Follow this link to cast your vote!
Sorry we’re a day late! We lost a day getting back form Vegas after our LVO prep trip, so the poll is coming out a bit late, sorry for that. Please listen to the attached podcast for additional information on the poll questions. Thanks for voting and participating in the ITC!
We require your email and name for voter verification purposes, that information will not be shared with any third parties. The poll runs through Sunday, June 26th.
And as a reminder, Las Vegas Open 2017 registration opens on July 1st, so mark your calendars!
Buckle up kids this is going to be a big one!
However this shakes out thanks for putting in the time and effort to make it happen and try not to focus too much on the haters.
The only thing I am nervous about is what will happen if future gw FAQ will clash with votes from the polls and all future polls
Then it’ll get changed in the next voting after BAO. For now we can’t wait on GW’s faq release timeline for clarifications this close to a major tournament. People need to practice!
Will it be in effect for Bay Area Open?
The poll results will be in effect for BAO, and the draft will be finalized by August if they keep releasing a draft every week, so the draft will probably not be finalized before BAO.
So excited about this one!
Huge vote this time around, who knows what it’ll look like on the other side?
SOON (TM)
Tonight. You.
As a humble guardsmen I really hope they don’t un-nerf the grenade clarification.
It makes my tanks and sentinels that little bit more survivable in a land of HPs!
I would much rather my Guardsmen be able to toss five Meltabombs at a Knight or fifty Krak Grenades at a Dreadnought than have a Leman Russ be marginally more survivable (since Marines can still S4 punch many of them to death.)
^This! I’d much rather be able to have my sergeants melta bomb a Knight than worry about krak grenades against Sentinels. My tanks die to shooting anyway, not grenades. Deep-striking melta or Death Stars kill way more tanks than massed krak grenades. With Knights in the meta, multiple grenades are a lifeline for many armies.
Regardless of now or later it’s happening so might as well just accept it or force a change in the rules through the ITC on something marginal and unneeded to be changed.
“People don’t like change. But make the change fast enough and you go from one type of normal to another.”
There was zero RAW support for more than 1 grenade from any 1 unit in any 1 phase. The rules were super clear, 1 model from 1 unit can throw 1 grenade in 1 phase. They said it over and over again.
Saying they could throw more than 1 grenade ever was just house-ruling because people wanted to think that buying grenades at 2pts a unit meant they could all throw it. It really meant that every model could be the 1 model that could throw in 1 phase.
Yeah I don’t get the multiple grenade argument. Going against the rules aside, a group of rank and file soldiers should NOT be able to take down a freakin’ Imperial Knight in the game.
Except that for many it was clear that throwing was range specific. You would not throw a grenade at something you are in melee with. And what about melta bombs which can’t be used or thrown in the shooting phase? Units with more than one melta bomb are clearly designed to be able to use more than one at a time in melee. That is their specific role in the game. The real problem everyone is having is with Krak grenades. Most units can only have one haywire or melta bomb with a few exceptions of units clearly designated for this role. If imperials could not have Krak grenades universally, or if Krak grenades were limited to one in cc, then there really would be no need to limit everything to one.
If you wouldn’t “throw a grenade at something you are in melee with” then how would you deliver it? Handing it to the walker you’re trying to destroy would surely result in the deliverer dying a horrible death. A pistol doubles as a close combat weapon, because you can “shoot” it in melee (unless we’re talking about chaos zombies, and then it’s just a club). To say that something was “clear” for “many” is also saying that it was unclear, or understood differently, by all of the other people not accounted for in “many.” Therefore not “clear” at all.
Oh so that’s why we always threw donut charges at door knobs instead of hanging them on the knob /sarcasm
If you’re in combat with a big armored (or fleshy) thing, are you going to throw your grenade a couple of inches and hope it doesn’t bounce back in your face? Or are you going to secure it in a weak point and move around to a spot where the target will shield you from the blast?
If that’s true about pistols, why is Cypher the only model who can shoot his weapons in CC? And why don’t we get the S and Ap of the weapon on our attacks? Simple, you’re pistol whipping the other dude.
@punchdub: The Grenades Section specifically describes some varieties, including Meltabombs, as being “clamped on”, rather than “thrown”.
That’s silly. Some grenades can’t be thrown, and many can be used in lieu of a melee attack (i.e. not thrown). “A model can use a grenade as a melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack regardless of the number of attacks on its profile or any bonuses.” A grenade being used as a melee attack is explicitly stated as being “clamped in place to maximize effect” under the “Vehicles, Gun Emplacements, and Monstrous Creatures” heading.
