Talonwinter Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 That's hot. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 And look at that. So, despite all the moaning and groaning that this was a "rigged" vote, the vote that was OBVIOUSLY contentious is now completed. Rejoice, Tau players! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 ITC Poll results are in! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier319 Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Nice. I like that. no more 4+ cover save WKs or Stormsurges 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Yea but now unkillable ghostkeels yay... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PumpkinHead Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Yay, b. Hierodule is more easily killed now! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Yeah, that one just took it in the nuts. Then again, it can still get cover from the Malanthrope... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 2+ is hard, but you can still get a 3+ pretty easily from Gargoyles and a Malanthrope. Better than nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted March 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Yea but now unkillable ghostkeels yay... Not if you get within 12" of them. hehehe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier319 Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 the thing about the Keels is that against tanks, sure they're scary. xenos? sure scary. but marines? not really. the inability to crack power armor means that marine armies (the most prolific) will not care much about the GKs once they are out of their bawkses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Oh good, they managed to make the Piranha formation COMPLETELY useless now. You can't stay off the board, you can't get models back (since "at full strength" obviously doesn't mean "at full strength," it means at depleted strength) and if anyone ever rolls an Immobilize result you're screwed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Write an article about all the bad rulings and try and get enough support to put it up for a vote again. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted March 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Replacing entire piranhas doesn't sound like "Refueling" nor "Rearming" to me. Just saying. I am reasonably certain they never intended that to happen. And the sentence doesn't END at "at full strength". It actually goes on to say what that means. Bad punctuation perhaps but on that count I think replacing the entire squadron to five after losing four of the Piranhas was never the thought with them. I think they literally were imagining it bringing "crashing waves" of drones onto the table, receding like the tide and then coming in again. The part about them leaving the round they come in is another discussion from that which gets a bit more complicated. But as far as destroyed Piranhas go, I think it was the right call on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier319 Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Write an article about all the bad rulings and try and get enough support to put it up for a vote again. Nah. That would be effective, adult and reasonable. This is the internet sir. This is the place we uselessly b!tch and throw our opinions around like hand grenades. Silly Fluger. Disclaimer: Directed at no on in particular, just couldn't help myself. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 And the sentence doesn't END at "at full strength". It actually goes on to say what that means. So when someone says to you "yeah, my unit of Tactical Marines is at full strength" you don't think "aha, there are ten models in the squad" you instead think "aha, they haven't fired their combi-weapon yet." 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted March 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Not really what I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 No, but it is a perfectly logical consequence of what you said. Reductio ad absurdem. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier319 Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 On the topic at hand. GW has a nasty habit of using terminology like "at full strength" without having a standardized meaning for what "at full strength" means. You can argue for almost any interpretation of what "at full strength" means, as long as you can logic it out, since it is not defined. So what we're picking at here, has no definitive answer other than our argued interpretations. Hence what ITC was trying to do. Come up with a definition that a majority of those that voted agreed upon. Which was done. As stated earlier, I'm sure if you present the ITC guys with a really well-written, well-worded, intelligent example of why the ruling come to would be harmful to the game, they'll listen. Something about ITC that you have to remember, is that they are not only interpreting rules, but CHANGING them in order to attempt to fix what is an inherently broken system that we all have come to love. It is a monumental task, and a thankless one. They will NOT please everyone, and they WILL make people angry. They changed ranged D. They nerfed invisibility. They changed how malestrom works. These were not rules interpretations, but rules addendums, or in some cases, outright changes. Just my two cents on how to look at the ITC changes without getting too caught up in the syntax and verbiage. Oh, and AP? Saying it in Latin doesn't make how you said that less douchy, just more pretentious. Give the guy a break. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 On the topic at hand. GW has a nasty habit of using terminology like "at full strength" without having a standardized meaning for what "at full strength" means. You can argue for almost any interpretation of what "at full strength" means, as long as you can logic it out, since it is not defined. So what we're picking at here, has no definitive answer other than our argued interpretations. Not all interpretations are equally correct, nor are all assumptions equally valid. The common meaning of "at full strength" is not hard to grasp- and that was the point of my example. I find it hard to imagine that anyone would legitimately take that viewpoint- that "full strength" means "damaged but carrying all weapons" because it clashes significantly with the normal usage of the phrase and makes no real sense in any other context. Oh, and AP? Saying it in Latin doesn't make how you said that less douchy, just more pretentious. Give the guy a break. You do realize that there ISN'T a standard English phrase for that method of argument, right? hell, if we're gonna get all nitpicky about usin' them thar new-fangled ferner words, "douche" isn't English, either. Stop trying to be so pretentious with your ivory tower B.S., dude! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Well im kinda happy they eliminated the zero interaction from opponent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted March 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Eh... Abusepuppy, you're argument is basically ignoring whats right in front of you. The name of the rule is telling. The text is pretty obviously NOT ending with "at full strength" and they do indeed go on to explain exactly what that means. Sure, it could have been written more clearly. But what youre doing now is selling PLAUSIBIKITIES as probabilities and thats the place where I get off the train with you. I can make anything SOUND plausible, but you know its absurd and no anount of English classes will make it less absurd. So peddle plausibiluties if you wanna' but its a power gamers mentality more than a fair one that would lead one to this conclusion youve come to. In a court of law, they would judge whether it is more likely than not. Word smithing is cool but it isnt more likely than not that you're right, in my judgement, on this and thats why I voted it down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikhailLenin Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 "I hate all of you people. Well most of you... Well maybe a few. Really just a couple now that I think about it. Nope back to hating all of you." Thats what this thread is to me 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier319 Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Amen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.