Signals from the Frontline #494: ITC Poll Results!

494

Join us for the live show on our Twitch channel by following this link! The show starts at 11am, PST.

Show Notes

Date: 12-23-16

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.
  • You think Reecius’ T-Shirts are cool? Buy yours, here!

News

  • LVO news!
  • ITC 3rd Quarter Update Poll Results!

stomps

  • The ITC community has decided to continue to allow characters to LoS! the 6 result on stomps despite the GW BRB FAQ contradiction.

blasts

  • Well, this time the ITC community decided to go with the GW BRB FAQ. So, prepare yourselves, blasts will hit multiple levels of buildings.

culexus

  • The Culexus assassin will not be available to all factions for the ITC community.

fort1

  • The ITC community has decided to allow more than one fortification assuming your army has the requisite FoC slots.

forts2

  • However, we decided to go only with two for the time being.

2017 Season Questions

detachments

  • One of the questions we ask every year: how many detachments would you like to use? This year we decided to stick with the status quo. Three it shall remain.

missions

  • Vive la variete! The community wants us to diversify and include other missions into the ITC format such as the NOVA mission set. We’re already working with the NOVA team to mesh these together for the 2017 season.

titans

  • The ongoing questions about allowing “Titan” class units into the ITC was voted down.

points1

  • Another question we ask every year: should we change the points limit? Well, the answer this year is no which is fine, but don’t let us hear any of you that voted to stay at 1,850pts complaining about games not finishing…and I know who you all are, haha!

points2

  • A moot question do to the result of the above question, but still interesting data: ITC players want their points!

dfts1

  • Well, once again, the ITC community gives a definitive no to the DftS supplement.

dfts2

  • Again, DftS proves to not be very popular with the ITC community.

Upcoming ITC Events

itc.logo.01.1

  • No events this weekend, enjoy the holidays!

ITC Championship Rankings

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Matt Root FNGC 15 748.73
2 Brandon Grant PE 9 645.07
3 Joshua Death N/A 19 644.06
4 Aaron Aleong nWo 6 638.94
5 Dan Platt CanHam 9 626.36
6 Thomas Hegstrom Oakey 2DR’s 14 623.28
7 Andrew Gonyo BCoast 12 622.19
8 Brett Perkins FMs 9 621.48
9 Trent Northington Warhogs 8 612.64
10 James Carmona TZC 9 599.5

ITC Team Rankings

Rank Club Name Club Code Placings Points
1 Beast Coast BCoast 140 1358.68
2 nWo Blackshirts nWo 94 1306.84
3 Team Zero Comp TZC 100 1296.28

Adepta Sororitas

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Bartosz Czolczynski 12 396.18
2 Adrien Jeanniard REKT 7 326.73
3 Joshua Shubert HT 10 315.01

Adeptus Astartes

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Thomas Hegstrom Oakey 2DR’s 12 509.4
2 Justin Pizzoferrato Merc40k 5 459.14
3 Adam Napier TfDU 4 436.21

Astra Militarum

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Wesley Pauley 6 384.9
2 Carlos Kaiser REKT 6 384.05
3 Sean Porter 6 381.68

Blood Angels

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Danny Kwan REKT 9 357.18
2 Iain McLeod GWNG 6 332.28
3 Chris Morgan 6 304.26

Chaos Daemons

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Trent Northington Warhogs 8 500.15
2 Eric Hoerger BCoast 5 477.98
3 Vincent Arroyo Sex 6 462.32

Chaos Renegades

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Brett Perkins FMs 6 507.95
2 Lukash Nahachewsky nWo 6 447.82
3 Austin Wingfield WM 5 425.21

Chaos Space Marines

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Iain Andrew N/A 4 392.31
2 Alan Dehesa RQTF 9 378.9
3 Chuck Arnett Mugu 7 367.72

Cult Mechanicus

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Matt Root FNGC 9 620.2
2 Geoff Robinson TZC 8 470.35
3 Aaron Towler Chicago2 6 395.24

Dark Angels

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Aaron Aleong nWo 6 542.75
2 Brandon Grant PE 8 542.48
3 Rafał Kroczka 3citys 7 418.64

Dark Eldar

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 JT Mcdowell IPs 7 411.48
2 Willow Ryder LCC 5 331.66
3 Jeff Biery CofC 3 301.01

