Decide 40K’s Burning Questions – VOTE!

itc.logo.01.1

40K players, here is your chance to vote on some of 40Ks burning questions. The ITC Q2 Rules Poll is here!

Sorry we’re a day late! We lost a day getting back form Vegas after our LVO prep trip, so the poll is coming out a bit late, sorry for that. Please listen to the attached podcast for additional information on the poll questions. Thanks for voting and participating in the ITC!

We require your email and name for voter verification purposes, that information will not be shared with any third parties. The poll runs through Sunday, June 26th.

ITC 2016 2nd Quarter Update Poll

Follow this link to cast your vote!

The burning 40K questions this quarter are:

Should we allow vehicles with the walker type to choose to change immobilized results on the damage table to weapon destroyed results?
Yes, I think we should allow Vehicles with the Walker type to choose to change immobilized results on the damage table to weapon destroyed results.
 
No, I think vehicles with the Walker type should not be allowed to change immobilized damage results to weapon destroyed results.
Would you like to see the Death from the Skies supplement used in the ITC at this time?
Yes.
 
No.
If the Death from the Skies supplement is used in the ITC, would you like to use the Dog Fight phase? Please note, removing the Dog Fight phase would also eliminate the Air Superiority rule which can apply a -1 or -2 (with the Air Superiority detachment) modifier to enemy reserve rolls.
Yes, I would like to use the Dog Fight rules in the ITC.
 
No, I would not like to use the Dog Fight rules in the ITC.
If the Death from the Skies supplement is used in the ITC, how would you like to apply those rules to Forge World flyers which do not have a Combat Role or the Pursuit and Agility stats which are required for participation in Dog Fighting and other aspects of the Death from the Skies rule set.
Use them as is: without a Combat Role (Attack Flyer, Bombers, etc.) pursuit or agility stat. This means they would not participate in the Dog Fight phase, nor would they be able to perform Break Turns. However, they would be able to use the Flyer Wings rules (without any of the benefits of Attack Patters due to not having a Combat Role) and could be taken in the Air Superiority detachment.
 
I would like to see the ITC give them Combat Roles and Pursuit and Agility statistics based off of similar aircraft. They would then use all of the rules for Death From the Skies until such a time as Forge World addresses their role in relationship to this supplement.
If the Death from the Skies supplement is used in the ITC, would you like to see Attack and Bomber aircraft retain Skyfire but have a -1 to hit Flyers and Flying Monstrous Creatures applied to them similar to the rule for Fighter aircraft firing on ground targets?
Yes, I would like to see Attack and Bomber aircraft retain Skyfire but have a -1 to hit applied when firing at flyers and flying monstrous creatures.
 
No, I would prefer for Attack and Bomber aircraft to lose Skyfire per the Death from the Skies printed supplement.
The ITC has suggested altering the Phase Form Psychic Power from the Angels of Death supplement as follows: Warp Charge 1, and to allow the user to either ignore cover or line of sight, but not both simultaneously.
Yes, I would like to keep the suggested ITC rules alteration limiting the user to either ignore cover or line of sight, but not both simultaneously.
 
No, I would prefer to play the rule as written in the Angels of Death supplement allowing the user to ignore line of sight and cover simultaneously.
Do you want to see the Shifting Worldscape psychic power used in the ITC format? This power allows players to move terrain around the battlefield up to 24″, sometimes moving units inside the terrain as well.
No, I do not think this power should be used in the ITC format.
 
Yes, I think this power should be used in the ITC format.
If the Shifting Worldscape psychic power is used in the ITC format, the ITC has suggested altering the power as follows: the controlling player may move a terrain piece in a straight line along the table. It may not move over intervening models and at no point may it move within 4″ of another piece of terrain or enemy unit. It otherwise obeys all other rules of the power. 
Yes, if the Shifting Worldscape power is allowed in the ITC, I would like to keep the alterations listed above.
 
