Lance845 wrote: Except i have had great times with some hammerheads and longstrike. And most people didnt like them for the expense of their guns for their output not their bs.
Whats available on a hammerhead is VERY different from whats available on a crisis team.
Output is directly related to BS. If with BS 3+ Hammerheads were not good, and people had trouble making them good with markerlights then markerlights are not a counterpoint to increasing BS. Individual performance is easily adjusted by points cost or changing the weapons in question. Right now a fusion crisis team costs 300 pts or so. It costs at least 80 pts to get 5 markers on the target. That's 380 pts to get 9 melta hitting on 2s rerolling ones. Against a Russ that's 9 hits we'll say, 4-5 wounds and on average one dead Russ, but maybe not. Add in the lack of durability for the suits and it's hardly game breaking.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, fluff does not and should not = crunch.
If fluff was crunch shadow in the warp would be table wide, give a blanket -1 ld which would become -3 to psykers and cause perils on any failed manifest instead of only double 1s and 6s.
Fluff is a crap argument for anything in the game mechanics.
Then on that we disagree. And there is literally nothing that will change my mind.
Fluff is the whole reason this game exists today. It's the only reason most people are still in the hobby (me included). 40k is not the most tactical game out there, and all the rules are based on the fluff. Fluff drives the game mechanics. A marine is tougher than a guardsman, a fire warrior has better gear than a guardsman etc... "Shadow in the Warp" only exists as a rule because of the fluff. Just because things aren't as bonkers as the fluff purports does not mean they are not related (also, propaganda and bad reports exist in lore so...). The fluff and the rules evolve together.
If we applied your logic, I could make Tau super crazy good in close combat because the fluff doesn't matter, just the crunch. I could make marines only as good as a guardsman because that way it's easy to balance. The fluff doesn't matter. Maybe Custodes should have only been terminator level, because crunch not fluff. How about we make all the factions the exact same, just the models are different? You know, crunch.
If I wanted to play a game purely for crunch I would be playing chess.
if fluff = crunch, 5-10 marines would be enough to take out just about any army. While the fluff is fun, as Lance845 said, it'd be terrible for balance.
To hit is directly related to bs. Not pure out put. A bs 3+ platform shooting a 90 point heavy 1 gun with no ap and 1 dmg is gak output for the points. Hammerheads had poor total output for their cost without bringing 3 with 1 being longstrike.
And even then it wasnt the greatest thing in the world (though functional).
3 crisis suits at bs 2+ rerolling 1s with the guns they could take would make commanders obsolete.
As above, if your entire argument for crunch os fluff then you dont have an opinion that matters when it comes to mechanics. Its all nonsensical bs that would turn the game into a unfun nightmare to play.
Lance845 wrote: To hit is directly related to bs. Not pure out put. A bs 3+ platform shooting a 90 point heavy 1 gun with no ap and 1 dmg is gak output for the points. Hammerheads had poor total output for their cost without bringing 3 with 1 being longstrike.
And even then it wasnt the greatest thing in the world (though functional).
3 crisis suits at bs 2+ rerolling 1s with the guns they could take would make commanders obsolete.
As above, if your entire argument for crunch os fluff then you dont have an opinion that matters when it comes to mechanics. Its all nonsensical bs that would turn the game into a unfun nightmare to play.
if fluff = crunch, 5-10 marines would be enough to take out just about any army. While the fluff is fun, as Lance845 said, it'd be terrible for balance.
Lance said "fluff does not and should not=crunch". I took that to mean that the fluff has 0 place in the rules at all. If I was wrong on that account then I retract my statement.
Regardless, we know that fluff accounts are dubious. In one story 100 Marines can take a whole system, in another Abaddon failed 12 times to take one with multiple legions+ demons+cultists. I take that to mean that the fluff is massively distorted by rumors and propaganda. Just how it should be.
There are a few things we do know of though for certain:
- Marines are tougher and better than humans -> this is represented in the rules
- Orks believe in strength in numbers -> also represented
- tau dislike close combat -> also represented
These are the things I was considering. So while 10 marines beating a whole army is ludicrous, giving them 2W would be fluffy.
To hit is directly related to bs. Not pure out put. A bs 3+ platform shooting a 90 point heavy 1 gun with no ap and 1 dmg is gak output for the points. Hammerheads had poor total output for their cost without bringing 3 with 1 being longstrike.
