuppy November 29, 2015 10:43 pm

            Thanks for equating mild disapproval with apocalyptic panic! It’s true that anyone who disagrees with you is obviously a chicken little idiot who has no ability to think rationally at all.

            The new Tau book doesn’t really change the army very much at all- with the ruling, the Stormsurge ends up being a relatively mediocre unit against most targets (although it’s decent at killing Centurions at least) and the “core” Tau list gains essentially nothing. Tau haven’t been a major tournament competitor for quite some time now, so failing to make major changes to them means that they’re going to stay where they are, i.e. not really on the radar.

          • ehegner1 November 30, 2015 12:39 am


          • Chaplain Sam December 1, 2015 11:15 am

            @ AP

            “It’s true that anyone who disagrees with you is obviously a chicken little idiot who has no ability to think rationally at all.”

            This made me laugh. Mostly because a hefty portion of your own posts come off this way.

        • Happy_inquisitor November 29, 2015 10:56 pm #

          It’s Pacific Rim for competitive Tau now. Which I think is a shame as other builds would have added variety and surely have been more fun for most people to play against.

          Multiple stormsurges plus riptide wings is what people voted for. Hope they like it.

      • Tau shas November 30, 2015 9:23 am #

        Ok how about eldar wraith knights can no longer benefit from invisibility, necrons loose their decurion benefit. And dark angels can no longer fire at full bs if they build their battle company. This is literally the biggest travesty ever and why the this shouldn’t be allowed to stand as a ruling. because folks don’t know how target lock works and how the Hunter contingent works due to no one bothering to read a bloody codec.. Literally hearing this assaninity has basically said is we don’t want you to play tau competitively unless you build it this specific way. Because we are scared of you displacing our top God teir armies which are broken. So Buckminster gives a few units twin linked, ignore cover, and monster Hunter or tank Hunter due to coordinated fire power. Oh boy… You literally with this rulings with a codec out for less than a month have basically said tuck your 7 ed codec.

        • Norren November 30, 2015 12:28 pm #

          I’ve been avoiding commenting on the ramifications themselves because I still haven’t had a good chance to sit down and do a list study on Mont’ka… but… If you prune the hyperbole and fix the typos, Tau Shas’ post pretty much sums up my gut feelings on the matter. (Buffmander -> Buckminster is one of my new favorite autocorrect errors.)

          I really am unhappy with the Tau 7e Codex itself. I was looking for quality of play updates to models I own, not a trio of books that say to go buy stormsurges and Ghostkeels and more riptides I can’t afford right now. Coordinated Firepower was pretty much the only thing in the book that appreciably enabled the models I own… and it did so in the worst way possible.

          I’m not defending the rule as well written, but it can basically be summed up as “We’re not changing anything you already own because now it works like MtG Slivers!” That is the epitome of lazy rules writing and the guy who wrote it should be fired.

          Sadly, now we have to live with the results. In keeping with the “Lemonade from lemons” mantra, I worked out a list that uses CF anyway. I played with the reading that Coordinated Firepower excludes Target Locks entirely, but I don’t really understand how you’d take enough of them to be “cheesy” with how tight for points a contingent is…

          Regardless, this issue came to a premature and emotionally heated vote, before the ramifications of the codex update could be fully felt, and I don’t think people are going to be very happy with the results of their kneejerk decision.

          As Happy_Inquisitor put it, “Multiple stormsurges plus riptide wings is what people voted for.”

          That doesn’t sound like good fun on either side of the table.

        • Mmimzie November 30, 2015 1:36 pm #

          It really isn’t that big a deal. It would have helped tau against demi comoany, eldar, or any other msu army.

          It’s really only anti death star, and tau dont need uelp in that department

          • Tau Shas November 30, 2015 5:51 pm

            Not really Mmimzie, it is actually a really big deal, it basically says that the point of having a buff commander is useless. Instead of playing say a buffmander, with an optimized stealth formation, with a riptide wing, 1 squad of stealth suits, 3 squads of pathfinders, 1 squad of 3 broadsides, and 5 squads of msu strikers/ breachers in devilfish, it literally says we don’t want your army to synergize like it’s supposed to and actually be able to push and hold objectives we want you to play Monsterous Creatures, and use 2 overpriced jokes of Gargantuan Creatures. What is sad is if you sit down and do this math. a competitve and table efficient Storm Surge is roughly 450 points ask any tau player. for 210 pts more you can get a riptide wing which has a in general a better armer save of 2+ over 3+ an invul save which oh by the way you do not get on the storm surge it is a 50 pt upgrade you do not get FNP on it at all, and the main gun is a travesty so best bet is upgrading to the ST 10 ap 2 large blast weapons. It literally says instead of playing a list that would synergize and just flow fun to play and play against this vote due to folks not knowing how phases, and rules work basically are saying put all your eggs into a basket of 6 monsterous creatures, and 2 gargantuan creatures and pray you don’t get death starred

  13. Deuce11 November 29, 2015 6:37 pm #

    Great job ITC community!

    Also, big thanks to the panel for allowing non-tourney goers to vote. I for one always play with the ITC rulings in friendly matches even though I have never attended a tournament. So having a say in how I play is as important to me as it is for the tourney champ.

    • artfcllyflvrd November 29, 2015 8:50 pm #

      There’s still not really a compelling reason for you to vote (or be allowed to for that matter). You can decide whatever rules you want for friendly matches at any time. It might be more convenient to refer to ITC stuff but you aren’t bound to it in the same way that people who participate in ITC events are.

      It’s similar to why we don’t let non citizens vote in real elections. Non citizens living here certainly have some interest in the outcome of elections, but not the same sort of binding interest as citizens.

      • Mike November 29, 2015 9:16 pm #

        Never played does not equal never will.

      • winterman November 30, 2015 9:59 am #

        Of course, there’s also those of us unranked folks waiting for our scores to be posted to ITC. Or who run the local ITC events so don’t usually play in them.

  14. nathan November 29, 2015 7:01 pm #

    i appreciate letting non-ITC ranked people vote. the rules set impacts more than just the people playing in large tournaments. again, thanks for all the hard work guys.

  15. Pablo November 29, 2015 7:02 pm #

    So this ruling essentially makes your tank shock video NULL? I honestly think we should do something about rulings that are that close. I think an epic dance-off between Reece and Frankie should suffice

    • Hotsauceman1 November 29, 2015 7:04 pm #

      Can they involve glitter and nipple tassles?

  16. kontraktkiller November 29, 2015 7:25 pm #

    I really dont think that t he people complaining about these “nerfs” to Tau have gotten enough games in with the new book. For the relatively small amount of changes done to the army ruleswise, the army’s play style really has changed quite drastically. The days of sitting back and shooting at your opponent from behind an aegis defense line, surrounded by bubble wrapped fire warriors and bubble wrapped by kroot and so on and so forth, are over. This is an aggressive, in your face army that meets you in the middle while still being able to shoot you to a more devastating effect than any other army. Its highly mobile, scores easily, and CAN ACTUALLY FIGHT IN COMBAT NOW. Riptides and Stormsurges are savage in combat if you pick their fights wisely. I really dont see any issue with the rulings. All i get from this is that the community cares about balancing an unbalanced game as well as we can to make sure that people can play their favorite armies at least somewhat competitvely.

    • Rawdogger November 29, 2015 8:03 pm #

      I played against a 2 Stormsurge list today and man they do work. They were blasting like 8 targets a turn and when they get into combat they each did d3 stomp attacks. I shot them with 25 grav shots and 2 multimeltas on one turn and they took 3 wounds due to the 4++ and 5+ FNP.

      • kontraktkiller November 29, 2015 8:23 pm #

        theyre insane. and i want u

    • Kevin lantz November 29, 2015 8:38 pm #

      I completely disagree with your balance comment. There is considerable tax to get the coordinated fire power going. All this ruling will do is push people away from the tau super formation and into cads with mini formations.

      • AnonAmbientLight November 30, 2015 11:44 am #

        What tax?

        • Tau Shas November 30, 2015 5:56 pm #

          The tax is basically having to forgo shooting things you normally would prioritize first to deal the biggest blow to what is a priority target. because once you add the units to the coordinated firepower that is their shooting phase. but then non of this would have happened or come into question if folks knew how Target Lock and the shooting phase worked

    • abusepuppy November 29, 2015 9:49 pm #

      >The days of sitting back and shooting at your opponent from behind an aegis defense line, surrounded by bubble wrapped fire warriors

      This wasn’t how Tau worked in any edition.

  17. PrimoFederalist November 29, 2015 7:27 pm #

    I was surprised by both the Tank Shock and the Coordinated Firepower votes.

    With regards to Tank Shock: I highly recommend a definitive explanation be made of how Tank Shock will now be played in ITC formats. Without the “shortest distance” plus “Crunch!” interpretation, how exactly a Tank Shock plays out will all be up in the air depending on how the judge decides to work it.

  18. iNcontroL November 29, 2015 7:44 pm #

    I know there will be a lot of salt (from tau players) but I think this is great. Orks got a bump and Tau still have really really cool options that are very strong. I just faced the piranha formation and it was SAVAGE.. really good.

    Jeremy is running the mont’ka stuff too so he can speak to this but he just took 3rd at our ITC tourney here today and barely missed the top table.

    • Jp November 29, 2015 9:25 pm #

      Ya it’s funny but up here in mugus we’ve pretty much ruled out the Hunter cadre as the best option before the vote ever happened… The codinated Fire doesn’t actually do enough to justify the restrictions brought by it. That being said the other formations are crazy good.

  19. Mike November 29, 2015 8:11 pm #

    I’m not surprised at all. The Tau hate is exceptional. I can’t believe they didn’t even give the rules a chance to play out.

