winterman

Bit of a tangent, but that is something I have wondered about. It doesn't clearly state that this affect replaces the normal 25% casualty morale test. Could be argued that the skyhammer affect is in addition to the standard morale test. Not an argument I'd personally make, more of a thought puzzle in case it gets brought up in a tournament.

Interesting, I feel like this book was a decent boost despite not touching a lot of units. Psychic defense? Unless you take a culexus you don't really have psychic defense that matters -- which is still an option for Tau if you really want it. This seems like a non-issue to me (or at least the same issue every other army struggles with due to how blessings are handled) and fits their background (of all the races, Tau should be the least capable of dealing with psychers). Close combat counter? Shoot and shoot again works pretty well against meat and potato CC units in 6/7ed. So well that it caused the influx of deathstars we see now for cc to even function. Speaking of.. No real answer to deathstars? The new book gives them even more umph against cover save based deathstars (buh bye Ravenwing, its like 6ed all over again). Seems possible to even handle invis via careful use of the combine fire perk, but that is theory hammer on my part. Ultimately those will probably still be an issue, but not necessarily a bad thing. Overall that combine fire thing is their boost against deathstars and regardless of how it ends up being ruled still a big boost. What they still have an issue with, and what you didn't mention surprisingly, is scoring objectives, especially the during game maelstrom kind of scoring. Being able to get the most out of the new abilities ends up limiting the armies scoring, which is already anemic. That would be the main reason why I'd hesitate to take Tau to an ITC event whether it was the old book or the new one.

Demi Battle Company is still available to Talon Formation and it has obsec, Tactical Doctrine one time use and still benefits from choose to fail and arrive on Turn 1 on 4+. Feel like that's actually pretty good option if going for drop marines. My thought for a drop army has been one Pinion, one battle company, sprinkle in auxillary as points allow. Pinion in pods dropping near scouts for ignore cover melta shots, with the obsec guys filtering in through the game as needed.

Looks good, definitely maximising the pinion force. Little too mechy for my taste for ravenguard but that's a personal thing, nothing against the army or your tastes. My mind is swirling with ideas with all this ravenguard stuff. Reminds me of the old IA Ravenguard rules from 3ed, but turned up to 11.

So are we! That is why we run two different events. And why we try and make our events a tad different then what is on the circuit.

OK = 8, Exceptional=9. Votes were 4 points each. So min points is 40 and max is 65. Exceptional is used mostly to create some separation but not so much that it swings things super hard (since giving those out varies from person to person). I have had people in the past question their scores and really it comes down to votes and those are often hard to come by. Also depends a lot on who your opponents played. If they played George who had 4 fav votes... So wouldn't take it personal. We only use sports points at Harvester. At Storm we go with more pass/fail like LVO and most other events and use pure fav opp votes for the best sports award. Hope that helps!

https://www.facebook.com/TheHarvester40kGT/ Standings are up gents. Look at that space in 2016 for the Storm of Silence!

Glad you had fun! Was nice to meet you and put a face to the screen name. Hope to see you in the Spring if you can swing it! The Storm is more of your standard fare event, modeled after Adepticon, NoVa and LVO. Still fun but a bit different feel. Harvester is our ode to Bob and I's favorite event, Astronomi-con. A cleaned up version of the results (fixing mispellings and formattings) and ITC ranking lists are in the works. I can post em here or just check the FB page later in the week https://www.facebook.com/TheHarvester40kGT

Another food for thought as it is being championed by a few podcasts and internet trolls -- bringing back player scored comp but otherwise letting things ride. Not personally a fan but the spikeybits/veterans of the long war/BoLS guys bring it up all the time now -- so suspect it will get more and more lip service.

The INAT and ITC had almost the same group of people working on it and used the same vote mechanism to decide its rulings, so I am not sure your point is valid. Hell at least INAT polled dakka dakka for 'how i play it' on ambiguous rules. ITC only lets us vote on house rules for the most part. I think instead AB your personal bias is showing here, due to your time in the blue shark tank and 3++ during 5ed. INAT was not perfect but it also never deserved the vitriol it got (IMO). In many ways ITC FAQ is a continuation of the INAT - complete with all the haters. I also tend to agree that the ITC faq is less professional as it is just a list of rules in a text document. It's not even a real FAQ as it lacks the Q part, it just has a ton of A's without context. INAT was a full fledged, clickable indexed PDF with pictures and actual Q and A. So yes, despite opinions on the rulings it was a more professional document. That isn't a knock on the ITC document though. The INAT was made for 1 event -- Adepticon during the era of snail pace releases. ITC FAQ does what it needs to do and while I'd love a more polished document I know the amount of work that entails is just not possible at the current pace with just Frankie and Reece working on it.

