Signals from the Frontline #494: ITC Poll Results!

64 thoughts on “Signals from the Frontline #494: ITC Poll Results!”

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

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

   …No?

   Probably not, no.

   Reply

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

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

      Reply

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

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

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

         Reply

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

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

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

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

            Reply

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

               Reply

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

   Reply

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

      Reply

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

         Reply

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

      Reply

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

         Reply

3. One of the questions missed from the stream –

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

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

   Thanks!

   Reply

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

      Reply

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

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

         Reply

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

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

            Reply

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

               Reply

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

      Reply

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

   Reply

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

      Reply

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

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

         Reply

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

   Reply

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

   Reply

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

   Reply

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

   Reply

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

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

      Reply

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

   Reply

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

      However this could be more my issue than the polls.

      Reply

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

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

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

      Reply

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

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

    Reply

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

       Reply

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

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

          Reply

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

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

             Reply

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

                Reply

             2. @abusepuppy

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

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

                Reply

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

       Reply

11. Wow, still 1850, get ready for longer games.

    Reply

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

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

    my 50 cents.

    Reply

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

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

       Reply

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

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

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

          Reply

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

    Reply

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

    Reply

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

       Reply

15. 1650 points for ever

    Reply

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

    Why ITC community, why???

    Reply

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

       Reply

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

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

          Reply

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

       Reply

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

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

       Reply

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

    Reply

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

       Reply

18. Some things I will add:

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

    Reply

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

       Reply

19. Im glad it’s still at 1850.

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

    Reply

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

       Reply

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

          Reply

20. You guys completely botched the DFTS question. Should have been

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

    Reply

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

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

    Reply

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

       Reply

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

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

       Reply

       1. You would if it were the tournament standard everywhere.

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

          Reply

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

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

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

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

             Reply

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

                Reply

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

    Reply

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

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

       Reply

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

          Reply