    • Rawdogger November 30, 2015 8:10 am #

      Play the rule however you want. If you think the rule is so clear talk to your opponent and ask if you can play it that way. If it is not as big of a deal as you feel it is then your opponent won’t have a problem letting you. ITC is a list of guidelines that we use for our own official tournaments (BAO, LVO) and any TO using the ITC format is free to modify the format any way they see fit. Yeesh, it’s just a game chill out.

  20. Kevin lantz November 29, 2015 8:30 pm #

    Really surprised by the ork thing… I wasn’t sure the implication of my vote for only orks was to keep folks from allying… Thought there might of been some weird IA rule that let him into a non ork army…. Like if or something. Silly I know

    As to the coordinated fire. I am not surprised because the frontlinegaming articles and bols all slammed headlines and posts with hermergerd its super strong… And the phrasing was very long and “consider everything you have to be shot at with every time.

    • PrimoFederalist November 29, 2015 8:50 pm #

      I think the concern was the ability to take a CAD of: Buzzgob, two units of grots, and a discounted Stompa and then add your [insert Decurion-style detachment or Death Star].

      • Adam (Thediceabide.com) November 29, 2015 9:59 pm #

        Why waste points on a second unit of grots? He could be taken in an allied detachment, haha.

        • abusepuppy November 29, 2015 10:39 pm #

          You want a Big Mek with a KFF if you’re running him, I think.

        • 1PlusArmour November 30, 2015 5:38 am #

          You can’t take a LOW choice in an Allied Detachment, and Buzzgob’s rules explicitly state that he is a LOW choice if you take the Big Mek Stompa upgrade.

          • Adam (thediceabide.com) November 30, 2015 9:41 am

            Ah, missed that it was a LoW choice.

            I was just wondering if anyone bothered to ask FW about the rule? I wonder if it was meant to be +300 points on top of the cost of the Mek Stompa, instead of getting one at a 430 point discount.

  21. Colinsherlow November 29, 2015 9:30 pm #

    Yeah played against Tau today with the not conservative version of your rules and it was super nasty. Just a fireblade with 36 fire warriors was firing 108 bs4+ shots without rapid fire or market lights… Also played against that T9 10wound GMC experimental rule suit I’m the same list (2k) at a tournament. Was able to win, but just barely.

    • Norren November 29, 2015 10:58 pm #

      The math on that doesn’t add up, Pulse Rifles only shoot once without rapid Fire. 36 * 2 = 72. Were there two Cadre fireblades to bring it to 108, or are you just counting Rapid Fire without realizing?

    • Firewasp November 30, 2015 12:57 am #

      Doesn’t that go to show that it isn’t overpowered then?
      Played super version of the rule…
      …opponent had the Super suit, banned under ITC for being too powerful…

      Still won.

      So not exactly the devastating, destroy all ruleset that its been made out to be then?

      • Kevin lantz November 30, 2015 8:09 pm #

        Clearly it was op… He barely won rather than roflstomped jim

  22. Dayone916 November 29, 2015 9:52 pm #

    Tau are fine even with the “nerf”. The sky isn’t falling and you tau guys are still competitive. Try not to panic too much.

    Thank you community for being fair and realistic.
    Thank you frontline for facilitating this ruling and vote and the ITC in general

    Now let’s get back to plastic army men and rolling dice.

    • Kevin lantz November 29, 2015 10:02 pm #

      If by competitive you mean we have a chance? Sure… But this ruling doesn’t help, specifically against armies since necrons. (And specifically against necrons who we specifically need this ability to compete against/with)

    • Adam (Thediceabide.com) November 29, 2015 10:04 pm #

      No offense, but are we declaring tau as a competitive army before they’ve had a chance to prove it? Despite thinking the Tau combined firepower is pretty damn powerful, is voting this soon after the release (or even before the release in some cases) of the book a bit premature? Is the community voting based on their emotional response to something new and interesting that is perceived as OP, or is it really so powerful that even without it having enough time to cause a problem, we had better nerf it?

      • Kevin lantz November 29, 2015 10:12 pm #

        What I find funny is we had no bat reps to speak of using the most powerful interpretation, let alone any real analysis that was out in the public eye of the worst case scenarios.

        I had assumed when the execution hit that it would be too powerful. I was incorrect, well except against shooting armies like mine, but that’s what their protocols made them strong against

        • Kevin lantz November 29, 2015 10:13 pm #

          Necron Decurion not execution

        • 1PlusArmour November 30, 2015 5:47 am #

          We streamed a few games (both tabletop and Vassal), and did a batrep or two. It was very strong, especially against “netlist” ‘Nids and some deathstar builds, but no one I played against necessarily felt it was “OP”.

          With that said, my meta is hardly indicative of something like what would be seen at LVO, etc…

      • Rawdogger November 30, 2015 8:13 am #

        Not when there are 5+ ITC events every week and TO’s are asking how to rule it since it isn’t clear how it works. Before answering that it is obviously clear how the rule works, please view all 40k forums and count the threads with multiple pages debating how it works.

        • Adam (Thediceabide.com) November 30, 2015 12:40 pm #

          If they’re not obligated to play by ITC rulings anyhow, what’s the problem in letting them come up with their own rulings until something has been properly tried and tested?

          • PrimoFederalist November 30, 2015 3:20 pm

            What’s the problem is providing a guideline and clarity in order to avoid chaos in the middle of a tournament and then going back and readdressing it after all the dust has settled?

          • Adam (Thediceabide.com) November 30, 2015 10:38 pm

            Because that’s not how most people use these FAQs.

  23. Razerous November 29, 2015 10:16 pm #

    I don’t understand how folk don’t see how Bananas the new Tau are;

    I mean each of the various formations/detachments that give native +1BS means each unit gets 2 free markerlight shots for free.. for simple existing and/or targeting something.

    Being able to share markerlights, if you don’t… zero detriment. If you do, markerlights double or triple in effectiveness (depending on how many relevant units are firing using the coordinated firepower rule).

    Then add in the Stormsurge / Ghostkeel – you’ve now got more tools then we had before. Those tools are… pretty damn awesome, right? A GMC, scoot & shoot or shoot & shoot again!

    Just Bananas (ty ITC/FLG)

    • Adam (Thediceabide.com) November 29, 2015 10:20 pm #

      How many games did you play against it? How many events were won by it? People called the Imperial Knights OP, until a few months went by and people realized they weren’t very good at all. Just because it sounds scary on paper doesn’t mean it’s really that bad.

    • Tau Shas November 30, 2015 6:03 pm #

      Actually your talking in general terms and not even pointing out the fact to get free marker lights you have to hit with 3+ from 3 pathfinder teams. you still can’t use markerlights that your unit shot even with coordinated firepower (folks again not reading things fully) And no offense the Stormsurge is a damn joke, and isn’t even worth the points for a Gargantuan Creature it isn’t worth the points. to make it even table worthy your lookint at 450 pts. ghost keels are probably the best thing to come out of the new codex.

      So Razerous know what your talking about and how things work plese

  24. Orock November 29, 2015 10:19 pm #

    well, to no suprise mob fear gave in and people voted the cowards way. can we vote on eldar, gladius strike force, and necrons next? While all the cowards are still here to vote?

    • Kevin lantz November 29, 2015 10:33 pm #

      I would love to have voted out the key elements of new formations I don’t like… Reroll reanimations, free gear/transports,

  25. X078 November 29, 2015 11:12 pm #

    Feel sorry for you guys and seeing a lot of the comments like “tau got deserved nerfs” just shows that people voted against it for all the wrong reasons and intentions.

    • Norren November 29, 2015 11:55 pm #

      Yeah, it’s pretty sad to see the animosity this generated or brought to the surface.

    • Rawdogger November 30, 2015 8:16 am #

      Actually most of the comments are Tau players complaining about the changes and making accusations that the the voting is rigged, etc.

      • Adam (thediceabide.com) November 30, 2015 9:38 am #

        I wouldn’t say people are saying it was rigged, more that the wording of the questions themselves leaned towards bias, which is unfortunately pretty true. I wish I had the opportunity to proof read this poll before it went out like I have done in the past, as writing polls is an important part of my real-world career (the community actually praised the wording of the polls when I’ve proofed them, instead of complained)… Oh well! 🙂

        • Sam November 30, 2015 11:40 am #

          The closest bias to this poll was for the ruling to share buffs but not allow shared buffs to be used on the none coordinated fire target. If anything the vote went against the perceived biased not for it.

      • PrimoFederalist November 30, 2015 3:26 pm #

        Agreed, Rawdogger. At least a majority of these comments are Tau players declaring this vote a travesty or a shame or a knee-jerk reaction based on fear, mob mentality, racism against a made-up alien species, etc.

        This will save ITC tournament organizers and judges a lot of headaches and heartache. Maybe Coordinated Firepower is immensely fair and well-balanced… or maybe GW will release their own FAQ. Regardless, after a while it can be readdressed and voted on, but in the meantime there is a clear and decisive interpretation ITC tournaments can use. The issue can be voted on again later, as I’m sure it will be since there is obviously so much interest on the subject.

  26. Dayone916 November 29, 2015 11:18 pm #

    Wow the crybabys are out in force lmao

    If it wasn’t that powerful then why was it so desirable?
    If it wasn’t game changing then why are you mad it’s voted against?

    Simple fact is that the community voted and thats the way the cookie crumbles.
    Now bust out your pen and paper and create an army list and we’ll see ya at the next ITC event.

