New ITC Poll

[Lord Hanaur]

If you don't like the process, then offer a different process.

Well ironically, Mr.Moretanks, I think that's what I have been doing.  I have been championing that they require a greater level of agreement to actually act on their polls.  So, I'm taking your advice.

[WestRider]

I don't feel very "fragmented" by different venues ruling slightly differently.  So...  I get the sentiment but...  I don't really know what that even means.  We already have 50% of the people who voted in total disagreement.  How much more than 50% can you be fragmented?  Lol.

 

And again:  my issue isn't the actual ruling... as I've repeatedly said.

Two things:

1) I would argue that the existence of a near 50/50 split on the vote indicates that the reading of the Rule is not nearly as clear as you suggested earlier. The interpretation that was arrived at by the vote is an entirely valid one, that contradicts nothing in the RAW. It was actually what I thought was the clear reading from the start.

2) Now that there's a single ruling from the ITC, the scene is going to be less fragmented, because, like it or not, most ITC TOs are simply going to go with that Ruling. Without that, we would continue to have the sort of fragmentation that the 50/50 split indicates.

[galahad911]

Paint doesnt affect game play.  Its a non sequiter

 

 

If paint doesn't affect gameplay and doesn't follow this discussion, then why would you yourself allow paint scores to discourage your attendance? It is the same damn thing. You have several events. Half of the events make paint scores rule you out of the running as described by yourself, the other half does not. But with each individual TO making a decision on this particular point, you don't know which events you don't want to go to because of your feeling of being a donor, as described by yourself. Getting a decision on this particular issue with a vote, even if it's by a 50.000000000000000000000000000000000000001% margin, then you know before entries are paid, before armies are painted to a sub standard level, before travel and hotel rooms are booked. You get your answer and can plan accordingly for roughly 3-4 months time rather than having a different answer in every other event you go to because the vote was split 50/50.

 

I only use this example because you, yourself have said on several occasions that this issue has discouraged you from going to events in much the same was as you say others have said that they did or did not want to attend an event based on what ITC rulings are going to be in effect at an event.

 

For the third time, it very much looks like you have predetermined that anything ITC does is bad, regardless of how they do it. They could do anything at all, and you would poo-poo it because it came from them. You seemingly base your reasons on things that are demonstrably false, for instance saying that votes are cast purely in the voter's best interest and not for the health of the game. When in fact, there has been multiple times that a vote has gone in favor of making armies stronger that certainly don't have the player base for it have only been people who play those armies to have voted for those buffs. It makes you appear petty.

[galahad911]

Well ironically, Mr.Moretanks, I think that's what I have been doing.  I have been championing that they require a greater level of agreement to actually act on their polls.  So, I'm taking your advice.

 

 

So, if you did things your way, any truly contentious question would never get an answer across the whole event series. If that's what you want, then what is the point in doing it in the first place? No truly contentious question is going to have a wide margin, because it's contentious!

[InfestedKerrigan]

[InfestedKerrigan]

ITC vs LordHanaur: The Story of One Mans Struggle Against Corruption, next on Lifetime.

[AbusePuppy]

I don't feel very "fragmented" by different venues ruling slightly differently.  So...  I get the sentiment but...  I don't really know what that even means.  We already have 50% of the people who voted in total disagreement.  How much more than 50% can you be fragmented?  Lol.

 

Let's take the other big ruling they made this time as a problem: I go to an event with my discount Stompa via Big Mek Buzzgob. I show up to the tournament, play a round or two with my list, and the judge comes over. He looks at it, reads the rule, and tells me my list is illegal because he doesn't believe that's what the rule is intended to function as. I now have an illegal list (it's 400pts over!) and can't play. Oops.

 

Do you not see how that is problematic and discouraging, and why players would want a system in place to avoid it? Do you not see that the ITC's  FAQ exists for the exact same reason that the FAQ you yourself used at the Elvensword, and was generated in essentially the same way?

[Lord Hanaur]

If paint doesn't affect gameplay and doesn't follow this discussion, then why would you yourself allow paint scores to discourage your attendance? It is the same damn thing. You have several events. Half of the events make paint scores rule you out of the running as described by yourself, the other half does not. But with each individual TO making a decision on this particular point, you don't know which events you don't want to go to because of your feeling of being a donor, as described by yourself. Getting a decision on this particular issue with a vote, even if it's by a 50.000000000000000000000000000000000000001% margin, then you know before entries are paid, before armies are painted to a sub standard level, before travel and hotel rooms are booked. You get your answer and can plan accordingly for roughly 3-4 months time rather than having a different answer in every other event you go to because the vote was split 50/50.

 

I only use this example because you, yourself have said on several occasions that this issue has discouraged you from going to events in much the same was as you say others have said that they did or did not want to attend an event based on what ITC rulings are going to be in effect at an event.