“A model” not “A unit” can use a grenade as a melee weapon. Different from “Only one grenade (of any type) can be thrown by a unit per phase” which is describing a thrown grenade, not a melee attack.
Anyway, GW’s FAQ is out. I think the left hand wasn’t talking to the right and that it doesn’t stick. If it does, I hope ITC votes in a rules change. If they don’t, I will adapt.
primo-great post, agree 100%
Well it would also make dreadnoughts more survivable which is what the ITC are trying to do this time too
There’s also only a few units of guard that can capitalise on the grenade rule change any way and more people I’m sure would rather have their tank squadrons not die to 10 tac marine grenades then their blob squad or vet squad maybe take out a knight. Base troops should be relatively crappy to death machines. 1pt grenades shouldn’t be that powerful.
What meta are you guys playing in wherein your IG tanks are constantly dying to squads of krak grenade-wielding Tactical Marines? This is a new problem to me, and one I would probably avoid by simply driving away from the foot-slogging Astartes…
Simply driving away? Heavy tanks can only move 6″ a turn period. The only exception is the Command Squads which if the order goes off is 6+D6″ and then they can’t shoot.
Where as grenade wielding infantry can move up to 18″ potentially if they want to assault something, not to mention bikes.
oh baby, oh baby
Maybe my Tempestus will stand a better chance amidst a sea of deathstars.
With the nerf to Super Friends coming via GW I implore all SM, or equivalent chapters, to think carefully about not nerfing Electro-displacement.
People keep saying that losing Chapter Tactics conferring is a nerf… it is, but it really doesn’t change too much considering you still get Hit & Run from the Ravenwing Command Squad.
It limits Hit & Run once the star is broken up, but I don’t think that’s really the scenario that people are super concerned about.
TL;DR – Nothing changes in terms of how the star works, it’s just fewer models you need to kill in order to remove Hit & Run.
Super friends haven’t been nerfed as stated many times hit and run with dark angels and Thunderwolves still exist.
Regardless of Superfriends is nerfed or not this still doesn’t change the fact electro displacement is a broken power. However I would rather have a cleaner rule than he ITC recommended version. Just make electrodisplacement units behave as if they just arrived via reserves.
Nah, Electro-displacement is still insane. You really shouldn’t be able to get an effective charge range of 37-48″ on a deathstar that can easily be 1300 points worth of dudes.
A vote for RAW Electro-displacement is a vote against continued Tau and Eldar dominance. 😉
Just sayin…
Yes, all those wins of huge tournaments like NOVA and LVO and Adepticon that Tau have…
Oh, I’m sorry, what’s that? Tau haven’t actually won any major events yet in 7th edition? Good to know, I’ll pass it along to everyone else.
(Also, replacing one monodominant list with another is not really an improvement. And a format that is essentially “deathstar or go home” sounds like basically the worst possible game.)
No, the problem is Tau players are all bad. 😛
Hey now, you gotta give the French Commie a little credit for that whole Major Event thing at the Storm.
Lowercase-m major, not Major. Jeremy (as well as Frankie and others) has won Major events with Tau lists, but no one has won any national-level events (i.e. 3day plus stuff) with them in a long, long time.
Any word on whether you guys will be doing a podcast looking at the Dark Angels FAQ that just came out? No biggie if not, nothing huge from what I can see, fairly standard clarifications (sadly no erata for Ravenwing hit and run to not pass on to allies, that was a bit of a stretch I suppose)
Trend seems to be that they will 😀 Only thing that jumped out at me as crazy was the FOURTH different ruling on how FNP works with unsaved wound mechanics… starting to lose faith pretty quickly that these FAQs are much better than what we’ve already got in terms of clarity and consistency.
Looking at the FAQs and from what I can see seems consistent in that if you pass a feel no pain save the wound counts as saved.
The other FAQs they released have determined that they are resolved based on player turn (RAW), simultaneously, or both are negated XD
Yeah the fourth different FNP / RP ruling is just plan dumb. I also noticed that DA keep BS 2 overwatch against Invis. which is not normally a problem (as the power just says hit on 6+) but in the ITC version (BS 1) it does let them hit on 5’s in overwatch.