No, if the shifting Worldscape power is allowed in the ITC, I do not want to use these alterations but use it as it is written in the Angels of Death supplement.
The ITC has suggested altering the Electrodisplacement psychic power as follows: this psychic power treats the target units as Deep Striking when moved and therefore being unable to assault in the turn Electrodisplacement is used. Further, the power may be used on units locked in close combat but if done, targeted units must be placed more than 1″ away from previously engaged enemy unit(s) and will no longer be locked in combat.
Yes, I would like to keep the suggested ITC rules alterations.
 
No, I do not want to keep these rules alterations and would prefer to use the Electrodisplacement as written in the Angels of Death supplement.
Previously in the ITC, we voted to prohibit Eldar Corsairs Jet Bikes from using their Reckless Abandon rule during Overwatch, which allowed them to shoot and then move 6+d6″ away from the charging unit. Would you like to see this previous ruling overturned, allowing Reckless Abandon during Overwatch but restricted to a 6″ move for all unit types?
Yes, I would like to see all Eldar Corsair units be able to use the Reckless Abandon special rule as a part of Overwatch, but be restricted to a 6″ move for all unit types.
 
No, I would prefer to see the prohibition on the Reckless Abandon rule for Eldar Corsairs Jet Bikes stay in place.
The Eldar Corsair psychic power Warp Tunnel allows the controlling player to move their Psyker and a unit they are attached to or a non-vehicle unit within 6″ to move to any point on the table without scattering or misshaping, and then shoot and assault. Do you think this power should be altered for the ITC as follows: Warp Tunnel may be cast on units containing only models with the Corsairs faction.
Yes, I think this power should be altered to only work on units containing only models with the Corsairs faction.
 
No, I do not think this power should be altered but should be played as it reads.
When do Daemon units use their Daemonic Corruption special rule? This allows the Daemon Player to hold an objective even when the unit moves more than 3″ away from it for the rest of the game until an enemy unit moves within 3″ of said objective and “Cleanses” it.
Units with the Daemonic Corruption special rule may only use it at the end of their movement phase.
 
Units with the Daemonic Corruption Special Rule may use it at any point in their movement phase, choosing one objective they’ve moved past to corrupt.
Games Workshop has released a series of first draft FAQs on their Facebook Page. They have stated that these are works in progress and that the final drafts of the FAQs will be posted as PDFs on Games Workshop’s site when they are done. We do not know when this will occur: it may be several months or more from now. Do you want to use these FAQs now in their draft form for the ITC knowing that rulings may change at any time at Games Workshop’s discretion?
Yes, I would like to use the draft versions of the Games Workshop FAQs, understanding that they may change at any time and current rulings may not reflect the final draft version of the FAQ.
 
No, I would prefer to wait until the Games Workshop FAQs are in final draft form, understanding that that may be several months or more in the future.
If the ITC adopts the first draft Games Workshop FAQs, do you want the ITC to keep the FAQ’s current version of the grenades in assault ruling, limiting a unit to using a single grenade in the assault phase regardless of the number of models equipped with grenades?
Yes, I want the ITC to keep this ruling, limiting a unit to using a single grenade in the assault phase.
 
No, I do not want the ITC to keep this ruling and would prefer to allow units to use more than one grenade in the assault phase so long as they are equipped to do so.
If the ITC adopts the first draft Games Workshop FAQs, do you want the ITC to keep the FAQ’s current version of the Void Shield Generator ruling or would you prefer for it to be able to stop any or all of the rules it lists as effecting Void Shields: Grav, Melta, Gauss and/or Haywire special rules?
I would like to keep the current draft version of the Games Workshop ruling meaning the Void Shields are not immune to the special attacks listed: Grav, Melta, Gauss and Haywire special rules.
 
I do not want the ITC to keep this rule and would prefer for Void Shields to be immune to some or all of the following special rules: Grav, Melta, Gauss and/or Haywire each of which is specified in the following poll questions.
If the ITC vote to allow the Void Shield Generator to stop special attacks passes, would you want to include Grav weapons on this list?
Yes, I think the Void Shield should be immune to Grav weapons.
 