Deathwatch

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Shane Watts DefHaw 3 293.18
2 Matthew Stephens Deff 3 267.03
3 Joshua Johnson N/A 2 148.98

Eldar

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Brad Chester N/A 4 481.71
2 Matt Schuchman BCoast 11 477.93
3 Tony Grippando Chicago2 5 465.73

Eldar Corsairs

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Carter Leach N/A 9 443.28
2 Jeff Biery CofC 3 327.17
3 John Williams N/A 4 321.11

Genestealer Cult Rankings

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Tyler Devries FNGC 3 247.17
2 Daniel Rice DesAllies 2 215.31
3 Chancy Rickey Deff 2 192.53

Grey Knights Rankings

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Dan Comeau Warhogs 7 348.6
2 Shawn Hollingsworth Menza 4 308.37
3 Doc Dragon N/A 11 303.75

Harlequins

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Cameron Pineiro N/A 4 350.64
2 Joshua Death N/A 3 293.92
3 Robert Dayton MH 5 248.46

Imperial Knights

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Joshua Death N/A 8 423.94
2 Adrian James HerbAs 7 420.42
3 Ben Vaughan MK 5 392.44

Inquisition

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Wesley Pauley 5 354.77
2 Randolph Soanes-ulrich GWNG 8 296.73
3 Adam Devitt PhGames 5 272.97

Knights Renegades Rankings

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 John Eubanks 4 407.56
2 Alex Gonzalez LCC 6 400.96
3 Aaron Hayden PE 3 268.38

Khorne Daemonnkin

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Horton Doughton Border 5 405.12
2 Chase Garber Warhogs 9 397.06
3 Mark Perry N/A 7 371.7

Militarum Tempestus

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 David Koszka B&W 5 356.9
2 Mycroft Holmes N/A 4 274.77
3 Bill Durrett LowTier 3 149.82

Necrons Rankings

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Alexander Fennell DSD 8 472.71
2 Alex Gonzalez LCC 10 465.54
3 Baxter Seguin Mugu 12 405.75

Officio Assassinorum Rankings

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Josh Bagwell Mugu 4 269.63
2 Mike “Juice Springsten” Vagenos WM 3 260.19
3 justin Cox BCoast 4 228.09

Orks Rankings

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Rich Kilton 2DR’s 8 415.76
2 Oseas Aduna Deff 8 403.4
3 Troy Graber FMs 10 402.39

Skitarii

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Quinn Shepas 7 381.81
2 Matthew Demartino N/A 2 133.9
3 James O’Brien N/A 1 129.72

Space Wolves Rankings

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Mike Kriegler nWo 7 480.2
2 Trevor Sandoval RQTF 6 454.84
3 Logan Shelton 9 420.19

Tau Rankings

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Andrew Gonyo BCoast 11 510.03
2 Arawn Nicholson 8 473.59
3 Paul McKelvey LCC 14 463.25

Tyranids Rankings

Rank First Name Last Name Club Events Points
1 Tyler Larson Mugu 11 404.61
2 Jaminh Vo MH 6 306.6
3 Matt Evans Flipside 4 302.39

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.

Rant Session

Tactics Corner

Rules Lawyer

Completed Commissions

magnus1 magnus2

List Review

Tags:

About Reecius

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

64 Responses to “Signals from the Frontline #494: ITC Poll Results!”

  1. Cephalobeard December 23, 2016 11:23 am #

    It will be interesting to see how the Fortifications end up used.

    Maybe someone will get crazy and use the Homeothrope Reactor with a Bunker and fill it with Kataphron Destroyers.

    …No?

    Probably not, no.

    • Jason Wolfe December 23, 2016 12:46 pm #

      I think that Plasmaphrons actually need a FAQ here. The Reactor says “plasma” weapons as in BRB but only imperium plasma weapons are in the BRB. Obviously Plasmaphrons should be included here as their weapons “gets hot” just like BRB imperium plasma weapons**. But some clarifying ruling by the ITC would be good here.

      ** Things that shouldn’t be included: tau pulse rifles are a form of plasma, but they don’t “gets hot”, so the reactor shouldn’t apply.

      • Heldericht December 23, 2016 12:53 pm #

        Not having gets hot, doesn’t mean the reactor doesn’t apply.

        It just says it gets hot on 1 and 2 instead of just 1.

        War Convocation ignores gets hot but they benefit from it just fine.

