Jump to content

New ITC Poll


white_devil

Recommended Posts

None of which actually answers the issue at hand, but sure.  Reece is empathetic and i think Reece is a fine person.  I can easily recncile thinking he's a fine person with wishing the ITC would get a clue about the reality of this game which is that if you really wanted to poll people and find people who think things work two different ways, we'd have the whole book up for "voting".  

 

The ITC is concerning itself with matters that not enough people agree on.  A super majority like 65% is needed before we decide just to rewrite the rules because someone who doesnt even know the army well is allowed to vote.

 

The Conclusion itself isnt even the issue.  Its that they called it one!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about the Tau Coordinated Fire issue is that it's not absolutely clear. Now, obviously people on both sides think it is- but that right there is the problem. As a result, it's an issue that needs a solution right away- this sort of thing is exactly the reason that ITC exists and the reason that it's useful.

 

Now, I don't agree with their answer- but it is and answer that will be consistent across most every tournament on the west coast, and that alone is worth a lot. I don't have to worry about driving three hours to an event only to find out that their particular houseruling on a subject invalidates my army build, nor do I have to worry about constantly poking a T.O. to find out how they'll be playing a particular rule ahead of time.

 

I know you don't travel around to a lot of tournaments, LH, but for people that do being able to play under a consistent set of rules is a pretty huge deal, because it makes things easier for everyone involved by a very significant degree. Moreover, if you want to run an ITC event but don't like their FAQs- or even just certain portions of their FAQs- you don't have to use them. You can change literally anything you want about the FAQ for your event and I suspect most people will be fine with it, so long as you tell everyone in advance what you're changing.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A super majority like 65% is needed before we decide just to rewrite the rules because someone who doesnt even know the army well is allowed to vote.

 

The Conclusion itself isnt even the issue.  Its that they called it one!

 

Also, I think the poll is largely irrelevant. As long as a decision is made, we're good. The poll just provides a guise that this is also the will of the people. I don't think the poll is necessary, but it is nice that they give it to us.

 

When the ITC first started out, it was like the INAT, they just talked amongst themselves and released an FAQ/Errata.  As ITC got bigger, people didn't like the decisions being made so (seemingly) arbitrarily and demanded a vote.  Thus, a vote was born.  Then they complained that the wording of the voting made the vote a foregone conclusion, so they've worked on making the questions fair and balanced as best they could.  

 

I *personally* don't care about a vote vs a dictatorial decision because, ultimately, I just want consistency more than anything, but I think most people want to feel like they had a say and aren't being screwed over by the whims of some internet persona.  

 

That 40k needs an FAQ/Errata to make it tournament playable isn't new, it's as old as the game, but what separates the ITC from individual TO FAQs is that it is more widespread and helps create a more consistent experience for those who do travel (as AP pointed out).  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the ITC first started out, it was like the INAT, they just talked amongst themselves and released an FAQ/Errata.  As ITC got bigger, people didn't like the decisions being made so (seemingly) arbitrarily and demanded a vote.  Thus, a vote was born.  Then they complained that the wording of the voting made the vote a foregone conclusion, so they've worked on making the questions fair and balanced as best they could.  

 

I *personally* don't care about a vote vs a dictatorial decision because, ultimately, I just want consistency more than anything, but I think most people want to feel like they had a say and aren't being screwed over by the whims of some internet persona.  

 

That 40k needs an FAQ/Errata to make it tournament playable isn't new, it's as old as the game, but what separates the ITC from individual TO FAQs is that it is more widespread and helps create a more consistent experience for those who do travel (as AP pointed out).  

 

 

The thing about the Tau Coordinated Fire issue is that it's not absolutely clear. Now, obviously people on both sides think it is- but that right there is the problem. As a result, it's an issue that needs a solution right away- this sort of thing is exactly the reason that ITC exists and the reason that it's useful.

 

Now, I don't agree with their answer- but it is and answer that will be consistent across most every tournament on the west coast, and that alone is worth a lot. I don't have to worry about driving three hours to an event only to find out that their particular houseruling on a subject invalidates my army build, nor do I have to worry about constantly poking a T.O. to find out how they'll be playing a particular rule ahead of time.

 

I know you don't travel around to a lot of tournaments, LH, but for people that do being able to play under a consistent set of rules is a pretty huge deal, because it makes things easier for everyone involved by a very significant degree. Moreover, if you want to run an ITC event but don't like their FAQs- or even just certain portions of their FAQs- you don't have to use them. You can change literally anything you want about the FAQ for your event and I suspect most people will be fine with it, so long as you tell everyone in advance what you're changing.

You both can join my monarchy, you seem to both be perfect candidates as serf to my House.

 

THE KING IS DEAD! LONG LIVE THE KING!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anywho...  Getting back to the point at hand, Abusepuppy correctly points out that the Coordinated Fire issue is written in a way that could have been clearer but we don't agree that a person with discernment can't easily ferret out what is meant by it such that the ITC should benevolently step in to "help us" understand.

 

As for munchkins showing up and "basing their list" (what an overused term) on a munchkin idea...  Munchkins exist and TO's should stomp their hopes and dreams whenever they show up.  Let someone try to abuse its intent.  That's fine.  They are people who need the lesson in good faith dealings.  they'll be better for it once their butt stops hurting and their fingers tire of bitching on the internet about it to a def audience.

