ITC 40k 2016 Season 3rd Quarter Poll


It’s that time. Cast your vote and let your voice be heard. Just to reiterate, the vast majority of the GW 40k FAQ is being integrated into the ITC 40k FAQ, these questions are on the points of contention.

Click here to cast your vote.


About Reecius

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

132 Responses to “ITC 40k 2016 Season 3rd Quarter Poll”

  1. Avatar
    GRUNT December 16, 2016 4:29 pm #

    So does this mean that the full FAQ is being taken, except where the ITC FAQ trumps it?

  2. Avatar
    Hiveminded December 16, 2016 4:35 pm #

    Does this mean that the toe-in-cover rule change will be adopted without a vote? Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought this was a rule that had been voted on in the past and people voted to keep toe-in-cover for MCs but not GCs.

    • Avatar
      Heldericht December 16, 2016 6:59 pm #

      Yeah it will be adopted from the GW FAQ so you don’t get toe in cover for MCs and you need to be 25% obscured for a 5+ cover.

      I think it’s a good thing overall for the game.

      On the flip side if your tall models can see over other intervening models the target doesn’t get cover saves either anymore per GW faq.

      So it evens out.

      • Avatar
        N.I.B. December 20, 2016 4:49 am #

        No toe in cover for MCs and you need to be 25% obscured for a 5+ cover, a good thing for the game indeed!
        Those pesky Tyranid ground MC armies were everywhere, stomping everything and ruining everyone’s fun. Glad to see no one in their right mind will take anything but Flyrants from now on.

        • Avatar
          Leonix December 20, 2016 8:01 am #

          Yes it will hurt Nids who weren’t a big deal, but Wraith Knights and Riptide Wings are.

    • Avatar
      Jural December 19, 2016 1:38 pm #

      Yeah- this basically makes most Tyranid MC unplayable, but overall pretty good for the game that ITC and GW converging.

      Hopefully a new Codex comes along some day and we get 2+ Carnifex, or more wounds, or something….

  3. Reecius
    Reecius December 16, 2016 4:37 pm #

    As we’ve been saying, we’re adopting the GW FAQ as much as possible except where it contradicts ITC votes to change certain rules.

    • Avatar
      1PlusArmour December 16, 2016 5:26 pm #

      Totally on board with this! The closer the world gets to consensus on 40k comp the better it is for everyone!

      • Avatar
        Cephalobeard December 17, 2016 5:33 am #

        Couldn’t agree more. Good choice, guys.

  4. Avatar
    Heldericht December 16, 2016 4:47 pm #

    Man, you guys lumped the Supremacy in with Reaver Titans and Warhounds…

    Of course that’s not going to pass. Other formats allow the Supremacy and don’t allow the other 2 because they aren’t in the same class.

    That wasn’t a fair representation of what people have been asking for… You should have put the Supremacy question as it’s own question with limits to its weapon loadout.

    Not cool.

    • Avatar
      Heldericht December 16, 2016 4:47 pm #

      Having said that, I’m happy with the other stuff you guys put up and I appreciate you letting us re-vote on stuff that got changed.

      • Reecius
        Reecius December 16, 2016 5:00 pm #

        You are welcome, and thank you for voting.

      • Adam
        Adam (RUMBL) December 17, 2016 3:11 pm #

        I would rather face a warhound than the Tau’nar any day of the week.

    • Avatar
      pleasantnoodles December 16, 2016 4:48 pm #

      Not only that, but the question does nothing to define what a titan unit consist of. What’s the criteria here?

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 16, 2016 4:53 pm #

      It is Warhound, not Reaver. Big difference. And yes, it is fair, the other factions have titan units too, we can’t play favorites. They all want to use their big boys as well.

      Besides, the Ta’unar is better on a point for point basis than either of the others, so if anything, including those improves the odds of it passing as it applies to more factions.

      • Avatar
        pleasantnoodles December 16, 2016 5:02 pm #

        I think you need to reread your own question:

        “For the 2017 Season (after the LVO 2017), would you prefer to allow ‘Titan’ style units in the ITC such as the Ta’unar Supremacy Suit, Revenant Titan, Warhound Titan, etc.? ”

        It says “Titan style unit… such as…etc”, note the “such as” and “etc”. The question is in no way a closed list of what would be allowed, nor does it call out the Reaver as still being banned. Or are Reavers not “Titan style” units?

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 16, 2016 5:14 pm #

          I understand the question, and see your point but the above comment specifically referenced what was in the poll question. I was correcting that.

          No matter how I write the questions, people see in it some insinuations or agenda when there is not one. I consult dozens of people for help in choosing, crafting and editing the polls to get a broad and fair perspective. However, as soon as it goes out, folks see it from their own perspective and raw assumptions. Nothing I can do about that.

          We do our best to be as fair as we can but at this stage i simply accept the fact that we will not please everyone and that folks will always think we could have done X,Y or Z question better.