        • Jasonwolfe December 23, 2016 1:13 pm #

          Here are the reactor rules. “Any plasma weapon (as defined in WH 40k: The Rules) …”

          http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/11/40k-haemotrope-reactor-rules-spotted.html

          I am now looking at page 177 of the small version of the BRB. Under the heading PLASMA WEAPONS I see three things: plasma pistol, gun, and cannon. I don’t see any Plasmaphron weapons.

          Now I think this is simply an oversight by GW and they plainly meant mechanicum plasma weapons to be affected by the reactor. They even put plasma vanguards on the damn box art. However, under an asshole’s reading of the rules, I could see a very competitive opponent insisting that plasmaphron guns aren’t on page 177 of the BRB.

          • WestRider December 23, 2016 7:02 pm
            #

            The Ulumeathi Plasma Syphon uses exactly the same wording of “Any plasma weapon (as defined in WH 40k: The Rules) …” It seems like it would be reasonable to adopt the FAQ for the Syphon clarifying the term in that situation to apply to the Reactors as well.

  2. Murth December 23, 2016 11:24 am #

    In the poll results it list the first question as “Should characters be able to LoS! the 6 result on the Stomp table?” but in the actual poll the first question was “Shouold the ITC reverse its rule change allowing Characters to maek a Look Out Sir! roll for the 6 result on the Stomp Table?” Did you switch the answers as well as the question?

    • Adam
      Adam (RUMBL) December 23, 2016 1:34 pm #

      That’s a good question. If you voted Yes in the survey you were voting against LOS, but the wording above is the opposite of what was asked…

      • Cephalobeard December 23, 2016 1:49 pm #

        This may need to be addressed quickly, before people misinterpret the results.

    • 1PlusArmour December 23, 2016 2:33 pm #

      This was covered in the podcast, it is not the case.

      • Greg December 25, 2016 6:10 pm #

        Listened to podcast, didn’t hear them explain the switch. Is it possible to redo, with a clearer question? This is important to all folks. Just want to make sure that the question was clearly asked and answered.

  3. 1PlusArmour December 23, 2016 11:54 am #

    One of the questions missed from the stream –

    Is Invis meant to be a set modifier (BS1) or is it simply meant to be “not snapfiring”? If it is specifically BS1 then Markerlights can never be used to boost BS of a firing model, however previous statements from Reece, etc… have stated that Markerlights CAN be used to boost BS against (ITC’s) Invisibility.

    Can you please clarify, and clarify this in the FAQ as well?

    Thanks!

    • 1PlusArmour December 23, 2016 11:58 am #

      Likewise, how is this intended to interact with Overwatch for things like Cognis/Grim Resolve which also have a set modifier? Is it up to the player whose turn it is to decide which order the two set modifiers resolve in?

      • Grizzyzz December 28, 2016 4:26 am #

        Markerlights: Work as normal. you do not need to be snapfiring in order for them to boost your BS! 🙂

        Your second question should definitely be addressed. As per history, it has been GW’s policy to let the active player decide which takes priority.

        • 1PlusArmour December 28, 2016 6:23 am #

          No, you don’t need to snap fire, but a set value (BS1) ALWAYS overrides modifiers, which means that even if you used 50 markerlights you’d still be BS1.

          I’ve emailed FLG about this (a few times I think) hoping to get a clear response (and FAQ update either way).

          • grizzyzz December 28, 2016 6:43 am
            #

            In anycase, just ask your TO if you are very concerned. I play Tau and have never had an issue. As markerlights have always been intended to increase Taus BS against invisibility, overwatch, etc.

    • Heldericht December 23, 2016 12:42 pm #

      Great question, I’d like an answer as well.

  4. Nate December 23, 2016 12:00 pm #

    So what does that mean for DTFS? First I don’t know why we are voting on whether to use formations and data slates from GW material (we don’t for any other releases) but more importantly there are actual unit updates and new models listed in the book. Those are now considered invalid because we aren’t using the supplement in any form thanks to the way the question was posed?

    • WestRider December 23, 2016 7:06 pm #

      Yeah, I’ve got a couple of StormHawks that I’d like to be able to use in ITC events.

      • Peteypab December 25, 2016 8:58 pm #

        Then ask your local TO of you can use them. ITC events do not have to follow ITC rules to the tee.

        Local TO refuses to change? Well then, don’t blame the ITC, blame the TO. Or you know, maybe change yourself.

