Signals from the Frontline #413

Signalsthumb413

Show Notes

Date

2-29-16

Join us for the live show today at 11am, PST on our Twitch channel.

Intro

  • Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Twitch, and YouTube!  Join our Forums, too! If you would like to be a guest on the show, email Reece at Contact@FrontlineGaming.org
  • We sell tabletop games and supplies at 20% off! Hit us up for your next gaming order at Orders@FrontlineGaming.org or visit our webstore at FrontlineGaming.org.

News

  • New Games Workshop products released!
    • Revised versions of the Ghaz and Farsight supplements are available in addition to a ton of models and goodies.
    • Pre-Orders coming in now for new GW products at 25% off of retail!
  • ITC Poll results are in!

detachments1 detachments2points points2ITC Factionfortificationstoe in coverghostkeelpiranha1 piranha2corsairschaos knights

Upcoming ITC Events

itc.logo.01.1

Rumors: The Rumor Section is gathered from the web and is not in any way information we receive from  any manufacturer nor is it necessarily accurate. This section of the podcast is intended for entertainment purposes only.

  • Genestealer Cult battle brothers with Tyranids only.
  • Their Formation allows them to first turn charge from Infiltrate.
  • While Patriarch is alive, all models in the formation have Fearless and Adamantium Will.
  • Patriarch is a beast, with AP3, shred, Rending claws and 4 attacks at WS and I 7, wow. Plus, Telepathy powers.

Rant Session

Tactics Corner

Rules Lawyer

Completed Commissions

IMG_0348 IMG_0350 IMG_0388 IMG_0392 IMG_0393 IMG_0396 IMG_0412 IMG_0414

List Review

  • From Thomas, Mad Hatters 40k of Tucson, thank you for considering my list.
  • 1850 Censtar White Scars with Inquistion and Grey Knights
  • White Scars CAD
  • Librarian Lvl 2 w/ the Hunter’s eye
  • 2x 5 man Scout Squad, 5x Sniper Rifle, 1x Teleport Homer
  • Relic Whirlwind Scorpius, Dozer blade, Battle of Keylek wargear
  • Centurion Devastator Squad, 6 man, all Grav cannons, Omniscope
  • Nemesis Strike Force
  • Librarian Lvl 3, Warding staff, Storm Bolter
  • Kaldor Draigo
  • 5 man Strike squad with Psycannon
  • Nemesis Dreadknight, Personal Teleporter, Heavy Incinerator, Heavy Psycannon
  • Inquisitorial Detachment
  • Coteaz
  • Xenos INQ, Lvl 1, 3 servo skulls, Liber Heresius
  • 2x INQ henchman squads, 2 Acolyes w/ bolters, 1 Psyker

Tags:

About Reecius

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

64 Responses to “Signals from the Frontline #413”

  1. Arrias February 29, 2016 11:08 am #

    Can we add a vote to also no longer cover cent stars in list for review? There is nothing new or even remotely interesting about them. Hey look, you can also read the internet and add Draigo to a unit of Centurions along with a secondary librarian with hunter’s eye. *Gasp* you included Coteaz as well!? You sly devil. Who would have ever guessed.

  2. Adam
    Adam (TheDiceAbide.com) February 29, 2016 11:35 am #

    I’m guessing the genestealers using the same ally matrix as Nids is just to get them on the board without having to write a ton of new rules. There is still hope for the codex release.

    • Jural February 29, 2016 12:27 pm #

      Major disappointment here. But then again once IG stopped being a faction and the entire Imperium became one giant faction, I guess it may have been inevitable.

      After all, you probably don’t see a Genestealer cult infiltrating a Grey Knights chapter or an Eldar craftworld!

      Still looking forward to the release if it happens.

      • Adam
        Adam (TheDiceAbide.com) February 29, 2016 12:31 pm #

        Sigh, I forgot about that… Well, here’s to hoping they at least put a little effort into the minidex, hopefully with access to a handful of IG vehicles like 2nd ed.

  3. SaltyJohn
    OverwatchCNC February 29, 2016 11:41 am #

    I’m ok with most of this. I am disappointed in the way the vote went for the Piranhas and I am greatly disappointed in how the vote for points levels went.