 

For the third time, it very much looks like you have predetermined that anything ITC does is bad, regardless of how they do it. They could do anything at all, and you would poo-poo it because it came from them. You seemingly base your reasons on things that are demonstrably false, for instance saying that votes are cast purely in the voter's best interest and not for the health of the game. When in fact, there has been multiple times that a vote has gone in favor of making armies stronger that certainly don't have the player base for it have only been people who play those armies to have voted for those buffs. It makes you appear petty.

Your post made no sense.  Your conclusion less.

 

Knowing what paint requirements are ahead of time is easy and not an ITC issue.  Are you even posting in the right thread? It has no game play effect.  I don't decide whether or not to attend based on if its ITC or not as some do.  That would be pointless.  However, what I cannot do is win and make it matter at the events that will place me 8th after going 5-0, after an expensive trip I sold my wife on.  That is the reason paint affects my attendance, not some "stand on principle" to shake my fist at "the man" for judging my paint harshly (as it rightly deserves to be in a few cases).  It's just a practical matter.  It's happened twice to me, and I learned my lesson after the second one:  Have good paint or don't go to those.  Lesson learned and now I know.  Rules that affect game play?  I'm more than capable of working around it.  Doesn't mean I need to be sheep-like about praising them.

 

On your other point:  No one said all the voters cast purely out of self interest, though you insist I said so.  I'm interested though:  Are you in turn stating that none were given to self interest? If so you're in fantasy land my friend.  i guarantee you they were on both sides of that vote (as I actually said) and Tau opponents outnumber Tau, don't they?    So tell me again how pure as the white driven snow only gamers can be when voting? (Man I wish I had a Gene Wilder meme for that right now).

 

On your last point:  Does explaining my point = hate for the entire ITC?  No.  So just stop.  I'm pretty disappointed right now though.  They really do have some bad rulings.  50% of the voters think so, don't they?  They also fumbled matters like the detachment thing as well, ping ponging around with that.

 

Growing pains.

[Lord Hanaur]

Let's take the other big ruling they made this time as a problem: I go to an event with my discount Stompa via Big Mek Buzzgob. I show up to the tournament, play a round or two with my list, and the judge comes over. He looks at it, reads the rule, and tells me my list is illegal because he doesn't believe that's what the rule is intended to function as. I now have an illegal list (it's 400pts over!) and can't play. Oops.

 

Do you not see how that is problematic and discouraging, and why players would want a system in place to avoid it? Do you not see that the ITC's  FAQ exists for the exact same reason that the FAQ you yourself used at the Elvensword, and was generated in essentially the same way?

I don't think I ever stated an FAQ was a bad thing.  When was that?  It's a downright necessity.  And in the example you give, yeah.  Totally get it.  Except...that's not really an FAQ question.  It's a format one.  The list of banned/Not banned etc..  is sort of separate, in my mind, from the actual Errata/FAQ.  Allowable units is one category while rules are another.

 

We aren't talking about whether or not an FAQ is useful.  That was never the question.  We were talking about how to make the ITC FAQ better and ever more legitimate as a universal tool which is what everyone wants from it (or so these comments lead me to believe).  If TO's are to feel comfortable being bound by it, then lets make it beyond reproach in as many ways as we can given its more than just an FAQ for one meta and one event.  The ITC does have some terribad rulings.  Most of them are good.  But many of them didn't even need to be rulings.  The volume of their FAQ is...  bloated to say the least.

[galahad911]

Your post made no sense.  Your conclusion less.

 

Knowing what paint requirements are ahead of time is easy and not an ITC issue.  Are you even posting in the right thread? It has no game play effect.  I don't decide whether or not to attend based on if its ITC or not as some do.  That would be pointless.  However, what I cannot do is win and make it matter at the events that will place me 8th after going 5-0, after an expensive trip I sold my wife on.  That is the reason paint affects my attendance, not some "stand on principle" to shake my fist at "the man" for judging my paint harshly (as it rightly deserves to be in a few cases).  It's just a practical matter.  It's happened twice to me, and I learned my lesson after the second one:  Have good paint or don't go to those.  Lesson learned and now I know.  Rules that affect game play?  I'm more than capable of working around it.  Doesn't mean I need to be sheep-like about praising them.

 

On your other point:  No one said all the voters cast purely out of self interest, though you insist I said so.  I'm interested though:  Are you in turn stating that none were given to self interest? If so you're in fantasy land my friend.  i guarantee you they were on both sides of that vote (as I actually said) and Tau opponents outnumber Tau, don't they?    So tell me again how pure as the white driven snow only gamers can be when voting? (Man I wish I had a Gene Wilder meme for that right now).

 

On your last point:  Does explaining my point = hate for the entire ITC?  No.  So just stop.  I'm pretty disappointed right now though.  They really do have some bad rulings.  50% of the voters think so, don't they?  They also fumbled matters like the detachment thing as well, ping ponging around with that.

