winterman

These are not formations, these are specific options within their respective detachments (Recon Outriders in the Anvil Strike Force and Honored Ancients in the Medusa Strike Force). They are not available independently as they are not actual formations. Formations have and require a rules page of their own. So what you have listed here is actually an unbound list.

Yeah I think the wording just leaves a lot to be desired and is probably cut and paste-ish from the days before snap shots. RaW probably yeah just split fire, but we do know what it did in previous editions and we know they took the time to write a sentence that should have some sort of intent (and the rule itself is not old, its the current 7ed rule) so TOs and most reasonable people will find an interpretation that gives that sentence meaning.

"The Ballistic Skill of a model firing a Snap Shot can only be modified by special rules that specifically state that they affect Snap Shots," POTMS does not specifically address Snap Shots, so you are stuck trying to figure out what it does without conflicting with that rule above. It is a bit murky but the strongest argument and the one I think most commonly agreed upon is that this only affects rules within the Vehicle section that limit weapons firing at full BS (so movement or damage results) and not other rules that force snap shots. Certainly arguable and unclear though.

The ITC ruling regarding ML and number of powers cast a turn is clarifying a vague thing. The psychic power rules have a poorly written sentence that causes lots of arguments, so they went with an interpretation that made sense to them. Its what TOs have to do since GW fails to properly FaQ the game. They do have some rules changes though, some voted on some done based on their opinion of the rules at that time 7ed was released. Its not everyones cup of tea but the consistency between events is nice and the fact that it can and does evolve is good.

Loth can only guarantee powers from Biomancy, Telepathy and Telekinesis. He'd have to roll randomly if he wanted to go for the new powers.

The description of the book on GW site also mentions: "four complete psychic disciplines available to Space Marines Librarians of all Chapters (including Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Deathwatch)"

Still opens up first turn assaults via swapping with scouts and similar.

Still having cookie issues by the looks of it.

With a handle like that? What you should have posted is this: It's a small world when you've got unbelievable tits Roy.

I'm not your bud, guy! (shameless South Park reference to lighten the mood) I didn't say you were a troll just that your post might be trolling. To be fair consistently poor spelling, arguing the same thing over and over, including swear words left and right -- pretty classic troll behavior that makes it hard to see this as a serious discussion. I certainly didn't have anything close to the bad attitude you have displayed in this thread (f this, f that, stupid this and that)... , but I hit a nerve so I do genuinely apologize for missing the serious discussion. Back to the discussion. If you are gonna buy the model anyways and all you wanna do is school your buddy with it then if he agrees to the game then why not, ITC allowance or no? But if you want to build a serious legal ITC list, either with RG or Orks then that's a whole other discussion and one worth having. I know Mikhail has ideas on how to make RG work and I am also working on RG for ITC play.

Ehh I'd give that turn 1 assault gimmick up without issue. Its the fearless, infiltrate and stealth that is critical (IMO).

This is so meta, cause spiderman is sorta like a stealer hybrid and it looks like he's talking to a stealer cult magus.

If they allowed titans and the like then I'd say the Ulator would be appropriate. Since they don't then it's not appropriate for the format. Also are you seriously suggesting admech and/or skitarii not having tools to deal with IKs and wraithknights unless you take this titan sized tank? Is this a troll post and I missed it?

It is already banned in ITC, as it is not on the allowed LoW list.

I think everybody is entitled to their opinions. As a TO I love not having to make my own FAQ -- its a thankless, horrible but absolutely critical thing to have for any event that draws people from all over. As a player I like knowing how things will be ruled before writing lists and attending an event. Still, I have multiple criticisms about it in terms of layout (its not an FAQ when IMO without the question it is addressing), lack of updates (tons of stuff are hold overs from 6ed transition and should be revisted) and that they use the vote thing as a shield against criticism (eg well the people have spoken, don't blame us). I'm also in the camp of not liking blatant rules changes, especially without thinking through all the side effects (modified Invisibility vs Tau markers lights is a classic example). So I wouldn't argue they are above criticism either, nor do I think they take criticism as well as they could (its much better now though as seen by the 2016 format changes). It could be better and I hope it gets better as time goes on. However, this idea that the ITC FAQ encourages cheesemongering (or is done in the name of cheesemongering by cheesemongers) is absurd to me. Win/Loss/Draw tournament play encourages cheesemongering. Period. Proven time and again over many editions. Although the flips side is also true -- ITC FAQ does nothing to curb it either. What it does do, or at least tries and does an OK job of, is curbing negative play experience. That's the whole point. You might play against a deathstar but at least its failing 66% more saves then it would have. Might see 50 warpsiders but at least they jump once a phase. Finally its awesome you can run a 40ish man tournmament without an FAQ. I have done it both ways, totally doable. Try doing it with a 120-300+ event. With a ton of cash on the line. End of the day that is why the ITC FAQ is there and why it is the way it is. And why CaptA and MrMoreTanks are using it. Take it or leave it.

The shop sold items off and rearranged several areas in order to squeeze in 30 tables for the event (2 more tables than previous years). That is the absolute limit the shop can hold as far as I understand. I'd love this to become a 64-128+ person hotel based event but it wasn't in the cards this year. It's certainly a possibility for the Storm next year, especially given the draw it has enjoyed for several years. The issue there has been getting enough hotel usage to cover room blocks and the inevitable entry fee increase that would be needed to make things break even.