          Thanks for the feedback and for voting.

          • Avatar
            pleasantnoodles December 16, 2016 5:22 pm

            No, thank you for doing all this, it’s amazing what you guys have accomplished and will accomplish. I really believe in the ITC and the community it has built, which is why I’m being so hard.

            The more important issue here is the vagueness, not the Tau’nar. I legitimately thought the Reaver would be allowed (which I’m against) due to the open ended nature of how it was worded, but if it was worded with the exact models being proposed, or the stat-line criteria, I would likely have voted differently (I’m for Warhound-ish units). I just don’t want us to waste one of the rare polling opportunities we get throughout the year is all.

    • Avatar
      NovaStar December 16, 2016 10:41 pm #

      Exactly the Warhound Titan is steaming pile of 💩 Compared to the Tau’nar

      • Avatar
        abusepuppy December 16, 2016 10:50 pm #

        Is four Str D large blasts “steaming pile of shit”? Really? I would say the Tau’nar is better most all of the time, but it’s not like the Warhound is even slightly bad. It’s still a really tough superheavy with Void Shields and excellent weapon options for a price that is a lot lower than what most factions pay. It’s even a lot tougher than the Tau’nar against some weapon types.

  5. Avatar
    pleasantnoodles December 16, 2016 4:47 pm #

    Well played sir, lumping the tau’nar into a blanket vote for titans to be allowed. Of course that won’t pass. The big question becomes, where’s the line for a “Titan” stat-line? Does the Poryphyrion count if/when it gets ported to nromal 40k (as FW has said it will be)?

    It’s completely different to allow a Reaver in vs a Tau’nar and this question makes it seem like you can’t have one without the other.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 16, 2016 4:55 pm #

      Porphyrion is a Knight Titan. And again, lol, it is funny to see how perception alters reality.

      If you include more units, more factions in a question, you increase the appeal to a larger number of players and make it more fair–not less. Also, it is treating equitably with all factions as those are all roughly equivalent units.

      You are free to see it however you like, though of course.

      • Avatar
        Alexander December 17, 2016 1:15 am #

        Reece I totally side with you on that it’s common sense. If you just put the tau unar on the vote it will never pass in a million years. Because all the other races will not want to fight against it. But if they were allowed to have a warhound titan or revenant titan then people would definitely consider this to pass. Because all races would have access to big units like that of its own. I personally like the idea of allowing units like the warhound and supreamacy suits in the game. It would shake up the meta which the competitive meta needs every once in a while this gives non battle company players with raw Firepower a chance vs mass objective secured.

        • Avatar
          elwrath December 18, 2016 1:33 pm #

          maybe, but more likely it just means more deathstars 🙁

  6. Avatar
    Aidan December 16, 2016 4:48 pm #

    Great to see some of the format questions addressed. Are you all going to address the pink horrors? Or will you see how they fold out in the competitive scene?

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 16, 2016 4:56 pm #

      We’re gong to go with GW’s FAQ.

      • Avatar
        Turok117 December 16, 2016 5:09 pm #

        It’s been out like two weeks and they already FAQ’d it?! It’s been more than a year and they still haven’t FAQ’d Doom of Mymeara. Curse you Forge World! Kinda funny how different the two sides of the company work sometimes.

  7. Avatar
    Will December 16, 2016 5:01 pm #

    Is this all that will be changing? No poll on how gw is changing void shield or grenades and such. Are the rules that gw made sticking just so people know what is to come after the results are in.

    • Avatar
      pleasantnoodles December 16, 2016 5:02 pm #

      Not only that, but I can’t help but note a lack of vote on Pink Horror splitting on here.

      • Reecius
        Reecius December 16, 2016 5:03 pm #

        GW answered the question on Pinks directly, already. We are running with their ruling on it.

        • Avatar
          C-Stock December 17, 2016 7:52 am #

          Reece the GW FAQ doesn’t address the issues that make pinks so broken though. I know heaps of players have expressed wanting pinks to be addressed in the ITC so why aren’t they up for a vote?

          • Avatar
            Cephalobeard December 17, 2016 8:38 am

            Because GW addressed it. It hasn’t shown to be a problem, beyond people thinking it’s a problem. I imagine if, over the coming weeks, it proves to actually BE a problem, it’ll be addressed next time.

          • SaltyJohn
            SaltyJohn December 17, 2016 10:14 am

            GW looked at the issue with Pink Horros, in no small part due to a certain video ::cough,cough:: and wrote an FAQ addressing the most egregious part of the split rule.

            The split rule only continues to be an issue among the basement dwellers and arm chair generals who like to stir up angst online and influence formats they won’t ever play in. As someone who has played with and against the new split rule on multiple occasions that’s my anecdotally confirmed opinion.

          • Avatar
            C-Stock December 17, 2016 10:32 am

            The Corsair shoot move power on overwatch wasn’t shit to be a problem. Neither was the Corsair teleport power. They were immediately nerfed in the ITC with nobody play testing at all.