And even then it wasnt the greatest thing in the world (though functional).
Then define output. A 90 pt platform with BS 3+ has a better output than the same platform with BS4+. Also you just proved that Hammerheads weren't all that great even though they had BS 3+ which was your whole point of contention. You claimed BS 2+ rerolling ones would be OP but here you have an example of that not being the case. Other factors exist, and those factors can be addressed.
3 crisis suits at bs 2+ rerolling 1s with the guns they could take would make commanders obsolete.
Good. Commanders shouldn't be doing their job in the first place.
By output I mean it's net output (shocking I know). BS 3+ can have a BETTER output then a 4+ but thats only relative to a 4+ platform. Not necessarily GOOD output. Its ACTUAL output is average unsaved wounds vs intended target per point. Hitting is just the first step in that equation.
Since you seem to be having trouble understanding the Hammerheads I suggest we just drop it. You aren't getting what I am saying and I am finding it not worth explaining to you.
Commanders ARE the good example to show this. If Crisis suits were 3+ then nobody would take anything but crisis suits. Their weapon options are great and markerlights would put them at 2+ rerolling 1s easy enough. Firewarriors and most other units would have no place. It would be codex crisis suit not codex Tau.
Honestly the fix they should have made was to change Commanders to BS 3+. Change Mont'ka and Kouyon to be used instead of shooting and usable once a turn instead of once a game. Make their default range 18" and have the masters of Montka and Kouyon (Farsight and Shadowsun) increase the range of their respective order by 6"
Now commanders are only slightly better than a crisis suit by default and their buff is big enough and useful enough that you don't necessarily want to be shooting with them all the time.
THAT is how you adjust the units to keep everything useful and balanced.
Even fluff wise Tau are not exceptionally trained shooters.They are average shooters with the forethought to make use of thei technology to help and enhance their troops. They are the only race in the game with the idea to use laser sights and then go a step further and network that taregeting data across their entire force with a HUD to help them find track and hit targets. It's not any particular Taus individual ability that makes them great shooters. It's this data network and their use of practical technology.
You guys want to hear some BS? Apparently the lead designer for writing the Tau codex only picked up the Army within the past 2 weeks. So the Project Lead had no idea how the Army actually plays!
Wayniac wrote: You guys want to hear some BS? Apparently the lead designer for writing the Tau codex only picked up the Army within the past 2 weeks. So the Project Lead had no idea how the Army actually plays!
I would dismiss that out of hand, but with all the absolutely unbelievable things coming out nowadays...
Apparently he said it on the stream that he was a recent convert to the greater good and just picked up the Army like 2 weeks ago there was a big Reddit blow up over it
Wayniac wrote: You guys want to hear some BS? Apparently the lead designer for writing the Tau codex only picked up the Army within the past 2 weeks. So the Project Lead had no idea how the Army actually plays!
If this is true, it's shockingly bad management to have someone with zero concept lead such a project.
It explains why frequently taken support systems have been removed and made into strategums.
Why non of the spet traits make much in the way of sence, Combined with strategums.
It would also be understandable why they don't understand why players hate crisis suits current rules.
It also explains why the necton codex looks like its been designed by a necron player and the tau one just looks half baked by comparison.
Apparently in the twitch stream he gets rules (that he wrote!) wrong and insinuates that he only picked up Tau recently so likely did not play them while writing the rules.
Lead designer is a guy named James Gallagher (sp?). Bald guy with a long beard, looks like he could be part of Metallica or something.
Wayniac wrote: Apparently he said it on the stream that he was a recent convert to the greater good and just picked up the Army like 2 weeks ago there was a big Reddit blow up over it
Wow. And people wonder why I say GW's rule authors need to be fired for their sheer incompetence...
Given how close the necron codex is behind tau, I suspect and I know this sound horrible the B team codex while necrons got the A team. Some of their stuff just sounds brutal from the leaks. Charictors dealing multiple mortal wounds plus decent stats and self heeling for d3 wounds per turn and a strategum to allow them to regain more and their charictors sub 10 wounds so untragetable Monoliths deal motal wounds to chargers (not overwatch) bye bye blood angles lists. Index crons where in a bad place but with forgefire I'm worried that if that box is even remotely balance knights are going to be more OP than ever
I might be a few pages too late, but when people complain about Tau suits being the same BS as a Guardsman I like to explain it like this...