    • Orock November 29, 2015 11:24 pm #

      The very reason it was game changing was the reason it was nerfed. Piece of shit deathstar spammers worried bout “muh thunderyiffs” orchestrated this.

    • Kevin lantz November 29, 2015 11:40 pm #

      In all fairness alot of game changers haven’t had a vote… Is necron decurion rules, gladius strike force rules, skiitari wargear rule, this specifically was chosen and so to some it feels targeted rather than dealing with a specific issue rather than dealing g with some tournament wrecker (which if probably wasn’t)

      • messy0 November 30, 2015 4:09 am #

        Well said kevin

      • Sam November 30, 2015 6:19 am #

        In all fairness none of those was an ambiguous rule that was written so poorly there was literally no concensus how it worked. Personally I thought it allowed sharing rules on a chosen target but I know most tau players kept trying to force the ruling it worked on as many targets as they could target.

        I think if restricted to just one target for rule sharing then this rule wouldn’t have been a big deal regardless and it wouldn’t even have been the best Tau formation.

        • Tau Shas November 30, 2015 6:10 pm #

          Folks that don’t know how target lock works are the problem and don’t understand the difference between unit and model. Or how the Shooting phase works and how it specifically states you must have LoS and have a weapon within Range.

          • Sam December 1, 2015 7:36 am

            It would be nice if you understood what the term target under the coordinated fire meant too.

      • Adam (Thediceabide.com) November 30, 2015 7:12 am #

        True, the only vote related to the Battle Company was to allow other armies to take duplicate formations after it was ruled that Marines could break that rule to get free transports, haha.

    • X078 November 30, 2015 12:22 am #

      And another reason was that it allowed Tau to field MSU in a different and (for me atleast) more interesting way, synergizing benefits and abilities in an effective way.
      Now, I suppose you will never see Tau MSU with these rules, so no change in army build. But that was probably what the nay-sayers wanted.

  27. FrequentRespawn November 30, 2015 12:14 am #

    I am pretty sure that the Tau voting would have gone an other way if GW would have toned down markerlights. Ignore Cover for everyone on everything is just to devastating for those armies that are already behind.

    • X078 November 30, 2015 12:25 am #

      The problem here is that the armies that are “devastated” by this are still on their old codices and frankly would have been devastated by a stiff wind anyway. When they get updated you will probably see that they will be able to handle themselves quite fine.

  28. TinBane November 30, 2015 12:51 am #

    My god, so much tears.

    Honestly, was there actually anything contentious about the gladius formation? Anything unclear, about it?

    No, there wasn’t. That’s why there’s a vote on this.

    We have players in here talking about people being cowards for disagreeing with them. We have people in here calling it the death of Tau meta. I don’t know if the tau “nerf” was the right option, but it was put to a vote. And the moronic bellyaching and immature name calling going on in here is frankly disgusting. If you dislike where the ITC is going, then agitate for a new vote on it after LVO and play other tournaments. This formation, was NOT going to destroy deathstars, there are other tools better adapted for thay in your arsenal. Focusing one target down with tank hunter isn’t going to suddenly tip the balance against gladius or battle company. Stop for a second and reread the absurd arguments you are making.

    • Kevin lantz November 30, 2015 1:28 am #

      So what happens if gw releases an FAQ that states it works the other way….

      • 1PlusArmour November 30, 2015 5:40 am #

        Good joke, 9/10, would LOL again.

      • elphilo November 30, 2015 9:36 am #

        This happened with infiltration, the GW FAQ went the opposite way of the ITC FAQ. ITC removed it from their FAQ. So in the case that GW does release an FAQ, it seems ITC will use GW’s FAQ.

        • TinBane November 30, 2015 5:04 pm #

          Exactly. Look, I don’t think this ruling is even final, FAQ or not. There will probably be discussion around this early next season. This whole vote just went down, because TOs didn’t know how to rule on it. They weren’t planning another vote till next season.

  29. messy0 November 30, 2015 2:49 am #

    Since we can not just vote out shiz we don’t like. Can we nerf gladius in the next vote. Hell, let’s also nerf reanimation protocols. Of corse all in the name of balance. Happend to tau so it’s only fair it happens to other supposedly op rules and armies right?

  30. blight November 30, 2015 4:20 am #

    I know this is just one voice in all this screaming but would people stop calling for a vote on clear rules as if it had anything to do with this. This is not the same as decurion or gladius. There were multiple interpretations of the rule and people had to vote to all agree on one version. The majority voted and it was close but still a majority.
    Personally I voted based off of my actual interpretation of the rule and not off of how I thought it would effect the tau in tournament play. People do not hate the tau they just didn’t read the rule like you did and it is able to be read multiple ways.
    People still haven’t convinced me that there aren’t a ton of highly suspect rule interactions that occur with the sharing interpretation. Mostly a lot of assumptions and leaps of logic. I see how it can be read that way but it’s a headache dealing with all the rules interactions.

    • AgentP November 30, 2015 5:51 am #

      I too voted based on how I thought the rule read. But to be fair, the question didn’t ask people to interpret the rule. It asked them what they wanted the rule to be: “How do you wish to play the Tau Coordinated Firepower rule…”

      Do I think Tau are ruined by this, no. I think the new book offered some toys, but not enough to make Tau all that more competitive than they were before.

      If we are in the era of asking how we “wish something to play” however, let’s use that to throw Blood Angels a bone or two.

      • 1PlusArmour November 30, 2015 5:52 am #

        Yeah, I’m not super thrilled about the wording on these questions as it changed it from “what does this rule mean” to “how do you want to change this rule”, which are two fundamentally different things.

        I understand these types of questions are tough to phrase, but a more black and white approach might be better.

        • messy0 November 30, 2015 6:15 am #

          1+. I voted due to the way think the rule reads. USR’S and ability share on a single CF target unit only. The question in he poll wasn’t “how do you read the rule?” it was “how do you want this tile to be played?”. Which instantly would invoke bias, latent or otherwise which could have very possibly influenced the vote. Especially when it easy such a tight margin.

          It’s a shame because I’m crazy conflicted and disapointed on how this vote was conducted but I still fell the ITC is the best FAQ around. 1st world problems eh?

          • 1PlusArmour November 30, 2015 6:37 am

            I’m with you. Love ITC and the work that goes into it, but the phrasing definitely invited bias. I know many people, several of whom are top level players up here, who voted against their own reading of the rule because of the phrasing… enough people actually that the vote would have gone the other way 😛

            None the less, if it turns out to be garbage, maybe another vote will pop up down the road. I trust ITC’s ability to balance things more than GW’s 😛

          • Adam (Thediceabide.com) November 30, 2015 7:54 am

            Maybe, I’m still waiting for them to fix their LoW vs KP solution… Keep IK armies too good at KP at the cost of making them awful at every other maelstrom scenario… Sigh…

    • 1PlusArmour November 30, 2015 5:51 am #

      +1. The vote was because of the ambiguity of the rule, not because of its effectiveness (though that likely influenced how people voted).

      • EmbraceYourInnerGeek November 30, 2015 12:27 pm #

        Lets not kid ourselves about this. The vote was nothing to do with ambiguity. The questions want even phrased in that way. This was about whether the ITC community thought the rule, in its extreme form, was “fair”, or “fun”. In the same way as ITC nerfs invisibility, and 2+ re-rollable saves.

        So, asking why there was no vote on Gladius or Necron reanimation saves, or Convocation wargear is entirely legitimate. The only logical answer to the question is because the community does not feel they are overpowered. However, that begs the question – why was there no vote?

        • juggernut December 3, 2015 10:02 pm #

          I think your point about invisibility being nerfed is very valid. Clearly many players didn’t like it, despite no ambiguity, and voted to nerf it. Don’t see why other rules, units, formation, or whatever shouldn’t be subject to the same treatment.

          Don’t get me wrong, I don’t really care about this ruling, but fair is fair.

    • adam Fasoldt November 30, 2015 7:15 am #

      We are under no obligation to play a uninterpable rule by how we think it is interpreted. If you voted based on your interpretation, then that is your choice.

  31. JasonD November 30, 2015 6:30 am #

    Could we get a follow up on the other aspects of the vote?

    How many of the votes were ITC ranked vs. non-ranked?
    How well do you think the anti-spam worked?
    Will their be improvements based on what you learned?

    • Kevin Lantz November 30, 2015 6:49 am #

      I’d of loved a “what army you play” style link in it lol

      • juggernut December 3, 2015 10:03 pm #

        Have. You’d have loved.

  32. fluger November 30, 2015 7:21 am #

    So…which book has the rules for the Big Mek Stompa. I found the old rules in the original Apocalypse book but that had structure points and I don’t get it.

    Was it updated?

      • ccrraazzyyman November 30, 2015 8:03 am #

        So how the hell is this 400 pt stompa allowed then? It specifically says in games of Apocalypse…

        • 1PlusArmour November 30, 2015 8:20 am #

          “or other large scale battles” is what you’re looking for, and it seems 73% of people who voted believe that 1850pts qualifies for that.

          • ccrraazzyyman November 30, 2015 8:26 am

            It’s more likely that 73% of people had no idea what the hell the rule actually read because there wasn’t a direct link to or a complete quote of the rule in question.

          • 1PlusArmour November 30, 2015 8:45 am

            The link was literally in the question in the Google Docs poll…

            Did you even vote in this, or are you just complaining?

        • Codi November 30, 2015 8:57 am #

          This is the rule you are referring to.

          “In games of Warhammer 40,000: Apocalypse, or other
          large scale battles”

          If we can’t agree on tank shock and what phrases like “resolve as if” mean; how could we possibly agree on what a large scale battle is.

          • Jural November 30, 2015 5:56 pm

            I may finally buy a Stompa because of this ruling! Which may kinda be the point people are making.

