The people have spoken! Listen up for the ITC poll results and commentary on them. Thanks as always for your participation in shaping your 40k experience.
See the original poll questions and answers, here. The questions and answers listed here have been shortened for brevity.
The following Death from the Skies questions are moot due to the result of the above question. They are included here for the sake of completion.
The bellow question is moot due to the result of the above, it is included here for the sake of completion.
The following GW FAQ questions are moot due to the result of the above question. They are included here for completion’s sake.
The grenade vote surprised me, as I didn’t think it would be so close. Otherwise, I seem to have the pulse of the rest of the ITC membership (which is some sort of self congratulatory pat on the back, that is, I’m full of myself).
I’m glad that went through. From all the talks during Signals from the Frontline, it seemed like it was going to be reverted. I was pleasantly surprised that it’s staying per the draft FAQ.
Well, as we’re not using the GW draft FAQ yet, it is a moot question, but I was surprised, too, as from the community reaction it seemed like it would be a blowout to overturn that one.
Ah thought it was being picked out. Nevermind then!
I just never understood why a group of regular troops should be able to blow up a knight in assault. =/
So at BAO, can my 5 Rustalkers throw 5 haywire grenades in the shooting phase … and then throw another 5 haywire grenades in the assault phase? That is baffling in light of the “1 model throws” language in the LRB.
At the BAO you can throw 1 and use as many as you have in melee, the same was it has been played in the ITC previously.
Can’t help but feel that misunderstandings like this are what skew the results. How many people who voted against allowing infinite grenades in melee, as the game has been played for years, all because they thought it also meant you could chuck as many as you wanted to as well, even though that was never in contention?
Why would anyone think the question had anything to do with the shooting phase? It’s not mentioned and the assault phase is mentioned, specifically.
You should really read the rulebook’s sections on grenades. One model my throw a grenade in the shooting phase as their shooting attack; a model armed with certain types of grenades may use them to make a single melee attack with it. The rulebook even describes that the troops are fixing them into joints, cracks in their opponent. Units armed with things like melta bombs are specifically tasked with affixing them to things like Knights, tanks, carnifexes, etc. So if an Imperial Guard commander believes he’ll be facing Knights, he could choose to arm them with melta bombs so when the Knight charges their ranks, they can deftly dodge its stomps and affix the melta bombs to its legs. Maybe even climb up it and stick one on he power plant.
When you watched “Saving Private Ryan” did you say is doesn’t make sense that infantrymen can walk up to a tank and affix a “sticky bomb” to it and successfully mobilize it? Because that’s real life.
Well, VSG got completely shafted with the Grav rule affecting it in ITC, and it just makes Gladius even stronger.
Suprised people didn’t allow Walkers to change immobilize to weapon destroyed either. Kicking the Dreadnough hobo while it’s down, indeed.
Since we aren’t using the draft until it’s final, at least allied taxi service is still good to go.
No death from the skies will make things a lot simpler. Toning down the psychic powers will be great as well.
Some surprising results but overall seems to have gone as expected.
What is depressing is that apparently no one remembers that the vsg is the only anti grav in the game. Now it is next to worthless lol. Good job guys, taking out a balancing factor.
6+/- armour saves do pretty well against it, too. As do cover saves, invul saves, etc…
Void Shields, with the previous ruling, added a major force multiplier to already top tier armies/lists that was not needed.
yet instead its marines flush with grav that dosnt need the bonus yet gets it. I cant remember the lastime i saw a plasma gun or melta gun in my meta, and i dont blame people when one gun type can kill everything in the game, why bring specialist guns.
Yeah, that is the issue with Grav, it’s simply too much better than everything else.
They are needed for alpha strike armies that just set you up for auto-lose scenarios. I think everyone can agree that grav is way too strong right now. 6+ armor saves will die to everything anyway, you don’t need grav for that. It was doing a great job of punishing grav spamming marine armies.
All this ruling does is make grav stronger, it is not doing anything to stop it being used as a force multiplier like you’re saying. You can still use it to protect against bolter level fire and it still gives you a few extra wounds. But now instead of marine armies actually having to think about other weapons to bring, they don’t even need to think twice.
because these top tier armys are worried about bolter level fire…
Agreed.
Grav isnt that bad, people need to get over themselves when it comes to it.
Lol, get our of here, Hot Sizzle! Grav is way too much, you just like it because you use it =P
What else are we supposed to kill your ork deathstars with? 🙂
@Mythic, lol
I’ve come to learn that no matter what GK list I bring, no matter how well I play, when I pair up with any SM army with more that one or two grav weapons, I’m about to get tabled even if the dice are in my favor. Totally fair.
Not sure if serious…
Well, for the time being it works as FAQ’d in the ITC FAQ, but as soon as GW’s final draft goes through, yeah, Grav spam will be even better than it already was =/
The VSG was also just pretty insanely powerful in general when it came to people claiming it could deny just about every special rule that normally affects vehicles and buildings.
Grav shouldn’t be an excuse to keep the VSG in an unreasonably strong spot. I’m not a fan of rulings that are “sure this might make no sense at all and go against how most people feel it should be played – but it makes it OP against a really strong weapon so let’s keep it as is.”
If people think grav is OP then focus on nerfing grav, not abitrarily buffing other things.
Not to mention the real annoyances were the “one model just needs a toe in range” and already powerful MCs/GMCs getting covered by it. But some of that stuff had previously been fixed so it wasn’t necessarily a huge problem depending on where you played.
Well, the “buff” as you describe it to the VSG wasn’t an arbitrary decision, per RAW saying things didn’t work on it that explicitly worked on vehicles was accurate. Perhaps it didn’t make sense to you, which is fine, but that doesn’t mean it was objectively false.
That said, I do agree that the VSG was a bit too much as it was, however now I am of the opinion it has been weakened too much.
Maybe arbitrary wasn’t the best word to describe it, but it kind of felt like the VSG was just way too universal of a counter when, mostly per RAW, it basically stopped everything from working and it could defend just about anything.
Maybe there is some kind of happy medium that is being missed on now, but that can be the issue when polling a bunch of things at once. Like what happened here – the VSG was an issue so people overwhelmingly voted to nerf it. But when there are a million different aspects being nerfed at once, you might end up with something that went from insanely strong to very weak because people voted to nerf every facet rather than just picking and choosing the ones to leave it in a happy place.
Wait- it hasn’t changed at all right? Because we aren’t using the FAQ until finalized?
I hate the VSG as is. I’m not a big fan of grav, but without really making a nuanced rule for grav vs. VSG, I’d live with the consequences of the FAQ for this point.
Also- I’d be pretty certain the community is looking for altering of the VSG based on these results. Maybe just put forth an ITC ruling independent of the FAQ (because we could be sitting here come LVO with no final ruling on the FAQ from GW.)
Yeah, I was sad to see no love for the Dreads, too =(
I love how this ITC poll had a question that would explicitly buff walkers, to allow them to be more competitive, (This change having no rule precedent at all) and hopefully see more of this unit on the table,
BUT ALSO
has a question to not use an actual rule book (That I paid for BTW) that by in large makes units that are *never* seen in competitive play more powerful and useful. ensuring that these units will continue to never been see on the table.
IMHO, DftS should of been included by default.
Then ITC should of voted to alter its mechanics… (Dogfights, skyfire, etc)
Very close on the GW FAQ drafts. Will be interesting to see when the actual versions drop.
It looks like it will be about 2-3 months from now.
*Throws cats*
*Kicks a cactus*
*Hisses at old ladies*
……
Actually this looks pretty good. Sorry kitties.
Lol
Grav is so over-the-top at this point and with so few counters that it probably needs to be looked at for adjusting in competitive play. Other things that are less nonsense than high-volume ignores-cover Grav exploitation are getting nerfed while Grav is not only remaining intact but strengthening considerably in the context of the game.
Marines vote for Marines.
I don’t think it’s that simple, Angry Panda. Marines also get blasted by Grav! We’ll see how things unfold in the GW final draft FAQ.
I think as long as people can blast back with it, they don’t care as much. This seems like a very marine-centric result. It literally makes no sense to allow grav to affect VSG.
Agreed. The idea of taking a downside for your army just because it weakens the same army in other player’s hands isn’t realy how player’s minds work. And I’m not even sure it would make too much sense tactics wise. You still have the advantage too and against every other army you’re better of.
@Heldericht Actually, a lot of folks have argued for it to work that way. I agree that the language of the rule doesn’t support it, but many folks did feel that it should.
Oh I dont doubt that. The results speak for themselves. The question is, how many of those people are marine players using grav or players who do not rely on a VSG as part of their army?
The daisy chaining bs is certainly one thing about the vsg that needed nerfing, but this grav thing seemed like the majority voted for their own interests.
I think people want the game to stay as close to the book as possible, for sake of ease of transistion.
Yet a huge number of other questions deviated hugely from “As close to the book as possible” for some really unambiguous powers.
All the Marine Psychic Powers that were up for question got nerfed or banned. So it’s not all Marine stuff that’s getting through.
Im not sure I think its the grav rule that’s wrong. i think its the Rate of Fire. THAT is really the problem (IMO)
Yep. And the fact that they’re so readily available on Relentless/S&P platforms that negate the penalties of Salvo.
I wonder what would happen if the relentless and S&P rule took salvo out of the list of things they can move and fire at full range/BS. Would that be enough to balance grav? I’ve seen it some on non-relentless units but it’s definitely a lot weaker.