            So why the double standard?

          • Avatar
            zyekian December 17, 2016 10:40 am

            “Just assault them” is being used as the reason why pinks are acceptable.

            In the Corsair case where it was very hard to assault their units, “just shoot them” (they’re T3 4+ units) was not an acceptable justification for leaving the rule RAW though.

            Corsairs had their teleport power nerfed because it made it easy-ish to get one no-scatter deep strike assault off for an Eldar or DE unit…. But GSC can reliably do it now as well as other armies to varying degrees.

            IMO C-Stock has a point, this is a double standard. The Corsair nerfs are now completely arbitrary and unfair in the new meta.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 16, 2016 5:02 pm #

      As it says in the poll and the blog post and on the podcast, etc. we are adopting the GW FAQ, we only voted on the issues we had specifically changed. Once the voting is done, we will integrate it all into the ITC FAQ.

    • Avatar
      Will December 16, 2016 5:05 pm #

      I mean from changes that you guys have made in the past, are those still overwritting the current final draft of the GW FAQ and these new poll changes will be added on top of that?

  8. Avatar
    1PlusArmour December 16, 2016 5:10 pm #

    The Culexus question is very perplexing. Why not vote on allowing CTA again rather than changing clearly written rules for allies? I feel like the added variety would be a good thing if anything.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 16, 2016 5:16 pm #

      That question was specifically posed to us from a gaming group on the east coast of the USA and was reinforced as a good question by several other groups of gamers so we added it to the poll. Only a couple people even mentioned CtA this go around.

      • Avatar
        1PlusArmour December 16, 2016 5:25 pm #

        Thanks for clarifying. I do think it’s a little dangerous to leave those sorts of questions to only “large volumes of votes”. It may be worthwhile to come up with some sort of threshold (think the white house petition getting 100,000 signatures for a response) to eliminate any bias, but also to encourage people to align on ideas as they are sent in and understand exactly why things are included (or why they are not).

  9. Avatar
    Shaz06 December 16, 2016 5:12 pm #

    Will the GW FAQ be adopted before or after the LVO? And how will potential faction FAQs that are released between now and the LVO be handeled? Thanks for all of the hard work.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 16, 2016 5:17 pm #

      The GW FAQ will be rolled into the ITC as soon as we compile this results. We will include GW FAQs for factions when the come out with a cut-off date before the event in case anything comes out last minute. And thanks! Happy to assist.

      • Avatar
        Shaz06 December 16, 2016 5:25 pm #

        Sounds good. Don’t let the haters get you down.

      • Avatar
        elwrath December 18, 2016 1:40 pm #

        Is GW planning on FAQing the newer factions soon enough to not effect this cut-off? GSC, wrath of magnus as a whole (not just pinks), traitor legions, and imperial agents?

  10. Avatar
    Codi December 16, 2016 5:27 pm #

    Wow Reecius, how many times are you going to have to type, “The GW FAQ will be rolled into the ITC…”?!?!

    • Avatar
      Shaz06 December 16, 2016 5:36 pm #

      I understand that the GW FAQ will be rolled into the FAQ. I don’t believe that with the LVO being under two months away, that asking about be timeline is an unfair question. Perhaps it was covered somewhere else and I missed it. If that is the case, I apologize for wasting your time.

  11. Avatar
    RauPow December 16, 2016 5:39 pm #

    Why no vote on Battle Brothers to Allies of Convenience? People have brought it up over the course of the year in the comments sections of your articles. I would like to see one way or another the community vote, as it seems a simple solution to address Super Friend Style Deathstars.

    • Avatar
      Dakkath December 16, 2016 9:04 pm #

      Count me confused as well why this wasn’t in there/

    • The Mediocre Gamer
      mediocre gamer December 16, 2016 9:48 pm #

      I agree, I wish we had seen a vote on deathstar reduction ideas that have been repeatedly suggested over this year like nixing battle brothers, limiting 1 psychic buff per unit at a time, limiting number of ICs that can join a unit, etc.

      Additionally, I’ve never seen people clamor for more than one fortification, what I’ve seen repeatedly requested is fortification networks.

      • Avatar
        Chandler December 16, 2016 11:09 pm #

        There is a vote on death star reduction. It’s called no look out sirs on a stomp roll of a 6.

        This mechanic is built into the game by default to scare people away from bringing death stars as things like Wraithknights and Imperial Knights are far more common to encounter over the course of an event than a death star.

        Removing a star with a stomp of a 6 is a legit way to end them. I have seen it happen many times when ruled per BRB. Vote for the stomp!

        • Avatar
          Dakkath December 17, 2016 2:30 am #

          Well count me among the players who don’t like “Bring a superheavy” being the only solution to deathstars. I’d prefer to have neither of them.

        • Avatar
          Virgil82 December 17, 2016 7:49 pm #

          Because ‘Play an army with a Superheavy Walker’ is not a good, or universally available solution to deathstars?