  5. Nate B December 23, 2016 12:05 pm #

    What does this mean? DTFS replaces many formations, adds new units, and updates data sheets for models. Are these all invalid now that we’ve voted to not use the supplement in any form?

  6. Tim Hubscher December 23, 2016 1:11 pm #

    The choice of 3 formations or infinite was stupid.
    A lot of the questions are weighted or asked a certain way,
    that helps guarantee the results.
    Why not 2,3,4,5, infinite formations as choices?

  7. Chandler December 23, 2016 1:25 pm #

    A bit disappointed by how some of the voting panned out specifically when it comes to look out sirs on the 6 stomp roll. Multiple fortifications is going to be hard to deal with especially 2 VSGs. Would have liked to have seen a points decrease to 1750. Oh well, the ITC season for 2017 will be interesting to say the least.

  8. Turok117 December 23, 2016 1:50 pm #

    I would be curious to know what types of armies the people that voted against unlimited detachments were expecting to see/worried about if it had been changed.

    • Virgil82 December 24, 2016 10:27 am #

      The most abusive Imperial Deathstars open up with unlimited Detachments, everyones favourite Dark/Blood/Wolf/Wyrdstorm/Conclavestar that you can’t actually hurt and with the new Traitor Legions book there is an obvious Chaos version with KDK/Worldeaters/Cabal/Alpha Legion.

      Unlimited Detachments allow cool imaginative army compositions,but also open up the most uninteractive un-fun armies imaginable. They also make it so much harder to verify that your army is legal in a list building environment where imperfect army building software is so prevalent and list vetting is almost non-existent.

  9. Dakkath December 23, 2016 2:08 pm #

    I think the 2 DftS questions should have been combined into one
    A) Don’t use it
    B) Use only the dataslates and formations
    C) Use the whole thing

    • Cephalobeard December 23, 2016 2:21 pm #

      I was under the implication the question was, essentially, option B.

      However this could be more my issue than the polls.

    • Threllen December 28, 2016 3:42 pm #

      I think the reason they didn’t want one question is it could kind of skew the results of whether to use the implement it. For example, let’s say the true numbers were like this:
      A) 40% – don’t use it
      B) 30% – use only dataslates/formations
      C) 40% – use everything

      In this case over half (60%) of players would have voted to use the supplement but because they were split… the minority would have won and the supplement wouldn’t have been used. You also could have a scenario where someone wants to use the dataslates/formations but is afraid they’ll split the vote and would rather not use it at all than risk using everything, so they vote that way.

      IMO it’s much easier to first ask use vs not-use and then determine how to use it. Eliminates the chance a minority voice becomes a winning plurality.

  10. Vincent Morgado December 23, 2016 2:48 pm #

    Amazing what happens when every single writer and podcast on every outlet slams a supplement BEFORE EVER PLAYING A GAME OF IT. Frontline is complicit in the community’s irrational bias against Death From the Skies. It should not have been left up to a vote when the well has been so badly poisoned with very little if any time given to the possible benefits of including the rules. Override the community who so clearly has shown they are unwilling to make decisions that are not specifically for their benefit.

    Congratulations on furthering the stagnation of 40k as nothing but a competition between who can alphastrike the hardest, and who can build the best Death Star.

    • WestRider December 23, 2016 7:08 pm #

      I’ve played with it. So have a lot of other people. We’ve overwhelmingly found it to be poorly designed, and to actually make Flyers LESS attractive, when they’re already not a very great option. Keeping it out actually keeps lists more diverse, if only slightly.

      • PrimoFederalist December 23, 2016 10:02 pm #

        ^This. It makes people go all-out with flyers or try to ignore them completely. And it’s like a poorly designed throw-away side game, not an actually well thought out side game (reminds me of the Aeronautica Imperialis they did back in the late 90s/early 2000s but jammed into 40k).

        The problem isn’t the poor design of the dogfights, it’s the fact that someone gaining air superiority has a dramatic effect on the rest of game. If it’s going to have a tremendous effect of the rest of the game, they have got to redesign it better. Until that time, most of us want to ignore it.

        • Nate B December 24, 2016 12:09 am #

          You mean like virtual endless summoning, or reloading drones onto piranha gunships, or free vehicles/upgrades, etc? There are a ton of things that just flat unbalance play but making it where flyers are competitive and maybe don’t sit the entire game on the sidelines isn’t really one of them. :-/

          Even if someone didn’t like the dogfight phase it’s at most 3d6 rolls and then back to game proper. That only happens if both sides still have a flyer in reserve and adds a dynamic that doesn’t exist otherwise.