I'm pretty sure in a 40k board game BS is on a scale of 1 - 100, as opposed to what it used to be of 1-10.
So in old terms a Crisis Suit was BS3, a Guardsman is BS3, and a Marine is BS4. Now while they look similar, on a 1-100 scale it would actually be like so;
Crisis Suit = 34
Guardsman = 25
Marine = 36
So they all round to their respective 40kBS, but actually a Suit is technically a lot better than a Guardsman and ALMOST as good as a Marine.
Apparently in the twitch stream he gets rules (that he wrote!) wrong and insinuates that he only picked up Tau recently so likely did not play them while writing the rules.
Without having seen the stream and with the fact that the reddit never explicitly calls out what he does/doesn't get wrong("During the T'au Q&A session on Friday, the team that worked on the T'au codex got a number of rules wrong, including how markerlights work, what was changed, and why. They were unable to answer basic questions about the Codex or the rules." doesn't really tell us how or what he got wrong), I find it a bit silly that all this is being made of that.
Lead designer is a guy named James Gallagher (sp?). Bald guy with a long beard, looks like he could be part of Metallica or something.
And he's had two Tau armies in the past; both Sa'cea. He even posted up a painted Breacher last week on Twitter, testing a new color scheme for Sa'cea.
Part of the whole gimmic of Tau is that they are mediocre at best but make up for it by using technology.
(It's the technology of the suit that has the BS, not the guy inside it, who is probably crap.)
This is done in game with the markerlight mechanic mainly. If you get rid of that and just give them native BS 3+, you get rid of the character and flavor of the faction.
Wayniac wrote: You guys want to hear some BS? Apparently the lead designer for writing the Tau codex only picked up the Army within the past 2 weeks. So the Project Lead had no idea how the Army actually plays!
If this is true, it's shockingly bad management to have someone with zero concept lead such a project.
It explains why frequently taken support systems have been removed and made into strategums.
No, it doesn't. Because that has happened to literally every army. Auspex used to be an item you could take on Marines, Chimeras used to have Mobile Command Vehicle as a special rule built into their points cost(which is, IMO, still there--explaining why they feel so heavily overcosted for what they are). There's more examples I'm sure, but those are two off the top of my head.
Why non of the spet traits make much in the way of sence, Combined with strategums.
It would also be understandable why they don't understand why players hate crisis suits current rules.
It also explains why the necton codex looks like its been designed by a necron player and the tau one just looks half baked by comparison.
Or, hear me out...it doesn't. The Tau book is finally requiring you to actually play all elements of the army rather than being able to spam one thing or the other. It's a breath of fresh air and has made me unshelf my Tau.
Guess what? Everything in the game is conditional and has a cost. Its a dumb point to make.
Yeah, you might be a little too heavily invested in this. Step back, take a breath, stop being rude.
Markerlights should be factored into the cost of a unit, not assumed. Anything else is simplistic. If you can't grasp that, fine. But stop moving the goalposts and throwing insults around. This isn't the forum for that.
Guess what? Everything in the game is conditional and has a cost. Its a dumb point to make.
Yeah, you might be a little too heavily invested in this. Step back, take a breath, stop being rude.
Markerlights should be factored into the cost of a unit, not assumed. Anything else is simplistic. If you can't grasp that, fine. But stop moving the goalposts and throwing insults around. This isn't the forum for that.
Given the number of ways to include Markerlights, yes you should always treat a unit as having access to them. Pretending or arguing that they won't be there is like saying Guard will never have an Officer present to issue Orders.
I mean, it's possible--but the player doing that is probably running them as soup.
Guess what? Everything in the game is conditional and has a cost. Its a dumb point to make.
Yeah, you might be a little too heavily invested in this. Step back, take a breath, stop being rude.
Markerlights should be factored into the cost of a unit, not assumed. Anything else is simplistic. If you can't grasp that, fine. But stop moving the goalposts and throwing insults around. This isn't the forum for that.
Given the number of ways to include Markerlights, yes you should always treat a unit as having access to them. Pretending or arguing that they won't be there is like saying Guard will never have an Officer present to issue Orders.
I mean, it's possible--but the player doing that is probably running them as soup.