    I really feel the GT environment would benefit from a lower points level. We’ve been playing 1500 and 1650 locally and 1650 is a really nice points level.

    • Sanchezsam2 February 29, 2016 11:48 am #

      To be fair nothing stops ITC events from playing at 1500-1650.
      If you want to think of it this way the only real events strictly sticking to 1850 is lvo/bao and if Those are the grand scale events shouldn’t those also be the largest events overall?

      My flgs still does 1500 pt tourneys and I am sure they will continue to do so regardless of ITC Results even if they do use ITC rules for play.

    • Jural February 29, 2016 11:51 am #

      This seems like one that is easily reviewed again in 6 months with more data on how big the issue is.

    • Jon February 29, 2016 3:01 pm #

      I agree. I think folks may have voted on this with a “sunk cost” bias. I think that most folks that play in the ITC have an 1850 mindset, are decent tourney players (i.e, can finish games), and have dollars invested accordingly. However, the 1500 pt game is just as interesting, IMO, and lead to faster-paced games.

    • Greek February 29, 2016 4:26 pm #

      Punishing the entire competitive scene because one or two well known players became whiny after going to time is not the way to improve a competitive scene.

      • westrider February 29, 2016 6:58 pm #

        It’s definitely more widespread than that. I saw plenty of Games at TSHFT that got called on time, just for the one point I actually have some data on. It’s worth at least doing some actual tracking and finding out for sure how big the issue is.

        Also, I don’t really see how a smaller Points value is a punishment. It’s a bit different of an experience, but it’s just as valid a format.

  4. Jural February 29, 2016 11:43 am #

    I am really surprised at the polar nature of some of the poll results! People feeling that strong about GMC I kinda get, but the Corsair ruling was overwhelming… the one Piranha change has a huge margins…

    not judging the process or the results, I’m just surprised at how polar the results were for what I thought were controversial choices.

    • jmanj321 February 29, 2016 12:12 pm #

      Is it really that surprising to see votes nerfing armies that are generally perceived as overpowered or cheesy even if the specific nerfs don’t seem necessary? Everyone approaches these votes differently. I would speculate that a smaller portion of the voters are actually analyzing and voting objectively rather than voting based on perceptions or other various reasons. For example, I vote based on spite. After seeing a number of rules and play styles I used receive nerf votes in previous years, I default to vote for all nerfs, even ones I don’t actually understand or know anything about because if I can’t have mine, why should others get theirs?

      As a result, I figure if Frontline wants to put something to a vote, I will vote for the nerf not because I think it is cheesy or overpowered, but I am simply tired of expecting these votes to actually resemble logical behavior. Much like the American political system, when you try to make something democratic and leave it to the populous to vote, stupidity tends to reign. That said, if Frontline wants to stand by this voting system, that’s fine with me. ITC is their creation and their business. However, as I have said before, it is interesting how some changes are just made by them via FAQ and others are put to a vote. For example, it’s not surprising the toe in cover rule for big stuff suffered a nerf via a vote, but this was a rule that Frontline could have FAQ’ed on their own and received little argument from the community as a whole. Anyway, I guess my long winded rant was to point out that as long as the ITC has votes for rules changes and nerfs, they will generally pass especially as the pattern continues.

      • Jural February 29, 2016 12:24 pm #

        I know some people vote for spite, competitive advantage, etc. Some vote without ever having played with or against the particular unit or rule… however, many people vote against their own self interest (or own so many armies they have no “self-interest!”)

        so it surprised me at least!

        • happy_inquisitor February 29, 2016 12:41 pm #

          Pretty sure at least 2000 people voted on Corsairs without ever testing it on the table – or probably even reading the full rule to understand that FW did not mess up and made sure it was not open to Allies abuse.

          Fear born out of ignorance.

          Enjoy your easy-mode games of nerfhammer people.

          • williegoat February 29, 2016 1:16 pm
            #

            Yeah, lets take even more assault out of the game this edition when bikes can jump away after overwatch…

            /sarcasm

          • happy_inquisitor February 29, 2016 1:23 pm
            #

            Corsair bikes. So yeah, there could be one really minor faction in the meta that takes a new and different tactical skill to corner and assault.

            Actual tactics and tricky compromises in list building can be used to counter it – instead of just banning anything sight unseen because it might just possibly make you think hard in a game one day.