No, I do not think the Void Shield Generator should be immune to Grav weapons.
If the ITC vote to allow the Void Shield Generator to stop special attacks passes, would you want to include the Melta special rule on this list?
Yes, I think Void Shields should be immune to the Melta special rule. (This means Melta weapons would not get the bonus D6 for armor penetration but would otherwise function normally)
 
No, I do not think Void Shields should be immune to the melta special rule.
If the ITC vote to allow the Void Shield Generator to stop special attacks passes, would you want to include the Gauss special rule on this list?
Yes, I think Void Shields should be immune to the Gauss special rule.
 
No, I do not think Void Shields should be immune to the Gauss special rule.
If the ITC vote to allow the Void Shield Generator to stop special attacks passes, would you want to include the Haywire special rule on this list?
Yes, I think Void Shields should be immune to the Haywire special rule.
 
No, I do not think Void Shields should be immune to the Haywire special rule.
If the ITC adopts the first draft Games Workshop FAQs, do you want the ITC to keep its current ruling stating auras do not work from within transports?
Yes, I would like to keep this ruling meaning that a unit’s aura ability will not work from within a transport vehicle.
 
No, I would prefer to allow a unit’s aura ability to work from within a transport vehicle.
If the ITC adopts the first draft of the Games Workshop FAQs, do you want to keep its current version of the Drop Pod ruling, counting the doors as part of the hull of the Drop Pod? This ruling means a Drop pod’s foot print goes from roughly 4.5″ in diameter to 9.5″ in diameter, and the open doors would block movement and models inside could disembark from them.
Yes, I would like to use this FAQ ruling.
No, I would prefer for the ITC to treat the Drop Pod’s doors as not counting as part of its hull, meaning models may move over them and they cannot be used for the purposes of disembarkation.

Follow this link to cast your vote!

LVO 2017 Reminder

And as a reminder, Las Vegas Open 2017 registration opens on July 1st, so mark your calendars!

lvo.2017.1

~What are your thoughts on the those questions?

  • Don Lindsey

    I would like to see the ITC allow Imperial Knights to be played in their codex entirety.

    • Kyle Goguen

      They already do

  • Shiwan8

    It is cute that they want people to vote for the good of the community in stead of trying to get advantage for their army. Obviously most will aim to gain benefit from the vote.

    • markdawg

      I don’t think past voting data has proven that to be the case.

      • Shiwan8

        OR since most player vote for themselves the votes even each other out in the end?

        • Severius_Tolluck

          Pirate’s always vote for themselves!

          • Shiwan8

            Basic.

      • ShasOFish

        It’s been the case. Bring up getting a revote on anything, or even mention nerfing Eldar, and those particular comments get deleted in seconds.

        • ZeeLobby

          Haha. Yup. It’s never for the good of the game.

        • Pyrrhus of Epirus

          i must have imagined the nerf to toe in cover (wraithknight says hi), nerf to D ranged and the warp spider 1 jump nerfs and the fact that scat bikes have previously been voted on and people choose not to nerf them, but keep telling yourself these fantasies if it helps you sleep at night.

    • Tirelion

      I just blanket voted to not change anything. Good, bad, or indifferent.

  • J Mad

    Dog fight: No
    Tournaments are already on a very tight time limit, adding another phase (even if its only 5min every 30-40min) it still is something else you have to do, and little thing that adds time makes the day longer and harder to rule, if 1 turn is cut short that could mean the difference in the winner.

    Drop pod Doors count: No
    I like the fluff idea, but it is such a large foot print that you can completely fill the table with Immob vehicles for extremely cheap, making it almost impossible to move around the table.

    Its not a matter of being fair or unfair, it is just a silly idea that you can completely block the other in the most silliest cheapest way ever in the history of the game.

    Void Shields: Treat them as they are, Glance or Pens count, if a weapon says they get a special rule for a “pen” or a “glance” then it counts, Haywire and grav make Glances and Pens, keep them that way, Grav 2nd ability to Immob wouldnt work b.c the object cant be immob from a weapon.

    To use or Not to use Drafts:
    This is very tricky alot of the drafts is just to clarify, but many of the clarifications are completely opposite of what the current rules say.

    Personally I wouldnt use them in a tournament setting, as a causal game yes I would (they need more testing to be flushed out). But some of the Faq’s did help clarify some things.