      • fluger November 30, 2015 8:08 am #

        That’s just his rules, not the rules for the Big Mek Stompa.

    • ccrraazzyyman November 30, 2015 8:19 am #

      The new rules for the Big Mek Stompa are in the 6th edition apoc book.

  33. tiberius183 November 30, 2015 7:21 am #

    Question: if GW officially FAQs Coordinated Firepower to work in the non-conservative way, can or will the results be vetoed? Or at the very least warrant a re-vote?

  34. GreyDragoon November 30, 2015 7:33 am #

    This is just massively disappointing. I can’t see any reason I’d want to spend the money to go out west and play ITC if they’re just going to nerf stick the living hell out of my list and require me to play versions of my Tau that I don’t want to play. Tau haven’t been a top teir contender for a while, and now they finally get access to a fantastic formation that can rumble against things like Gladius, thunder puppies, and other various strong lists – and the ITC just nerfs the hell out of it with the supposedly “conservative reading of the rules”. Don’t act for even a moment that this is anything other than an intentional house ruling, because the rules as written don’t even begin to support that reading.

    Again, no reason to involve myself with ITC tournaments if this is how they’re going to be. Waste of time and money, I’d rather play with the east coast or European groups that actually want to play the game instead of making new house rules to curb everything decent that comes along for each codex.

    • 1PlusArmour November 30, 2015 8:05 am #

      You realize “they” is ~1000 people with a vested interest in the game, right?

      • ccrraazzyyman November 30, 2015 8:18 am #

        Actually, ‘they’ is the people who write the biased questions. Once the biased questions with misleading information gets put to a vote, we have people who are justifiably upset at the current situation.

        • GreyDragoon November 30, 2015 10:00 am #

          Completely agreed Crazyman. This question was a biased load of nonsense, worded to be how you “want” it as opposed to how it actually is.

          How the hell do they think Tau players are gonna vote, and how is every OTHER group going to vote if the question is what do you “want”? How about we ask if folks ‘want’ to allow D-flamers for Eldar. Or free rhinos for an entire marine army. Or changing on first turn for various marine formations. How do you think those votes will play out if the simple question is how we want them to be – specifically in competitive play environments.

        • Sam November 30, 2015 11:52 am #

          The questions weren’t biased because the people writing the questions were for sharing buffs but not for targets beyond the initial coordinated fire target.

          • TinBane November 30, 2015 12:57 pm

            Don’t let facts get in the way of a good rant. You’ll also see them yelling reece is pro deathstar, and that he’s breaking 7th ed letting people vote.

            They come out of the woodwork every vote, yelling that it’s a biased poll and that the vote was never going to go their way, and that people vote selfishly. Evidence won’t change their minds.

            Grey Dragon, we’ve had those votes before. The votes kept those things in the game. If you are obsessed with ‘pure’ 40k, but limited to your interpretation of the rules just go join one of the competetive unbound events.

          • Adam (thediceabide.com) November 30, 2015 1:56 pm

            Not sure what you’re trying to say, and I don’t believe for a minute that Reece would intentionally write bias questions… but I can say quite comfortably that these questions are not written as neutrally as they could have been. This would only be exacerbated by exposure to the videos that he has posted showing the interpretations at the worst.

            It’s impossible to say how the votes would have gone with more work put into the poll really though, there are all kinds of factors that go into how/what people are thinking at the moment they read the questions.

          • TinBane November 30, 2015 3:35 pm

            Sure, Adam. But everything is biased.
            People have brains, the people posting in an ITC poll aren’t morons off the street.

            There’s plenty of accusations that this was an inevitable outcome. That the questions were deliberately biased, that misleading information was released, and that it was all done to magically prop up Reece’s interest in deathstars.

            There’s also plenty of comments, saying “of course it will be Tau vs everyone else”. Which is bullshit. Plenty of Tau players, whether the vocal ones on here will admit it or not, voted against the most permissive interpretation. And plenty of other players, voted in favour of it.

            The vote is done. It was created and run at short notice, and in good faith, to work out how we see out the ITC season. The vote wasn’t carried out on the basis that Tau are overpowered, or to nerf them. It was to clear up a rule that is, frankly, ludicrously badly written. We can all interpret it the way we want to, but honestly if you try implement this rule with no assumptions at all, all you are left with are questions.

            Because at the end of the day, it comes down to what you include in the grab bag of “as if one unit” and what you don’t. Some people consider the markerlights for instance, entirely tautological, and therefore think the other special rules don’t propagate. Some people think everything propagates. And some people think that it includes ALL rules, such as having to run to make coherency.

            The fact of the matter though, is that this completely turns the shooting resolution process on it’s head, and doesn’t give you enough guidance to smooth things over. Because GW’s strategy, is to basically let the players roll a dice to see whose interpretation wins.

            Hence an ITC poll.

          • Adam (thediceabide.com) November 30, 2015 3:51 pm

            The problem is that all the ITC Polls are hastily put together and run at short notice, haha. It was nice reviewing the ones I was able to before they went public, and those that I was able to give feedback on were all complimented how clear and unbiased they were. I’m not just tooting my own horn, go back and read the comments. I offer this service to Reece for free, the career I’ve been doing for almost 10 years now relies heavily on writing clear, unbiased surveys to gather actionable feedback from large numbers of people.

            What it really comes down to is that the Polls have a significant impact on people’s armies and what they play, but are often quickly typed up and sent off. People get pissed at GW when they rush something, why do you expect that they wouldn’t when ITC does? The bigger ITC becomes, the more people play by those rules, the more people will be affected and the bigger the problem will be. Like I mentioned below, whether Reece realizes it or not, ITC probably has a massive impact on how people play the game at home, second only to GW themselves.

            I’m definitely not accusing them of being morons, but untrained in how to accurately gather and interpret user feedback wouldn’t be inaccurate… Which is fine, they don’t do it for a living! 🙂

        • Tau Shas November 30, 2015 6:16 pm #

          Or the fact that the exact wording of Coordinated Firepower wasn’t even put into the question for vote. and what their changes to it would have been.

    • Rawdogger November 30, 2015 8:22 am #

      There are many events on the east coast that you can attend that will let you play the rule as you read it, including ITC events! Remember that the only ITC events that fully adhere to ITC FAQ rulings are the BAO and LVO. TO’s can change any rule they want to in their ITC events. Don’t just flip out and take your ball and go home when something doesn’t go your way.

      • Adam (thediceabide.com) November 30, 2015 8:48 am #

        While I agree with that in theory, really a LOT of gaming groups play 100% by the ITC rules, because many smaller tournaments do as well. I know in the SF Bay Area, if I suggested that we don’t play by ITC rulings for some things, I’d get laughed out of the shop. 🙂

      • GreyDragoon November 30, 2015 9:57 am #

        In theory Rawdogger, that’s true. But lets not kid ourselves. If TOs are going to use the ITC rules, it includes all of these votes.

        Again, this is just complete crap. Where was this vote for any of the other overpowered releases in the last year? How come no one wants to talk about if the demi companies are fair and fun for the community. Or is it really “fun” if we all play against necron decurion detachments with absurd amounts of ‘saves’ with rerolls. The only reason this came to a vote was the people running ITC came up with that completely ridiculous Bell of Lost Souls post on how they thought it worked, with absurd examples for how things didn’t work due to stuff they pulled entirely out of their rear ends like the example of coherency for the firing unit not working. That helped to justify this incredibly biased question for an ITC poll, even though we haven’t had a SINGLE GT-scale ITC event with CF in it so we could actually see if this does blow up the meta or not.

        If this was anything other than simply hating a new formation they’d have at least let us see how it works competitively then made up these rules for it and had us vote.

    • Sam November 30, 2015 11:51 am #

      Even most east coast gaming groups don’t allow sharing of buffs beyond the initial coordinated fire target. So I don’t know where your opinion comes from since this formation essentially does nothing against msu or gladius lists. What it does do is smash single high priority targets such as some Death Stars (aka non invis targets) and certain Superheavy and GC and a few lists that’s rely heavily on cover saves aka dark Angels.

  35. Lothair Mantelar November 30, 2015 7:54 am #

    While I utterly disagree that the conferrable USRs (Tankhunter etc) and the like with Coordinated Firepower was ever “debatable” rules-wise, I’ve used it a few times, and don’t disagree that it was incredibly potent. Nerfing it to +1BS and ML sharing may have been necessary for balance regardless of “interpretation” of its original form, and may be for the best, but we’ll see.

    As for Splitfire and such with Coordinated Firepower… that one I definitely agree was just a confusing situation to begin with, and would have been a head ache for the user just as much as the recipient, particularly with the original USR etc sharing of Coordinated Firepower factored in.

    Cheap Stompa being limited to Orks only makes that pretty reasonable.

  36. Amnesiadidit November 30, 2015 8:05 am #

    Well the voting went mostly as I voted, although I left old super tank shock cause it was funny.

    Looking back on it tho I think my vote on the tau situation was a poor one cause I had yet to really face the new tau, I had seen this formation though on paper and first thing in my mind was how my poor nids were gonna get dumped on hard even more. Sorry tau players, maybe I jumped the gun.