            Or just win your games in easy mode and kid yourself it means anything. Its all the same to me dude.

          • fluger February 29, 2016 1:39 pm
            #

            I played against it twice, and I thought it was cheeky. While I agree that you *can* follow the RAW on it, seems way too powerful for a dex that already has a ton of powerful options.

            I also think the RAW argument is circuitous. I hadn’t heard that FW had clarified the rule (not have I seen it…), but, assuming that they did, I find it pretty startling that that was their intent from the get go.

          • Arrias February 29, 2016 1:47 pm
            #

            Dear Happy Inquisitor

            For someone self professed as the Happy Inquisitor, I dare say you sound antithetical. Additionally, I would propose with great certainty that Eldar Jetbikes with a ruling that may best be surmised as “you will never charge this ever” could be easily construed as the “easy mode” you seem so adamantly against.

            Now, as to the more pressing matter. You did previously state the following:
            “Actual tactics and tricky compromises in list building can be used to counter it – instead of just banning anything sight unseen because it might just possibly make you think hard in a game one day.”

            Tell me oh great Patton of the Warhammers, what grand strategies I could use to get Tyranids into assault with these bikes. I yearn to gorge myself upon your vast wisdom. Perhaps you can regale us with your superb tactics that would allow some orks or the more herretical of armies to reach these powerfully balanced and fairly costed jet bikes. Please wax loquacious for those of us who revel in the usage of necrodermis in hand to hand contest. Your martial philosophies shall be highly prized.

            Your devoted student,

            Arrias

          • williegoat February 29, 2016 2:08 pm
            #

            Also, RAW Shooting attacks and Overwatch! attacks are separate mechanics (which is truly what the argument was about). Shooting attacks are (outside of interceptor/”I’ve been expecting you”) made in, you guessed it, the Shooting phase. Overwatch however is in the Assault phase and is a separate shooting attack that has its own rules that isn’t actually a Shooting attack.

          • fluger February 29, 2016 2:18 pm
            #

            Arrias gets it! I play Horde Orks, there was ZERO chance I’d make contact with those bikes.

            williegoat, yeah, that’s also why I voted against it.

          • happy_inquisitor February 29, 2016 2:24 pm
            #

            @arrias

            Same as anything else that seems like it might be tricky. Play plenty of games against it, try different tactics. If none of that works start changing my list to give me tools that I need. Repeat until I have an answer.

            If I am unwilling to change my list be honest with myself; clearly I care more about the fluff of my list than the game aspects so don’t complain about being beaten by opponents who value the game over the fluff.

            Corsair jetbikes are essentially overcosted – and therefore less efficient other than that slippery ability – versions of their Crafworld equivalents. If you can beat one then you should find a way to beat the other. If you insist on playing a list or a style that always loses to Eldar then ask yourself why you are not changing the way you play. If you conclude that you would rather stick with the fluff or models that you love even though that means you lose then try to be content with that because it is entirely your free choice to play that way. Do not try to punish, ban or nerf other players who make different choices.

          • bigpig February 29, 2016 3:29 pm
            #

            You have no evidence to base that opinion on other than the fact that you don’t like the result and “obviously everyone who voted against your distinctly correct opinion must be ignorant.”

            For the record, I’ve played against Corsairs a handful of times in competitive and local environments and found the ability to be easily abused and ridiculous when used in overwatch. I also play eldar and am considering adding a Corsair element to my force. I did vote for the poorly written rule to be interpreted as to only be used in the shooting phase. A vote for overall game health; Not a vote based on ignorance or a lack of understanding.

          • happy_inquisitor March 1, 2016 9:45 am
            #

            @bigpig

            So that is one anecdotal evidence point out of the 2000 votes. My anecdotal evidence is that they are less nasty to face than CE, my point is that isolated anecdotes are no basis for nerfing an army-wide special rule.

            RAW my opinion of the rule is correct, there is really no sensible interpretation of overwatch to say that it is not a shooting attack. There really is no ambiguity to resolve because the rule conspicuously does not apply only to the shooting phase.