Of course you run into the problem of that being a nerf to relentless & salvo across the board when grav is the only salvo that’s a problem. But there really aren’t a ton of other salvo weapons out there anyway.
I kind of want Salvo to change completely, so it fits its description as “Rapid Fire, but more”. Larger number out to half range, smaller number from there to full range, regardless of whether or not you Moved. Need to be Relentless to Charge after.
Grav is not that great against vehicles (just work out the math, the average hullpoints isn’t that high when it only glances on a 6 – even with the extra HP from subsequent immobilized results).
But it’s got such a high rate of fire and it is so dang good against non-vehicles that is can be pretty absurd. It’s basically the only weapon in the game that gets better the tougher a target is (save-wise). That’s just not how things usually work.
Like Westrider said, the fact you can put such a high shot count weapon on relentless/S&P units makes it really strong. Salvo weapons are really not that good on non-relentless units with half range and reduced shots… but they’re pretty insane when the unit is.
I think everyone is forgetting that a vsg is a fortification so you don’t get to reroll with a grav amp. So it’s not that broken as everyone is making it seem
Immobilizing many vehicles is as good as destroying them, though. That is the real issue with Grav vs. vehicles.
That’s definitely true. Sucks when your short range walker or a transport gets stuck in the middle of nowhere… Also I feel like grav is one of those weapons where you just hold your breath. Only working on 6s means there’s a decent chance it does nothing if there aren’t a ton of shots. But if it does work, it can be devastating. I’ve never been a fan of weapons with that kind of RNG dichotomy.
@Threllen: I’m totally with you there. Low-probability, big effect is one of the worst ways of balancing something in a system involving randomness. A bunch of 40K really suffers from that, actually. Stomps, Psychic Powers that are supposed to be rare, but are easy to fish for with a Conclave or whatever, D-Weapons, all that jazz.
Part of the issue with Grav is that nobody plays it RAW. By RAW you have to reroll the entire 1st result if you use the Grav-Amp. Successes along with failures.
If we played Grav RAW we would have less problems with it.
That is a very skewed and convoluted way of reading the rule. You dont reroll succesful results for twin linked do you?
Nope, you reroll “Failed to hit rolls”. Which is very, very different from rerolling “the Result”
You are forgetting that you technically roll one dice at a time. Fast Dice is just an option the rulebook gives us for speeding up the game.
Grav is overpowered because GW has always had relatively poor design with High toughness targets usually having high armor saves, and so many weapons being STR 7 or higher, so as to make relative toughness differences from 3 to 6 largely moot.
In a perfect world, some models would be high armor, some would be high toughness, some would be high wounds, and some would have a nice combination of 2 or even all 3. Then a weapon like grav would really have some trade-offs.
But heck, as it is they even gave wraiths a 3+ armor save… for reasons… and to make sure grav works, lol!
The other issue is that, between the RoF and the Amps, Grav generally ends up being better than the other available options even as far down as a 5+ Sv. It’s only against 6+ Svs on T3 or worse Units that a Heavy Bolter is better than a Grav Cannon.
I sometimes think grave should be a small blast template. The rate of fire and the Grav amps are crazy.
I deal with it, but it sure can hurt
I’m of the mind grav should be changed to heavy X where X is the lower number of shots in its salvo profile.
Don’t like grav? Play daemons!
All those beautiful VSG conversions will get left at home.
And Hawks. Swooping Hawks will take a styrofoam dirt nap until 8th edition (or the final GW FAQ, in case they swing the close vote to everyone’s grenade being good).
Yeah, and poor, poor Tankbustas. They went from incredible to awful, just like that =(
For now, it is business as usual until the GW FAQ is in final draft form.
Not awful. A Morkanaunt, that is awful. Killa Kans, those are awful. Regular Nobs, Awful. Even with the grenade nerf tankbustas are still one of the better units in the Ork Codex.
Some of that has to do with how crappy the Ork Codex is overall.
I just wish GW was satisified with how crappy it was, and didn’t see the need to nerf it more with the FAQs, and Death from the Skies, and the Orkurion that took away access to the Ghazgul relics for most Ork armies.
Wait… Does this mean ITC IS using the VSG “nerfs” or ISN’T using them? The vote determined that the new FAQ would NOT be used, so does that trump everything that came afterward in the polls?
I think so…
This means DftS and anything contained in draft FAQ are out the door.
(This includes the grenade issue and drop pod)
Basically, this means Business as usual (nothing changed) except for the modifications to the psychic powers.
Yes, all other questions about the GQ FAQ are moot as the community decided not to use any of it at this point in time.
It means it’s not used for now. But will be used assuming no changes in final draft form.
So would the aura ruling apply to
Open topped vehicles as well? If not dark eldar transports will be close to useless.
The GW FAQ is not being used in the ITC at this time, so it’s a moot point.
@ FLG events… first rule of ITC is TO’s make their own rules
😉
I got blasted on a forum for suggesting that TO’s should be brave enough to run their event with ITC as its starting point instead of its end point. Only a few changes then need be made and you’re all set. As long as the TO makes sure to advertise any changes well in advance, we’re golden.
Precisely. Create the event that your attendees want to play in.
You get blasted because no one likes the changes you want.
the person who blasted you was an idiot.
Yes, any event that wants to use the FAQ, can. We would just recommend advertising that quite clearly in advance.
So… the FW Corsairs nerf is gonna stay? but, making DA/SW/etc count as chapter tactics isn’t…
That makes 0 sense.
Why would the ruling to change DA/SW/etc. have changed? It wasn’t on the poll so there was no chance that would occur. I agree that they should count as having CTs, but if enough people don’t bring it up for it to be an issue to be voted on, it can’t possibly change. I would suggest voicing that opinion before the next vote, not after.
It’s in the GW FAQ.
Actually it’s not in the faq
No, it isn’t. Dark Angels/Space Wolves/etc… do not have Chapter Tactics. It is a rule 100% specific to Codex: Space Marines.
https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/1628732470780719/?type=3&theater
I agree Reece that they should count as CTs as well. Please count this as my voice for the next vote. 🙂
Yeah, if folks submit it through the submission form we note how often we see it and we can include that on there.
Here I am again complaining about this Squeaky Wheel philosophy of polling.
What you end up with is tackling individual exploits without much, much more popular questions getting polled. A swarm of people aren’t going to write in asking you to change it so that SH/GC’s don’t benefit from blessing and abilities like the Grimoire or Canticles, but if you poll it, you’d see lots more support for that than something specific like the Corsair’s ability to move after firing overwatch.
According to every poll ever, the Wraithknight is incorrectly costed, but you won’t get a swarm of people writing in rules questions like “Shouldn’t the Wraithknight be 100 points more?”.
The Squeaky Wheel approach is good for you as the person that has to deal with all of the feedback, but less good for the wider tournament audience. It blocks more substantial progress to improving the tournament going experience.
Rather than polling the most asked about questions, maybe we could sprinkle in the most reasonable questions as well from time to time.
We do try to do both, and catch flakk regardless, lol.
Ok, but these are questions which need to be asked, right? Deciding to use the FAQ or not (and how to use it) is a major issue. Deciding on whether a single ability interacting with a single unit type should be defines is a much smaller and niche ability.
Other questions (like to SW and DA abilities count as CT) really could use clarification, but it seems kinda lame to do that if clarifying rules might drop next week…
I may not always like the rulings, but FLG does a good job choosing what to vote on 9 times out of 10.
It was in the vote this time around… The only reason I voted to nerf Corsairs was for constancy with the nerf to Space Marines.
https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/1628732470780719/?type=3&theater
Disappointed
Sorry to hear that, but, things are fluid. The next poll is only 3 months away, friend.
If you step back, take a deep breath and look at the results…well… its clear that nothing changed on how the game is played. (Aside for the psychic power nerf)
So then we ALL agree that this game is perfect like the way it is and nothing needs to be fixed ?
The survey results are all about resisting change…
Kinda sad as this has not made ITC WH40k better… just the same.
“The survey results are all about resisting change…
Kinda sad as this has not made ITC WH40k better… just the same.”
I’d say, not quite. 🙂 It is more like the *vote* (not survey) is about keeping 40k playable (fun) as a tourney game.
GW’s FAQs are about clarification (supposed to be, anyhow).
DftS *is* something new … and just doesn’t fit in the format (time).
And remember, you and your local group can play by your own rules, including none, some or all of the ITC stuff.
Personally, I’m going to see if my local crew will go all grenade wielders. Everybody loves krak. 😉
Well, sometimes in the polls we get a lot of change, other times, we don’t. This was an instance of little change occurring.
Personally- I always vote to keep the rules as close to RAW as possible, unless I think something is game breaking or simply not clear.
I fully agree this may make the table top experience less fun, but sometimes a rule in play now as overpowered (or lame) becomes much, much better or worse as further releases evolve. And it’s so difficult to get the genie back in the bottle.
I’m pretty disappointed overall. DFTS is something that we need to get used to now. Flyers were not in need of an additional nerf by eliminating the Flyer Wing benefits. That was a significantly backwards step for organized play. Toning down the psychic powers was unnecessary as well. Shifting Worldscape is impractical, I agree, but the nerfs will only serve to make the books that need the help the most – Blood Angels, Dark Angels, GK – stay right where they are in the power scale. Most of these changes will serve to do the same – keep the current power-level status quo. It’s only super dangerous with a conclave, so why not nerf the conclave instead? We need to stop trying to cut a strand of grass by chopping it with a pickaxe. We make these sweeping changes to cut one blade of grass that’s taller than the others, but end up chopping up the turf too. Sure, the blade is cut, but the grass still isn’t even.
