ITC Vote is Live

The ITC has a poll up to decide the new ITC FAQ rules. You don't have to be a registered member or anything to vote.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2016/06/21/itc-poll-going-up-wednesday-june-22nd/

Of particular interest to me was the rule regarding Warp Tunnel and Corsairs. There is a question before the community to house rule the power to only affect Corsairs units. (Although the rule specifies otherwise.)

Since this is super critical for a list I'm planning on taking to an ITC event in August, even if you have no interest in the ITC or their workings, I'd appreciate it if you popped over to vote to play that power as written.

On a less selfish note, there is a series of house rule/FAQ questions regarding Death from the Skies, flyer types, and how they will be applied, that could really make or break the Dark Eldar. If you DO play events (or might want to) that use the ITC FAQ, you should make your voice heard.

I have voted. My will be known.

The die is cast.

Results are up.

FFS...

Ri-goddam-diculous.

Jimsolo wrote:

Results are up.

FFS...

Ri-goddam-diculous.

Yeah, the ITC is getting a bit heavy-handed with their rules changes.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Yeah, the ITC is getting a bit heavy-handed with their rules changes.

To be fair, its not the ITC making the changes. Its the community at large that asks these question so many times on their feedback forms and forums that they put it out there to vote. Its the guy beside you or across the hall. That guy at the games store. Its all his fault!

The rampant Eldar hate continue. The original corsair jetbike ruling was so kneejerk to start with; considering that reckless abandon was really meant to be used in overwatch as its only effective when firing at targets 12" and under away.  

At least taxi service works for three more months!

It is as much the fault of the community as it is the members of  the ITC. The ITC are the ones who choose what questions are worthy of being voted on according to the amount of whining and they go along the majority votes even if it isn't a benefit to the game. It is unfortunate that the community showed that a large portion of them were unable to look at the game as a whole instead of from their biased perspective.

I tried very hard to look at the game as a whole when I cast my vote not from the filter of what I play and who I don't like. Can't say how well I succeeded but I feel like I did a decent job of it.

And I will continue to regard the ITC with the disdain I reserve for house rules made by the weak who can not adapt.

Any game as complex as 40k needs a governing body for tournaments. Since GW abdicated this responsibility, someone had to do it.

To be honest, I'd prefer a consistent ruling I disagree with over every TO doing something
different.

The Warp Tunnel ruling is disappointing mostly because it screws the army I was bringing to Gencon.

Link to results for those that want to see them. It took me a minute to find them so thought I would make it easier for others.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2016/06/27/signals-from-the-frontline-itc-2016-second-quarter-poll-results/

Here they all are in toned down format. Go to the link above for more detail.

Should Walkerss be able to make an immobilized result a weapon Destroyed result on the damage table? NO

Should we use Death from the Skies in the ITC at this time? NO

(Moot Point)Would you want to use the Dog Fight phase? No

(Moot Point)If we use DftS, would you like to see Attack and Bomber Craft Retain Skyfire with a -1 to hit flyers and FMCs? YES

Should we use ton down the Phase Form Psychic Power? YES

Should we use the Shifting Worldscape power in the ITC Format? NO

(Moot Point)Should we tone down shifting worldscape power if it is used in ITC? YES

Should we tone down the Elextrodisplacement Power in ITC? YES

Should we alter the prohibition on using Reckless Abandon for Corsair Jet Bikes to be a move 6" move after firing overwatch? NO

Should we limit the Warp Tunnel power to work only on units containing only Corsairs Faction models? YES

Does Daemonic Corruption occur at any point of the movement phase or at the end of the phase? END OF PHASE

Should we use the GW first draft FAQs or wait till they are in the final draft form? WAIT FOR THE FINAL DRAFT

Would you like to keep the 1 grenade limit in melee? YES

Would you like to keep GW's Ruleing for the Void Shield Generator? YES

Should the VSG be immune to Grav? NO

Should the VSG be immune to melta special rule? NO

Should the VSG be immune to Gauss? NO

Should the VSG be immune to Haywire? NO

Would you like to keep the ruling that aura abilities do not work from within a vehicle? YES

Would you like to keep the Drop Pod ruling, counting the doors as a part of the hull? NO

Jimsolo wrote:

Any game as complex as 40k needs a governing body for tournaments.  Since GW abdicated this responsibility, someone had to do it...

This ad infinitum. To know full well what you're walking into at any event that runs this system is absolutely brilliant. Your FLGS can just say we will be using ITC, and you wont have to worry about the one guy who always has some kind of local flavoured cheese that he forces down your throat, usually without crackers.