But then it becomes a case of people assuming Fire Warriors have 5 markerlight hits against unit X, Riptides have 5 against Y, Commanders have 5 against Z and so on and so forth.
Since most of the time the whole army isn't going to be shooting at one single target, and that there is a limited amount of markerlights you can take due to points and detachments lmits, and that points spent on markerlight sources are points not spent on firepower, assuming all units will have 5 markerlight hits at all times can make some units seem way better than they would actually play.
You have a limited amount of markerlight hits per turn, you need to decide which units you want marked. The unit you want to mark to hit with fusion blasters is most likely not the unit you want to be firing your Fire Warriors at and vice versa. Markerlights spent marking one unit are markerlights you cannot use to mark a different unit.
But then it becomes a case of people assuming Fire Warriors have 5 markerlight hits against unit X, Riptides have 5 against Y, Commanders have 5 against Z and so on and so forth.
Since most of the time the whole army isn't going to be shooting at one single target, and that there is a limited amount of markerlights you can take due to points and detachments lmits, and that points spent on markerlight sources are points not spent on firepower, assuming all units will have 5 markerlight hits at all times can make some units seem way better than they would actually play.
People assume that Guardsmen always have FRFSRF and continually used the idea of 10 Lasguns getting that boost(despite my constant harranguing about the fact you can't do that).
You have a limited amount of markerlight hits per turn, you need to decide which units you want marked. The unit you want to mark to hit with fusion blasters is most likely not the unit you want to be firing your Fire Warriors at and vice versa. Markerlights spent marking one unit are markerlights you cannot use to mark a different unit.
Sure there's a limited amount of Markerlights you can take; but there's a limited amount of Officers who can issue Orders, etc. It's a resource that you'll have to learn to manage.
If you want a unit to guarantee a kill, you're going to devote more Markerlight hits to it.
If you want a unit to guarantee hits, you're going to devote Markerlight hits to it.
Etc.
Now Tau players will have to focus fire down specific targets. I'm excited to play them this way personally. But I have 30 Pathfinders and 24ish Marker Drones.
Guess what? Everything in the game is conditional and has a cost. Its a dumb point to make.
Yeah, you might be a little too heavily invested in this. Step back, take a breath, stop being rude.
Markerlights should be factored into the cost of a unit, not assumed. Anything else is simplistic. If you can't grasp that, fine. But stop moving the goalposts and throwing insults around. This isn't the forum for that.
Given the number of ways to include Markerlights, yes you should always treat a unit as having access to them. Pretending or arguing that they won't be there is like saying Guard will never have an Officer present to issue Orders.
I mean, it's possible--but the player doing that is probably running them as soup.
Big difference between an untargetable character surround by chaff and a 10man squad of targetable T3 5+ (the minimum number for an average 5 hits)
Big difference between an untargetable character surround by chaff and a 10man squad of targetable T3 5+ (the minimum number for an average 5 hits)
And when that "untargetable character surrounded by chaff" needs a Command Squad(which is targetable) to extend his range beyond 6 inches...
I'm not trying to say the two are the same, but it is worth mentioning that an officer with everything killed around him has nobody to issue Orders to. Just like a Markerlight heavy list with nobody to shoot the things has problems.
Lance845 wrote: By output I mean it's net output (shocking I know). BS 3+ can have a BETTER output then a 4+ but thats only relative to a 4+ platform. Not necessarily GOOD output. Its ACTUAL output is average unsaved wounds vs intended target per point. Hitting is just the first step in that equation.
Since you seem to be having trouble understanding the Hammerheads I suggest we just drop it. You aren't getting what I am saying and I am finding it not worth explaining to you.
You said something to the effect of "we should consider that BS 3+ gets buffed to BS 2+ rerolling ones before suggesting changes". You're whole point was that it would be OP on suits. But, I brought up Hammerheads because despite their native BS 3+ they were still not worth taking, especially next to commanders. So I can only conclude that BS 2+ rerolling ones on it's own is not enough to outright discard the idea of BS 3+ for only 3 suits.
Commanders ARE the good example to show this. If Crisis suits were 3+ then nobody would take anything but crisis suits. Their weapon options are great and markerlights would put them at 2+ rerolling 1s easy enough. Firewarriors and most other units would have no place. It would be codex crisis suit not codex Tau.