The nice thing about ITC is that you don’t have to use the FAQ if you don’t want to. The problem with that is that it creates more work for TO’s who are making exceptions, but it would be the same work anyways creating your own FAQ for an event off the BRB.
A big thanks to Reece and Frankie and the rest of the FLG crew for the work they’ve put into this. There’s no way to make everyone happy, but from one event planner to another, I appreciate how hard they try to make it work.
Interesting, you think that DftS make flyers better? In my personal experience, it did not. Especially as a Nid player and BA player. I saw half the flyers out there become turdballs vs my Flyrants, and my Stormravens lost one of their key functionalities (AA support) that the attack patterns did little to compensate for.
That being said, I voted to use DftS since, as you said, we’re likely going to have to implement it eventually if it gets rolled into the next BRB (unless GW let’s it rot like other game supplements).
That was my experience, too. I found it made the flyers weaker.
You threw the baby out with the bathwater on DftS. So not only are you throwing out the dogfight phase and skyfire changes, you got rid of the entire supplement, which includes changes to things like the Stormwing. (interceptor fire has to snapshoot when it comes in, also, comes in minimum 30″). Flank turns made keeping flyers on the table and firing at desirable targets much more doable. Air superiority gave potential reserve manipulation that some armies couldn’t get it outside of lucky warlord trait rolls or fortifications.
Understanding that there aren’t stats for the FW flyers, and who knows when Forgeworld will get around to making them (see 6th edition chapter tactics, and various army updates), and also knowing that GW doesn’t write its rules for FW, when do you anticipate adopting them? If they get codified into 8th ed?
I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t say “i” referring to me. I am not the itc, I am the spokesman. The community of itc participants asked for DftS to not be used, so we put up for a vote and the result is that most of those who voted did not want to use it. It was not me, it was us. I’m sorry to hear that you disagree. In time, DftS I am sure will become a part of the game as did Escalation. It just takes time and refinement of the system. People weren’t ready for it, yet.
Sorry for personalizing the response. It would have been better to say that the question and result of the polling resulting in the above things.
It does create the semi-strange situation of now having to use the older, outdated version of the stormwing formation. Also, does this mean the Stormhawk interceptor doesn’t exist now?
As a Blood Angel player, I see your point. The AA options for BA were very limited, but after playing a lot with the new rules, I found that my overall win rate with flyer lists increased. Air superiority in particular was a crucial factor. The twin linked weapons were passable enough to hit the few other flying things that I needed to hurt. Furious Charge Devastators is still a hilarious joke of a concept that I won’t adopt anytime soon.
The point I make with that is that by forcing myself to adapt to the changes, I ended up having better game results. I even used Angels Fury without DS support units just to have 3 flyers come in turn 1 in a wing formation. It was very effective and made me think outside the box.
Can I just say this? I did not find DFTS to be FUN at all. It just wasn’t worth the headache for no improvement to the game at all. That lack of fun combined with the FW ambiguity and I’d like to see it on the sideline a bit longer.
Obviously some really liked it though…
Thanks for the kind feedback, Chris. Yeah, some folks really wanted to use DftS, some really didn’t. It elicited a strong response in people both ways. I think the reason it got rejected is because it wasn’t a complete rule set, it left so many questions. I am speculating of course, but that would be my guess.
I am surprised about your position on the psychic powers, though. While yes, some of the weaker armies benefit from them a great deal what we see in practice is that the already hyper-powered armies like Deathstars, get even better and are what we see on the tables more frequently. I think it is a net negative when you look at the bigger picture to have full strength psychic powers in there.
Yeah we talked about that at length in email, but I don’t think the powers were too overwhelmingly powerful. I can agree that Death Stars are an issue, but I felt the changes too sweeping. Just my opinion.
Keep up the hard work, dude. You are appreciated 🙂
Happy to and thank you for sharing your criticisms in a mature, reasonable fashion.
I agree with Reecius that players are smart. they rapidly figure out WHAT got more powerful thanks to whatever new unit or ruling happened..and use it accordingly. So while a “weaker” army may benefit, that doesn’t erase the net null or negative effect that has ON those “weaker” forces by the stronger one being that much stronger.
The big picture for me will always be that we need to change the rules the minimum possible. Certain things (like my Militarum Tempestus) will just need to work harder perhaps to get the same results.
As long as the rules (and rulings) allow a good general to persevere with an army, i think we need to let it be. If someones entire gaming experience is so sullied by “no fun” matchups, then those are the matchups that need a little more attention.
Example: I was unable to win my last tournament because I took Militarum Tempestus. I won all my games (to be clear), but because they can’t win BY more points than the winner could, from a tournament perspective, it affected my standing… But I was still able to win all my games. As long as you can win all your games, even with Militarum Tempestus, then hey… we’re probably okay. if even that can’t happen, then I would support tweaks.
Anywho…
Yeah, a light touch is important. Minimal changes and only when necessary. Now, where that line in the sand is drawn varies but that is the philosophy.
I don’t feel like a light touch was used in regards to the changes made to corsairs. Complete elimination of their ability to use reckless abandon in overwatch paired with a nerfing of their best psychic power is anything but a light touch.
I find it hard to stomach changes like this to a psychic power that isn’t even reliable to get, when space marines get access to formations that just let them deep strike first turn and assault with 100% reliability.
I honestly would like to see the ITC move away from community voting for specific rules, towards voting for PEOPLE, who then decide the rules. A reasonable council of decision-makers chosen by the people is better than a direct democracy in this case, because the direct democracy would have to vote against their interests in order to maintain balance. I know you say they don’t vote only for their own things, and that may be true in the most blatant power issues, but where there is a very close line, as in the case of grenades.
I understand your perspective but if you look at the other powers/abilities form other factions that are similar they got the same treatment.
Also, please bear in mind the ITC is one of the only formats that even allows the Eldar Corsairs army list at all.
And yes, people vote for different reasons for different things. However, an electorate would end up doing the same thing in a smaller group than a large group of voters. It may help people to feel that their community has more of a voice when it comes to contentious issues, but I don’t think the outcome would be very different, personally.
I think it would be different so long as effort was made to ensure the electorate was composed of level-headed, logical judges who weren’t biased.
Like that grenade ruling…I don’t think that would have went that route if we were under an electorate. Every intelligent player I know opposed the 1 grenade change.
And completely revoking corsairs reckless abandon rule is absolutely heavy handed. Toning it down should have been the FIRST move, and now due to low player population(and therefore low interest in seeing it changed) it won’t be changed to something reasonable under this type of voting system. How often have you EVER seen a successful vote to UN-nerf something? Really?
It’s obvious the rule was meant to function in overwatch, as it has a 12 inch range, where things like scatterbikes will never be firing from, other than in overwatch. Reckless abandon is also a rule that was obviously meant as a counterweight to the “razors edge” leadership penalty that they all suffer, essentially making them barely ever rally if they start to flee. That’s a pretty HUGE penalty that was meant to counterbalance a positive that they no longer get. So now they’re overpriced eldar guardians with crap leadership and an option for jetpacks.
The alterations to corsairs have basically taken most of the air out of the corsair sails, eliminating what little synergy with other factions they had, leaving the faction with the very niche role of only being a cheaper, easier to field mechanism for a mask of secrets.
Wow, aside from the fact that I voted to strike down the 1st Draft FAQ, I’m shocked how often I was in the minority in this Poll. People were overwhelmingly in favor of beating the VSG in to total uselessness. Also I’m surprised to see so many people vote down the aura in vehicles or that the 1 Grenade per unit ruling was accepted. Goes to show you that you can’t assume how the majority of players feel based on vocal feedback on the internets.
Yeah, I was surprised about a lot of things, too.
Seriously, I’m surprised at the extraordinary hate towards the VSG, good lord.
I felt it was good for the meta, myself, but yeah, wow, hahaha, a lot of folks did not share that opinion.
I think people were balking at the VSG’s ubiquitous-ness not realizing how insanely ubiquitous grav is going to become. As others has said, there’s virtually no reason left not to take anything but all grav all the time.
maybe its an east coast thing but I’ve only ever seen a handful and it was never hugely game breaking. Honestly, as a daemon player, this is fantastic for me, but I don’t think its great for the game.
Seriously, as a ‘nid player I hate VSG and I hate Grav. I kinda just voted to how I thought the rules should play and less on what would make the game enjoyable… but Grav is really getting to be the thorn of this edition.
Well, only way to solve this is to give genestealers armor 3+/3++
I think I would have been okay with it only being immune to grav. I get what people say though, wraithknight and triple riptides are literally only scared of grav. Then again, its not that hard to plan accordingly and bring a few melta guns. I really liked the idea of a void shield generator its a shame it will literally never be played once all the nerfs go through.
Yeah, they will be much less common after this in all likelihood, which stinks. Alpha strike Grav armies are going to be really obnoxious.
To be fair, I feel like the FAQs on GW’s facebook have got more coverage from a wider audience than the votes here get. This is the first vote I’ve managed to hear about in time to be a part of it. Normally they’re over before I hear about them.
Chaining dudes outside of the shield across the board was the VSG equivalent of GMC toe-in-cover. It made no sense and was counter to what we have been justified in seeing as the intent of the rule. The interpretation that models outside the shield got protection was asinine. We adapted, and made it work or broke it like we do, but I think that the changes make sense.