    Here is an idea though, so what about when the itc has these votes there is a trial of around a month, then their can be a quick revise before its final? What if this stompa deal blows everything out? (Yeah I doubt it will, it isn’t actually too bad) or what if that formation ruling was what gave tau its place and we stripped them too far? This whole vote system is to help all armies be playable and have our tournament be as close to balanced field as we can perceive to make them. Sure the game will never truly be balanced but we can make it as close as we can. So let’s try this way out for a bit and maybe call for a revise if it’s needed? Like I said at first this whole hunter contingent had me worried and crying OP, but I will be the first to admit, I jumped the gun. If anything tau players…blame the stormsurge, it’s what caused all this panic haha

  37. Jeremy Veysseire November 30, 2015 8:06 am #

    What is the Point of the Dawn Blade Detachment Command Ability if the the Hunter Contingent with a Puretide Engram Chip can effectively do the same thing… I really don’t think GW was planning to make 2 Detachment release at the same time for the same faction in the following Manner:

    1 has a good mechanic that also gains all the ability of the second with 1 Character and a 15 point upgrade…..

    • winterman November 30, 2015 10:11 am #

      I agree. I voted for all the rules sharing but no target lock (it is how I see the RaW). But after seeing the Dawn Blade bonus I think RAI is probably the conservative way.

    • X078 November 30, 2015 10:26 am #

      Because they are two different detachments who cannot share Command Benefits. On focuses on synergy usage of few markerlights together with buffs from 1 model. Kill that model and the buffs are gone. The other gets a detachment wide “puretide” and a more battlesuit focused msu deepstrike approach.

    • abusepuppy November 30, 2015 11:29 am #

      I don’t think that a Puretide chip lets you reroll to wound against Bikes, Beasts, and Cavalry. Or anything else that isn’t a monstrous creature.

      • Jeremy Veysseire November 30, 2015 1:09 pm #

        Yes, well perhaps Tau will get a Signature System for 5 pts if you already have a Puretide Engram chip that allows you to…

        • Kevin Lantz November 30, 2015 2:38 pm #

          not exactly in the realm of possibility at this point lol

        • abusepuppy November 30, 2015 7:40 pm #

          Or maybe they’ll get more stuff like the Farsight relics, which are such complete garbage I’ve never seen most of them on the table even in casual play.

          • Kevin lantz November 30, 2015 8:24 pm

            Well the talisman has no effect on blessings which is the only thing tau really want negated

          • AbusePuppy December 1, 2015 9:35 am

            Yeah, and the Mirrorcodex is hugely expensive and unreliable against most armies, and the Warscraper is expensive and has a very niche function, the Seismic Filibrator actually hurts Tau more than it does most enemies because of the prevalence of Jet Pack Infantry and Skimmer models, Fusion Blades are 50pts for a “power fist” that sometimes just stops working, and now that Riptides can’t take the Earth Caste Array anymore it’s basically worthless.

            I think you can make a good argument that Farsight has the worst relics in the game right now.

  38. Skyler November 30, 2015 8:09 am #

    I’ll accept the decision, even though I voted the other way, but I now have a further question:
    Are we still allowed to use the Buffmander and Target Locks to fire at multiple targets with all the benefits, as we’ve been doing since the systems were introduced? I assume so, since it wasn’t “OP” for the last few years I don’t see why it would suddenly be nerfed.

    So if that is allowed, what if the ‘primary’ shooter of the coordinated attack has that setup. Can that squad still target multiple enemies with the buffmander bonuses or is it effectively disallowed from participating in Coordinated Attacks lest it lose all its shooting bonuses?

  39. ccrraazzyyman November 30, 2015 8:16 am #

    Congrats Reecius on your apparent Tau bias skewing results on polls.

    Also, how the hell is this 400 pt stompa even considered a good idea? It says in his rules “Buzzgob’s Kustom Stompa — In games of Warhammer 40,000: Apocalypse, or other large scale battles, Buzzgob may be exchanged for a Big Mek Stompa for +300 points”

    Since when is 1850 a ‘large scale battle?’

    • Sam November 30, 2015 11:59 am #

      Since escalation was released and used the same exact wording for Superheavies in games. And everyone of those Superheavies are now legal in normal 40k games.

    • Kwodd November 30, 2015 2:33 pm #

      The stompa is a good idea because we allow FW official and experimental rules. The Buzzgob rules are clear as can be and it was unbanned.

  40. Bellerah November 30, 2015 8:35 am #

    Thanks Reecius,

    Though I do not necessarily agree with the Tau rulings myself, I do appreciate allowing the community vote on the way they wish to play the game.

  41. Toranagaaa November 30, 2015 8:47 am #

    Thank you, FLG crew, for taking the time and effort to steward this game into a playable and sustainable format, despite all the negativity and divisiveness out there. Like it or not, the people have spoken and I’m excited to see how it shapes out! GO ITC!!!

  42. Chris November 30, 2015 8:50 am #


    I’m gonna be honest, only the questions 3 and 4 for the tau vote should have been up for contention. The RAW clearly states “fires as a single unit.” Even at it’s most conservative, the Buffmander would be sharing his benefits across anything in the combined fire.

    What should have been in the vote concerns the actual units participating. They should all be in range of what they’re shooting, rather than just having LoS. How would it be fair for a Gun Drone that is out of range to contribute to the the massed firepower coming in from the two Missiletide teams that are starting off the chain?

    Also, touch the Mont’ka book in anyway and I will find a way to have you blacklisted.

    • Cooper Waddell November 30, 2015 9:38 am #

      I loled at blacklisted

      • Adam (Thediceabide.com) November 30, 2015 10:13 am #

        You and me both, haha.

        • Chris December 1, 2015 11:36 pm #

          By Blacklisted, I meant put on a terrorist watch list.

          • Chris December 1, 2015 11:46 pm

            My phone translated it to blacklist without me realizing it.

          • Real Chris December 2, 2015 12:53 am

            Ignore that.

    • Jeremy Veysseire November 30, 2015 9:40 am #

      What is the Point of the Dawn Blade Detachment Command Ability if the the Hunter Contingent with a Puretide Engram Chip can effectively do the same thing… I really don’t think GW was planning to make 2 Detachment release at the same time for the same faction in the following Manner:

      1 has a good mechanic that also gains all the ability of the second with 1 Character and a 15 point upgrade…..

      • X078 November 30, 2015 10:28 am #

        Because they are two different detachments who cannot share Command Benefits. One focuses on synergy usage of fewer markerlights, together with buffs from mainly 1 model. Kill that model and the buffs are gone. The other gets a detachment wide “puretide” which cannot be killed, and a more battlesuit focused msu deepstrike approach.

        • Jeremy Veysseire November 30, 2015 11:20 am #

          Wow thats some long reach of reasoning. I mean I can see it but thats like a hail mary throw.

    • abusepuppy November 30, 2015 11:32 am #

      You can’t use a unit that is out of range (or LOS, unless it has barrage weapons) to contribute to Coordinated Firepower, as you aren’t allowed to shoot in either of those cases.

      • 1PlusArmour November 30, 2015 11:46 am #

        Unfortunately this goes to a hole in the rules… being in range is NOT a precursor to selecting your target, only actually resolving the attack.

        In this case, you declare they’re all firing together “as one unit”, but some of the weapons in that “single” unit just happen to be out of range.

        It’s super gamey, but I’ve seen it come up multiple times now, and it’s open for interpretation.

    • tiberius183 November 30, 2015 2:39 pm #

      Wait, there’s a black list?

    • TinBane November 30, 2015 4:48 pm #

      I agree, the questions were wrong.

      There should have been a vote in there to have it require unit coherency, too.

      And honestly, “I’ll find a way to have you blacklisted”… from what? The tau forums?

      • Thejughead November 30, 2015 7:11 pm #

        Coherency has nothing to do with CF, please stop making these false assertions.

      • Chris December 1, 2015 11:47 pm #

        Phone changed terrorlisted to blacklisted.

        • Real Chris December 2, 2015 12:52 am #

          Please excuse the last few comments from “Chris.” My GF has been pretty pissed about the recent ITC vote and decided to use me as a cover.

          • Real Chris December 2, 2015 1:00 am

            That said, I do agree on what she said in concerns to the poll question. It would make more sense to control what supports the CF.

            I recently had a game where a fellow Tau player tried to have his Breacher Squad support the attack of a Riptide and a Ghostkeel. Problem was, the Breacher squad was very far out of range. After about 5 minutes of perusing our codexes and finding nothing against that, we rolled a dice on whether or not he would be able to proceed with having the Breachers support. It ended up rolling in my favor.

            After the game was over, we sat down and talked about it for a bit. Came to the agreement that a model has to be in range to take part in the CF.

  43. X078 November 30, 2015 9:19 am #

    I guess this means you guys can’t use Target Locks anymore if you use crisis unit plus buffmander as one unit taking part in CF with other units, even if it’s for its own unit only.
    Basically Target Locks are only usable outside of CF? Rough…

    • 1PlusArmour November 30, 2015 10:00 am #

      I believe you can still use them – that question was specific to buffs that _would have_ been conferred from CF, as well as the Markerlight bonuses/+1 BS from CF.

      • X078 November 30, 2015 10:31 am #

        Outside of CF yes you can use them but not while participating.
        Let’s say your markerlights are killed and you really need to CF for that +1BS with the last of your 3 units, well now you must commit all to that target. You might kill it but then again you might massively overcommit and have nothing left.

        • 1PlusArmour November 30, 2015 10:45 am #

          There was nothing in the vote that restricted units to having to fire all models (even those with target locks) at the same unit from what I can see.

          • X078 November 30, 2015 10:50 am

            Correct, missed that, you can use them but not the shared buffs via Target Locks. Not even from the original unit with the buffmander.

          • X078 November 30, 2015 10:55 am

            “Correct, missed that, you can use them but not the shared buffs via Target Locks. Not even from the original unit with the buffmander.”

            During combined CF I should add.