To be fair, this ruling is in line with the ruling in the BRB FAQ that a saved fnp wound is counted as saved for all purposes. The other ones are out of line 😛
We will, yes, we just wanted to give it a little space from this whopper.
Ah the Shadow Field one you mean, missed that, people are calling that out in the comments so hopefully it’s picked up on as it seems to be the only one out of sync. Guess we’ll have to wait and see if the draft system works 😉
I thought the Shadow Field one was because that triggered on a “Failed Save”, not an “Unsaved Wound”, and there’s some significant room between those two points, precisely because of FNP and such.
Reanimation Protocols and Feel No Pain both explicitly specify that passing their roll means that the model counts as having saved the wound, I believe.
Would be great to see the rules in question quoted for these votes. For a lot of these, especially things like corruption or reckless abandon, it’s unlikely that people know the exact wording offhand or own the books.
Have a bit of an issue with the daemonic corruption question. I’m not a fan of it being limited to only the movement phase, as implied by the options, but also don’t think magic flyovers are a thing either.
IMO it should be claimed at the end of any phase
We can easily clarify that. Funny, none of the proof readers spotted that one but that is an easy fix.
I voted.
Where do I get my official ITC “I voted today” sticker?
Haha
So does accepting the current faq remove some old ITC rulings like blasts and choosing the level it hits?
I presume so
Not that I think that particular change will matter much however I may be missing some changes that may be worse.
I voted for mostly (sorry electro displacement) allow everything this time. GW is changing stuff so fast rules wise I don’t think ITC can keep up with just a quarterly update. And most of GW rulings have been conservative.
No they said the GW rules clarifications do not override the ITC rules changes.
We address those issues and more in the associated podcast =)
Agh people might not think I’m working if I’m listening to podcasts with my headphones on 🙂
Also some people have hearing or auditory processing disorders that make podcasts difficult for them to to get info from.
I’d rather the faq explanation on blasts be used. There are very few instances where such artillery or other blasts would be much of an issue. Thunder fire cannons would be one of the biggest concerns and even those I don’t think warrants much of a change to blasts.
Barrage Weapons in general feel like they work better with the current ITC Rules to me, but even more so, far more so, for TFC and Wyverns.
Ya but I don’t think blasts is an issue that warrants a major change from the rules.
2+ reroll
Roll of 6 on str d
Invis changes
Those are the type of things that warrants changes.
A blast hitting multiple levels in ruins not so much an issue considering most artillery isn’t really competitve.
My only thought is the question should bombers and attack fighters lose skyfire. Given a choice I would have said bombers lose skyfire, and attack bombers suffer the -1.
That’s just me though.
Yeah. Screw Orks and Dark Eldar. Am I Right?
In some ways, that seems reasonable, but on the other hand, the Bombers are already pretty much all the worst Flyers in their respective Factions, and really don’t need any more nerfs.
Two thing I noticed right away. The way it is worded right now demons in a demonic incursion could not run/turbo boast/ flat out to claim an objective as that happens in the shooting phase. Needs to be something like,…. claim an objective by ending a phase with model within 3” or can claim any object they moved within 3” of at anytime during a phase.
Also, you mentioned that ruins should not block movement on a Signals episode, as an item that needs a vote, so I thought it would be on this poll. Please include a question worded something like, should ITC follow the GW FAQ regarding ruins block movement, if yes then movement only through gaps, doors or over the wall. If no then treat ruins as ITC does now.
The Daemonic incursion one is an easy fix, none of us caught that during proof reading.
We decided to leave terrain questions to TOs, as that is the way it has always been handled via player packs, etc.
Cool. Thanks for the swift reply Reece.
We still haven’t voted on the issues surrounding a Skatach Wraithknight. How far does it shunt move? Can it move out of CC? Why do we allow the double hellstorm variant?
Theses things show up at every event, and every event rules them differently. Why can’t we standardize?
That whole book needs some clarifications. So many discrepancies and the like.
Reese, love the “sometimes” Mon and Fri pod cast comment. Touché!
I voted, I like the very fair nerfs to the space marine powers, I think that’s way preferable to banning them all. Phase Form is my best answer against interceptor which dominates my local shop. The only one I think is understandable to ban is the terrain moving one, I understand that TOs don’t want people to break their terrain and people don’t want models being picked up and moved like that.