Like someone else pointed out is that marine vote marine and it’s also the army that people play most regarding the grav. Funny that some of the people I know stating that grav isn’t powerful is the same one complaining about the OP of Eldar. Not happy regarding the votes on VSG and grenades but is still confident that the final draft will set it strait. The share number of people complaining to GW on fb hasn’t gone unnoticed. But that’s democracy, you don’t always get what you want but it’s still better than a non vote ruling imo. But these “bad” changes won’t come in affect until the final draft from GW is released?
Well, since the draft FAQ is out the door, this means that VSG is the same as it was before : immune to grav and the rest.
You’d be wrong here, as the ITC FAQ will now reflect what the GW FAQS looks like on this point.
No, we’re ignoring the GW FAQ until it is in final draft form.
I agree regarding VSG, I feel that limiting it to only units fully within 12″ makes it totally manageable while not making it useless. You can’t hide your entire backline shooting in an AV12 bubble that was fully immune to Grav, Gauss, etc, which was silly. But bringing on the full nerf, however, just means it’s gone. Buh bye. Which, obviously, most people are cool with. Power to the people and all that.
I think once folks see Grav just blasting people out of their boots they may sway back towards Grav protection. However, the point does stand that Riptides and Wraithknights under a VSG was annoying.
Wasn’t this already happening?
I distinctly remember my “fuck this game” moment, the thing that made me put up my 40k models for over a year, being a string of losses against grav spam white scars, in which 60%+ of my list died on my opponent’s turn one after his scout move.
Seriously, lists like that are anti-fun to fight, and without a VSG there’s no real counter-play beyond “bring an army that laughs at grav spam.”
Yeah, which is why I agree that the VSG blocking Grav was good =\
How bad would codex marines be without grav though?
Not that bad. They’ve got a lot of good options, but Grav is so good on Relentless platforms that it just washes out any other options.
If a few other things were nerfed as well (ScatBikes to 1/3, WraithKnight Points increase, maybe tweak Ignores Cover to -2), they’d be holding up fine.
Well, it isn’t a Marines voting for Marines result as every Marine psychic power nerf passed by a large margin =)
Apparently not everyone wants to run the hairy horde of wolves riding bigger wolves + ultrasmurf conclave. Who knew?
Yeah the level of stagnancey would make papa nurgle proud.
Why wouldn’t people generally accept the FAQS as they are and change the few people don’t like. It seemed like most were accepted by the community as good. It’s a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Though I wonder about the psy power Nerfs what they actually mean. They don’t propose what they would do instead just that they would be nerfed or removed.
The wording for the powers was in the poll (and is based on the interim FAQ rulings).
As for the FAQs, I’d rather not have the potential of the rules changing on any given day. This means there’s stability in the ITC ruling for the quarter, after which time hopefully the GW FAQs will be finalized.
Yeah, well said. This is not a permanent situation, it only means that for the next quarter things will remain largely the way they were.
This gives us time to let GW finalize the FAQ before it is absorbed into the ITC.
I somehow missed the poll this time an the link to the questions isn’t working.
What are the proposed changes to the marine powers?
So will the GW FAQ be used the second it says it is final?
Also Reece, please chalk me up for an “wow grav got even better and has gotten to the point of cutting into the fun of the game”.
Yeah, I don’t think voters were considering that when voting on the VSG rulings. Now, again, for now the VSG still functions as it has but when the GW FAQ is finalized, we’ll see Grav rise in power significantly. My hope is that when that occurs, there will be a reaction in the opposite direction. We’ll see.
I’ll add to that. Grav is way too powerful and should have some related voting in the next poll after GW faq is finalized (assuming it stays this way like it is in the draft).
I haven’t seen a good nerf proposed though. They either make it useless or (inadvertently) better.
The main issues are the number of shots at low AP compared to other special weapons, which just makes taking those other weapons largely pointless. The 2nd issue is the auto immobilize effect on 6s, which isn’t hard with the volume of shots being pumped out.
Both these things make it a way better choice.
2 possible solutions (can use one or both of these):
– Limit the number of shots to the salvo profile that counts as moving always. So 3 shots instead of 5.
– Remove auto immobilize on 6s, change to auto glance (like Gauss)
I’d personally limit the number of shots to 3.
Yeah, cutting it down to always getting the lower number of shots would be good.
Possibly just take it down to a “Stunned” result on a 6 against Vehicles instead of all the way down to a Glance. Still messes with some, but most of the ones that really hate getting Immobilized like that have some sort of protection against Stuns.
If ITC wants to be bold and “fix” grav – which is very powerful in it’s current iteration – then surgically fixing grav would be the better move. Precise changes instead of sweeping blows.
Ex: Change grav cannons to heavy from Salvo. Remove grav and combi grave as an upgrade option from bikes, or reduce the shots from salvo 2/3 to 1 shot rapid fire.
Grav has a place, as it’s used to fight the big monsters like WK’s and Riptides (insert big monster here) which need a realistic threat that doesn’t involve a bad creative decision like making a titan-suit for centurions a-la Dreadknights to fight them off.
Or, you could modify the wound mechanic. Make it based on toughness instead of armor save. T4 means wounds on 4 AP4, T5 means wounds on 5 AP 3, T6 means wounds on 2 AP2 etc.
Glancing the shields on a 6 makes sense. If that seems too powerful, then add another roll to it – say you need a 6 and then a 4+ to knock the shield down. Even from a fluff perspective, gravity has an effect on light and energy – it makes little sense to make the argument that weaponized gravity couldn’t impact the shield.
Just food for thought.
I like the idea of wounding based on base size; 25 or 32″ are wounded on 5s, 40 on 4s, 90 (or anything MC sized) on 3s or 2s. AP could be based on size as well; make it Ap5 or 4 vs infantry, 3 against large infantry, 2 against big stuff.
My goal if given the power to change Grav would be to more firmly emplace it as the “anti-monster/anti big target” gun, and make it middling or fairly weak against infantry.
You’d see more vehicles, and more MCs, if grav was a weapon sm took in small numbers, as anti-wraithknight/anti-MC tech, instead of it being the default choice everyone takes on everything.
Even then, if you don’t fix the Rate of Fire, it’s going to be good enough to be the default.
Cut it down to maybe 3 shots on cannons? Rapid fire for the regular guns?
I feel like it’s important to keep Grav threatening to wraithknights, and a lot of proposals I’ve seen for changing it over-nerf it.
Three shots on Cannon, and down to Assault 2 or Rapid Fire on the Gun would probably be good.
I also think changing the Salvo Rules to be more like the Rapid Fire Rules (larger number of shots to half range, smaller number from there to full range, regardless of movement) would help both with nerfing Grav on the Relentless platforms where it’s strongest and buffing most of the other Salvo Weapons, which by and large don’t have access to Relentless.
I would suggest a more bold rule change, and make the effect of the weapon a restriction on movement – meaning roll to hit and “wound” as you do now vs armour save (although an inverse toughness roll would be good too), and the each resulting wound makes the unit lose D3″ or D6″ movement in each phase until the end of that player’s turn, effectively holding them still. Perhaps a roll of 6 could be a wound or hull point (AP1). That’s how I see a grav mechanic effecting the game in a more unique way, rather than just another “gun”.
This is what I think GW should have done with this weapon type from the beginning.
Also remember everyone, this is a pretty important piece of text…
“The following GW FAQ questions are moot due to the result of the above question. They are included here for completion’s sake.”
So I wouldn’t get too worked up over the FAQ responses until we start seeing a final draft come through.
Yeah, exactly. This poll largely resulted in keeping things status quo for the next 3 months.
People are deluding themselves if they think any of the things they don’t like in the FAQ are going to change in the final draft. GW is looking for points that still need clarification, not game design input.
But some of their wording can be interpreted in many ways. Like the Grenades, in the faq they say one but I realy think their is a strong possibility that they will change to the way most people have played it after reading the input on their faq ruling in this regard.
They’ve actually made significant changes in some of the rulings so far, and they’ve said they would change some rulings based on comment feedback.
What rulings have they changed that weren’t typos?
You’ve said this a few times but I’ve never seen examples.
They completely reversed the “can Apothecaries take weapons” ruling. The Dreadnought ruling went from “meh do whatever” to “this is official.”
They did a 180 on several rulings. The Skyhammer could and then couldn’t do its thing with attached characters, etc. There has been a great deal of changes in the draft FAQs.
The apothecary ruling was explained to be a typo.
The dreadnought rule wasn’t a FAQ that they changed. It was a house rule that they turned into an errata making their point even more concrete.
I haven’t seen them change rulings on anything to do with sky hammer. ICs do not gain the benefits of formations or units they join. Sometimes they allow the unit to still use its ability but the IC hasn’t been allowed to. Still none of these were changed after the fact.
With the Exception of Dreadnoughts, it seems like the only changes they’ve made were typos.
Though, to be honest the number of typos is insane. Like, “We hired a guy who didn’t speak English to create our images for publication” level insane.
That isn’t to say that I don’t expect them to change things. I bet they’ll make so many changes for the final draft that we complain about them being inconsistent.
The only thing I’m sure of is that they won’t let any of the FAQ’s compromise the most important design philosophy: Eldar and Space Marines win, Dark Eldar, Orks, and IG lose.
I anticipate a number of changes in the final draft, too. They seem to be listening to player feedback on their FB page.
You should read the section on rerolls, blast weapons, and gets hot.
In the rulebook, it specifically states that you can get a reroll if you can only reroll 1’s, and that includes being BS6+.
The FAQ changed that.
The GW FAQs are more than just FAQs – they are also acting as erratas and tweaks to game design. Same with the single grenade in cc.