          • Brandon November 30, 2015 11:27 am

            Buffmanders abilities still apply to each member of his parent/attached unit, even if they are part of a “combined fire” and utilize target locks to target different enemy units. The ITC poll only excludes sharing special abilities amongst non-native units/units that don’t inherently have the special rule that are a part a “combined fire”.

          • X078 November 30, 2015 12:00 pm

            “Buffmanders abilities still apply to each member of his parent/attached unit, even if they are part of a “combined fire” and utilize target locks to target different enemy units. The ITC poll only excludes sharing special abilities amongst non-native units/units that don’t inherently have the special rule that are a part a “combined fire”.”

            Not sure about that since the vote as worded says special rules. Buffmanders Ignore Cover Twin-Link etc are all Special Rules.

  44. Brandon November 30, 2015 9:31 am #

    I don’t feel like this survey was very well publicized in the gaming forums. I had been perusing Dakka’s Tournament Discussion forum these past few weeks and I don’t recall seeing a thread on this topic. I know in the past I have seen threads for ITC polls crop up in Dakka’s forums. I would have liked to have had a chance to vote on these issues.

    • Mike November 30, 2015 1:53 pm #

      There was a 6 page thread on dakka about the vote when it went up. Also FLG advertises as much as it can. They mentioned a vote several times in signals episodes leading up to it. If you’re connected to the ITC tournament scene in some way, I don’t know how you missed it.

  45. Kwodd November 30, 2015 9:31 am #

    430 point discount on the mek stompa is amazing, I haven’t been this excited about Orks since ’08.

    If Tau players hadn’t gone with the most over the top broken interpretation of coordinated fp they wouldn’t be in this situation.

    Great poll and results, thanks FLG!

    • Sam November 30, 2015 12:32 pm #

      It’s a big discount but honestly the Mek stompa isn’t that great anymore since they nerfed the lifta droppa. It will be cute killing a rhino in the gladius formation each turn however unless it scatters into another opposing unit it is not as useful or fun as it was when you could drop it on another unit.

      The klaw is not str d Assault weapon and the stompa int is bad. Meaning most dedicated assault units can crush the stompa.

      You can add str8 ap3 massive blast single use rokkits that have poor bs and they destroy marines well at 20points a pop.

      And the gaze of mork is a single shot str d bs2 weapon that misses more then it hits.

      The best thing about the stompa is it has a ton of hull points and has d6 power fields that help against str d shooting. It’s durable in that regard and buzzgrob provides free repair rolls and is one of the most durable warlords in game. He even has a chance to survive the stompa explosion.

      However it’s still a 400 point stompa which can stomp which is a great price point for this model if it had a much higher bs or a way to twinlinked and the lifta droppa could still smash targets i would definitely think it would be borderline op.

      • Adam (thediceabide.com) November 30, 2015 1:44 pm #

        Don’t forget that for 150 points you can give it 2 Deff Cannons, for a pair of S10 Ap1 7″ blasts.

        • Sam November 30, 2015 2:47 pm #

          At the cost of its close combat atks and its transport capacity.

          I’m assuming buzzgrob overrides the zero transport capacity of the belly gun but the belly gun essentially removes the option of putting a big Mek with Kff/mff inside for a 5+ or 4+ invul save.

          And honestly you’re now talking about a 550pt superheavy. That’s back up to a whole lot of points again without any suppa rokkits.

          • Adam (thediceabide.com) November 30, 2015 2:59 pm

            The belly kannon doesn’t remove the transport capacity, check out it’s rules: https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0331/01/1404232617206.png

            So you can still get that KFF. 😉

          • Sam December 1, 2015 7:45 am

            Is the the official data sheet because my IA8 book has the belly gun removing all transport capacity.

            Also the lifta droppa rules are they different then the battleeagon as kwodd stated or is it still the craptastix bs2 can’t drop it near any units and only can lift small vehicles weapon?

          • Adam (thediceabide.com) December 1, 2015 8:02 am

            His rules don’t reference the IA8 book, they reference page 278 of the Apocalypse book, which is the picture I posted.

          • Adam (thediceabide.com) December 1, 2015 8:03 am

            I mean page 273, either way, Apocalypse book (which is newer), not IA8.

        • Kwodd November 30, 2015 6:01 pm #

          Double deff all the way.

      • Kwodd November 30, 2015 6:15 pm #

        Pretty sure the stompa’s lifta droppa is different than the lifta wagon’s jury rigged lifta droppa.

      • Codi December 1, 2015 7:30 am #

        I think in a world where wraith knights exist 400pt for this srompa is reasonable, if not fair. 830 points made it unplayable.

  46. iNcontroL November 30, 2015 10:17 am #

    Each time there is a ruling like this I am always impressed by peoples ability to flip out. Comments about never going to ITC, shelving Tau, Tau being completely irrelevant now.. holy shit. Hey, as a daily reminder for those of you with mega short term memory if you and your community don’t like this ruling you can run ITC tourneys and have all the rules you want. If you want to argue that isn’t good enough fine.. if you want to claim Reece wrote in bias and publicly go ham on him go ahead I guess? Seems really bad to me. Reece and Frankie have nothing to gain by “hurting” tau players, you realize that, right? Like, are you actually accusing them of being racist to Tau in WH40k? I dunno.. might be a bit odd to stand behind that one.

    Also Tau are actually fantastic. If you think not getting army wide monster hunter/ignores cover/twin link/ tank hunter etc.. is what it takes to make them “good” you are mistaken. In the last week I’ve seen some amazing Tau lists and at our local ITC tourney where a bunch of the absolute top players played we had the top table with two tau lists ironically tie to remove themselves from winning the tourney but one still managed to take 3rd in a 3 game tourney despite that. Mont’Ka is fantastic and Frankie has been running the conservative hunter cadre with great success. Turns out sharing marker lights and gaining +1 BS is still pretty damn good.. hmmm

    • Kwodd November 30, 2015 10:27 am #


    • 1PlusArmour November 30, 2015 10:46 am #


      The conspiracy theories are strong in these comments, haha.

    • Bellerah November 30, 2015 11:52 am #

      If Reese was truly diabolic, he would allow the most powerful interpretation of every Tau rule, max his sales and then revise them all down to this new terrible version of only overpowered Tau.

      Hopefully he steps it up in the Q4 poll.

    • EmbraceYourInnerGeek November 30, 2015 12:57 pm #

      I agree that some of the comments are outrageous. Reece and Frankie are doing a great job trying to make sense of something that makes no sense. However, (and you could guess that was coming), the thing is the decision on what goes to a vote and what doesn’t. As I’ve posted before, this was not about what the rule said, it was an opportunity given to the community to decide what was “fair” or “fun to play”. I have no problem with that at all. Nerfing invisibility and 2+ re-rollable saves were both good decisions IMHO. The problem is, what’s the system for deciding on what goes to the vote?

      Why wasn’t Gladius voted on, why wasn’t Convocation war gear voted on.

      Who decided on what’s so unfair that it deserves a vote?

    • Jural November 30, 2015 6:04 pm #

      I hve gone so fr s remove he leers from my dicionry

  47. Richard November 30, 2015 10:40 am #

    Quick question on target locks & the coordinated firepower rule;

    Can a unit make use of a target lock, so that one model shoots at a unit fulfilling 1/3 of the requirement (i.e. 2 more firing units enable +1BS) and the result of the unit shoots at a different unit, again fulfilling the 1/3 requirement.

    I’m sorry if it was obvious, I just wanted to make sure either way. Cheers!

    • X078 November 30, 2015 10:41 am #

      Nope, only units can combine for CF not individual models from units.

  48. Mipps November 30, 2015 11:12 am #

    I think there are two key underlying issues with the vote that went down:

    1) It seems like alot of people either haven’t read the rule or don’t understand the purpose of target locks and how they work – the fact is they only allow a single model in a unit to shoot at a completely different enemy unit, which would mean at most a single model shooting at other enemy units. Unfortunately all the community heard was Reecius’s massively biased statement of tau being able to share all rules across the whole army whilst simultaneously shooting the entire enemy army at once (whilst technically true, not fundamentally as bad as it sounded) – there was also the issue of despite promising a video showing how silly it was there wasn’t one and was only a battle report using the weaker version.

    2) The wording of the question gave no frame of reference for voters. I feel there should have been a video explanation or at least a clear overview of what was being voted on. As it was there is just share all rules or not, and the second question is linked as a fundamental reason as to why it was so powerful, as it is by splitting the questions the community has voted for the weakest of both without considering both as a single item (as they technically are)

    All in all I am disappointed, I am starting to take part in tournaments (so i applaud being able to vote in this) but Tau have been nerfed via a knee jerk reaction to something that is not game breaking when faced with formations and units that have no real weaknesses.

    Shame – I am sure I will now get told to stop being a cry baby about it, by necron, eldar and space marine players who have had no real hits, get to play their codexes as intended

    • AnonAmbientLight November 30, 2015 3:20 pm #

      “1) It seems like alot of people either haven’t read the rule or don’t understand the purpose of target locks and how they work – the fact is they only allow a single model in a unit to shoot at a completely different enemy unit, which would mean at most a single model shooting at other enemy units.”

      You seem to be one of those people that don’t understand the rule. If I have three units of crisis suits, all with target locks and one of those units has a buffmander. What is stopping me from declaring all three units are shooting at Target A, and then using Target Lock to fire at everything else?

      Or a unit of 2-3 riptides with target lock doing the same alongside the crisis suits. Hell, add a Stromsurge, and at that point the Stormsurge just needs to fire at least one weapon at Target A, to gain the USR buff to all the rest of his attacks. And GMC can shoot their weapons at different targets.