            So where is the evidence that the rule is in need of changing? As Corsairs had not yet been put on the list of legal FW armies for ITC events there can hardly be any body of evidence. We can trade anecdotes all day but really my point is that in the ITC people feel free to ban things sight unseen just because they think it might be hard to beat should they face it.

            That seems to me pretty much a basic definition of a non-competitive format – where participants can just exclude anything they do not want to compete against for fear of losing. If people want to kid themselves that this is still a competitive format – or even really still 40K as the rules changes pile up – then I suppose they are free to indulge themselves. I just don’t see the point at all – if that is the game you want to play then be honest and organize more narrative events.

          • Arrias March 1, 2016 10:58 am
            #

            “Same as anything else that seems like it might be tricky. Play plenty of games against it, try different tactics. If none of that works start changing my list to give me tools that I need. Repeat until I have an answer.”

            This is not an answer. This is a summation of how to build lists. I think we’re all capable of that. I asked for specific examples. Not all the examples mind you, just a few so you could prove your point.

            “If I am unwilling to change my list be honest with myself; clearly I care more about the fluff of my list than the game aspects so don’t complain about being beaten by opponents who value the game over the fluff.”

            This was never stated. You are strawmanning. Unless you are trying to suggest the people who play the armies I mentioned just quit playing them, in which case, you are further demonstrating the need for some adjustments like the corsair bike change.

            “Corsair jetbikes are essentially overcosted – and therefore less efficient other than that slippery ability – versions of their Crafworld equivalents.”

            Other than the special, shoot and move 6+” in your turn effect which anyone who plays crisis suits can attest is a POWERFUL ability.

            “If you can beat one then you should find a way to beat the other. If you insist on playing a list or a style that always loses to Eldar then ask yourself why you are not changing the way you play. If you conclude that you would rather stick with the fluff or models that you love even though that means you lose then try to be content with that because it is entirely your free choice to play that way. Do not try to punish, ban or nerf other players who make different choices.”

            See my previous statements. And if we’re being honest, Eldar jetbikes are already quite difficult to deal with before adding JSJ to their list of tricks.

            “So that is one anecdotal evidence point out of the 2000 votes. My anecdotal evidence is that they are less nasty to face than CE, my point is that isolated anecdotes are no basis for nerfing an army-wide special rule.”

            This is true. Anecdotal evidence does not make good evidence, but it is still a KIND of evidence. Also, what you list as your anecdotal evidence is not, but actually a supposition.

            “RAW my opinion of the rule is correct, there is really no sensible interpretation of overwatch to say that it is not a shooting attack. There really is no ambiguity to resolve because the rule conspicuously does not apply only to the shooting phase.”

            This actually has been debated quite often. More recently with the warp spiders and in the past with Tau crisis suits. The issue as always is GW does not make consistent use of keywords for specific actions. This is all tangential though as what is being discussed is not whether RAW they are allowed to, but whether in the interest of allowing people who don’t play Eldar to have agency in a game do we limit what seems like an incredibly powerful rule for an already potent unit.

            “So where is the evidence that the rule is in need of changing? As Corsairs had not yet been put on the list of legal FW armies for ITC events there can hardly be any body of evidence. We can trade anecdotes all day but really my point is that in the ITC people feel free to ban things sight unseen just because they think it might be hard to beat should they face it. ”

            We happen to be using the amazing powers of the human mind to understand systems based on context and logic. If it were brought up that Flyrants were gaining invisibility, would you need testing to know that those Flyrants would be incredibly powerful?

            “That seems to me pretty much a basic definition of a non-competitive format – where participants can just exclude anything they do not want to compete against for fear of losing. If people want to kid themselves that this is still a competitive format – or even really still 40K as the rules changes pile up – then I suppose they are free to indulge themselves. I just don’t see the point at all – if that is the game you want to play then be honest and organize more narrative events.”

            It appears to me that your idea of a competitive format is “he who has the most money wins” and if that is the case, can we truly say we are playing 40k anymore or just having a competition of “who has the biggest bank account and free time” as the game devolves into a chasing of the flavor of the month. The rules changes created by the ITC are in the interest of keeping ALL the armies as competitive as possible with as little rules changes as necessary. GW being the rules writers they are, obviously do not make this an easy job. Yet, they are doing the best they can with what they have and, if the numbers we are seeing from their events are any indication, they appear to be doing a damn fine job of it.