Darkgreen Pirate wrote:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Yeah, the ITC is getting a bit heavy-handed with their rules changes.

To be fair, its not the ITC making the changes. Its the community at large that asks these question so many times on their feedback forms and forums that they put it out there to vote.

Oh, I know, but the ITC chooses what to vote on, and how to word their votes, both of which heavily influence what occurs. I've stated to Reece and others that I'd like to see the ITC shift away from votes on specific rules to instead just vote on a council of rule makers who will make and justify their decisions to the public, voting like a supreme court of rules judges, who can then be voted out of office if their calls are super-unpopular. I think it'd give us the chance to let cooler heads prevail, and stop some of the kneejerk voting that happens.

I'd suggest anyone else who thinks this is a good idea should tell them so as well, as it's clear they don't listen unless they get multiple complaints on an issue, no matter how valid the argument. Reece actually said that last part, that even when they know of rules changes that should DEFINITELY be made, they don't do it or bother with it unless lots of people email about it on their submission form.

mrmagoo wrote:

Here they all are in toned down format.  Go to the link above for more detail.

Should Walkerss be able to make an immobilized result a weapon Destroyed result on the damage table?  NO

Should we use Death from the Skies in the ITC at this time?  NO

(Moot Point)Would you want to use the Dog Fight phase?  No

(Moot Point)If we use DftS, would you like to see Attack and Bomber Craft Retain Skyfire with a -1 to hit flyers and FMCs?  YES

Should we use ton down the Phase Form Psychic Power?  YES

Should we use the Shifting Worldscape power in the ITC Format?  NO

(Moot Point)Should we tone down shifting worldscape power if it is used in ITC?  YES

Should we tone down the Elextrodisplacement Power in ITC?  YES

Should we alter the prohibition on using Reckless Abandon for Corsair Jet Bikes to be a move 6" move after firing overwatch?  NO

Should we limit the Warp Tunnel power to work only on units containing only Corsairs Faction models?  YES

Does Daemonic Corruption occur at any point of the movement phase or at the end of the phase?  END OF PHASE

Should we use the GW first draft FAQs or wait till they are in the final draft form?  WAIT FOR THE FINAL DRAFT

Would you like to keep the 1 grenade limit in melee?  YES

Would you like to keep GW's Ruleing for the Void Shield Generator?  YES

Should the VSG be immune to Grav?  NO

Should the VSG be immune to melta special rule? NO

Should the VSG be immune to Gauss?  NO

Should the VSG be immune to Haywire?  NO

Would you like to keep the ruling that aura abilities do not work from within a vehicle?  YES

Would you like to keep the Drop Pod ruling, counting the doors as a part of the hull?  NO

Full disclosure: the bottom 8 are moot points as well.

Thanks, magoo! That's mighty neighborly of you!

I feel fairly certain that not using the ITC (or similar comp) would also result in knowing the exact rules of the tournament
It's the rulebook. Clarification on general consensus for ambiguous points is one thing, but changing how something works (invisibility and the like) is just a sham of balance. Every rule set can be broken. So stop making up rules and learn how to play with broken because that's what we've got.

That's my opinion of the ITC and similar. Not directed at anyone despite the tone.

The Red King wrote:

I feel fairly certain that not using the ITC (or similar comp) would also result in knowing the exact rules of the tournament
It's the rulebook. Clarification on general consensus for ambiguous points is one thing, but changing how something works (invisibility and the like) is just a sham of balance. Every rule set can be broken. So stop making up rules and learn how to play with broken because that's what we've got.

Couldn't disagree more. Why play with a set of rules that is blatantly broken rather than try to fix them? I don't agree with some (a lot) of the decisions made by the ITC but I thoroughly approve of their goal of trying to create a competitive but balanced system for an uncompetitive and unbalanced game.

Yeah, I actually prefer that an organization like ITC doesn't change powers for balance reasons. I think their rulings should primarily be limited to rules clarifications on unclear or conflicting rules.

The problem with changing things for balance is that we have no idea what GW's plan is. For instance, GW releases the new wraithknight and everyone thinks the sky is falling, and tournaments alter the way ranged D works in a kneejerk reaction. Then every subsequent codex is given ways to reasonably deal with gargantuan creatures, whether through D weapons or Grav, and it seems somewhat silly to have altered the rule to begin with. So we end up with a system where ranged D-weapons were SUPPOSED to be a legit counter to deathstars with really good invuln saves + rerolls, but now they're not really useful against those types of units at all. The primary use of ranged D is now quickly destroying vehicles or other superheavies/GMCs. So it skews power dynamics towards deathstars being more powerful instead of making them both deadly towards each other as was the design of GW. And this is all due to the good intentions of trying to "balance" the system.