      The result is essentially ignores cover, rerolls, and tank/monster hunter for your entire army. There’s not a lot of units in the game that can withstand that kind of fire power. Your average, non-competitive list will get deleted turn 1.

      “2) The wording of the question gave no frame of reference for voters. I feel there should have been a video explanation or at least a clear overview of what was being voted on. ”

      So the people that go to these tournaments don’t know how the game is played? Your suggesting that the players at the top of the game have no clue how this works?

      You don’t get top place in tournaments by bringing a strong list. You get top place by bringing a strong list and knowing your opponent’s strength and weaknesses. To suggest that “no one knew what they were voting for” is laughable.

      • Mipps November 30, 2015 11:48 pm #

        Ironic accusation of lack of understanding is ironic!

        You have 3 units of crisis suits and one has a buffmander, they do a combined firepower shot, as a whole they now all declare they are shooting target A….as a single unit….now target locks allow A SINGLE MODEL in the UNIT to shoot at a DIFFERENT to the rest of the unit…which means they have to shoot something different to the rest of their buddies! Ipso facto in reality 1 model shooting at other enemy units.

        Also just because people play In the ITC does not make them top tournament players! You are seriously suggesting that there are almost 1000 super top players who understand every rule for every codex. And I don’t necessarily consider pushing around a single blob deathstar to make people brilliant players


        • winterman December 1, 2015 9:08 am #

          “now target locks allow A SINGLE MODEL in the UNIT to shoot at a DIFFERENT to the rest of the unit”

          I think you are confusing target lock with split fire. They have different rules. Split fire allows one model in the unit to target something different. Target lock lets the model with the target lock choose a different target than the unit they are in. So could have 3 crisis suits, two with target locks with an attached buffmander — and each crisis suit could target a different unit if they wanted.

        • GreyDragoon December 7, 2015 7:42 am #

          Yeah that isn’t how Target Locks work at all Mipps. They are a model level wargear that grant that model the ability to fire its weapons at a target different from the unit’s designated targets. It in no way references or uses the Split Fire rule.

  49. SilverSaint November 30, 2015 12:10 pm #

    There are a lot of people posting on both sides of the fence here, but I feel almost everyone posting about bias or fairness etc….is posting about the wrong thing. Having seen a bunch of votes now I never understood something. When votes are this close I don’t understand why there aren’t votes again at the next voting period. This way people have a chance to see how the vote has played out, how it works, if its fair, etc and form their own opinion (ideally with actual play with/against).

    Clearly you can’t keep having a vote over and over if its always 50-50, but when you vote quickly after a release and the vote isn’t incredibly one sided, it makes sense to have another vote at the next voting cycle for votes that were within 5% (high for 1000 votes) of each other to see if opinions have remained or drastically changed. Now instead of a flat difference you can just use a margin of error so it works with vote size, but I feel anything that allowed for re-votes of incredibly close votes would drastically help the system and lower the salt levels.

    • 1PlusArmour November 30, 2015 12:40 pm #

      Not a bad suggestion!

    • TinBane November 30, 2015 4:55 pm #

      This is, there are lots of ITC discussions that have been voted on multiple times.

      In all likelihood, this will be voted on another once or twice in the next year or so.

      The purpose of this vote, and the reason it was hastily done, is to clarify the ITC position until this season is finished (LVO 2016). I doubt very much that people who want this are going to shut up (oh look, this very comments section is filled with tau players who have 10+ comments saying essentially the same thing over and over). And as you point out, it was pretty close.

      So, I’d suggest that this is very much not decided, and it will be finally resolved at the start of next season??

  50. poops mcgilicutty November 30, 2015 12:39 pm #

    When is the vote to disallow else entirely. That’s the one we REALLY want.

  51. Kwodd November 30, 2015 2:36 pm #

    Can we have a LoW ban list review?

    Where do I lobby for a Harridan vote?

    • tiberius183 November 30, 2015 2:42 pm #

      I want a Tiger Shark AX-1-0 vote!

      • Kevin Lantz November 30, 2015 4:00 pm #

        look at the approved list…

        • Kevin Lantz November 30, 2015 4:01 pm #

          look at the approved list…

          well it was in the google docs list they had… not published now apparently.

          • tiberius183 December 2, 2015 9:35 am

            It’s not on there. Only the regular Tiger Shark is approved, not the AX-1-0 variant.

  52. FrequentRespawn November 30, 2015 2:41 pm #

    Already looking forward to the ruling for endless piranha and drone spam.

    • Kevin lantz November 30, 2015 4:23 pm #

      Why? There is no ambiguity.

      • TinBane November 30, 2015 4:57 pm #

        Don’t let facts get in the way of claiming to be persecuted.

        It’s only a matter of time, Reece, champion of death stars will not stop until everything that can hurt them is gone….

        So sick of hearing people ragging on Reece and Frankie like they are trying to set up the ITC so they can win, using armies and tactics they aren’t even playing. It’s almost like people comment out of ignorance because they are frustrated.

        • Jural November 30, 2015 6:09 pm #

          Reece and Frankie are playing us like Rubic’s cubes. Next year the D will get nerfed in close combat, and then the Invisibility and re-roll 2+ changes will mysteriously disappear from the ITC FAQ the night before Frankie and Reece put their LVO armies on the table…

          Then the doors will be locked, alcohol shut off, and the screaming will begin…

          • White925 November 30, 2015 8:56 pm

            Jural youre on to us!

      • FrequentRespawn November 30, 2015 10:22 pm #

        True, but the rule is potentially the craziest rule in the game which if exploited will mess up tournaments left and right.

        • Kevin lantz November 30, 2015 10:46 pm #

          No… This is not the case at all. It’s not like you can just declare twin linked and rerolls with no cost… Wait that’s spacearines, the same ones with oodles of free transports… Oh and battle bros to cover any style or problem they have

          • FrequentRespawn December 1, 2015 12:34 am

            you can however just get your piranhas on the table, deploy drones and get off the table, fill up and repeat. Now, what you can do as well is just hope to fail 1 dangerous terrain check on one of the piranhas within 6″ of your table edge (just get a Aegis Defense Line). Now you can leave that Piranha behind and split off into 2 units which are still part of the formation and since they are within 6″ of the table edge can leave the table, fill up with models again (now BOTH units) and come back on the table…Who wants free transports if you can do that?

          • Kevin Lantz December 1, 2015 6:23 am

            lol I’d rather have free devilfishes for everyone lol

  53. Black Blow Fly November 30, 2015 5:30 pm #

    I like the changes made to make the polling more fair. This time around I agreed with most of the decisions that resulted due to the poll.

    • Rawdogger December 1, 2015 7:36 am #

      As BBF you are very supportive of us. As Dozer Blades, you are very disapproving of us, lol.

  54. Jural November 30, 2015 6:11 pm #

    I am in the camp of letting rules play out before nerfing them (I was against the scatter lasers, etc…) But Tau needed to be ruled on. It just wasn’t clear. I can see the buffmander buffs passing army wide, but the other questions I think got quite confusing if you want to play RAW.

  55. Tau Shas November 30, 2015 6:33 pm #

    SIgh.. Folks per book target lock states”A model with a target lock can shoot at a different target to the rest of his unit..

    here is hunter Contingent: Whenever a unit from a Hunter
    Contingent selects a target in the shooting phase, any number
    of other units from the same Detachment who can still shoot
    can add their firepower to the attack. These units must shoot
    the same target, resolving their shots as if they were a single
    unit this includes the use of markerlight abilities. When 3 or
    more units combine their firepower, the firing models add I to
    their Ballistic Skill.

    A model firing via target lock is not a unit. even if you give them all target lock it is an individual special rule and not a unit special rule. therefore you can’t daisy chain the buff like folks think. it also specifically tells which special rules can be confired from a model to a unit. But per Hunter Contingent a models firing with target lock do not qualify as a unit.

    • Sam December 1, 2015 7:59 am #

      Sigh I wish you understood what must shoot the same target means.

      • Sam December 1, 2015 8:02 am #

        It wasn’t as if they are saying you can’t use target locks. They are saying those models do not benefit from bonuses granted by shooting at other targets.

  56. tag8833 November 30, 2015 8:26 pm #

    So, we’ve voted in a 400 point Big Mek Stompa. Is it worse than a 295 Point Wraith Knight? Maybe so, maybe no, but neither are good for the game. Make the Stompa 580 Points, and the Wraith Knight 410, and we will see a dramatic rise in list diversity while still allowing people to play with all of their toys.

    • Orock November 30, 2015 10:58 pm #

      people dont want diversity. They WANT to vote out the things that change the meta, so their death stars can go on being undisputed champs.

      • kontraktkiller December 1, 2015 9:03 am #

        OK so when was the last time you saw a death Star win a ITC gt? Don’t worry ill wait.

        • Adam (thediceabide.com) December 1, 2015 9:21 am #

          October? Know No Mercy GT, won by Steve Sisk’s super friends.

          • Jural December 1, 2015 1:24 pm

            I thought that basically used the RAW with no limitations except for points (and no unbound?) That’s pretty far from the ITC full rules, isn’t it?

    • Sam December 1, 2015 8:10 am #

      Honestly depending on which rules they use.
      The big Mek stompa mostly sucks
      It’s bs2 single shot str d gaze rarely hit with any form of twinlinked or increase in bs.
      Thr liftadrooppa was nerfed to only hit hull4 vehicles and can’t drop them near any units and again it’s bs2.
      The close combat weapon is not str d.
      And supa rokkits are 20pp for one shot blast str8 ap3 at bs2 hardly inspiring fear.

      You can however add 2 deff canons for 150 points which are massive blast str10 ap1 for 150 points and the loss of close combat atks and transport capacity which means no KFF 5+ invul depending on which rules they use.