            Of course, if you so vehemently disagree, you are free to put your money where your mouth is and run your own events with no ITC rulings and have your “true 40k” experience. Feel free to let us know how that turns out for you.

            Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to get back to focusing on the only slightly more logical ramblings of my project manager.

            Have a day.

          • happy_inquisitor March 1, 2016 11:36 am
            #

            @arrias

            I am not sure it is worth having an in-depth tactical discussion with someone who does not even read the BRB to know that Eldar Jetbikes already have an assault phase 2D6 move. Page 111.

            Whatever faction or list you play – learn the rules is the first thing to do.

          • Arrias March 1, 2016 12:05 pm
            #

            9-24″ (avg 16.5) of movement is still far better than 2-12″ (avg 7).

            My reasoning still stands.

  5. Luke February 29, 2016 11:43 am #

    See Reece, the vote went exactly how I voted. How about next time you just ask me what I would do and we can save you all this silly counting 😉

    • happy_inquisitor February 29, 2016 12:25 pm #

      So can I ask why you voted that way on the Corsairs? I really am struggling to understand why anyone re-wrote clear RAW on that one.

      • Jural February 29, 2016 12:30 pm #

        Obviously games and games of playtest data and a nuanced understanding of the interaction with multiple metas, army lists, scoring systems and points levels 😉

        kidding! Honestly, I messed up and voted against it thinking it was a FW oversight, but I later learned that they clarified.

      • nathan February 29, 2016 12:44 pm #

        RAW is clear on GMC in cover, too.

        • jmanj321 February 29, 2016 1:34 pm #

          As it is on 2+ re-rollable saves and invisibility.

          • happy_inquisitor February 29, 2016 1:41 pm
            #

            Yes and before I played an ITC tournament I kept an open mind about those nerfs perhaps being justified. Having done so – playing a codex that benefits greatly from both of those – I have made up my mind.

            Taking the threat of things like that out of the game unbalances it and makes it in some ways too easy. The games I play at clubs/stores are tougher and harder to win than the ones in the ITC tournament were.

          • Jural February 29, 2016 2:57 pm
            #

            While I’m not on board with many of the RAW changes the ITC makes, book invisibility and 2++ re-rollable really don’t do it for me. Having entire turns just be wasted despite no strategic effort from your opponent was lame.

            I’m not saying it’s right by everyone, but I appreciate those changes, and feel the toe in cover GMC rule fits right in.

        • Jural February 29, 2016 2:53 pm #

          As a ‘Nid /CSM player who voted FOR this change, I felt comfortable knowing it was a change to RAW and that I was comfortable with it.

          • happy_inquisitor February 29, 2016 3:08 pm
            #

            That is what the vote invited you to do so there is nothing wrong with that. I do find it odd that the mood of the community has shifted so fast: from those two very specific nerfs (Invisibility and 2++ rerolls) it seems to have expanded quite fast into widespread rule changes.

            GW do not always get everything right but I get a feel that there is almost a presumption now that they get everything wrong and that things need changing without any evidence from play-testing. So many people saying the points level should not change with only anecdotal evidence of the time problem (fair enough) but many of those must have voted on other things with even less evidence.

          • Jural February 29, 2016 4:33 pm
            #

            yeah, I’m conflicted about a few of these rulings which come out within a month of the codex launch and violate clear RAW.

            I have no problem clarifying poorly written rules, even if it basically nerfs them. But I do get nervous about rules which are ruled against RAW without considerable abuse by the community first.

      • Sanchezsam2 February 29, 2016 1:24 pm #

        I voted that way because RAW is not always the right answer. I don’t trust GW to right perfect rules. If they did we wouldn’t need ITC votes to prevent rule debates. I voted against corsairs in overwatch because that’s one of the most powerful rules in the game right now as evident by similar results from warp spiders. It’s still an extremely strong unit regardless of this ruling. Toe in cover was the same reason. I understand certain units get hit hard by this rule like the fw tyranids GMC however that unit is horrible regardless. The toe in cover thing was just a means to make a bad unit less crappy. Maybe fw will update that unit to have a invul or cover save in the future.