That's what the servitors are for. That and brewing beer.

Couple of updates: 1. The Storm is a Major ITC event! We had to find space for a couple more tables but we did it -- Now a 60 man event. Still 5 days per the Major event requirements but this is a big deal for us. Thanks goes out to all the previous attendees that have helped make this an easy choice for Major Event status. 2. We are already sold out and a wait list is being kept. If you missed out and are local or willing to chance it, there's always a good chance people will drop. Our drop rate is not that high though (nothing like an LVO or BAO) but they do come up. 3. Packet is now available for review. Includes the missions and schedule and details of the event. Mostly following the ITC event format but there are difference. Like 1 mission is a custom mission, combing elements of the relic, emperors will and extra VPs for killing elites, HQs and LoWs (think big guns or scouring but for other parts of FOC). Packet PDF available below (still in review but main gist is there) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_WI3nvXVrtANW5OUEJuOWM2Q1E/view?usp=sharing

It was voted on but didn't pass. Would have made almost no difference though because Space Wolves + Dark Angels would have been unaffected (and is almost unarguably the better super friends build as well as the most unfluffy)

Ahh I see, CAD versus CAD-like detachment versus the new combo detachment. Yeah they seem to be doing away with CAD-like detachments all together. Haven't released one in quite awhile (Ad mech was the last I think). These combo detachments can be hard to fine tune lists with, especially when the core has so many requirements.

Actually I believe it was always that way. It is one of the oddities of that book, I think every other supplement allows its relics and warlord traits to be used in a CAD or similar arrangement. But Ghaz supplement has always been exclusionary. I had just hoped it had changed.

Can you still take a Waagh Ghazkull CAD under the revised book? Just curious from a TO/list audit standpoint.

How many detachments do you wish to play with in the 2016 season? Answer: Unlimited (Not a strong opinion on this one but with decurions a thing for almost everyone and a single duplicate detachment restriction it seems silly to set detachment limits at this point - other than to limit culexus or servo skulls which wouldn't be a bad thing imo.) How would you like the ITC to track which faction your army ranks as? Answer: Most points. (not a strong opinion on this one either. Almost voted the other way cause as a TO I think figuring this out and making sure its correct will be a pain, but it does seem wacky sometimes basing on primary) For larger ITC tournaments, what points limit would you prefer? Answer: Smaller (purely based on being a player who is lazy. Easier to get an army for smaller games. Not a strong opinion on this one, just don't want the games bigger than 1850) If the points limit for larger ITC tournaments were voted to be reduced from 1,850, which of the two points levels below do you prefer? Answer: 1650 (compromise is good. 1500 is fine also) Should we treat Data Slates containing multiple fortifications (i.e. Tau Tidewall Gunfort) the same as Fortification Networks (which are disallowed in ITC)? Answer: Do not allow (TO POV. I have tables that would be hell to play with these things. These things should stay in friendly games and mega battles. Same issue I have with the networks.) Per RAW, if a Gargantuan Creature with any part of its base is in a piece of terrain which grants a cover save, the Gargantuan Creature gains the save even if no part of it is actually obscured. Do you wish to play this rule this way? Answer: Keep it as is. (Voted more from a philosophical standpoint I am not big on changing core rules unless absolutely necessary. Ban lists and army list limits sure that is actually spelled out as fine in core rules. But tinkering with rules like this is not my cup of tea. Not a big deal though if it goes through) How many times can a unit of Tau Ghostkeels containing more than one Ghostkeel activate their Holophoton Countermeasures? Conflict: The Holophoton Countermeasures rule indicates that the rule is activated on both a per model and per unit basis, creating ambiguity. Answer: Per model. (If only to shut up all the Tau whiners. Seriously). When the Piranhas from the Firestream Wing formation reenter play from ongoing reserves, do models from the formation that were destroyed return to play per the Rearm and Refuel special rule? Conflict: The Rearm and Refuel formation rule indicates that units in this formation come back from ongoing reserves at full strength, but does not specify what full strength means in regards to destroyed Piranhas. Answer: Destroyed models come back. (Pretty sure that is what the old apoc version did as well but could be wrong. Still mainly to shut up all the Tau whiners.) If a Piranha in a unit in the Firestream Wing formation is immobilized and left behind per the Abandoned rule, does it count as destroyed for the purposes of the Rearm and Refuel special rule? Answer: Doesn't count as destroyed. (This one needed clarification, and this is how I'd rule it if forced to) The Eldar Corsairs Reckless Abandon special rule allows them to move after making a shooting attack. Does this apply to overwatch? Answer: Yes (Trying to keep consistency with other ITC rulings like MC/Tau firing multiple weapons in overwatch, etc. Also RaW in my opinion) Can a Chaos Knight take Legacies of Ruin? Answer: Yes (Not a strong opinion here but until FW get their act together we may as well play RAW).

My concern is how TOs/ITC will err on in regards to wulfen table affect on units with attached ICs. RaW I think it works as you say (seems similar to dunestrider), but I can already see it freaking the community out a bit. I'd hate to build and paint this up and then get it squashed, but maybe the Runepriest conclave is good enough replacement if that does happen.

Rhino rush + fen wolves. Rhinos come up, GH/BCs jump out double tap. Fen wolves charge. Opponent turn GH charge, hopefully clear the kill zone and free to act in your turn. Hmmm.