The only thing that needs to change with the VSG is the coverage. The Void Shield should be just like cover. If you’re standing in it (any MODEL within the 12″ bubble), then you’re covered by it. If a unit is partially in, then only the MODEL(s) actually under the bubble is (are) covered. Stringing out a unit and having ONE model with their toe within 12″ of the VSG should be able to be targeted as normal.
Yeah, I agreed with GW on that one, it should only work on models in range.
That isn’t what GW said. GW said that all models have to be in range for it to work on them. So if I’ve got 10 Marines, and 4 of them are under the shield, NONE of them are protected by it.
It also creates a problem for bigger models. Like if a Trukk is partially inside the range, the way I read GW’s FAQ they wouldn’t benefit. Though that was somewhat unclear.
I’d take your interpretation any day over GW’s FAQ. If you write that into the ITC FAQ, I might still include the Void Shield in lists from time to time.
I think the FAQ was trying to make the situation as blatant and simple as possible: either you’re under the shield or you aren’t. Because otherwise what do you do?
If 4 models are out and 6 are in, how do you roll out the hits/wounds? Do you have to roll to wound in small batches and let the other player save them because once you get to the guys under the void shield now you’re wounding/armor penetrating on an entirely different number than before. Also what happens if the hole of a template is over someone outside of the void shield but half the template is on the void shield? How does that interaction work? I do think it makes a lot of sense that the void shield would only affect the models underneath it but once you get into playing out a situation like that, things could get really slow and a little complicated.
Yes, even the FAQ was difficult to interpret in this instance.
As far as grenades go, I would love for someone to explain to this combat veteran how exactly you shoot with a grenade. Not a grenade launcher, but the grenade itself. Grenades have always been close quarters weapons. Flash Bang, Frag, White Phosphorous, Smoke, whatever = CLOSE COMBAT.
Guess now the troops will have to play rock/paper/scissors to see who gets to place the explosive device in that gaping, foul, bloody and venemous Tyranid maw.
UNITS purchase and pay for grenades in the game. UNITS should be able to use them in CLOSE COMBAT.
My one thought here is that the rulings that were made irrelevant should be throw to the bottom of the list so we can clearly see the FAQ’s we should be reading and then the ones we can ignore. Easier to read that way i think.
The grenade thing is kinda mind blowing. The number of people who thought the grenade thing should go that way could be counted on less fingers than i have on one hand (online or otherwise). yet…
It makes me wonder if they understood that question 100% completely. It’s irrelevant at this stage, but that was pretty much the only one I didn’t predict right so meh.
I am super pleased that Death From the Skies is no longer a necessary buy for me. i was holding out until this vote to see which way things would go. The hobby is expensive enough. Another book and a bunch of nerfs and an extra phase later and…yeah… Wasnt feeling it.
Glad to hear you are pleased with the direction things are going for the next 3 months.
Pretty disappointed with the results. Not having using the draft rulings feels very strange at this point. I fully understand that having the rules change just before a tournament is awful, but I feel like there has to be some kind of middle ground.
It just feels kind of wrong to continue playing with interpretations of the rules that we are nearly certain are wrong. I like the ITC when it attempts to balance things so that the game is more fun, and I like it when it makes a clear decision on unclear GW rules. Since GW has made the rules more clear though it just feels off to continue playing with rules interpretations that we know are wrong. In this case we won’t be playing different rules because they are more balanced, we will be playing different rules because we at one point thought they were correct. It feels very arbitrary.
I don’t want tournaments to have their rules change in the middle, or even leading up to them. I understand the rules are a draft and the wording might change but for the most part I don’t think the intent is likely to change much. I just think there is a middle ground somewhere that can better meet the concerns of both parties than just ignoring the one side.
The GW FAQ will be rolled into the ITC, this vote simply delays that is all.
All in all I am pleased with the results. I was never one to fight flyers when they got in the game, because flyers were not necessary to counter other flyers. Nor was I opposed to super heavies entering the game because super heavies are not necessary to counter other super heavies. But death from the skies, while it offers an interesting spin on flyers, just does not fit. Not every army has access to flyers and those that don’t find themselves at a disadvantage because of it, like reserves manipulation, where some of those armies depend on reserves. Reserves manipulation for bringing a flyer and your opponent not is the #1 reason I voted no. I don’t want a shift in the meta to where it becomes absolutely necessary to bring a flyer from your army (or ally one in) so you don’t get punished for it. Currently flyers and super heavies can be countered or even ignored with other non-flyer non-super heavy options in your army, but this makes it a change for the worse, not to mention potentially extends gameplay time.
So can we use the the new Space Marine or Ork fighter!
Yes, it is simply the DftD rule set we are not using.
Wasn’t the question “Do we wish to DFtS in the ITC – yes or no” not do we use some rules but not all, or just the formations, or just the models. Including the models or formations after blanket vote for NO, isn’t that sort of misleading?
If I am mis-remembering the question then fine, but otherwise its like the Brexit vote and the notion it wouldn’t hurt the economy…
Good questions, is it just the dogfight phase and associated rules that are gone, or everything, including the detachment, all flying formations, etc…
M
uch like SHA and Escalation, I’m sure this is just fighting change until it’s mandatory in a future edition.
ITC policy already stats all current datalsates are legal, so that didn’t need to be addressed. The questoin was just about the rules.
That was my take on DftS; we’ll be playing with something very similar to these rules when 8e comes out, might as well get it in now.
I will, however, argue that excluding escalation was the right call. DftS makes fliers a bit worse, and reserve-heavy armies a bit harder to make work. Escalation as it was originally written was going to completely fucked up the game.
And then when the rules were baked into 7th, they made D considerably less stupid. Maybe when DftS is added to 8th they’ll fix some of the glitches too.
I have no doubt that in time, DftS will be a normal part of tournament play. I think the community just was not ready for it at this point in time.
Ah okay, just a little confusing when we’re saying that DftS isn’t being used, but we can still use the flyer detachment from DftS. 🙂
The ITC already has standing policy that all current data slates are good to go, so it wasn’t necessary to specify that point. The ruling was in regards to implementing the DftS rules.
It is what it is but your question was “Do we use Death from the Skies in ITC at this time?” not do we use the rules, not formations, but basically ‘the book’
So yeah that was misleading
So what do we do with formations (they are dataslates) that use the new rules as part of them. Like fighter leaders and fighter squadrons?
The dataslate is legal but the rules it contains aren’t by this method of reasoning. Also the basic profile of all the flyers was changed. Do we use these dataslates and if so how do we use the squadron rules they require or the various special rules that rely on the new flyer rules?
So, wait, which rules is ITC not using, then? Dogfights, flyer types, Agility, Pursuit, bank turns, Attack Patterns, Air Superiority Detachments?
So does this mean that we CAN use the dataslates, formations, and detachment in the book? I think a lot of people are unclear on that.
Agreed on unclear what to do with it. Do we use the updated flyer dataslates in DftS? Does this mean the old dataslates are unusable as they are replaced in DftS? If you’re using the current dataslates from DftS, what happens to skyfire since the current dataslates define whether some units have skyfire or not. Are you using the dataslates but ignoring the combat role on the dataslates? What about the formations? What do we do with pursuit and agility stats? Use them or not? I’m assuming the blanket ‘not using DftS at this time’ would prevent the use of attack patterns as well.
Viva la Deathstars and Superguns!
meh… i was the minority in most of the questions.
I played several games with DftS, and it was alot better for the Meta. I actually had to bring a form of AA (either emplacements, guns/tanks or a aircraft(s)). I find myself with the no dogfighting phase, its just a hassle, and no fun to lose your precious flyer that took you two weeks to paint in 3 minutes.
Dumbfounded that i am so out of touch with the majority
#Netherlands #GoCheeseAndWoodenClogs!
That’s interesting. In our test games we found that DftS meant less flyers in the game, no more, which necessitated less AA.
When I used it, it really punished those lists without AA. With a solid firebase, I was beating Tau and Eldar with Blood Angels.
Let that sink in.
Admittedly anecdotal, but you never realize how much 3 ignores cover stormravens (or tank hunter) hurt until all your stuff is dead.
Oh yeah, I can totally see that. I use 3 Vultures in my AM list, with Tank Hunter and/or Ignores cover they’d be devastating. Losing Skyfire would be the pits though and if you see yourself facing other flyers/FMCs, you find yourself lacking the tools to fight back. As Vultures already wreck ground targets, I found it was a net loss in efficacy.
Again, anecdotal evidence and only pertaining to 1 flyer, but that had been our experience. As yo noted, you have to take a lot of the same flyer for the bonuses to kick in and that makes your army pretty dang one-dimensional and prone to hard counters.
Also, as soon as one of those three ‘Ravens gets killed (or breaks formation) you suddenly don’t have your bonuses anymore.
True. We found the flyer bonuses only applied to the turn the flyers came on to the table.
but you can still go into the 2 flyer formation for BS & jink bonuses to the lead flyer. And you still have the base effectiveness of the flyer itself. It’s not functionally different from most formations, once it takes casualties, it’s effectiveness drops. You can say the same about skyhammer. Once you kill off a unit or two of devastators, its effectiveness drops considerably.
Except that most formations aren’t contingent on the number of units for their bonuses- Devastators still cause Pinning in Skyhammer even after one of the squads dies, etc. Flyer wings lose effectiveness both linearly (each model killed removes the firepower of that model) but also progressively (each model killed also shuts down options for attack patterns.)