          • Avatar
            abusepuppy December 18, 2016 7:44 am

            Yeah, a lot of armies don’t even HAVE a unit that can Stomp. And even for those that do, it’s not a very reliable solution because you can’t count on getting that magic 6 every time (and you often only get one chance to do so, since most deathstars will eat a superheavy or garganuan alive.)

          • Avatar
            Jural December 19, 2016 1:45 pm

            I’m guessing the idea wasn’t to give everyone an option to take out deathstars with a lucky 6. I think the idea was to make it less practical for deathstars overall and thus changing the meta?

            I guess it’s fine for now, but as long as “Army of the Imperium” are one giant BB faction, every new “Imperial” Codex drop risks throwing the game out of balance with minimal tweaks and model investment.

  12. Avatar
    Will Grant December 16, 2016 5:49 pm #

    May want to extend Culexus to include Masque/Servo SKulls and a couple of other things that are basically all purpose like VSG/comms relay.

    Still no reason CTA should be banned. Adding 3x flyrants now isn’t near what it was when that vote happened. Most pure builds are so much better.

    I barely saw any CTA at WZA, but it would help some of the armies that don’t readily have access to reliable stomp and obsec (necrons).

    • Avatar
      Heldericht December 16, 2016 6:09 pm #

      VSG can be taken by all factions already. Necrons and other xenos/chaos can take Renegade knights for stomps.

      Servo skulls would be nice but we dont even know if they’ll be a thing anymore after imperial agents removed them.

      Yeah CTA is odd, marines summon demons, it breaks fluff already.

    • Adam
      Adam (RUMBL) December 17, 2016 3:15 pm #

      Servo Skulls are gone!!!

      • Avatar
        abusepuppy December 17, 2016 7:47 pm #

        You still are allowed to use the “old” Inquisition book, though, so they’re not actually gone.

        • Adam
          Adam (RUMBL) December 18, 2016 7:39 am #

          That’s some bullshit. 🙂

          Can I use other old books too while I’m at it? I’m sure sisters will want to use their old book. How about the old chaos book with the new legion rules? Seems legit to me.

          • Avatar
            abusepuppy December 18, 2016 7:42 am

            I think it’s pretty stupid too, but that’s what GW says and it’s been their party line on many of the “update” books for like the better part of a year now, I think.

          • Avatar
            Happy_Inquisitor December 18, 2016 8:26 am

            So long as the Inquisition Codex stays on sale it is going to be really hard to rule it as invalid. Right now both are available to buy on Black Library.

    • Avatar
      Jural December 19, 2016 1:46 pm #

      CtA weren’t voted down for competitive reasons, but player preference. Not my choice, but I respect it.

  13. Avatar
    Drachnyen December 16, 2016 8:25 pm #

    Hey Reece, Frankie and other ITC/Frontline staff,

    Just wanted to tell you guys kudos and a big thank you for everything you guys are doing.

    It’s much appreciated!

  14. Avatar
    Darin December 16, 2016 9:01 pm #

    I was hoping for a grenade vote……. This mean that we are all laying down and accepting the one dude rule?

    • Avatar
      Leonix December 17, 2016 6:26 am #

      Nades were being abused, as well as hurting units that were already hurting. Let’s see how this plays out first.

      • Adam
        Adam (RUMBL) December 17, 2016 3:16 pm #

        Totally agree. Anything to help monstrous creatures actually see the light of day, haha.

        • Avatar
          abusepuppy December 18, 2016 7:41 am #

          I think the problem with it, from my view at least, is that it doesn’t really help most monstrous creatures that much- at least, not the ones people want it to help. Carnifexes and Keepers of Secrets and other foot MCs are still garbage, even with the changes to grenades; on the other hand, Wraithknights, Riptides, and other such units get more powerful because of it. More relevantly, it also makes the multitudinous vehicles of Battle Company harder to destroy, which I feel is another step in the wrong direction.

          I’d love it if all it did was make Dreadnoughts and foot MCs stronger, but I don’t think that’s what it will actually do.

          • Avatar
            Leonix December 21, 2016 7:56 pm

            Depends on your point of view, I do agree the big guys will still be a pain, but as a tank user I am happy to see them stronger in general… Gladius is a problem of free stuff, not of armour being too tough.

  15. Avatar
    Samuel Sanchez December 16, 2016 9:42 pm #

    Messed up my stomp question hopefully it’s not decided by 1 vote. Should have voted to disallow LOS! Vs overrun. If you can change it feel free.

    Regardless nice FAQ to clean up the changes after GW FAQ.

  16. Avatar
    Red December 16, 2016 9:46 pm #

    Once again great job. Would you guys conceded for the next vote allowing fortification networks so long as they count as one of your allowable detachments as well as possibly putting the 1500 point level for the points level vote.

    • Adam
      Adam (RUMBL) December 17, 2016 3:17 pm #

      Did fortification networks survive the transition to the new book, or are they just formations now?