          • AbusePuppy December 24, 2016 5:34 am
            #

            It is truly hilarious that you consider the Firestream Wing just as abusive and unbalanced as summoning and Battle Company. QUICK, THIS ARMY THAT HAD NEVER WIN A TOURNAMENT ANYWHERE NEEDS TO BE NERFED.

          • Chris December 24, 2016 6:41 am
            #

            @abusepuppy

            Firewing won battlemaster at nova and has done amazing when it hasnt been nerfed. A lot of players probably havent invested in all the drones as ITC nerfed it.

            with the latest gw faq hopefully the tau one doesnt override it and it makes this formation still good but not abusive.

    • W December 24, 2016 3:34 am #

      Seeing the look on newer players’ face when being told that their Flyer lost Skyfire and is now useless against the opposing Flyrants because of some new, expensive book they can’t afford (nor should have to buy) was enough to convince me that Dfts was a bad move by GW.

  11. Leonix December 23, 2016 2:50 pm #

    Wow, still 1850, get ready for longer games.

  12. Mirthless December 23, 2016 3:19 pm #

    Meh… i think the DFTS question was wrongly asked.. we allready knew that nobody wanted the entire book since the dogfighting and additional rules are badly worded and make flyers worse. So… the question should have been about the Dataslates and Formation / Dataslates,Formations and Detachtment / None of the book.

    After that question got accepted we can talk about the ridiculous flyer rules.

    my 50 cents.

    • Vincent Morgado December 23, 2016 3:30 pm #

      “Nobody wanted the entire book” Speak for yourself. Some of us were perfectly willing to accept the limitations placed on Flyers’ offensive capabilities in exchange for a larger effect on the game and improved anti-ground abilities that were very hard to get, such as improved BS, Preferred Enemy and Ignores Cover.

      And Dogfight phases will take less time over the duration of the game than any heavy summoning army, but no one is prepared to say that Summoning should be removed because it “slows the game down”.

      • 1PlusArmour December 28, 2016 6:27 am #

        I think the big difference here is that Summoning is a core part of the game, whereas Dogfight was shoehorned in afterwards (quite awkwardly) and requires an additional purchase for ALL players.

        While Dogfight may be faster than a daemon player’s summoning time, when you add the two together you can see the problem.

        If we were looking at 1500pt games, or some other smaller size, to offset the overhead that all of this craziness (not just DFTS) adds then it would be less of an issue, but when you’ve got lots of people who appear to be incapable of playing 5+ turns in 3 hours (with damn near no penalties) the last thing we need is yet another phase to the game.

  13. Aaron Bang December 23, 2016 5:52 pm #

    I agree that there has been very little talk about any other supplements on here, and I am disappointed with the community in accepting this rule update.

  14. Wes P December 23, 2016 6:11 pm #

    Fix the itc scores. Im missing 2 to 3 Astra Militarum Results

    • 1PlusArmour December 28, 2016 6:27 am #

      Scores from an event I submitted two weeks ago are still missing as well.

  15. Wes P December 23, 2016 7:15 pm #

    1650 points for ever

  16. C-Stock December 24, 2016 5:15 am #

    The blasts in multiple levels in ruins thing…. Orks and Dark Eldar are nerfed once again.

    Why ITC community, why???

    • C-Stock December 24, 2016 5:17 am #

      And the ITC is officially a pro-death star ruleset now with this stomp vote. Reece must be happy about that.

      • Sanchezsam2 December 28, 2016 8:55 am #

        I rather the vote on this went the other way however this is such a minor buff it won’t matter. You are rarely going to see superheavies in assault with a Death Star hit intiative 1, then get a lucky 6 roll on the stomp table and still have minatures that survived those d3 stomps in the first place still be within 2in near that character for them to even LOS!

        Thematically it also makes sense that someone can push the character out of the way of a giant foot stepping onto thier leader, but regardless most times your independant character in a Death Star is still going to die with d3 stomps and a 6 result.

    • Tag8833 December 25, 2016 5:45 pm #

      I’m an ork player. I use lots of blasts. I think the blasts and levels is a buff to Orks.

    • Sanchezsam2 December 28, 2016 8:46 am #

      I play Orks and blasts are a buff to Orks. Lobbas and kmk’s etc are Ork bread and butter artillery.