I've run similar lists for giggles. Does ok if you play with heavy terrain. Relied heavily on getting a shot at infiltration via the strategic warlord traits. The choppy carnifexes are definitely fun and had some surprisingly effective results but need venomthropes or malanthropes imo and catalyst doesn't hurt either. I'd drop the harpy for tyrant guard or get another harpy. A single harpy is just going to frustrate you at how poorly it handles flyers (between rolling for reserves and relying on 2x2 haywire shots-- especially the more common FMCs which care less about haywire. Also I'd suggest splitting the zoanthropes into singles. You get 3 extra rolls on the tyranid powers and 3 extra warp charges. Only time I take zoathrope units is in pods as its the only way to relaible use the extra warplance shots.

Yup. IA13 has CSM equivilants as well that are legal. The only ITC caveat is you can't put the ignores cover one on a super heavy.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/08/14/signals-from-the-frontline-warhammer-40k-and-general-gaming-news-rumors-tactics-and-comedy-110/ Poll results in here. Ohh and FAQ already updated: Destroyer Weapons: For ITC format events, we use the following profile for ranged Destroyer Weapons in place of that found in the book: D Weapons with the Distort Scythe special rule still subtract 1 from the table below. Roll of a 1: No damage occurs. Roll of a 2-5: Target model takes D3 wounds, or hull points with a penetrating hit. Roll of a 6: Target model takes 3 automatic wounds with no saves allowed, or 3 hull points with a penetrating hit with no saves allowed.

Without obsec I don't see the point in using rippers and tgants (unless its model availability thing). Can always take Leviathan and a CAD in ITC so why not do that so your rippers and gants can obsec. Replacing the zoathrope with 3 mucolids makes that happen. Getting the CAD also opens up option for a fort. Would consider tweaking the troops such that you can fit a bastion/bunker for your shrouding bubble and free cover/LOS blocking for the flyrants.

Yeah they can't change how you determine an armies faction midway through. They had a vote, people voted to stick to the standard methodology, but it comes up a lot so will get a new vote after the LVO. Personally I think best faction categories should get tweaked a bit. Maybe something along the lines of what Adepticon does or a hybrid. Like best eldar requires no allies, anyone with a mix competes in a best xeno or best allied forces or somesuch.

The power per mastery level isn't a legacy ruling, its an interpretation of the following sentence in the rulebook. Of course it doesn't say how it depends on the mastery level, so there are some that say its a non-rule and others who say since it is a rule you have to figure out how to enforce it. The council took the later stance.

I understand. Just sayin there's chatter out there about it. Likely nothing comes of it but its worth knowing about.

RaW you can certainly upgrade to a Chapter Master but since none of the chapter master characters are allowed to be leading a demi-company there are some who think it is not an intentional allowance. So could see an ITC ruling on it (its come up on the cast/feeds at FLG but dunno what way they or the council will lean) or if GW ever releases an FAQ they could address it.

Agree with WestRider. I will try and collect the rules quotes when I have the chance but the Main rulebook defines datasheets as being for units or formations. No datasheet, no formation or unit (units in old codexes are the only exception to this). Then, all the composite style formations use language which supports this. It states you make select from the following datasheets -- not formations. So some are formations and some are units. There are many similar examples in other codexes. Daemonkin composite formations has Maulerfiends available as units, not formations. Necrons decurion have Flayed Ones and Deathmarks. Eldar have wraithknights and the like. ITC also went out of their way to address this at one point, stating their no duplicate formations did not apply to these (so 8 maulerfiend daemonkin is legal, for example).

Then you didn't read the whole thing It's ok though, the confusion around this is so widespread it has almost become a truth despite it being a falsehood.

Adepticon uses the FAQ but has their own format. I have been using the FAQ for years, long before it was tied to the circuit and BAO format. It was never intended to be tied to the format, it just has been due to the confusion of naming it ITC (where C stands for Council or Circuit)

Regarding the general topic. One of the things that INAT had over the way they are doing things with ITC is there's no Q to go with the A. So there's no context. I am sure the guys on the council know exactly what they are addressing and rule it just fine at their events, but it can be tricky when you are the TO/player trying to make a ruling. An example was the old super heavy move through cover ruling used in 6ed. I had people try and claim the ITC ruling applied to the assault move even though move through cover did not apply to assault moves in 6ed. Without the actual Question being answered it was easy to extrapolate the answer out to unrelated rules. There are events that use the Independent Tournament Council FAQ (ITC FAQ) is often used at non-Independent Tournament Circuit Format Events (ITC format events). Adepticon is an example. The previously non-FLG run wargames con was another. I was doing the same at our events here in Spokane for various reasons as well, but likely won't because it was so confusing to West Coasters that were unaware of the FAQ predating the circuit and format by several years.

Set values are always done last, after all other modifiers (in the base rules for modifiers). Think that applies here but don't have exact wordings of blind and Infiltrators handy.

http://www.blacklibrary.com/games-workshop-digital-editions/Clan-Raukaan.html Still for sale . Even says specifically it is legal with the new codex.

However Clan Raukaan is still legal and I believe allows 3 techmarines per HQ taken in the army (or some such, would have to check wording). If you were wanting lots of techmarines.