      • Avatar
        Red December 18, 2016 7:45 am #

        Yes, fortification networks are in planetary onslaught.

  17. Avatar
    abusepuppy December 16, 2016 10:24 pm #

    I’m really surprised there’s nothing on Pink Horrors in here. I guess we can all look forward to seeing lots and lots and lots of demons at the top tables.

    • Avatar
      Chandler December 16, 2016 11:06 pm #

      They are going with GW FAQ on Pink Horrors and Split which I feel is more than a fair way to go with it. Some might disagree though. I think the clarifications they made certainly make it less scary than the original rule made it seem.

      • Avatar
        abusepuppy December 16, 2016 11:40 pm #

        The only thing the GW FAQ changes is that they aren’t ObSec, yeah? That doesn’t really solve much of any of the concerns about them. (And, I mean, no Maelific, but that hardly makes a difference when you have so many other characters who can summon effectively.)

        • Avatar
          Ytook December 17, 2016 4:30 am #

          Also that the entire unit has to be set up within range so no conga lining them, and if you wipe out the unit then you set up the new unit right away rather than the end of the phase.

          • Avatar
            Samuel sanchez December 17, 2016 10:35 am

            Also you can only place as many horrors that will legally fit within 6in. If you spawn more than you can place within 6in of the unit. Including inability to place due to terrain or due to the enemy model being within 2in. Then you can’t place the horrors.

          • Avatar
            C-Stock December 17, 2016 11:52 am

            You can’t place a few of them. What if the unit is medium or large? The space within 6″ is quite large.

        • Avatar
          C-Stock December 17, 2016 7:49 am #

          I totally agree, the GW FAQ solves next to nothing.

          There has been a ton of player sentiment aimed at solving the problems with Pinks… and Reece says that he puts things up for a vote when there are a number of people expressing problems with the issue.

          So why isn’t there a poll question on flat-broken nonsense with pinks?

          • SaltyJohn
            SaltyJohn December 17, 2016 10:45 am

            Because it isn’t flat broken nonsense.

          • Avatar
            C-Stock December 17, 2016 11:50 am

            According to whom?

        • Avatar
          winterman December 17, 2016 10:31 am #

          It also confirmed they didn’t have maelific.

      • Avatar
        Trasvi December 17, 2016 12:12 am #

        I don’t think people were concerned about the rules: they were (are) concerned about how many bodies, units, and warp charges a unit of horrors puts on the table now for no increase in cost. We’re looking for a format change, not an FAQ.

  18. Avatar
    Gman December 17, 2016 12:01 am #

    Will changes to things like invis still be in effect?

  19. Avatar
    Alexander December 17, 2016 1:26 am #

    As for Death from the sky’s vote. I felt like it was ok JUST as long as it’s ONLY the dataslates and formations. As I’d feel like flyers would be really good to bring. But all the extra rules you need to remember is horrible.

  20. Avatar
    C-Stock December 17, 2016 5:42 am #

    I haven’t taken the poll yet to see the Titans question. But I assume it says if Taunars are allowed in then all other ITC nerfs to powers are repealed to go along with it?

    Or are we expected to fight Taunars with nerfed electro-displacement/etc, with one hand tied behind our backs? People could bring Taunars but Corsairs can’t use their teleport psychic power at full strength as a counter?

    I’m not sure this was thought through. Titans are dumb things that eliminate the need for strategy and thinking as it is. But in the ITC meta they would be MUCH more powerful than they are as-written.

    • Avatar
      abusepuppy December 17, 2016 7:16 am #

      Yeah, those poor, poor Space Marine armies with no way to hurt a Tau’nar. Not a single effective tool in their arsenal. Not a single weapon that they have access to that gets five shots and ignores armor and wounds on a 2+. Just absolutely nothing they can do.

      Let’s all take a moment to cry for the Space Marine players. They never get anything nice.

      • Avatar
        Cephalobeard December 17, 2016 8:36 am #

        Casual reminder you’re continuing to be Toxic to the community.

        • Avatar
          abusepuppy December 17, 2016 9:34 am #

          Casual reminder that you have contributed absolutely nothing of meaning to the conversation with any of your posts.

          • Avatar
            Cephalobeard December 17, 2016 10:53 am

            You’re welcome to think my posts aren’t contributing. It does not change the fact that your attitude is cancerous to this website. Your inability to handle that critique is expected, but I hope you’re able to realize you’re objectively being an asshole to people, regularly, for no reason.

          • Avatar
            Dakkath December 17, 2016 2:12 pm

            AP may be a jerk sometimes, but he is right most of the time. And he does his best to help out in the community, which is why he writes articles for LFG and gives advice to less-seasoned players.

          • Avatar
            Cephalobeard December 17, 2016 2:19 pm

            I’m definitely not saying he isn’t right. Not about to say he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He could just stand to be nicer about it.