      But now you are comparing a 550pt low without any supa rokkits to a 295pt low.

      The big Mek stompa isn’t that scary or hard to deal with it is however an extremely durable warlord with 12 hullpoints with repairs and d6 power fields and a chance for buzzgrob to survive the stompa explosion.

      • tag8833 December 1, 2015 8:38 am #

        They ruled that it is a LOW not an HQ, So no warlord.

        Yes, the Stompa will end up being 500 or 550 points depending on how it is used, but the Wraith Knight is usually taking scatter lasers, and generally runs 325 points.

        That isn’t really an argument that they are balanced. Both of those units hardly ever die, with the Stompa being much more survivable due to the additional hull points, and power fields (Void Shields), and both of them would be a very good unit in a competitive army with a price bump. A 630 Point Big Mek Stompa with 2 7″ blasts that are S10 AP1, and a 440 Point Wraith Knight with a couple of scatter lasers would still be really good. They would still make my Barbed Heirodule (565 points) look significantly overcosted.

        I play Orks. Right now I feel like in order to play Orks at a highly competitive level I MUST play with a Big Mek Stompa. I don’t like any units becoming obviously auto-take. It is a significant disruption to list diversity, and list diversity has a lot of value to me.

        • Sam December 1, 2015 3:07 pm #

          Right now the only competitive Ork option has been zhardsnark bike spam.
          Secondly a warlord does not have to be an hq anymore

          Realistically your looking at over a 635pts stompa without any supa rokkits after you add in the two guns that can actually hit anything and adding a KFF bigmek to make the stompa nearly unkillable. However this is not how you win itc missions with an unkillable low that fires 2 str10 ap1 7in blasts. You win by claiming obj which the stompa doesn’t help with.

          It’s good it will be competitive maybe even fun with a dread mob list however it’s not going to be as amazing as you are trying to make it out to be. It’s definitely not auto include.

          • Kevin lantz December 1, 2015 9:28 pm

            Not sure how its not an auto include… This will get any assault unit where you want

          • AbusePuppy December 1, 2015 10:40 pm

            The Stompa is not open-topped, so you cannot assault out of it. It can move stuff around, but they still have to hang around on foot for a turn after arriving.

    • Jural December 1, 2015 1:22 pm #

      I can’t speak for most, but I think with a 0-1 limit on LoW, the overall Orc weakness, and the caveat that this upgrade can only be taken with a 100% orc force, then it’s a fun option that won’t be tournament breaking.

      I could be wrong, and if orcs stomp the rest of the field between now and LVO maybe this needs to be voted on again (precedence: CtA vote)

  57. Black Blow Fly November 30, 2015 11:02 pm #

    Reecius has publicaly stated he doesn’t like DS.

    • Orock November 30, 2015 11:15 pm #

      Considering he removed the thing that had the biggest and best chance of punishing just such a list, he has made a terrible mistake.

      • tag8833 December 1, 2015 6:18 am #

        The changes in Tau have very little to do with deatstars. The most powerful version of combined fire makes them slightly more powerful against deathstars, and hugely more powerful against MSU.

        If buffmander buffs an entire army that can then use target lock, we are talking about 8 dead rhinos a turn. I could easily lose 9 out of 11 trukks before they get to move.

        Because MSU is a natural counter to deathstars, the most powerful interpretation of Combined fire would have seen a meta shift in the direction of deatstars instead of away from them.

        Give it a shot in a few games, and a few different scenarios and you will see what I mean.

        • X078 December 1, 2015 7:05 am #

          You can easily lose 9 out 11 trucks anyway. I’ll just put the buffmander in a 9 model crisis unit all with Targetlocks, melta and drones for area coverage. Back it up with the splitfire marker drone network.

        • Adam (thediceabide.com) December 1, 2015 7:59 am #

          The problem is that the interpretation that they must target the same unit (and thus can’t split fire, or fire at multiple targets), but gain all the shared rules, is totally valid and supported by the RAW, but wasn’t really given the opportunity to be shown. That is how many reasonable people thought it worked (including some of the “pro’s” listed in his article about it), and it was pretty much ignored.

          • tag8833 December 1, 2015 8:43 am

            I don’t really have a problem with that interpretation. It was the one I argued for locally. It preserves the power against deathstars, but restricts the power against MSU.

            Preserving MSU as a viable build is very important to maintaining a fun and interesting Meta.

      • Sam December 1, 2015 3:13 pm #

        Since when did Reece remove the culexus assassin?

        And can someone explain how invis Death Stars give a crap about this formation? The only usr that matters is ignore cover for dark angel type lists. Monster hunter, tank hunter don’t matter to Death Stars. Twinlinked hardly matters since the this formation still gives 1 bs and shared Marker lights. What special rule is there in game that tau had access to has any effect whatsoever to 2+ reroll and invis Death Stars?

  58. X078 December 1, 2015 12:16 am #

    Quite intresting this, Apocalypse only wellfare Big Mek Stompa is fine but fully legal Ta’unar Supremacy Armour is not?

    • Frozocrone December 1, 2015 12:43 am #

      Ta’unar has a 7″ Blast D weapon as standard, Titan statline, easy access to Ignore Cover and all sorts meaning it violates one or more of the SHV/GC restrictions.

      • Jural December 1, 2015 1:27 pm #

        The only argument I can give to allow the Tau’nar into the game is the same argument I use with the Harridan- the model is so f-ing cool!!

        But yeah, both may be too much for most tournaments. They are close to easy win buttons against a lot of armies. Maybe not the top table, but still.

        • Kevin Lantz December 1, 2015 2:14 pm #

          well… look at the new ork crap that went through lol

          • Sam December 1, 2015 3:18 pm

            A single bs 2 str d shot and single bs2 lifta droppa that explodes hull4 or less vehicles away from everyone with no way to twinlinked or ignore cover basically sucks.

            The only good build is adding two deff guns for 150pts that fire two bs2 str10 ap1 7in blasts. For 150pts making this low cost 550pts. That’s not exactly cheap.

          • Jural December 1, 2015 4:56 pm

            I’m not sure what you are saying- the Ork Stompa model is not anywhere near as cool as the Taunar, unfortunately! And it pales in comparison on the field. To be honest, I’ve only played against one, never actually fielded it… so maybe the Stompa is much better than I think?

          • Kevin lantz December 1, 2015 5:09 pm

            With 13/13/12 and 12 hull points for 400pts?

          • Sam December 1, 2015 5:21 pm

            Actually I was playing around with a few list builds and realized while the stompa is not a shooty machine of death it makes Ork lists much better brcahse it solves two massive problems with Orks.
            It makes Orks around it fearless
            And although it’s only bs2 it becomes a huge target priority and sponge that protects your smaller units which helps them get to assault by surviving longer.

            Even at 500pts with belly gun. People fear a bs2 single shot str d and a bs2 weapon that can explode most transports if it hits. The deff belly gun is definitely the biggest fear for most non cover save armies.

          • Kevin lantz December 1, 2015 8:48 pm

            Not to mention its transport capacity

          • Sam December 2, 2015 7:05 am

            Who cares about transport capacity. Orks have tons of assault transports for Orks. Battle wagons are both cheaper, assault, and move faster while being very durable.
            Trukks are even faster extremely cheap and assault.

            The only good thing about the stompa transport capacity Is you can add a big Mek with KFF for 85pts and get a 5++ sv on the stompa.

            However the stompa is nietther fast nor an assault vehicle and it’s only access point is in the rear making the stompa an incredibly poor assault delivery vehicle and it has only 10 fire points in restrictive locations making it a poor shooty unit transport as well.

  59. Kevin Lantz December 1, 2015 6:34 am #

    So now we get to the next question of…

    Co-ordinated firestorm….

    if I join buffmander to the broadsides in there and they all fire together, do they get the benefit?

    • X078 December 1, 2015 7:14 am #

      RAW I would say yes. All the models participating in Co-ordinated Firestorm would benefit from the buffmander. But if you play ITC I have no clue, you probably need another vote =)

    • 1PlusArmour December 1, 2015 11:40 am #

      This question actually came up to me today as well… my assumption is no, given that the wording is nearly identical to Coordinated Firepower.

      • Kevin lantz December 1, 2015 4:43 pm #

        Mine too but that essentially makes two nerds

        • Jural December 1, 2015 4:57 pm #

          There’s a lot more than 2 nerds here 😉

          • Kevin lantz December 1, 2015 8:47 pm

            Meant nerfs lol

          • Jural December 2, 2015 9:15 am


  60. Mister Lister, S.F. December 2, 2015 12:09 am #

    I see the vote turned out better than I had hoped for.

    P.S. get wrekt tau.

  61. SeeDElite08 December 2, 2015 2:02 am #

    The Tau hate is strong with this one. The BRB and simple reading comprehension were all that were needed to understand that rule, but if you want to break out the nerf bat that badly, I guess that’s your prerogative. Just don’t think we don’t see what’s going on here.

  62. doktor_g December 2, 2015 9:40 am #

    Has anyone seen or commented on this possible fraud in the most recent vote?


  63. doktor_g December 2, 2015 9:54 am #

    Note That Mister Lister, SF (above) is one of the alleged aliases mentioned on /tg/.

    Poor sportsmanship, dude. Seriously?

    • Sam December 2, 2015 8:51 pm #

      It shouldn’t be hard for flg to check to see if it’s a hoax or not pretty sure one of several spam counters was ip screening. Also a simple filter looking for spam votes from unranked accounts wouldn’t be hard to implement. But if flg really had any worry the vote was compromised have a new vote with additional filters in place.

Leave a Reply