 

I find the intimation that it will 'screw your army build" (paraphrased) a little hard to swallow.  That it isn't as useful as you wished it was doesn't make it not useful.  it's hyperbole to say that this would happen.  Better to say that they will be disappointed while still enjoying its benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anywho...  Getting back to the point at hand, Abusepuppy correctly points out that the Coordinated Fire issue is written in a way that could have been clearer but we don't agree that a person with discernment can't easily ferret out what is meant by it such that the ITC should benevolently step in to "help us" understand.

 

As for munchkins showing up and "basing their list" (what an overused term) on a munchkin idea...  Munchkins exist and TO's should stomp their hopes and dreams whenever they show up.  Let someone try to abuse its intent.  That's fine.  They are people who need the lesson in good faith dealings.  they'll be better for it once their butt stops hurting and their fingers tire of bitching on the internet about it to a def audience.

The problem is that multiple interpretations are obtained by 'persons with discernment' and are all equally valid. You shouldn't brand someone just because they have a different interpretation than you.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anywho...  Getting back to the point at hand, Abusepuppy correctly points out that the Coordinated Fire issue is written in a way that could have been clearer but we don't agree that a person with discernment can't easily ferret out what is meant by it such that the ITC should benevolently step in to "help us" understand.

 

I know that there are plenty of rules I think are plain as day that others think are plain as day as well, but in a completely different way.  Come on, this isn't news.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know it didn't have a super majority.  You know self interest was involved on both ends of any vote.  You can reasonably surmise that there were less Tau players with self interest voting than the myriad of other factions with self interest voting!  Yet only 50%

 

But you don't value a super majority?  My 11 year old can vote, but there's no need for one?  Maybe someone can explain why you're opposed to a super majority requirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abusepuppy, more accurately, I told you that's why I don't attend the larger events like LVO.  However, I attend a lot of events, in a lot of places, so long as painting isn't getting me dinged. 

 

So to be clear, I inaccurately assumed those you mention were taking the paint into consideration to the extent it would make me a donor.  and you have since corrected me on that point.  that had no bearing on whether I travel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know it didn't have a super majority.  You know self interest was involved on both ends of any vote.  You can reasonably surmise that there were less Tau players with self interest voting than the myriad of other factions with self interest voting!  Yet only 50%

 

But you don't value a super majority?  My 11 year old can vote, but there's no need for one?  Maybe someone can explain why you're opposed to a super majority requirement.

Who are you addressing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know it didn't have a super majority.  You know self interest was involved on both ends of any vote.  You can reasonably surmise that there were less Tau players with self interest voting than the myriad of other factions with self interest voting!  Yet only 50%

 

But you don't value a super majority?  My 11 year old can vote, but there's no need for one?  Maybe someone can explain why you're opposed to a super majority requirement.

 

And, again, why did Tau get to be special snowflakes and get to run out multiple GCs if it's just a non-Tau's [big bad swear word]ting on Taus.  The rule is [big bad swear word]ing ambiguous, the people voted.  In the absence of a clear rule, they go with the majority.  I don't see the need for a super majority on anything that ins't a straight up rules change.  

 

Again, this is a vote on the interpretation of a rule, not on a changing of a rule (like the passed rule on nerfing invisibility and 2+ rerolls and the failed change to limit scatter bikes to 1:3 ratio).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All those damned Ork players swarmed out to vote for the Stompa ruling right?

Exactly.  If the Majority of players who don't play a faction voted to keep down the factions they don't play, ridiculous things like a 400 pt Stompa with built in big mek wouldn't pass.  

 

The idea that people are chipmunking factions they don't play to screw over other players doesn't hold water with even a casual glance at the rulings that have gone through.  

 

The ruling in question isn't some nerf on Tau, it's the majority of respondent's opinion on how the rule reads.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you can intentionally ignore the thrust of what I asked or you can address it.

 

I know that NON-ork players supported an ork ruling.  I know that non-Tau people supported a Tau ruling.  That absolutely misses the point.  Some things are just obvious and some are self interest and a 50% vote does not clearly tell you WHICH ONE IT IS.

 

You're FIXATED on the Tau ruling.  Fine.  REPLACe the word Tauwit whatever faction you like and tell me WHY you oppose a super majority requirement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you can intentionally ignore the thrust of what I asked or you can address it.

 

I know that NON-ork players supported an ork ruling. I know that non-Tau people supported a Tau ruling. That absolutely misses the point. Some things are just obvious and some are self interest and a 50% vote does not clearly tell you WHICH ONE IT IS.

 

You're FIXATED on the Tau ruling. Fine. REPLACe the word Tauwit whatever faction you like and tell me WHY you oppose a super majority requirement?

Because otherwise you wouldn't get a ruling on some things that are closely contended?

 

Super majorities are for things where you can debate the pros and cons. You can't do that with this. It's not like an argument about RAW and RAI ever changed anyone's opinion.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comes down to the fact that you won't get to a ruling with the super majority requirement. What do they do if a vote comes down like this tau one? The rule is ambiguous what interpretation holds if a higher vote is required?

 

Takes it back to a select few making the decision.

 

I also got a giggle out of the fact that Hanur doesn't go to events that ding his paint but talks down to abuse who like me doesn't want to go to an event the essentially dings my list writing with house rules i didn't know about...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...