          • Avatar
            Mike December 17, 2016 5:01 pm

            I agree. Please quit berating people for having a different opinion. This isn’t dakka.

          • Avatar
            abusepuppy December 17, 2016 8:12 pm

            I’m not “berating people for having a different opinion,” I’m pointing out ways in which I consider their opinion to be flawed. The post in question was complaining that players (and Space Marine players in particular, by implication) would have no effective ways to deal with the Tau’nar were it allowed in the game because of other nerfs that ITC had made to psychic powers and whatnot. But that line of argument was, I felt, flawed in the extreme because it ignores the fact that Space Marines are better-equipped to kill a Tau’nar than any other army in the game.

            Yes, I did it in a way that used humor to mock the idea that Marines had no way to hurt the Tau’nar- that isn’t the same as mocking the player, or insulting them, or harassing them. People can have bad ideas without being bad people. Using humor and hyperbole as devices in conversation and debate isn’t “toxic,” or else practically the entirety of American literary tradition is already and always has been completely toxic. Just typing “BEEP BOOP I AM ROBOT THIS IS MY OPINION END STATEMENT” is boring bordering on unreadable and a big part of being a competent writer is making what you write interesting.

            Your standard for “being toxic” seems to be saying literally anything other than “what a good idea I agree with you wholeheartedly”- and honestly, I consider an absolute stifling of the ability of people to freely disagree with and debate each other to be a lot more toxic than vague impoliteness. Your three posts in this thread have been “I agree!”, “Thanks!”, and a complaint about me- and I know you don’t like criticism, but those posts are doing nothing at all for the community except taking up space.

          • Avatar
            Cephalobeard December 17, 2016 8:43 pm

            Justify it however you want. You’re a dick to people here. I’m happy to point it out for as long as you’re happy to do it.

            My posts agreeing with people are irrelevant for how you’re acting.

            Take ownership of your behavior. You’ve even had someone other than myself point it out to you.

            It’s plenty clear people don’t point it out to you often, but you’re a dick. I don’t care if you’re a dick. I’m just going to point it out when you are.

          • Avatar
            Cephalobeard December 17, 2016 8:47 pm

            I’ll even add:

            Literally no one is telling you you’re wrong for disagreeing with people. Literally.

            However, MOCKING people when they comment is what you’re being called out for. You can be critical or have discussion without being the fedora of an unmoderated message board.

          • Avatar
            Heldericht December 18, 2016 5:49 pm

            Strawman argument trying to make AP seem like the bad guy and not acknowledging his point.

            Marines should be the least worried about Supremacy suit with mass Grav that solves all their problems and is patently broken.

          • Avatar
            Jural December 19, 2016 1:50 pm

            Personal opinion-

            This particular AP post was sarcastic, but humorous. Informative, not cruel.

            Didn’t bother me at all- don’t see it as cancerous

      • Avatar
        zyekian December 17, 2016 10:45 am #

        It’s not just about SM though. The ITC nerfs to various powers limit tools to combat something like a Tau Narr across various armies and play styles.

        You’re telling me a Tau Nar is all fair and good but that Corsairs had to have their teleport psychic power nerfed? What?

        You’re telling me a Tau Nar is all fair and good but Corsairs couldn’t use their overwatch move? Because it limits interaction or something on the table?

        Do you know what else limits interaction on the table? People’s armies being devastated at the top of turn one by a Tau Nar.

        • Avatar
          abusepuppy December 17, 2016 8:13 pm #

          I wrote an entire article on why I don’t think the Tau’nar is fair. I’m not saying it’s fair. But complaining about how hard it is for Space Marines, of all armies, to handle it is absolutely ludicrous.

  21. Avatar
    C-Stock December 17, 2016 7:46 am #

    I don’t even play SM.

    Why can’t my Corsair psyker use their teleportation power as written so that I can get my Dark Eldar into rapid assault range of a Taunar? Why is that power too powerful but a Taunar (if passed) is perfectly acceptable?

    • Avatar
      Alexander December 17, 2016 3:19 pm #

      Well even if the unar is let in to the ITC it still has to follow the ITC guidelines that being said the pulse ordinance multi driver

      The dreaded SD Massive blast is illigal so it has to take it’s much less powerful counterparts. So don’t worry it can’t drop a SD 7 inch template on your whole army

  22. Avatar
    zyekian December 17, 2016 10:46 am #

    Hopefully the titans thing fails. Because while the top players may be able to sort of handle them, it will not be fun for 90% of the players out there.

    • Avatar
      tag8833 December 18, 2016 6:49 am #

      The powers that be in the ITC have adopted GW’s position that fun is overrated, and that it is more important to encourage a Pay-To-Win philosophy than fun games.

      It’s why Pink Horror’s split wasn’t considered for fixing, but opening up army comp restrictions to cater to a less interactive (fun) game showed up in various forms.

      They didn’t address crowd favorites like ending battle brothers, but they put in a proposal to allow multiple fortifications that weren’t being called for except from GW, and a very, very, very few players.