As far as the Void Shield Generator goes, of course I’m biased but I do think Grav should be able to effect it like GW says. Just on the fact Wraithknights, Riptides, etc. can still hide in these things, it’s not just for the weaker armies. The VSG has the potential (and I’ve played against this) to be an impenetrable fortress of doom with incredible shooting out of it, considering it’s such a cheap auto include in so many lists, I just don’t think it needs to be made stronger than what GW says. The fact that it regenerates at least 1 shield per turn mathematically if you manage to destroy all 3 is powerful all game long, whereas whatever firepower I bring to affect the VSG doesn’t last all game long with the kind of firepower Tau and Eldar can put out of these things.
It still has the potential to block a good amount of the wounds, making a Grav Alpha strike noticeably weaker than it usually is, but then they won’t actually be useless against things that will blow it off the table next turn.
I would even promote a compromise, Grav is snap shooting against void shields AND is only destroying on 6 still. I think that’s better than just saying it doesn’t effect it.
I’m against immunity pretty much all around the board where it doesn’t make sense, I like that you ruled flamers can effect invisible units, I like that there’s no 1+ FNP, etc.
But at the end of the day, it’s okay if the VSG is still blocking Grav since letting melta effect it does already help me considering that’s also part of a good alpha strike. I’m just throwing my personal experience is that VSGs in the previous state haven’t made the game balanced, it’s actually prevented me from having much of a chance against certain lists. But regardless, I’ll adjust either way, and I think the meta will adjust either way, so I feel like the less changes to what GW wants to do, the better.
I agree with most of what you said. To be fair though, the only armies that can take grav are not really “struggling” right now. What I personally don’t like is that a battle company has no reason to play anything besides grav if it can affect VSG, and I play grav spamming battle company. Currently I included a command squad with meltas in a drop pod, but if the grav change stays I will definitely drop it for…probably more grav cannons quite frankly. I am fine with melta and gauss working on it, but I just think it being a counter to grav is an okay thing right now.
Yeah I don’t mean to give off the impression that Space Marines are struggling overall, I’m just not a huge fan of “My list prevents your list from doing anything” situations on otherwise viable lists.
But the nice thing about Space Marines is that I can adjust, it’s just in my experience 75% of the players I play against are Tau/Eldar and using crazy strong combos that are hard to overcome even though I’m sure Space Marines are dominating elsewhere.
Funny I think VSG’s should be immune to grav and melta (while an intense energy, not anything new under the sun) but not gauss (that is some messed up s**t right there)) and haywire (bringing down energy networks is sorta what it does). Also the unit would have to be whole within 12″ (or is it models within 12″)to be protected if we go the GW FAQ route correct?
Yeah with the new GW ruling they’d have to be wholly with 12″, but the units I’m talking about hardly move around the table anyways and are still able to shoot you off the table (heck some have line of sight ignoring weapons)
I just don’t think giving the most powerful units in the game an improved strong regenerating fortress (an almost more literal version of the death star) helps the game.
Saying they’re in essentially an AV12, 3 HP tank with It will not die, that they can all shoot out of is already strong without immunity on grav, melta, guass or haywire.
*a better version of it will not die, they can regenerate all 3 at the same time.
As a Nid player I really would have liked to have seen a question along the lines of…
If the ITC adopts the First Draft FAQ, should we keep the ruling that Flying Monstrous Creatures do not get area cover regardless of what flight mode they’re in?
Yes, keep it as is
No, change it so that FMCs get area cover when in Glidng mode.
I can see that as a Tyranid player.
Any chance you could see that as a general player of the game, or the fact that their answer didn’t match the question? The inability to claim area cover when on the ground just seems inconsistent and pretty much puts Nids in the trash bin. Flyrants coming down to score or getting alpha-ed off the table is already challenging, this just takes it to 11.
I think that one should be obvious, and probably doesn’t need a vote, just added to the ITC FAQ.
On the other hand, I’ve never met someone that thinks the ITC FAQ that Imperial Knights and Stompas can go to upper levels of terrain while Wraithknights can’t is correct, and more than a year later it is still written into the FAQ.
So apparently Obvious doesn’t come into it.
Pretty sure that Jump models (as well as Jetpacks, Jetbikes, and Skimmers) have a specific exception that allows them to move into the upper levels of terrain.
Not according to the ITC FAQ (Ruins Section, Page 8):
“For ease of tournament play, at this event, Gargantuan Creatures, Super-heavy Vehicles, and other Vehicles that do not have the Walker or Skimmer type may not move/be deployed onto an upper level of a ruin.”