        • happy_inquisitor February 29, 2016 1:37 pm #

          Corsair bikes are not terrible but they are now outright more expensive than their craftworld equivalents for no balancing benefit in a codex that is much weaker overall. They cost more, you pay an additional Baron tax to take them and now they do nothing special.

          If you had actually play-tested against Corsair lists and found that a variety of decent lists simply could not find an answer for their ability then maybe a nerf vote would be justified. The problem I have with that is believing that 2000 people are such terrible players that they could not find a way to deal with something that is really not overpowered at all. Much easier to believe that none of them ever tried it out and were just voting from ignorance.

          • Sanchezsam2 February 29, 2016 2:28 pm
            #

            I’m sorry didn’t realize you didn’t know how to play corsairs. You see the difference is of course corsairs still can avoid shooting atks better then codex eldar. You know just in thd shooting phase. If you can’t see why that should cost more or how it’s better then craftwoekd then their is no helping you.

          • happy_inquisitor February 29, 2016 2:43 pm
            #

            I have played against them once and it was a blast.

            Not sure how they avoid shooting better than CE, Reckless Abandon does nothing when they are further than 12″ away. I find CE jetbikes far more of a problem because given a choice they will just sit 36″ away where they are just more cost efficient. They are of course nothing like Warp Spiders when it comes to shooting attacks.

            What was the trick you found that made them harder to shoot than their CE equivalents?

          • Sanchezsam2 February 29, 2016 3:03 pm
            #

            It’s called use your movement to claim objectives or shoot rear armour then when shot at during the shooting phase laugh at your opponent.

            Because every eldar player I’ve ever played against has never gun lined bikes 36in away. Every single one uses them to claim obj to win games. Corsairs do that better by surviving better. The baton tax only adds to that survivability by helping corsairs not break which is the other issue with codex scat bikes.

          • happy_inquisitor February 29, 2016 3:24 pm
            #

            @Sanchezsam2

            No seriously, how are they avoiding getting shot when so close to the enemy? Expensive dudes with 3+ saves die to shooting in my experience. How are they getting within 12″ and then never getting caught in threat range of return shooting?

            Sure they can last-turn objective grab. They still have that trick, we all know that and hopefully most of us know how to try to counter it (or we are bored of losing games to Eldar by now because their bikes do it and are cheaper).

          • Sanchezsam2 February 29, 2016 3:32 pm
            #

            Do you not play maelstrom games are still playing 5th edition because ITC rules use maestrom obj every turn not just turn 5. You use bikes to grab obj the entire gane this is partly why eldar win at ITC events so often. Thier ob sec bikes do it better then any other army.

      • Luke February 29, 2016 3:59 pm #

        I don’t believe that RAW is unclear. They even mention moving in the assault phase. But I also don’t think that a unit should be, on average, able to escape assault even if they are being charged from 1″ away by a unit with fleet. As much as people don’t like the GMC in cover issue (which I think is unhealthy for the game) I think that mechanic is unhealthy. I don’t think it’s OP. I just don’t think something like that should be in the game. There no maneuvering you can do outside of a complete pincer…..and good luck doing that against jetbikes. Ever

  6. ehegner1 February 29, 2016 12:13 pm #

    Bring back CTA!

  7. Archon-Kalafex February 29, 2016 12:49 pm #

    Loving the primary faction vote! Now some weaker codex’s can fill gaps in their structure and not be labeled as their allies so much. And people can’t get away with doing a 90/10 split and call their 10% the primary faction. Was hoping for 1650 though, but oh well. Win some lose some.

  8. Mike February 29, 2016 3:15 pm #

    Question on the faction placement:
    If you have a dark Angels detachment of 700 points, a space wolf detachment of 600 points, and then a space wolf formation of 550 points, is the dark Angels your ITC faction for being your biggest detachment from a faction, or wolves because their combined factions are bigger?

    • Adam
      Adam (TheDiceAbide.com) February 29, 2016 3:19 pm #

      It’s whatever faction has the most points, not which detachment in your army is the most.

      • Mike February 29, 2016 3:46 pm #

        That’s what I assumed, but they said the opposite during the stream, citing “the detachment with the most points” as the indicator.

      • Turok117 February 29, 2016 3:49 pm #

        Well technically the poll stated that it was whichever detachment has the most points. I do agree that it should be faction, however, and assume that that is what the ITC will rule.