      If your goal is a diverse, restrictive, decently balanced, highly interactive, and fun game it might be time to looks outside the ITC, because they are going to pushing for a less restrictive army comp until they get it, and their priorities have at this point appear to have shifted.

  23. Avatar
    GRUNT December 17, 2016 11:59 am #

    Will previous voted on questions be allowed if the GW FAQ allows it? Stomp out of combat and what not? If “we are going with the GW FAQ” shouldn’t we take all of it?

  24. Avatar
    Adam S. December 17, 2016 1:46 pm #

    When is the last day for voting?

  25. Avatar
    Mike December 17, 2016 2:26 pm #

    Count me in as another shocked player when I found out split wasn’t even asked about. And yes we have playtested it here, including after the 6″ zone/no malefic FAQ, and found it to be unacceptably nutso broken in both power and usableness during timed play. I would ask that you seriously consider adding in split as a late question, because that is a huge miss.

    Also the taunar would literally make me stay home rather than try to buy a war hound just to compete with it. And I echo the earlier sentiments that it’s mere presence completely removes any justification for keeping previous nerfs to other armies, powers etc.

    I can settle for the other votes going any which way, but Titans being considered “standard legal” at tournies is too far for me. If the majority really wants that, then I guess I’m dropping out to become a garage-only player, because that’s a pure non-starter for me.

    • Avatar
      Adam S. December 17, 2016 2:47 pm #

      In our games, the pink horrors split haven’t had much of an impact. For reference, we play in a highly competitive area.

      Granted there is an impact to warp charges but if you are already generating a lot of warp charges, 1 or 2 more aren’t going to matter.

  26. Avatar
    ryan December 17, 2016 4:11 pm #


    sorry to directly address you, i see you are rolling with the FAQ unless it conflicts with the ITC FAQ, so where does the VSG stand in regards to the ITC. The FAQ clearly states it affects the VGS, the ITC FAQ says it dosnt and its not up for vote, does this mean there is no change to its status and the VSG will be immune to grav at the LVO?

    • Avatar
      abusepuppy December 17, 2016 8:17 pm #

      The GW FAQ actually says that Void Shields on buildings are not affected by Grav (but other ones are.) There’s a bit of ambiguity, but I think most people are reading that as saying that Projected Void Shields, which come from a building, are not affected by Grav.

  27. Avatar
    C-Stock December 17, 2016 5:49 pm #

    I honestly can’t believe that making titans standard tournament legal is even an item that’s getting voted on. This is why many/most of us play ITC is to have a better game that’s not nonsense Apoc….

    • Avatar
      abusepuppy December 17, 2016 8:18 pm #

      Reece puts issues up for vote when a lot of people ask about them, generally speaking. I don’t think that he believes that they should be allowed- see all of his past statements on the subject, for example- but that doesn’t mean he won’t allow a vote or debate on the subject.

      • Avatar
        C-Stock December 18, 2016 6:46 am #

        A whole lot of people have called for weakening battle brothers to nerf death stars, cap ICs in a unit at one, etc.

        Why are these things not being voted on?

        • Avatar
          abusepuppy December 18, 2016 7:38 am #

          Honestly? I don’t know. There have been a number of posts about it in the response threads here, but “a lot of people” in that respect might mean five or ten or twenty, tops. By contrast, I know that there are some issues that Reece receives _hundreds_ of emails about.

          So maybe he hasn’t gotten that much mail about the battle bro/IC cap thing? I can’t really say. Or maybe he has and he feels that the lackluster performance of deathstars in ITC means that a change isn’t really warranted. There are a number of possible explanations that can only really be speculated upon.

      • Avatar
        Troy Graber December 18, 2016 7:01 am #

        That has always been his line. “squeaky wheel theory”. I don’t see much evidence to support it. We’ve got 2 votes on Corsair jetbikes getting to move 2D6 after firing overwatch.

        I’ve never heard anyone ask for that, have you? As a TO, I get questions all the time, and nobody has ever asked for corsairs to be able to move after firing overwatch. Compare that to the common refrains. Fixing Shadows in the Warp for instance. Ending Free points. Caps on Warp dice. Those are the sort of things that come up in small talk at every ITC event I’ve ever been to. They are out there, but don’t warrant a vote, because we’ve got to give corsairs a chance to move after overwatch, and when it fails decisively, we’ve got to give them a 2nd chance.

        • Avatar
          abusepuppy December 18, 2016 7:35 am #

          Some issues are genuinely ambiguous in terms of how they are intended to function; while I’m not sure that Reckless Abandon was necessarily the best example of that, there have been plenty of others- and in most of those cases, the ITC will put them to a vote if there is significant division over how to handle it.

          Something like Shadow in the Warp or getting rid of “free points,” on the other hand, is not ambiguous at all. Those are simply things that people want to change in order to weaken or strengthen specific armies.