      Seriously Orks are not a gunline army and rarely sit in muliple level ruins for a poor cover save.

  17. zyekian December 24, 2016 5:32 am #

    Two void shield buildings overlapping is going to be quite silly.

    • Venkarel December 24, 2016 8:46 am #

      Yeah, at least it is entirely within to get the benefit now. We are going to have to draw Vin diagrams while we play.

  18. Horton December 24, 2016 6:57 am #

    Some things I will add:

    Glad we stayed 1850
    Glad we get 2 fortification, but was hoping for more for my IW brethren
    Im sorry that DftS is banned. We have played with it and saw no issues with it.
    Glad to see more diverse missions. My area has plenty of ITC events, but no one uses ITC missions. Maybe that will change now.
    Overall nothing too groundbreaking.

    • Horton December 24, 2016 7:00 am #

      One other thing on “Titan” units. I dont play them, so I dont care that much, but I do not think there is a need to ban them. They are no worse than Deathstars in my opinion.

  19. Trueknight803 December 24, 2016 7:22 am #

    Im glad it’s still at 1850.

    I don’t understand the butthurt over not using dfts.. you can still use flyers in the game. Ya maybe not the stormhawk or whatever it is, but cmon we can all agree that book is not good for the game

    • pascalnz December 24, 2016 7:51 pm #

      I think it made it better because fliers were finally scary for ground targets and they affected reserves in a big way….so people would actually take them.
      thats what happened at my club at least:)

      • WestRider December 25, 2016 1:00 pm #

        Around here, the fact that they couldn’t be all-rounders any more meant people just dropped them because there were too many situations where they ended up being a poor investment, and went for strategies that could function without Reserves.

  20. Evan valdyke December 26, 2016 9:49 am #

    You guys completely botched the DFTS question. Should have been

    “If death from the skies was included would you want the dogfight phase”
    “Would you want death from the skies if there was no dogfight phase”

  21. Grizzyzz December 28, 2016 4:37 am #

    @Reecius – great poll. always something you disagree with, but that is how poll’s go. Thank you for your time.

    my 2cents, as a mass tournament organizer I think it is perfectly in your power too flat out say, ITC events are now points limit XXXX. People want there toys, but as you stated, games aren’t finishing, as the community leaders analyzing all the event data, I do not think if you made a decision the community would be that disappointed. 🙂

    • 1PlusArmour December 28, 2016 7:53 am #

      Agreed 100%. It would also provide much more consistency for ITC rankings as a whole as you wouldn’t be comparing results from (currently) 0pts through to 2500pts (or a theoretical infinite maximum).

    • ryan December 28, 2016 10:05 am #

      if they impose a limit of say 1500 points (when we just voted for 1850 for the second time i believe), ITC will lose im popularity, theres no getting around it. You cant pick and choose what parts of votes you will accept or not.

      I travelled to 2 out of country tournaments lastyear, i woudnt leave my province for a 1500 point tournament.

      • 1PlusArmour December 28, 2016 10:24 am #

        You would if it were the tournament standard everywhere.

        Agreed that it should not happen for 2017 season as it has already been voted on though.

        • Grizzyzz December 29, 2016 6:32 am #

          I would say, for the rest of this season it would stay as voted. The Q3 poll effects LVO this year.

          For Q3 poll. They could say, we must lower points values for next season.. games arent finishing and its not fair too the community as a whole.

          vote on 1500.. 1600.. 1650.. 1700.. 1750 etc etc

          I think 1500 might be too small. But plenty tourneys globally run 1650 and 1750 games very successfully.

          • Grizzyzz December 29, 2016 6:33 am
            #

            Sorry… I meant for the next Q4 poll for the next season.. 🙂

  22. Sanchezsam2 December 28, 2016 8:59 am #

    Wait does this mean the wazbom blastjet is not valid in the ITC if so this was the dumbest way to ask the dfts question. People didn’t want the crummy dfts rules no one had issues with the Ork flyer or imperial flyer.

    • Grizzyzz December 29, 2016 6:30 am #

      I believe this is the case. Wwere you lucky to have that dataslate released in a white dwarf?

      I think the storm talon was possibly released in a WD.. if so you could use that data slate.

      • Grizzyzz December 29, 2016 7:15 am #

        So i was recently told the boxes come with the dataslate in them.. So you are good to go on using the flyers.. just can’t use any of the formations from the book.

Leave a Reply