Also, I will point out that while you may still have the base chassis even when not gaining bonuses from attack patterns, there is a reason most players weren’t running flyers to start with- most of them just aren’t very good, and even the good ones aren’t great.
Excuse the SM-centric response, but hey, go with what you know. The SM vehicle squadrons lose bonuses once you drop from 3 to 2. All of the targetting/spotting formations lose bonuses once you lose some models/units (anti-air defense force, raptor wing, supression force). 1st company task force loses terrifying proficiency when it drops below 3 units in range. Armored task force drops if it loses its techmarines. Shadowstrike Kill Team loses no scatter deepstrike if it loses scout squads within 9″ of each other.
Plenty of formations lose both the units inherent value and start losing formation benefits once casualties mount. Shifting from one attack pattern to a lower one isn’t any different. Plus you would still get other formation bonuses from some of the flyer formations in DftS.
I can see your point on that. Especially with expensive flyers like Stormravens – min 200 points each – you can get 3 of the cheaper Codex: SM flyers for less than the cost of 2 ravens, but if it’s all you got then it’s all you got for that book, yeah? I’m already used to playing on the back foot with an underdog codex, so anything that opens up possibilities warrants a closer look. With nothing like hunter’s eye or cover manipulation in the book, the only ways to get that are the auspex – useful but situational – or FW with the Keylek legacy (best used on a scorpius but it’s only AP3 and a juicy target for alpha strikes).
Like everything else, these lists struggle against Death Star builds as they simply don’t put out enough damage to hurt them. I consider that a side effect of 7th – and if you don’t have a book that can deal with death stars, your build is ineffectual anyways. Short of having an army of your faction in name only diluted with allies, it’s nearly impossible to deal with these anyways.
Yes, lose one Raven and you lose a lot of effectiveness. Every build has it’s shortcomings, but I would choose to have the tactical flexibility afforded by flight patterns than to not have it. The loss of skyfire is a blow, but when I played a 4 flying hive tyrant list with harpies and crones inside a VSG flying around with toe-in-cover then the skyfire had absolutely no impact on my ability to kill them. In fact, my ravens – not benefitting from cover without jinking – could almost do nothing to fight them. If I am snap-shooting from jinking against those anyways, then the loss of skyfire is hardly a blow anyways. I can tell you that if my flyers had a flight pattern in that game that helped me ignore cover, then the game would have gone much much differently as his malanthrope would not have survived.
I don’t have a lot of tools in my toolbox as it is, so it’s extra rough when they get taken away. It is what it is, but I think this definitely makes me glad I invested in 30k. Life just seems so much simpler in the Age of Darkness hahaha
I ran the new stormwing recently. 3 twin linked assault cannons with tank hunters or ignore cover + 3-5 other weapons getting either tank hunter or ignore cover is a lot of firepower.
#dutchrepresent #cheeseislife
#youaintmuchifyouaintdutch
I’m sad I didn’t vote but honestly I was so torn I was unable to make a decision. I am happy with the results and my votes wouldn’t have swung the decision regardless. This was the toughest one to date for sure. Thank you Reece, Francois, and crew for providing us a medium to use worldwide. love you guys!!
Thank you for the support!
Personally I do not like these polls. This is for competitive play and most of competitive play is certain armys. which is going to make this whole thing void.
I’m sorry, I do not understand what you’re saying.
Means that the player base is mostly Eldar and marines players and that they control every survey/voting.
Means that if we don’t change the way we balance the game and the system we use to change things, ITC will always be in favor the top 3 winning armies that has the widest player base.
Survey after survey, the power shifts a bit towards the most popular armies (which produces more votes) while the “lesser” faction degrade…
Which votes are you referring to? From where I’m standing, the votes went against some of the stronger armies.
Went against the stronger armies? Which ones were those? I didn’t see anything that would indicate any of the tough armies received any sort of nerf or degradation of ability
Sorry unless you are referring to the broken over the top powers GW decided to grace us with, in which case….ahh
Just an example:
The rule change proposed by the ITC team to change grav immobilized result to weapon destroyed didn’t pass. In the current meta, Dreadnoughts are underwhelming units, this is a fact and in theory, the community should of help it a bit.
Everyone know grav is overpowered, this is also a fact.
But check this out : why would the dominant player faction (space marines) accept a Nerf to their weapon of choice ?
And voila. Vote denied, grav power maintained. Space marines win
Your theory loses steam when you see that every space marine psychic power nerf went through. I think people didn’t vote the dreadnought buff in because they didn’t want to change the rule or perhaps didn’t understand the implication of the rule change.
I am pretty sure that the vote did not go against dreadnoughts because Eldar and Space Marine players are worried about them supplanting their position in the meta. From what I can tell, most people that went against it did so because they thought it was too much of an arbitrary rules change.
As for the VSG not being immune to grav, most people seem to be saying they voted that way not to help Space Marines but to hurt Tau/Eldar or because they just really don’t think it is fair for the VSG to be immune to anything.
I didn’t vote, but when I first saw the walker question, my impulse was “no.” Not because I don’t want my walkers to get more powerful – it just seems like a big, rather radical, change. Toning things that are powerful down can be different than making a big change to buff something. Also, every Space Marine psychic nerf went through so what does that say about people liking their own army?
No, the surveys do not go in favor of the top 3 armies. Look at the present one, every single space marine specific vote went against them. I’m not seeing what you’re seeing here, friend.
Yes, but besides running water and sanitation! What has Rome ever done for us!
I may not agree with the polls, I may not like the whole direction the game is going at this point in many ways (BB deathstar dance party) and my own personal opinions aside, thank you Reece, et all for the efforts you do put forth into making this a better hobby for all involved.
You’re welcome. Sorry it didn’t go the way you hoped, and I too, do not like deathstar 40k.
in regards to that dreadnought vote instead of turning immobilized to weapon destroyed I think something more in tune (without changing the way walkers take damage) would be to give them the Rhino rule for repair of immobilized results. Then they don’t become ‘unstoppable’ (which is the reason I bet you it failed, the inability to slow one down at all without destroying it).
I don’t like arbitrary rules changes (even if on the surface their intent was to breathe some life into unplayed units), because its a slippery slope and those can end up getting abused, taking 2 attacks from a dreadnought that just got faq’d for +2 attacks while being unable to slow it down from reaching your soft units, is not a good solution to a problem…
Wait, I got confused. What will be status of VSG at BAO? VSG will be full, superpowered ITC VSG? BAO VSG will be immune to all sorts of things and somehow unaffected by grav? BAO VSG will cover entire units if 1 model is under the shield per the ITC?
Yes. It will continue to function as it has.
I’m curious why there was a poll question about Dreadnoughts being able to change an immobilized result to weapon destroyed? I mean don’t get me wrong, I love my Dreads! But seemed like a random suggestion.
Walkers, especially CC Walkers, are just garbage in an environment with plentiful Grav. This was a suggested Rules Change to let MaulerFiends, Furioso Dreads, MurderFang, etc. be at least semi-relevant again.
Did you listen to the podcast attached to the poll that explains everything?
I think the walker weapon destroyed rule would have been a good rule.
What baffles me though is why you picked walkers? There are *many* other units in 40k that are far more behind the 8-Ball than Dreadnoughts – so why were dreadnoughts picked for a buff vote and other units were not?
“Because they’re cool”?
I think my Tyrannids are cool, how come I can’t get an ITC vote to buff them?
I have a hard time believing that “a lot” of players emailed FLG asking for the Dread-walker buff. Like someone else said it was random. Or rather not random, it was something staff at FLG wanted so they put it in there.
And I’m pretty sure nobody ever plays against Corsairs, therefore there wasn’t a “public outcry” to nerf their move thingy or warp tunnel.
Again, you guys are doing what you like. Which is fine, this is your baby. But it’s simply not true when you claim these poll questions are the voice of the players. I wish you’d stop advertising it as such.
You do realize you’re essentially calling us liars with no evidence to support that statement, correct? You’re basing your position on speculation but that is not stable ground to stand on when throwing around accusations like that. I doubt you’d appreciate me saying something to that effect about you. We actually get a TON of emails about Corsairs, the army list is very ambiguously written and has left us with a great deal of unresolved rules issues. And yes, we do get a great deal of mail about the Warp Tunnel power, specifically. It was not a random draw, or what have you.
The Dreadnought rule change proposition did come from staff, which we always say, the ITC is a combination of player feedback, our own opinions, consulting TOs, and gleaning opinion from forums and such. If you go listen to the podcast adjoined to the poll, we say exactly that. We felt that this was a simple, fair rule change to propose to the community to encourage variety in lists. There is no false advertising going on, here. We do our best, using a variety of methods, to address pertinent questions facing the 40k tournament community at the time.
If only there was some place you had explained all this!
1) I wasn’t 100% sure where the walker weapon destroyed result came from either but I think it was implied on a podcast that it was a FLG-staff idea. In stone’s defense perhaps he doesn’t listen to podcasts and the question itself doesn’t say where it came from.
I voted against it because I think the root of the problem is Grav and walkers are only the symptom. Against normal weapons Dreads only get immobilized on 1/6 of pens (minus potential cover save) and I’m okay with that.
Adjust grav and many balance issues in 40k diminish. Best to address the problem at the root, not all the tips of the branches everywhere.