          (incidentally, unless I’m remembering wrong the reason Reckless Abandon was voted on twice was because the first vote specified that _Jetbikes_ were disallowed from making the move after overwatch, and a lot of people argued that since the ruling only applied to Jetbikes other units could still do so. Thus, a second vote was put up to apply to _all_ Corsair units, which got the same result. Reece doesn’t, and never has, played Corsairs and I don’t think ANY of the Frontline staff does, so your insinuation that the whole thing was somehow some kind of underhanded plot to benefit them is pretty absurd.)

          • Avatar
            Troy Graber December 18, 2016 9:01 am

            If that is the philosophy then the Tyranid Tyrannocyte should have gotten a vote. It was genuinely ambiguous how it fires its weapons.

            Instead it was given the most limited interpretation (nerfed) in the FAQ with no vote ever taken.

            How about taking a 2nd fortification? How often have you heard someone asking for that? For me it has been twice. Once in 2015, and once in 2016. It is an incredibly low demand item that got bumped up ahead of all of the very high demand votes.

          • Avatar
            Cephalobeard December 18, 2016 9:05 am

            Fortifications are due to Traitor Legions specifically allowing IW to take additional Fortifications. Currently ITC would not have allowed them to do so.

            This is my guess as to why you’re seeing that.

          • Avatar
            Adam December 18, 2016 9:30 am

            To clarify, Troy, there was a vote for the Tyranid drop pod

          • Avatar
            C-Stock December 18, 2016 12:24 pm

            Abusepuppy, nobody or virtually nobody clamored for votes on the reckless abandon move. It was just fine RAW. The thing is Reece didn’t like it and he explained why on the podcast. He said it inhibited interaction between armies, therefore it needed to be nerfed from RAW which clearly states ANY shooting triggers it. And not that it’s gospel truth but FW was openly stating to many people that it works in overwatch.

            Reece just didn’t like the rule and well, since Corsair players make up less than 1% of 40k players especially at the time their new book dropped, everyone happily voted to nerf “eldar jetbikes”.

            Honestly I agree with Reece that the RA move in overwatch is kinda dumb. But if we’re voting to put outright ridiculous crap in the game like a Taunar or a second Stormsurge then there’s zero reason that Corsairs can’t have a relatively minor power that’s kinda dumb.

  28. Avatar
    Brett (TK) December 17, 2016 10:13 pm #

    Wait… So GW FAQ is rolled up into the ITC FAQ? Can someone fact check this please. 😉

    Had it come up last event. GW FAQ changed how shriek worked… does it or does it not hit FMC?

    • Avatar
      1PlusArmour December 18, 2016 8:11 am #

      With GW FAQ it can never hit a swooping FMC.

      • Avatar
        Brett (TK) December 18, 2016 6:33 pm #

        I literally here about a 50/50 split against FMC getting hit or not hit.

        • Avatar
          abusepuppy December 18, 2016 10:30 pm #

          It is a shooting attack that does not roll to hit. As such, it cannot be resolved against a FMC as per the new wording for Hard to Hit.

  29. Avatar
    zyekian December 18, 2016 12:30 pm #

    To the people calling for significant changes such as one IC per unit and changes to BB, I suspect Reece and crew strongly suspect that a new edition will drop a few months after the LVO and therefore aren’t looking at major changes right now. Those are good ideas though IMO.

  30. Avatar
    PrimoFederalist December 18, 2016 7:34 pm #

    I would really love to see a nerf to Battle Brothers next poll (i.e. eliminate it). This solves so many issues, IMO. Dark Eldar would probably take the biggest hit, however, it’s not as if there were ever strong fluff justifications for BB.

    I also think only one IC per unit and/or only ICs of the same unit type may join a unit would help (so only ICs on bikes can join bikes, only jump infantry ICs can join jump infantry, on infantry can join infantry, etc), but getting rid of BB would be as close to a single silver bullet as we’ll get.

  31. Petey Pab
    Petey Pab December 18, 2016 8:26 pm #

    Just my two cents here. Part of the internet will cry foul if the ITC amends rules GW puts out, and the other part is hollering about the ITC NOT ammending rules GW puts out.

    To that minority of players who trust the ITC, and constantly thank Reece and Frankie for their work. You folks are the real MVPs.

  32. Avatar
    Dr.Ice December 19, 2016 12:06 pm #

    Is there any consideration if the Warlord Titan and Tau I’m-way-too-cheap-for-what-I-do suit get added that we might finally see the Harridan get on the approved lists?

    • Avatar
      abusepuppy December 19, 2016 7:50 pm #

      Seriously. If the Tau’nar is in but the Harridan is out, I will be utterly baffled. The Harridan isn’t even vaguely good, and it never has been. It is arguably the worst Gargantuan Creature in the game.

      • Avatar
        Jural December 20, 2016 3:02 pm #

        I think the Hierodules are now clearly worse with the changes to toe in cover.

Leave a Reply