You seem to be forgetting that I am suggesting this change for 3 units: bodyguards, Ghoskeels and Riptides. If you don't like the change to crisis, why not at least the other two? Secondly, Fire warriors would still be hugely viable. No one is going to waste their suits for S5 guns. Thirdly, all three of those options clock in at 200+ pts, and would require full markerlight support to get that BS 2+. So, no I don't think it'll break balance. In fact, I think it'll make the game better since Tau players won't use untargetable commanders as much.
Honestly the fix they should have made was to change Commanders to BS 3+. Change Mont'ka and Kouyon to be used instead of shooting and usable once a turn instead of once a game. Make their default range 18" and have the masters of Montka and Kouyon (Farsight and Shadowsun) increase the range of their respective order by 6"
Now commanders are only slightly better than a crisis suit by default and their buff is big enough and useful enough that you don't necessarily want to be shooting with them all the time.
THAT is how you adjust the units to keep everything useful and balanced.
Even fluff wise Tau are not exceptionally trained shooters.They are average shooters with the forethought to make use of thei technology to help and enhance their troops. They are the only race in the game with the idea to use laser sights and then go a step further and network that taregeting data across their entire force with a HUD to help them find track and hit targets. It's not any particular Taus individual ability that makes them great shooters. It's this data network and their use of practical technology.
Tau are trained from birth to be soldiers. They only train in shooting. How are they not "exceptionally trained soldiers"?
Also, Shas'vre are not your average troops: (from the wiki)
"However, it is only once a Fire Warrior has become skilled in the use of an XV8 Crisis Battlesuit in combat that they can truly rise up through the ranks. The mantle of command is only earned once a Fire Warrior has attained the rank of Shas'Vre and leads their own XV8 Crisis Battlesuit team. From there, they must continue to prove their worth in battle before being chosen to be part of another Tau Commander's bodyguard. At that point, proof of accomplishment in not only the tactical, but also the strategic arts of war may earn the Commander’s approval and elevation from Shas'Vre to the rank of Shas'El."
Added emphasis.
As you can see, Shas'vre are the most elite Tau troops aside from commanders, in fact they are only one step below commanders. They can only reach that rank if they are skilled enough. The way I see it, if IG veterans warrant BS 3+ then so should Shas'vre. And like I said earlier, it would not necessarily break the game. I actually think it would help it. If I thought it would be bad for gameplay I wouldn't be suggesting it.
Big difference between an untargetable character surround by chaff and a 10man squad of targetable T3 5+ (the minimum number for an average 5 hits)
And when that "untargetable character surrounded by chaff" needs a Command Squad(which is targetable) to extend his range beyond 6 inches...
I'm not trying to say the two are the same, but it is worth mentioning that an officer with everything killed around him has nobody to issue Orders to. Just like a Markerlight heavy list with nobody to shoot the things has problems.
I thought officers only needed a vox caster, they don't need command squads. So long as they hang out with their infantry they can get that range boost.
Even fluff wise Tau are not exceptionally trained shooters.They are average shooters with the forethought to make use of thei technology to help and enhance their troops. They are the only race in the game with the idea to use laser sights and then go a step further and network that taregeting data across their entire force with a HUD to help them find track and hit targets. It's not any particular Taus individual ability that makes them great shooters. It's this data network and their use of practical technology.
Tau are trained from birth to be soldiers. They only train in shooting. How are they not "exceptionally trained soldiers"?
This is kind of arguable. We get told that they train with the technology and tactics from a young age.
Also, Shas'vre are not your average troops: (from the wiki)
"However, it is only once a Fire Warrior has become skilled in the use of an XV8 Crisis Battlesuit in combat that they can truly rise up through the ranks. The mantle of command is only earned once a Fire Warrior has attained the rank of Shas'Vre and leads their own XV8 Crisis Battlesuit team. From there, they must continue to prove their worth in battle before being chosen to be part of another Tau Commander's bodyguard. At that point, proof of accomplishment in not only the tactical, but also the strategic arts of war may earn the Commander’s approval and elevation from Shas'Vre to the rank of Shas'El."
Added emphasis.