Gargantuan creatures are banned, but Stompas aren’t because they are Walkers. This was in there when I was playing my Barbed Heirodule, and used against me in tournament play by a Knight Player and a Necron Obelisk.
I’ve also seen it used against Wraithknight players many times. When I play a Stompa against a Wraithknight I always tell my opponent to ignore that FAQ item, because it is silly, but it has been silly since 2014 and hasn’t changed.
It is pretty hilarious that a Wraithknight that is twice as tall as a building can’t climb up it but a 3 inch tall walker can. Must be using the elevator because we both know those stubby little legs aren’t climbing up any building.
Was hoping to see the +2 attacks to dreadnoughts in here. Guess we have to wait.
I believe that’s part of accepting the GW FAQ.
GW made that an official errata already, not just a draft.
That’s an official final GW ruling, so tournaments probably should allow it by default.
There was nothing to vote on =)
Vote to shoot it down. DREADNOUGHTS CAN GO TO HELL.
>:(
lol
legit chuckle.
full force “D”-readnoughts! I hope that they will soon extend this over to their chaos counterparts. Maulerfiends would be quite fun at that point.
I can’t believe that you guys preemptively nerfed reckless abandon earlier this year. It is not as big of a deal as you suggest, you can always not shoot if you want to guarantee an assault. It’s like saying space marine bikes can’t jink because they are often part of a Death Star.
As I understand it, reckless abandon allows the unit of bikers to shoot overwatch and then move. It has nothing to do with being shot at, but rather that they can fall back before the fight starts.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
You are thinking of the warp spider rule. Reckless abandon allows a unit to shoot and then move away, including overwatch. I believe jetbikes get 2d6+6 inches, which means, even if you are 1 inch away on the charge and roll box cars you will not be able to successfully charge a jetbike unit that rolls average dice (7+6=13).
Jetbike get 6+d6. The ITC rule would just make it a flat 6 for bikes. And probably a d6 for non bikes
They get it if you shoot them or not, my friend, it’s after they shoot.
I think i voted to fast, is there any chance of changing ones vote? I voted for VSG to be immune to everything but after reconsidering I want Gauss to work on it. I don’t want grav to work on it because the army that uses grav already have the upper hand against most armies and is a top tier codex, if not the best after angels of death. Don’t see the reason for SMs to have more perks. Some armies realy need a way to live after first turn drops etc. Saying that you need grav to punch true the VSG for killing riptides and WK are in my opinion a poor excuse as most armies have to kill em both without grav anyway. If they have to do it so can SM.
Sorry, no altering votes once they’re cast.
The corsair reckless move poll question seems really screwy. Either keep the old nerf or halfway scale it back and also nerf everything else? Did everything else need to be nerfed? I understand the complexity of everything though.
Also I wish all the move across the map and assault powers had been put together into one packet. Right now it’s possible that like the space marine ones all stay RAW and the much less odious corsair one gets nerfed. And that would be a completely absurd outcome from this polling process.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing just the reverse. I see the SM getting nerfed (as it should ) and not the Eldar one, which is a little disagreeable. Either way it seems like GW is putting various different ways into the game to assault on the first turn.
To be fair. Corsair cannot field a deathstar melee unit. The closest thing they have is the equivalent to assault marines.
Was battle brothers starting in each others’ transports discussed as a possible question to vote on? I don’t even play any armies that make use of BB transports, but it really seems like it is only hurting weaker armies and unit combinations.
Yeah, I was surprised this one was left out of the voting. So if the FAQ is adopted, it’ll automatically come into play.
A couple things you guys maybe missed that imo need to be clarified:
Demonic Corruption: If a demon unit corrupts an objective and then is still sitting on it does an enemy unit contest that objective if they come within 3″ of it or not? Same question with objective secured thrown into the mix. I’ve had it ruled different ways at different tournaments.
What happened to a voting question to get rid of the entirety of the new Librarian powers? Honestly Veil of Time might be the worse power in there overall.
Per the rules if a model/unit is inside a vehicle they’re not considered to be on the table. So wouldn’t that be the first consideration when it comes to auras extending from vehicles? And if auras do extend from vehicles (if voted in) does that mean a model/unit embarked on a transport count as being on the table? Some examples of where this matters: an objective secured unit inside a non-objective secured transport on an objective. A librarian who is part of a conclave (is he within 12″? or not?). If they are considered to be there then would they also count as a unit on the table for purposes of units within a certain distance from the center of the table (ITC mission pts. etc)?