GW produces too many books for a third party to try to make balance changes. GW is changing their game every week or 2. By the time you hold a vote and publish the results, GW has already changed the game again.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

The problem with changing things for balance is that we have no idea what GW's plan is.

GW's plan is to sell models. It's very clear they have absolutely no clue and no plan with regard to creating balanced rules themselves so if someone else wants to do so then fine.

Count Adhemar wrote:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

The problem with changing things for balance is that we have no idea what GW's plan is.

GW's plan is to sell models. It's very clear they have absolutely no clue and no plan with regard to creating balanced rules themselves so if someone else wants to do so then fine.

Then they should re write the rules and try and come up with a balanced system, not cherry pick what they do and don't like whilst paying little more than lip service to the requirment of balance. This is why I don't like the ITC.

Count Adhemar wrote:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

The problem with changing things for balance is that we have no idea what GW's plan is.

GW's plan is to sell models. It's very clear they have absolutely no clue and no plan with regard to creating balanced rules themselves so if someone else wants to do so then fine.

I agree that they have a poor track record, but if you look at 40k as a whole, excepting the angels of death release, all of the modern codices since necrons/eldar have been fairly balanced against each other, creating what appeared to be the intended climate for the game going forward with the new CEO.

I don't know what was up with the angels of death psychic powers. Maybe we'll start seeing supplements like that for non-space marine factions as well. That'd be in keeping pace with the previous situation where they released what appeared to be extremely OP necrons/eldar, only to follow up with books that tied it all together fairly well. And that's sort of my point. If we decide we want to change half the space marine psychic powers because right now they seem out of place, it makes it even more work on us to deal and try to rebalance with next month when they release a similar book that includes a slew of new eldar psychic powers, and DE arcane wargear.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

The problem with changing things for balance is that we have no idea what GW's plan is.

GW's plan is to sell models. It's very clear they have absolutely no clue and no plan with regard to creating balanced rules themselves so if someone else wants to do so then fine.

I agree that they have a poor track record, but if you look at 40k as a whole, excepting the angels of death release, all of the modern codices since necrons/eldar have been fairly balanced against each other, creating what appeared to be the intended climate for the game going forward with the new CEO.

I don't know what was up with the angels of death psychic powers. Maybe we'll start seeing supplements like that for non-space marine factions as well. That'd be in keeping pace with the previous situation where they released what appeared to be extremely OP necrons/eldar, only to follow up with books that tied it all together fairly well. And that's sort of my point. If we decide we want to change half the space marine psychic powers because right now they seem out of place, it makes it even more work on us to deal and try to rebalance with next month when they release a similar book that includes a slew of new eldar psychic powers, and DE arcane wargear.

And yet, if you play 40K 'out of the box' so to speak, with no rules changes, clarifications etc then you end up with an almost unplayable mess with no semblance of balance. You agree that GW have a poor track record but if you look at the ITC when it comes to actual changes to the rules, in most cases I'd say they have done the job. To be honest, I think they have a much better idea of how to balance the game than GW does!

Count Adhemar wrote:

And yet, if you play 40K 'out of the box' so to speak, with no rules changes, clarifications etc then you end up with an almost unplayable mess with no semblance of balance. You agree that GW have a poor track record but if you look at the ITC when it comes to actual changes to the rules, in most cases I'd say they have done the job. To be honest, I think they have a much better idea of how to balance the game than GW does!

The core rulebook is responsible for a pretty massive part of that problem, and it was created under the old CEO. I actually don't think most of the newer codices have had many rules conflicts or things that didn't work, other than the forgeworld books.

"Newer codexes" since when?

How many "rules conundrums" are actual conundrums caused by contradictory wording and how many are people trying to skew something to their advantage. Yes both exist, yes GW doesn't write the most air tight rules, but I am 100% confident in saying the latter outweighs the former and it's time we as a community start accepting some of the blame here. Let's be real, we pretend GW doesn't care about their rules but what we mean is GW doesn't have the money to hire an amount of people to spend an amount of time trying to fix the rules equal to the amount of people spending an amount of time actively trying to break them.

Did gw make it possible to bring 11 riptides? Yeah they did. Oops. Did they make them do it. No.

Personal responsibility. The Internet spends every second of every day trying to break the rules..how on earth could you honestly expect any company to keep up in that arms race?

You can't. But a competitive event needs a rules body to do so. Since GW refuses to take that responsibility, someone else has to.