As you can see, Shas'vre are the most elite Tau troops aside from commanders, in fact they are only one step below commanders. They can only reach that rank if they are skilled enough. The way I see it, if IG veterans warrant BS 3+ then so should Shas'vre. And like I said earlier, it would not necessarily break the game. I actually think it would help it. If I thought it would be bad for gameplay I wouldn't be suggesting it.
I mean, if you want to argue it...IG veterans warrant BS3+ because they don't get given a mech suit. Even Veteran Tank Crews don't get BS3+ outside of the Shadowsword firing at a Titanic keyworded enemy.
I can understand your argument, but at the same time I can understand why it's not there.
Big difference between an untargetable character surround by chaff and a 10man squad of targetable T3 5+ (the minimum number for an average 5 hits)
And when that "untargetable character surrounded by chaff" needs a Command Squad(which is targetable) to extend his range beyond 6 inches...
I'm not trying to say the two are the same, but it is worth mentioning that an officer with everything killed around him has nobody to issue Orders to. Just like a Markerlight heavy list with nobody to shoot the things has problems.
I thought officers only needed a vox caster, they don't need command squads. So long as they hang out with their infantry they can get that range boost.
They don't need Command Squads, but Command Squads do get taken to fill the role of Vox+Special Weapons caddy. Depends on the list in question.
However it doesn't change the point that the "chaff" is targetable and killing it removes the advantage.
Wayniac wrote: Apparently he said it on the stream that he was a recent convert to the greater good and just picked up the Army like 2 weeks ago there was a big Reddit blow up over it
Wow. And people wonder why I say GW's rule authors need to be fired for their sheer incompetence...
Wayniac wrote: You guys want to hear some BS? Apparently the lead designer for writing the Tau codex only picked up the Army within the past 2 weeks. So the Project Lead had no idea how the Army actually plays!
If this is true, it's shockingly bad management to have someone with zero concept lead such a project.
It explains why frequently taken support systems have been removed and made into strategums.
No, it doesn't. Because that has happened to literally every army. Auspex used to be an item you could take on Marines, Chimeras used to have Mobile Command Vehicle as a special rule built into their points cost(which is, IMO, still there--explaining why they feel so heavily overcosted for what they are). There's more examples I'm sure, but those are two off the top of my head.
Why non of the spet traits make much in the way of sence, Combined with strategums.
It would also be understandable why they don't understand why players hate crisis suits current rules.
It also explains why the necton codex looks like its been designed by a necron player and the tau one just looks half baked by comparison.
Or, hear me out...it doesn't. The Tau book is finally requiring you to actually play all elements of the army rather than being able to spam one thing or the other. It's a breath of fresh air and has made me unshelf my Tau.
To be fair I probably did over react but the concept that someone with no investment being the lead, not manager will always results in a project being good enough not great. If your invested you'll play for extra time to get the job done right not meh close enough. You'll go the extra step of checking things yourself. Also in something like 40k where good rules make the game come alive and give people options and counters, and bad rules lead to spammy cheese fests its important to get that extra 20% of having someone invested in a faction.
Tau rules are far from the worst in 8th edition, and it feels like a step up from index. Personally I've never done the full JSJ suit spam that some have or the triple riptide cheese (quite frankly that formation should have required crackers it was so cheese), but broken formations aside.
If you arn't actively playing the army your writing the codex for how do you understand what units work and which don't?
Wayniac wrote: Apparently he said it on the stream that he was a recent convert to the greater good and just picked up the Army like 2 weeks ago there was a big Reddit blow up over it
Wow. And people wonder why I say GW's rule authors need to be fired for their sheer incompetence...
Agreed
It's funny that said author also mentioned he'd had two Sa'cea armies prior and was picking up a new army under the new book.
Even fluff wise Tau are not exceptionally trained shooters.They are average shooters with the forethought to make use of thei technology to help and enhance their troops. They are the only race in the game with the idea to use laser sights and then go a step further and network that taregeting data across their entire force with a HUD to help them find track and hit targets. It's not any particular Taus individual ability that makes them great shooters. It's this data network and their use of practical technology.
Tau are trained from birth to be soldiers. They only train in shooting. How are they not "exceptionally trained soldiers"?
This is kind of arguable. We get told that they train with the technology and tactics from a young age.