 

Growing pains.

 

You cannot possibly be reading what I actually wrote, and coming up with this response. You can't be that slow.

 

I said in the second part that I brought up the painting as AN EXAMPLE of you wanting to know how something in being handled before you go to an event and that that is just the same as someone wanting to know how a rule is going to be handled going into an event, and to show that it can and does affect whether or not someone goes to said event. Acting like you have earlier in this thread that anyone showing up to a tournament and having a ruling sprung on them and that having a negative effect on their enjoyment of the event is a munchkin, or relying on shenanigans is BS. I've never had that happen to me, and I still found it insulting that you would make that kind of generalization.

 

I wrote that it was the same as your painting thing, and it is. I never said you based attendance on ITC, and acting like I did makes me believe that you didn't actually read what was written and then acted like my post made no sense. You know you might want to read a post before saying things like that.Here's what I said even, you can see it again.

 

I only use this example because you, yourself have said on several occasions that this issue has discouraged you from going to events in much the same was as you say others have said that they did or did not want to attend an event based on what ITC rulings are going to be in effect at an event.

 

"example" "much the same as others"

 

So saying I said you do anything in relation to ITC... Yeah, you really didn't read what I wrote. Awesome. Great job!

 

You absolutely did say, in this thread, that people are only voting in their own self interests, and when someone questioned it, you said some sarcastic crap about people being saints. Hyperbole much? You've also made that statement in other threads. Acting like the votes are pointless because people only vote in their own armies interest. Acting like you haven't taken that stand on more than one occasion is disingenuous at best, and a flat out lie at worst.

 

If the Tau opponents outnumbering Tau players was the only reason the coordinated fire result came out the way it did, like you just said, then why did the experimental rules vote go the way it did? Why did the Stormsurge vote go the way it did? Why did the Blood Angles formations get voted to allow first turn charges in the vote before if it's purely self interest driving votes? I can assure you that BA players are incredibly outnumbered, but the vote passed by a HUGE margin. Or the DA characters that buy bikes getting the Ravenwing rule vote, again a HUGE margin, when again there aren't enough DA players to really act like it was only DA players that voted that way. The votes have proven, time and again, that the community in general is voting for the health of the game. I would venture to guess that the vote on coordinated firepower had FAR more to do with how effing nuts it would be for buffmander to work on your whole hunter cadre than it had to do with, "Well I don't play Tau, so eff those guys!"

 

 

 

No, explaining your point in this thread doesn't mean you hate ITC, but the whole of your bitching about ITC posts sure does. You've gone on and on, at length, in multiple threads about how you hate ITC, and their rulings are terrible, and the votes are rigged, etc etc etc. Acting like you don't post that way, again, disingenuous at best, and acting like you're oh so innocent in this post is just plain ridiculous.

 

And yet, you still dodge the question that I, and at least 2 other people have asked you...

 

If you have to have a super majority to get a ruling, then no rules that are actually contentious will ever get ruled on, as if there was that much of a majority ruling on the question, IT WOULDN'T BE CONTENTIOUS! So what you're actually saying is that you just want to go back to TOs at individual events making rulings on everything. If that's what we're doing, then what is the point in doing an ITC FAQ at all? Needing that much of a margin means nothing get ruled on and we're back to square one. Of course, with your ITC hate, I guess that's great for you!   

 

Obviously the vast majority of the tournament going community as a whole does not agree with you on that and would rather know how things are going to be done before they plan to go.

[AbusePuppy]

We aren't talking about whether or not an FAQ is useful.  That was never the question.  We were talking about how to make the ITC FAQ better and ever more legitimate as a universal tool which is what everyone wants from it (or so these comments lead me to believe).  If TO's are to feel comfortable being bound by it, then lets make it beyond reproach in as many ways as we can given its more than just an FAQ for one meta and one event.  The ITC does have some terribad rulings.  Most of them are good.  But many of them didn't even need to be rulings.  The volume of their FAQ is...  bloated to say the least.

 

Well, a couple of problems: first, not everyone wants the same thing from it (not even all of the people on the ITC's rules council). Second, you will never be able to make it "beyond reproach" because not everyone agrees on what the correct rulings "should" be.

 

Some of the stuff in the FAQ is indeed redundant- but much of it is not, and it resolves some very relevant questions. And, to echo back to the above point, whether it's rulings are good or bad (and which ones you think are which) is a pretty subjective manner- the rulings you consider problematic may not be the ones that I consider problematic, ad infinitum for every other person on Earth. If we're being quite honest here, I disagreed with several of the rules calls you made at Elvensword- but I still respected your judgement on the matter, as you were the TO and the decision was ultimately yours to make.