If the GW first draft faqs are voted in: Does a “model” have to “wholly” inside 12″ of the void shield to receive its benifit or as written in the faq: the “entire” “unit” must be within 12.” Implying that models in a unit or a single model unit can have just the tiniest piece of itself within 12″ of the void shield to receive its benefits?
That’s what I got right now, I might think of more.
Thanks
Daemonic Corruption states that the Daemon Player Controls the Objective until an Enemy Unit Controls it. Not until it gets Contested, the Enemy have to Control it to Cleanse it.
Can you quote the actual language in the rule? I’m not saying your wrong I don’t have the book and want to make sure that its clear cut. Because like I said its been ruled differently at different tournaments and its had enough controversy around it, that I feel it should be clarified.
“Objective Markers controlled by units from this detachment count as controlled for the rest of the game, even if the player has no units within 3″of them. This effect lasts until an enemy scoring unit cleanses the objective by controlling it.”
It’s pretty clear that the enemy has to _control_ the objective, not simply approach within 3″ of it.
So what if the objective is corrupted and then daemon player moves an ob sec unit onto it? If the other player moves forward to contest with their own ob sec unit, does the daemon player still control the objective as long as the daemon player’s ob sec unit is still there to contest?
The non-Daemon player still has not had a unit controlling the objective. The objective is still “corrupted” and thus still controlled by the daemon player.
The ob sec units do not have the daemonic corruption command benefit, and the daemon Decurion deal has no way to gain ob sec. This point is null.
So is it correct that an army without ob sec can never un-corrupt an objective?
Daemonic corruption states that the army claims the objective until an enemy unit cleanses said objective. Not the unit.
Ob sec states that you claim an objective, even if an enemy unit without this special rule is contesting said objective
claiming an objective is having a scoring unit within 3″ of an objective and no enemies within 3″
Contesting an objective is having a scoring or denial unit within 3″ of an objective that is currently within 3 of an enemy scoring unit.
I hope that this is clearing up the confusion.
Now for the command benefit clarification. There is no actual way to get both objective secured and daemonic corruption command benefits on the same model. The daemonic incursion has no way of gaining ob sec and non-daemonic incursion models/units have no way of gaining the command benefit to corrupt objectives.
The rules for independent characters specifically state that they can not share rules with the unit they are attached to and vice versa unless specifically stated
I understand that no single unit has both corruption and ob sec. In the example I was asking about it, the objective is first corrupted, then a 2nd unit with ob sec (allies, different detachment, whatever) then camps the objective. My understanding of this rule would be that the daemon player would continue controlling that objective until the 2nd ob sec unit (say a ton of zombies) was removed.
normal rules for contesting and controlling the objective apply. If there is a unit within 3″, ob sec or not, then you must remove all contesting models within 3″ of the objective to claim it. If the unit is not ob sec and you do have an ob sec unit that makes it within 3″ then you can claim it without having to push them off the objective. The rules for contesting and claiming an objective are very specific for how this interaction occurs, as is the ob sec rule. The Deamonic incursion’s corruption rule does not override the ability for a unit to claim the objective if it is vacant or if the unit contesting the objective is not ob sec and an enemy unit that is ob sec jumps on it.
When it comes to the drop pods section of the poll, is this counting to only the drop pods from the Space Marine codex, or is this for drop pods from space wolves and blood angels as well? I only ask cause from how some are talking about this is almost as if it is any drop pod no matter which codex, but since it came out for the codex space marines FAQ, I am a bit confused.
Drop pods are drop pods, it’ll affect all of them if that ruling goes through.
Yes, but Dreadnoughts are Dreadnoughts but it took a specific FAQ and then Errata to get them to be the same as the ones from the SM Codex.
The difference is that it is referring to the specific dreadnought profiles. The drop pod ruling has nothing to do with the profiles (SM Drop Pod, SW Drop Pod, etc.) but the physical, plastic model itself.
Are we ever going to get a revote on the Tau Hunter Contingent? It’s been quite some time since the new book and the near-immediate nerfing, and all we’ve seen happen is a continued consolidation towards Pacific Rim lists, away from any real variety at all. Even then, those lists generally *might* break top ten, if even that high, and that’s usually because there’s something else in the mix too.
I think the idea is to wait for the Tau FAQ, since the hunter contigent vote was born out of an obscure GW rule that the ITC needed to have clarified. (Please don’t bother arguing it’s clarity) I mean if the ITC adopts the GW FAQ then the ITC will most likely go with whatever GW says on the rule.