    • Jural February 29, 2016 4:35 pm #

      Ha! That thought never even crossed my mind. The clearer things are made, the more confusing they get sometimes 😉

  9. Gsx-r February 29, 2016 3:41 pm #

    Glad to see you guys will be addressing the IC and unit question for next season.
    Kind of disappointed that it didn’t go to 1500 or 1650.
    But overall, the votes went the right direction imo.

  10. Mike February 29, 2016 3:54 pm #

    I honestly think the point value thing should’ve either been a vote restricted to attendees of FLG-run events, or not voted on at all. I don’t think Jim Bob and Dan playing ITC rules in their garage and flgs half a country away have any business voting on the point value in LVO etc. (As they did specifically say it was for their large events.)

    I’m sure we’ll see the issue come up more and more as GW releases more decurions and the tables get more and more flooded with free models, points, gear, and rules. Something I don’t think a lot of the 1850 voters thought about: it’s just going to get worse. A year from now it’ll be amazing if a game at an event makes it to t5.

    • Jural February 29, 2016 4:38 pm #

      to be honest, I’m not sure why BAO and LVO even have set point limits. Why not mix it up year to year and event to event? The same could be said for the composition rules.

      I like the standardization of the ITC- I mean I think it has been a huge net positive to the game and my tourney experiences. But I wouldn’t mind if some terms weren’t considered constant. CtA could be another thing which changes tourney to tourney, I wouldn’t care.

    • Sanchezsam2 February 29, 2016 5:06 pm #

      You do realize they do know which emails are registered tourney players. But however this question results was so one sided I seriously doubt it would of made a difference with just tourney registered emails.

      • Mike February 29, 2016 11:15 pm #

        LVO had 300 players, bao about 130, Wargamescon about 70, which are off the top of my head everything that FLG personally oversaw last year.
        Even if those 500 were all different people (which we know there was some overlap, as Alan B, Geoff R, and several other big names were at all of them,) that’s a gigantic proportion of votes not coming from the players of those events. It’s closer to say that only 1 of every 7 votes or so was actually from one of those players. 2100 voters from outside those events is a huge margin of error to say that “the results might be the same.” Without Reece data-diving to grab only names that participate in those events, it’s completely believable that the vote could be a giant swing in the other direction once limited to them.

        • winterman March 1, 2016 12:07 am #

          It may have been intended to affect the big FLG events but it most certainly would trickle down to the smaller events. So I see no issue with everyone who attends or runs events voting on the points. That said I voted smaller and was hoping that would gain traction.

  11. Duz_ February 29, 2016 5:12 pm #

    Is it just me or did podcast 412 not get uploaded?

    • Trueknight March 2, 2016 7:12 am #

      I dont think it did but its on the twitch channel

  12. zyekian February 29, 2016 6:14 pm #

    I’m actually shocked that the Corsair question was on there. RAW it’s crystal clear and Forgeworld is telling people on email that the power is intended to work in overwatch.

    This was just a spontaneous arbitrary nerf to a codex that didn’t deserve it whatsoever.

    • zyekian February 29, 2016 6:18 pm #

      My suspicion here is that Reece and the FLG crew were polling this question as a mechanics interpretation and not as to whether the power falls into the category of say, Invisibility and needs to be nerfed.

      But there’s nothing to interpret.

      • Sheit27 February 29, 2016 6:30 pm #

        TAU get RAW nerfs all the time, welcome to the club

        • Colinsherlow March 1, 2016 6:40 pm #

          Yeah I was surprised this was in the polls. I felt that the rule vote should have showed the exact wording of the rule, and allowed people to chose at that point. I don’t even think most people know how reckless abandon works to start with.

          Ah well!

          Was also surprised to hear that the chaos k ight can take relics. Can’t wait to fight 2+ inv save chaos knights. Woot woot!

  13. Kevin Lantz March 3, 2016 2:19 pm #

    So silly to see some of these votes the way they went.

    I wish the in the formation vote we had a phrase “we are limiting folks to only three formations period regardless of subformations, do you want to increase the limit of formations?”

    My bet is suddenly we’d have four or more detachments allowed.

Leave a Reply