 

If your main complaint with it is "I don't agree with some of their rulings," you will never find an FAQ that suits you, unless you write it yourself. You're going to need to level a much more substantial criticism than that if you want to convince anyone.

[Lord Hanaur]

You will never be able to make it "beyond reproach" because not everyone agrees on what the correct rulings "should" be.

Thats a reason not to try?  I don't agree.  Of course not everyone will agree, but they can demonstrably agree in the super majority.  Clearly i am suggesting they do so.

[Lord Hanaur]

Some of the stuff in the FAQ is indeed redundant- but much of it is not, and it resolves some very relevant questions. And, to echo back to the above point, whether it's rulings are good or bad (and which ones you think are which) is a pretty subjective manner-

Stating that it is subjective is stating the obvious.  The issue isn't whether it is.  It's whether or not a large enough majority have come to subjective agreement.

[Lord Hanaur]

If your main complaint with it is "I don't agree with some of their rulings,"...

That wasn't my main complaint.  I made that pretty clear.

[Lord Hanaur]

Acting like you have earlier in this thread that anyone showing up to a tournament and having a ruling sprung on them and that having a negative effect on their enjoyment of the event is a munchkin, or relying on shenanigans is BS. I've never had that happen to me, and I still found it insulting that you would make that kind of generalization.

 

I wasn't "acting" as if a person surprised is a munchkin.  I just think they need to look in the mirror to figure out who to blame for that "surprise" when the rules have been up for months.

 

You are choosing to be insulted.  You aren't actually.  You know as well as anyone that plenty of players will try something to see if they can get it past people on some spurious logical train.  If you never have, good for you.

[Lord Hanaur]

I wrote that it was the same as your painting thing, and it is.

 

It isn't.  Sorry.

[Guest]

I keep wondering if you guys are debating the topic, or if this is more about who said what, not what they said.

[Lord Hanaur]

I only use this example because you, yourself have said on several occasions that this issue has discouraged you from going to events in much the same was as you say others have said that they did or did not want to attend an event based on what ITC rulings are going to be in effect at an event.

 

No.  because you dont get "surprised" by the paint thing.  you just ask what it is.  In the same way as you ask what the rules are going to be.  And once you know, you know.  If you can't be bothered to do one or the other, any surprises you get are on you.

[Lord Hanaur]

You absolutely did say, in this thread, that people are only voting in their own self interests, 

 

But I didn't.  Read it again.  it's right there on the thread.  Clearly I told you some did.  Clearly you are in fantasy land if you think otherwise.

[Lord Hanaur]

If the Tau opponents outnumbering Tau players was the only reason the coordinated fire result came out the way it did, like you just said,..

Except thats not what I said.  I observed that it was true, in relation to the fact that self interest did drive some.  You are adding in superlatives to what I say like "all" and "everyone" when in fact I didn't.  If you stop doing that and read what was said, less problems understanding will occur.

[Lord Hanaur]

And yet, you still dodge the question that I, and at least 2 other people have asked you...

 

If you have to have a super majority to get a ruling, then no rules that are actually contentious will ever get ruled on, as if there was that much of a majority ruling on the question, IT WOULDN'T BE CONTENTIOUS! 

Contentious or not in your mind, you areignoring that if a few more people voted, we'd be talking about the Tau being ALLOWED to use it in its full glory with a 50% margin.

 

Now.  You dont seem to care.  50% definitely would.  The other 50% definitely do now because the vote went the other way.  In short you've now pissed off half the people who support the ITC.  How many more of those do you  think it will take before TO's silently and without comment start to have less ITC events and more regular ones?  1 seemingly arbitrary coin flip vote?  7 more?  it will happen again.  Because at some point if you do not get behind my point of view and support them seeking better asked questions and a super majirity before acting, the very transparency they are providing will erode their popularity.  

 

Right now, today, if the vote is to be beleived...  We might have this rule in its unadulterated and most abuseable form if only a few more people had voted!  Let that sink in.  I guaranee you that 50% would be far more vocal if it happened.  Yet Fluger and you claim you would just say "No its fine". 

 

You should support such a simple and fair minded proposal to get super majoirty votes before asking TO's to go with the a "super FAQ" instead of what their own meta prefers (whatever that may be).  

 

I say this as one who...again...  would have voted for the more restrictive ruling. Me, a Tau General who loves the Tau Empire more than any other faction.

[Lord Hanaur]

I keep wondering if you guys are debating the topic, or if this is more about who said what, not what they said.

The latter.

[pretre]

The latter.

Bullgak. People are objecting to opinions on ITC, not to Lord Hanaur.

[Lord Hanaur]

Bullgak. People are objecting to opinions on ITC, not to Lord Hanaur.

 

Sure.  Some are.

[PourSpelur]

Sure.  Some are.

Less than 65% of them though so it doesn't count;)