Also, Shas'vre are not your average troops: (from the wiki)
"However, it is only once a Fire Warrior has become skilled in the use of an XV8 Crisis Battlesuit in combat that they can truly rise up through the ranks. The mantle of command is only earned once a Fire Warrior has attained the rank of Shas'Vre and leads their own XV8 Crisis Battlesuit team. From there, they must continue to prove their worth in battle before being chosen to be part of another Tau Commander's bodyguard. At that point, proof of accomplishment in not only the tactical, but also the strategic arts of war may earn the Commander’s approval and elevation from Shas'Vre to the rank of Shas'El."
Added emphasis.
As you can see, Shas'vre are the most elite Tau troops aside from commanders, in fact they are only one step below commanders. They can only reach that rank if they are skilled enough. The way I see it, if IG veterans warrant BS 3+ then so should Shas'vre. And like I said earlier, it would not necessarily break the game. I actually think it would help it. If I thought it would be bad for gameplay I wouldn't be suggesting it.
I mean, if you want to argue it...IG veterans warrant BS3+ because they don't get given a mech suit. Even Veteran Tank Crews don't get BS3+ outside of the Shadowsword firing at a Titanic keyworded enemy.
I can understand your argument, but at the same time I can understand why it's not there.
Big difference between an untargetable character surround by chaff and a 10man squad of targetable T3 5+ (the minimum number for an average 5 hits)
And when that "untargetable character surrounded by chaff" needs a Command Squad(which is targetable) to extend his range beyond 6 inches...
I'm not trying to say the two are the same, but it is worth mentioning that an officer with everything killed around him has nobody to issue Orders to. Just like a Markerlight heavy list with nobody to shoot the things has problems.
I thought officers only needed a vox caster, they don't need command squads. So long as they hang out with their infantry they can get that range boost.
They don't need Command Squads, but Command Squads do get taken to fill the role of Vox+Special Weapons caddy. Depends on the list in question.
However it doesn't change the point that the "chaff" is targetable and killing it removes the advantage.
Until they kill said chaff however (or, atleast every model with a vox caster) the buff source is untargetable and active with no rolls required to activate, unlike marketing where every dead model is a direct blow to the effectiveness of the system (to a point where if you don't get 4or 5, you're stuck with 2 and 3 and those are most likely worthless), and that's ignoring that moving makes the buffs even more unreliable.
Guess what? Everything in the game is conditional and has a cost. Its a dumb point to make.
Yeah, you might be a little too heavily invested in this. Step back, take a breath, stop being rude.
Markerlights should be factored into the cost of a unit, not assumed. Anything else is simplistic. If you can't grasp that, fine. But stop moving the goalposts and throwing insults around. This isn't the forum for that.
1) I don't care and I am not getting upset. You are on the internet. Everyone on the internet means less than nothing to me.
2) I didn't insult you or anyone else. I said it was a dumb point to make, not that you were dumb,
3) I wasn't saying Markerlights need to be factored into other units point costs. I said Markerlights need to be factored in when designing the units. What that unit would be capable of when Markerlights are in play.
Lance845 wrote: By output I mean it's net output (shocking I know). BS 3+ can have a BETTER output then a 4+ but thats only relative to a 4+ platform. Not necessarily GOOD output. Its ACTUAL output is average unsaved wounds vs intended target per point. Hitting is just the first step in that equation.
Since you seem to be having trouble understanding the Hammerheads I suggest we just drop it. You aren't getting what I am saying and I am finding it not worth explaining to you.
You said something to the effect of "we should consider that BS 3+ gets buffed to BS 2+ rerolling ones before suggesting changes". You're whole point was that it would be OP on suits. But, I brought up Hammerheads because despite their native BS 3+ they were still not worth taking, especially next to commanders. So I can only conclude that BS 2+ rerolling ones on it's own is not enough to outright discard the idea of BS 3+ for only 3 suits.
Commanders ARE the good example to show this. If Crisis suits were 3+ then nobody would take anything but crisis suits. Their weapon options are great and markerlights would put them at 2+ rerolling 1s easy enough. Firewarriors and most other units would have no place. It would be codex crisis suit not codex Tau.
You seem to be forgetting that I am suggesting this change for 3 units: bodyguards, Ghoskeels and Riptides. If you don't like the change to crisis, why not at least the other two? Secondly, Fire warriors would still be hugely viable. No one is going to waste their suits for S5 guns. Thirdly, all three of those options clock in at 200+ pts, and would require full markerlight support to get that BS 2+. So, no I don't think it'll break balance. In fact, I think it'll make the game better since Tau players won't use untargetable commanders as much.