Besides, I’d like to see Ignores Cover turn into -2 cover before changes like this are made. My Dark Eldar shelf dust thickness is depressing and it’s largely because of that stinking rule. 🙂
2) Beck, the Corsair players have done plenty of pestering Reece. I actually voted for the flat 6″ overwatch RA adjustment. I feel it didn’t pass because Corsairs are an obscure codex with some obscure rules, plus the existing ITC ruling perhaps isn’t clear to the average voter. 6+D6 is too much. But 6″ is reasonable. I don’t think folks know what they were voting for or against here. Jetbikes aren’t getting assaulted much with or without RA overwatch moves though so it’s no biggie.
3) Tyrannids are not cool. Yick. But I hope grav gets adjusted so we see them again. The game just isn’t as fun without them having a real presence in the meta.
When will these updates be updated into the official ITC FAQs?
We got a tournament mid July with lists due 1st July 2016. The cut off date of ITC FAQ updates is 15th July 2016
These poll FAQ updates will have a major impact on what lists should be submitted depending if these changes will be in effect.
Pretty disappointed with the Warp Tunnel ruling. I don’t think the power had any kind of the potential for abuse that rewriting it was necessary. I also can’t help but wonder if the wording of the question (which makes it seem like the power could be used on any friendly unit, not just ones the caster is joined to) contributed to the vote outcome.
I didn’t either. Eldar and Harlequin “death stars” aren’t even really death stars.
And wraithblades? I almost spit out my diet Dr. Pepper when I heard wraithblades are a concern.
That is because you probably have not seen them used to full efficacy. Feel free to laugh of course, that is your prerogative, but I assure you it was not a mistake or an embellishment.
You should spit out the Diet Dr. Pepper anyways, its an abomination to flavor.
And yes, Harlequins can be brutal in the right hands.
We’ve been seeing it being heavily abused, actually. First turn/infinite range deathstar charges is not fun nor conducive to a healthy tournament environment. For the same reason we proposed toning down Electrodiscplacement.
yeah, saw one kill 3 hive tyrants turn one. It pretty much ended the game before it started. That was a corsair only unit as well!
Do these voters even play this game? So when does Frontline come out with their own models instead of using GW models for ITC 40k? The book says replace the old data as in not an option only stated for the formations, data slates. The Marine powers are a balance to alpha strike etc. You want to fix something take away the death star abuse. Completely rewriting the game is horrible. An faq doesn’t mean rewriting history…. GW came out with a current FAQ to the VSG. So aside from the VSG the first two DFTS and Marine powers how many major tournaments have they won to show they have been properly play tested? This suposed vote knocks out over $100 of gamers pockets that are useless. The two biggest things that should’ve been brought up were the Gorgan’s chain and the veil of times power people cry over. I want to play in tournaments but refuse to acknowledge these FAQs. ATC has managed to do an easy solution to FW flyers so that is a null and lazy excuse. Now that is whats called an FAQ not a ban. GW has stated they are firm on what they are coming out with. This is complete opposite of what I think of ITC. I see ITC as a community ranking system that brings players together and now its dividing the player base to have to ask what FAQ are you using and are you allowing etc.
We are not trying to rewrite the game, that has never been the goal. The goal is to create as close to a level playing field as possible and to make it easy for tournament players to go to events with the same list, and for tournament organizers to run an event with a minimal investment of time.
I had trouble understanding some of what you were saying but I think you were suggesting we should play test DftS in tournaments? That’s fine, any tournament that wants to use it can and can still participate in the ITC. However, the ITC community expressed that they did not want to use it just yet in tournament play. And, they also decided not to use a draft form of the GA FAQ yet, which is very reasonable, actually.
Again, remember that this is not a permanent situation, this is the next 3 months we’re discussing. We predict the GW FAQ to be in final draft form within that time frame. So, then, we get the finished version of it and it will be incorporated into the ITC when it is done. That is really not that big of a deal when you take a step back to consider it.
I love the ATC FAQ! Its a great mix of blending new rules, draft faqs and ITC faqs
Check it out: http://www.whatc.org/warhammer-40k.html
As a non-marine player (Demons and Chaos Space Marines), I didn’t buy DFTS, nor did I buy the new marine book or its powers, so it really isn’t money out of my pocket. To me it was sort of like Apocalypse, Cities of Death, Planetstrike, Escalation, and Stronghold Assault – buy them to play them, but don’t whine at me that I don’t want to use them myself, or play in that type of game (less so for Escalation and SA, obviously).
My friend has DFTS and I think it’s mind-blowing that simply by having a flyer which (which, as demons, I cannot get) you give me a penalty to my reserve rolls. No way I’m buying that book that, combined, affects *one* flyer – the lame hellturkey – while as a marine player you rain fiery death from above.
I’m honestly cool with trying to keep the game as close to the rulebook as possible – and as someone who has Tau but can’t leave the abusive relationship that Chaos Space Marines has me in, I hate the “tweaks” and “clarifications” to their Contingent/Cadre/etc – but the FAQ’s are *extremely* unpolished and *drafts*. There’s no reason to start using them now when they probably will change in short order.
TLDR; don’t care that you feel entitled to pay-to-win books that benefit you (/cry, Black Legion book), this is their rodeo, if you don’t like it, don’t use it and/or don’t compete in tournaments that use their rules.
I wonder why Void Shields are considered the only defense against Grav Drop or Grav in general. Just use the Skyshield Landing Pad instead. Sure its a different way of defense but still very useful.
4++ isn’t likely to stop much when high-volume grav comes a-knocking.
No, it will not. The Skyshield just isn’t enough to stop the crazy volume of fire, these days. particularly with Grav where often a single damage result is all you need to incapacitate a vehicle.
So when are we going to balance grav then?
Everybody hates it, its bad for the game, its bad for the community, this should get a vote ASAP.
battle doctrines and grav amps make grav to good. Nerf one or the other, problem prolly solved.
I think you’d need to change the profile itself.
Would changing it be a bridge too far? I mean, ITC sort of changed weapon profiles when they altered the D table, but that was a USR they were altering.
I seem to remember at the time that there was consensus that altering, say, the unit entry for windrider jetbikes would be an unprecedented step, and that change was voted down. Disingenuous claims that “we need to playtest this first” aside, I don’t think anyone seriously believed that scatterbikes weren’t going to be meta-defining.
I think people are over reacting to the grav “nerf.” You can’t get an Immobilized result against shields so you still need three 6s before it comes down. And since the VSG almost always has 3 shields, you have to roll in sets of three until the shield comes down. Three 6s should require 18 dice for 15 failed shots before the unit starts getting hit. So while the shield isn’t a perfect hard counter for grav, it does degrade its killing power quite a bit.
Well at this point the faq isn’t in effect and grav is still dealing with the void shield. In 3 months time when the faq is official things may change and if not 8th edition will be around the corner.
but with all the other nerfs, instead of needing 9 meltas to hurt it you need 3 to knock down a few shields then the grav to finish it off. so instead of completely blocking it, you barely blunt it. A 100 points is a serious investment to eat a few grav and melta shots. Especially considering if you’re fighting any one of a half dozen assault orientated army then its useless.
Good point.
Another way to look at it is points spent to possibly knock those three void shields down. Minimum 245 for 4 grav devs in a drop pod in a SkyHammer formation to have enough shots reliably knock down all three. Otherwise you’d need a Cataphractii Terminator Captain to grant Slow and Purposeful which brings the costs up to 365 minimum. The cost in bikes with grav guns would be in the middle. Min Command Squad on Bikes with 15 shots from 5 grav guns is 200 pts + min Bike Squad with 6 shots from 2 grav guns is 93 = 293 pts to reliably knock down 3 void shields. Grav Centurions with Drop Pod weigh in at 275 and don’t have enough shots. They’d need to replace all three Hurricane Bolters with Missile Launchers to reach 18 shots, raising their cost to 305 pts. And they’d still only glance on a “6”. In all cases, the offending unit should easily end up within 24″ of whatever guns the VSG was protecting and will most likely die a gruesome yet glorious death having knocked down some Void Shields. That might come back.
Meanwhile, the Void Shield Generator with 3 shields costs 125 pts. Also, even if all 3 shields are knocked down, they can regenerate each game turn. Seems like the VSG comes out well ahead in points invested. And it isn’t even harmed by the grav shots, it’s still functioning and has an excellent chance of getting at least one shield back up next turn.
Or look at it from another perspective. Windriders with Scatter Lasers have an equal chance of taking down a void shield. So, to reliably take down all three shields, you’d still need 18 shots on average. 5 Windriders with Scatbikes will get you 20 shots and cost 135 pts. Obviously more efficient than grav. With the added bonus of shooting from a farther range and being able to hide after shooting.
I get that people are annoyed that grav is high volume and ignores armor saves. But if they’re wasting 245 or more points on your Void Shields instead of using a more efficient solution, you should be quite happy about it.
Grav is one of the worst solutions for Void Shields, there’s really no need to nerf it further.
hillshire-nice wrightup but you conveniently leave out how scatter lazers are a joke vs MC (riptides/surges/wraithknights) where grav is tailor made to kill them, nor can scatter lazy nikes even touch AV 13 or 14, which grav obviously can. Its basically a joke to compare the two weapons despite the 12 inch range advantage for the bikes.
When grav is amazing or atleast good vs everything in the game, the fact that it isnt the number one killer of void shields but CAN still kill them makes it ridiculous. There needs to be a single defense against these types of attacks, and now there isnt.
There’s nothing “convenient” about it. The topic was specifically the Void Shield. I was simply presenting Scatterlasers as one example of a more efficient way of dropping Void Shields. Certainly not presenting them as a solution to killing GCs. That wasn’t the topic.