^This. GW will likely definitively answer how the rule is intended to be interpreted.
I’ve never voted in an ITC poll before. When it comes to things like the Warp Tunnel vote, what stops everyone from voting to screw the minority army? (Virtually no one plays Corsairs, so it’s in the best interest of the vast majority to nerf the power, regardless of what they think is fair, yeah?)
Ask us Ork players who were gifted with a cheap stompa by the community.
Ask the Eldar players who didn’t get nerfed scat bikes.
+1
The question for electrostatic was not a neutral question at all. Very sad about that. The terrain moving power can allow for similar things to happen. we didn’t see a nerf to that saying you can’t charge out of it.
I agree the power needs to be nerfed but not to the extent that you did. The power doesn’t even behave close to the intended design. just making the teleport and charge part of the power would have made since. But the nerf to the second power was unneeded..
Also the Eldar power does something similar and you are asking it to see if people can use it as well. It does set a double standard..
Sad to see no vote on a nerf to the Conclave which makes a issue for the powers we are talking about. You yourself said the Conclave is what makes the power bad. With out it the power is manageable.
The conclave should have been addressed instead.
Conclave was nerfed by GW faqs.
And the podcast addresses electrodisplacement nerf and eve made it more usable then the current recommended change by allowing it to work in and out of combat. The only change is that it works as if you had a no scatter deepstrike that can save other units that are locked in combat which is still a powerful power even if you can’t teleport across the board and charge whatever you like.
The GW FAQ. Just made it inline what we where doing in the ITC already. It is not a nerf. Getting a couple powers T hat are WC 2 or 3 with with 6 dice is crazy. Getting powers off on a 2+ is crazy good.
Honestly how does swapping a unit in to combat be game breaking. It makes no since to nerf that part of the power.
Pinpoint deep strike can happen now and no one does that it is a bad idea too to with assualt units. Having assult units able to move around is very use full. Mass shooting armies that are mobile can just run away and shoot you all game.
I don’t think there is any problem with swapping units in combat as that takes setting up a charge and surviving a turn and then switching that unit with another unit.
I do have issues with switching a unit across the board with an enemy unit and then just charging anything you want. That’s just completely broken.
But the nerfed the swapping units in combat too.
I voted today!
Thank you Reece and Frankie for all you do for our community. Reading through the thread, I havent seen much on how people are leaning regarding DftS? I suspect that pods are a “duh” vote. Just curious, do stick bombs count as kraks?
Stikkbombz are frag grenades. which is funny as a mostly assault army like orks only gets them in specific squads and not generically on boyz.
pretty sure all boys have them actually. It’s one of the few things that makes sense.
Warbikers are the only ones I’m aware of that don’t. Pretty sure that Kommandos didn’t used to, but they do now.
I’m worried about the corsair spell vote since most people will have not read the actual spell. The wording in the vote makes it sound worse than it is. My first thought when I read the poll was damn can I use that to throw a wraith knight across the board. That sounds absurd. The actual spell is not that absurd as it can already only be used on corsair faction units. This vote just makes it so you cannot cast it on mixed faction units.
I’m struggling to see any overpowered combo involving this. Neither eldar or dark eldar have amazing assault units. Throwing banshees, scorpions, incubi, or wyches across the board hardly sounds overpowered. Eldar have some very scary shooty units that you could send across the board like wraithguard, and firedragons. Teleporting them without scatter is scary. But eldar already have the ability to do that in their own codex. Gate of infinity+baharroth, or gate+archon both already exist, and I don’t think this corsair version is any better.
I agree. The rule only allows you to use it on non-Corsairs if the Void Dreamer is in their unit, and the number of things you can do with this is limited (and not egregiously overpowered). Grotesques or a Seer Council are the nastiest things I could see you linking up with, but I don’t think either are so heinous as to justify house ruling the power. (Personally.)
Harlequins are actually one of the strongest things you can use it on, although I’ve seen other tricks as well. However, I don’t think that only allowing it to affect Corsairs is unreasonable, since using it on non-Corsair units is largely an outfall of GW’s FAQ on the subject.
I can’t vote. Why do I need a google account to be allowed to vote?
Reece – why on earth is the warp tunnel power on this list? There’s no power combo here anywhere near comparable to SM death star portaling…
When will the poll results be released? Cant wait!