    Its going to be a Pick and Choose what you wan to use and dont use at this point IMO.

    • Shawn

      Hasn’t that always been the ITC way? “We don’t like these rules, so we’ll make our own.” The only problem for me is that ITC has such a big influence over play, it even effects those casual players that may want to do something different.

  • EnTyme

    I guess I never saw the issue with the Demonic Corruption rule. The unit may be able to continuing holding the objective after moving away from it, but it can still only hold one objective at a time.

    • Tirelion

      Except that’s not how it works. The game state is holding the objective, not the unit.

    • The issue is people claiming they corrupted an objective they never held, because objectives are only held at the end of the movement phase

  • LordKrungharr

    Why do we even buy rule books if we’re just gonna vote to change half of them?

    • Tirelion

      It’s crazy, they really have taken it too far.

  • Commissar Molotov

    Wait a minute. You’re just trying to trick me into listening to that damned podcast, aren’t you?

    • They linked to the ITC poll, which is the subject of the post…what does that have to do with their podcast

      • Commissar Molotov

        “For more information on this poll, please listen to this podcast before voting.”

        • Right, but the questions are self explanatory, there’s no need to listen lol

  • Tirelion

    ITC is trying to outright change too many of the rules. I used to support the ITC but this has gone too far. We shouldn’t get to cherry pick which official FAQ rulings we want to use or change core rules to suit our fancy. When they wanted to change an occasional thing here or there, well, I didn’t like it but I could stomach it. This wholesale changing of the game though is just too much. I never want to get near an ITC event again. This sort of play just shouldn’t be supported.

    • I disagree, the best thing about ITC is that they’re willing to make rules changes. They aren’t perfect, but the fact is GW doesn’t do a great job maintaining the game and ITC changes are at least generally the product of consensus.

      You’re of course free to vote with your dollars, but the community is behind them because a transparent body that listens is the best avenue for changing 40k for the better. I think people would like 40k more if they were less beholden to rules as written and more interested in what makes the game work well for them.

  • Admiral Raptor

    Good on them for trying to make 40k playable. I wouldn’t want to be a Tournament organizer in 7th ed. It sounds like a thankless job with a bad payout. Still, I admire the amount of work these guys are willing to put in.

  • Kijg

    In my opinion, and almost every gamer I’ve met, ITC should not being blatantly changing core rules or nerfing units. It changes the game we love.

    Initially when ITC did FAQs to clarify some fuzziness that’ was great. But when it started to change rules clearly set out in the game that’s when people who stomached it couldn’t take it anymore.

    The initial clarifications were welcome to resolve issues and have a standard ruling in order to have some balance of resolution to those issues across the board.

    When the initial clarifications were done it was done to resolve issues, to balance the game play allowing players a balanced standard, not to make a few vocal groups happy. Negative vocal groups always make the loudest noises, even if the majority of players are happy and having fun because non-negative groups usually don’t voice their opinions.

    The increments of blatant changes that ITC has done to the rules has steadily stacked up and now when played it is a warp version of the game, nerfing selected untis, creating a power vacuum for other certain units/factions. ITC reasoning that it is to make the game fun is incorrect. Fun can be had between players whatever the scenario, it depends on the payers. Using ITC changes doesn’t guarantee players will have fun, players can still have a funless game, maybe moreso because of ITC rule changes.

    Every faction has its own style to play. They excel in one area compared to another faction. By nerfing one unit/faction, it increases the meta/power for another faction.

    I am all for clarification of rules when it is not clearly stated, but not for outright rule changes.

    Awhile ago on BOLS I saw this other comp system which did not change any of the core rules. It only set out the number of detachment restrictions just like ITC but also included a system of comp points in which when you add specific units/detachments while creating a list you tally up the comp points you accumulated after you’ve created a list, which you can then use as a measuring point in how strong your list is in terms of how high your comp point total is.

    I know this is still some form of restricting what people can take in a list, but it allows players not to go over board on multiple power detachments/units and makes them strategize around one main aspect in their list.

    I think the link here was

    http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/02/40k-a-new-comp-challenger-approaches.html

  • Nocturus

    Won’t let me vote. Is it already closed?