Also, I don’t see where you’re going with your argument. If your opponent is having to spend all 20 grav shots to take down a Void Shield before even hitting a Wraithknight, you should be quite happy about that. Grav isn’t good vs Void Shields. It’s about as horrible as a Scatbike trying to kill a Wraithknight (except a Wraithknight has more wounds but then again, they don’t usually regenerate those wounds). Grav can do it in a pinch but it takes an average of 18 hits (which would require 27 shots for BS 4 to achieve on average) from a very expensive unit. Quite probably two Grav heavy units to actually burn through if they aren’t getting re-rolls to hit.
A Void Shield doubles, possibly triples when you factor in misses, the cost of units required to take a single GC (or anything else protected by the Void Shields) down if you’re only using grav. How exactly is that bad for you? VSGs are a perfectly reasonable defense. Really, I would say VSGs making GCs immune to one of the few shooting weapons to reliably kill them is going too far. Do GCs not already have enough advantages built into them?
Just for comparison, let’s imagine a world here Grav didn’t exist. How many melta shots would be required to kill a Wraithknight? No formation bonuses, Chapter Tactics, or Prescience. Just plain old BS4 melta. Why melta? Because it’s the cheapest, can shoot on the move, and won’t kill your own men (looking at you, plasma). So, least points expended for effect. Wraithknight has 6 wounds. Factor in FNP, you need to inflict 9 wounds. Factor in T8 vs S8 so half your shots will have no effect, so double the amount of hits needed: 18 hits. Factor in BS 4 so a third of your shots will miss so add in a third for shots needed: 27. 27 melta guns. 270 pts of your army just for melta guns. To kill one Wraithknight. Now try and figure out how your army is going to field 27 melta guns. To shoot and kill one Wraithknight.
For all the complaints about grav, it’s necessary to balance the game against GCs. Making GCs immune to grav does not help balance the game. 5 shots probably is overkill. 4 would be more reasonable. Sometime I’ll try and figure out the reasoning GW has for making it 5. Probably has to do with Centurions only getting 15 shots for a 3 man unit. So BS 4, 10 hit. Re-rolls to wound, about 8 wounds. After FNP, 5-6 wounds. So GW made a breaking point where a bit of luck, 1 dice roll one way or the other means survival or death. Grav devs get more shots but without Relentless or S&P, they actually end up shooting a lot less unless something wanders into their range while sitting still. But to get Relentless or S&P, you’re investing a lot more points into a fragile platform. I mean, how hard is it to kill 5 space marines? Really?
I do agree, somewhat, that Grav is all around too good. But that has more to do with the meta than the actual gun. Grav was designed to be horrid vs hordes (Tyranid and Orks), Daemons, Guard, or really anything with a 5+ or worse save. But how often do you see those types of units? Until GW updates those armies (although there are many Daemon builds which are quite excellent), we’re just not going to see them all that much on the table. Grav is a decent points investment for killing vehicles but those have become pretty rare with the exception of Imperial Knights and free transports. Toughness is simply much better than AV so vehicles are avoided. GW has tried to improve vehicles somewhat through formations but none of them so far solve the basic problem that they are easy to either Explode or Hull Point out. Yay! I can ignore Crew Stunned! If only they weren’t dead . . .
Maybe grav should have a stepped level of shots: 5 vs GCs and Super-heavies, 4 vs MCs and Tanks, 3 for everything else. Because the real victims of grav aren’t Wraithknights, they’re Terminators and their equivalent. Grav single handedly retired my Grey Knights army. Highly elite and expensive space marines with 2+ and 3+ saves and only a single Storm Shield in the whole army? Free kill points for all Space Marine opponents fielding grav! Yaaay!
Anyway, apologies for the long missive. Not trying to argue, just working through some thoughts. Basically, the VSG is still a valid defense that is fairly points efficient, just not as impossibly awesome as before while grav serves a real purpose that nothing else could currently replace.
Reece, if you’re reading this, please consider me for some Frontline Gaming articles!
You’re my hero. You said everything I’ve been thinking. Thanks for saving me the time.
this is a warhammer forum, not a forum for your PHD thesis, nobody wants to spend 45 mins refuting warhammer facts because you wrote a book.
i could easily refute many of these points including the assertation that it takes 27 grav shots to cause 18 hits (ever heard of battle doctrines?) but frankly i have better things to do. I stand by my comments, and basically everybody who dosnt play a grav army agrees. You yourself refer to retiring an entire army because of grav, and you still dont think that is a problem? good times. Comparing the number of shots needed to kill the obviously underpointed wraithknight isnt how you balance a weapon in the game.
ryan, where is the hostility coming from? Reading through my post, I didn’t come across anything where I was being rude to you. If something came across that way, my sincere apologies.
“this is a warhammer forum, not a forum for your PHD thesis”
Please take this part with a bit of humor because I intend it to be exactly that, a bit of humor.
Technically, this is a comments section, not a forum. But wouldn’t a PhD in Warhammer 40k be a wonderful thing. I already have my Masters from completing graduate school some time ago. A Doctorate in 40k would be great!
“nobody wants to spend 45 mins refuting warhammer facts because you wrote a book”
Ah, I didn’t realize you were the spokesman for the internet. Nonetheless, based on posts by AbusePuppy and others, the comments section is exactly where we can discuss topics brought up in the article. Which is exactly what I have done and am doing. However, if you prefer comments such as “X is OP” or “Y is lame”, may I direct you to the comments on any 40k article published on the Bell of Lost Souls website. Be assured, you will not come across any in depth (or even shallow) discussion there.
What is there to refute? Everything I stated, to the best of my knowledge, is factually accurate. If I have made a factual error, please point it out so i can correct it. Playing the game correctly is far more important to me than pride. Perhaps you were referring to interpretation? Happy to have that discussion.
And finally, I’m sure you meant “book” in jest. My post would have been maybe a single page, depending on the font.
“i could easily refute many of these points including the assertation that it takes 27 grav shots to cause 18 hits”
Nope, nothing to be refuted there. My statement was quite accurate. Seems clear that I was talking about the grav cannons themselves taken in a squad. I was (and still am) confident most people can figure out that they can improve their chances through such examples as Prescience, Devastator Doctrines, a Signum, an Armorium Cherub, or whatever people can come up with. I provided the baseline concept and stats. People can adapt them to their own army as they see fit. Not everyone is running Ultramarines.
Besides, wasn’t my post long enough? Did I really need to go into detail on each potential variation? :)’
“ever heard of battle doctrines?”
You are quite right to bring up options which can improve the odds of hitting but I’m wondering why the “ever heard of” part was included. Clearly I had since I referred to them in the post. But lets consider that option. Isn’t it to your advantage (if you’re using a VSG) to have your opponent burn their Devastator Doctrine trying to take down the shields rather than simply shooting up your units? The VSG certainly has solid value. Just not as much as before.
“but frankly i have better things to do”
I’m sure you do. But having a civil and detailed discussion about 40k can be a lot of fun. I’m always up for learning more and sharing ideas. Is that bad?
“basically everybody who dosnt play a grav army agrees.”
Ah, yes, I forgot. You are their spokesman. :),
“You yourself refer to retiring an entire army because of grav”
You’re right. That is what I said. And really, it was not a fair thing for me to say because it was only partially accurate. When I gave up on Grey Knights, grav cannons for Devastators didn’t exist yet. Grav guns on bikes were a contributing factor but far from the only factor (grav cents were pretty rare in my area but grav bikes were very common). There were also Imperial Knights which Grey Knights had very limited answers to beyond close combat. Where they would get stomped. Necrons still had Mind Shackle Scarabs which could make your very expensive guys Force Weapon themselves to death (although that went away when their new codex came out). Tau and Eldar could bury them in volume of fire. But the worst problem was that they were essentially very expensive assault marines who lacked the durability to survive for long in a shooting centric game. I hold out some hope that some nifty formations might bring them back out of retirement. But for now, I play them for fun, not competition. Particularly since Tau and Eldar have become even more effective with their shooting. And in fairness, Space Marines too. There are more reasons I retired them but that seems to be enough to go on with for now.
“Comparing the number of shots needed to kill the obviously underpointed wraithknight isnt how you balance a weapon in the game.”
That was simply an example I was using while trying to understand GW’s logic. I mean, if you want the post to be longer, I can give more examples! 😉 The odds differential of 3 Grav Cents shooting at a Wraithknight could be a part of it. Or maybe it isn’t. I do find the break point of a single hit/miss or pass/fail FNP rather interesting. Probably not a coincidence.
Even though I speculated about ways of balancing grav, it’s a moot point. Grav exists. The purpose of my posts is not to say grav is good or bad, but rather to get a better understanding of how it fits and works in the 40k gaming universe. Complaining can be cathartic I suppose but I think unbiased understanding is better in the long run.
Anyways, if you are interested in holding a discussion, I am happy to oblige. If you find my posts too in depth, then I regret that they do not suit your specific tastes. Nothing wrong with that and I take no offense. Indeed, I wish you the best of times playing 40k.
TLDR
“TLDR”
Then Bell of Lost Souls comments are perfect for you. No depth or analysis required.
Here’s the link: http://www.belloflostsouls.net
Enjoy!
Nice to know you read the whole thing though!
If you hadn’t, you would have said TLDNR
Grav would be super fun with 12″ range.
Make all grav AP 4 like in 30k
30k does have a handful of weapons that use 40k “graviton” rules instead of 30k “graviton pulse” rules, but I believe they’re specific to the Mechanicum.