Again... look at the guns you are trying to make 2+ rerolling 1s. Is it so hard a concept to understand?
Honestly the fix they should have made was to change Commanders to BS 3+. Change Mont'ka and Kouyon to be used instead of shooting and usable once a turn instead of once a game. Make their default range 18" and have the masters of Montka and Kouyon (Farsight and Shadowsun) increase the range of their respective order by 6"
Now commanders are only slightly better than a crisis suit by default and their buff is big enough and useful enough that you don't necessarily want to be shooting with them all the time.
THAT is how you adjust the units to keep everything useful and balanced.
Even fluff wise Tau are not exceptionally trained shooters.They are average shooters with the forethought to make use of thei technology to help and enhance their troops. They are the only race in the game with the idea to use laser sights and then go a step further and network that taregeting data across their entire force with a HUD to help them find track and hit targets. It's not any particular Taus individual ability that makes them great shooters. It's this data network and their use of practical technology.
Tau are trained from birth to be soldiers. They only train in shooting. How are they not "exceptionally trained soldiers"?
Many IG regiments are also trained from birth. gak, tyranid bioforms are literally genetically designed from the ground up to serve a single purpose. Shouldn't they ALL be BS 2+? Again, fluff is not crunch. Dumb argument to make.
Even fluff wise Tau are not exceptionally trained shooters.They are average shooters with the forethought to make use of thei technology to help and enhance their troops. They are the only race in the game with the idea to use laser sights and then go a step further and network that taregeting data across their entire force with a HUD to help them find track and hit targets. It's not any particular Taus individual ability that makes them great shooters. It's this data network and their use of practical technology.
Tau are trained from birth to be soldiers. They only train in shooting. How are they not "exceptionally trained soldiers"?
This is kind of arguable. We get told that they train with the technology and tactics from a young age.
Also, Shas'vre are not your average troops: (from the wiki)
"However, it is only once a Fire Warrior has become skilled in the use of an XV8 Crisis Battlesuit in combat that they can truly rise up through the ranks. The mantle of command is only earned once a Fire Warrior has attained the rank of Shas'Vre and leads their own XV8 Crisis Battlesuit team. From there, they must continue to prove their worth in battle before being chosen to be part of another Tau Commander's bodyguard. At that point, proof of accomplishment in not only the tactical, but also the strategic arts of war may earn the Commander’s approval and elevation from Shas'Vre to the rank of Shas'El."
Added emphasis.
As you can see, Shas'vre are the most elite Tau troops aside from commanders, in fact they are only one step below commanders. They can only reach that rank if they are skilled enough. The way I see it, if IG veterans warrant BS 3+ then so should Shas'vre. And like I said earlier, it would not necessarily break the game. I actually think it would help it. If I thought it would be bad for gameplay I wouldn't be suggesting it.
I mean, if you want to argue it...IG veterans warrant BS3+ because they don't get given a mech suit. Even Veteran Tank Crews don't get BS3+ outside of the Shadowsword firing at a Titanic keyworded enemy.
I can understand your argument, but at the same time I can understand why it's not there.
Big difference between an untargetable character surround by chaff and a 10man squad of targetable T3 5+ (the minimum number for an average 5 hits)
And when that "untargetable character surrounded by chaff" needs a Command Squad(which is targetable) to extend his range beyond 6 inches...
I'm not trying to say the two are the same, but it is worth mentioning that an officer with everything killed around him has nobody to issue Orders to. Just like a Markerlight heavy list with nobody to shoot the things has problems.
I thought officers only needed a vox caster, they don't need command squads. So long as they hang out with their infantry they can get that range boost.
They don't need Command Squads, but Command Squads do get taken to fill the role of Vox+Special Weapons caddy. Depends on the list in question.
However it doesn't change the point that the "chaff" is targetable and killing it removes the advantage.
Until they kill said chaff however (or, atleast every model with a vox caster) the buff source is untargetable and active with no rolls required to activate
Since it's 1 vox per Infantry, Veteran, or Command Squad(you can't use non-<Regiment> voxes BTW), that's a bit easier to do than you think when it requires the Officer to be within 3" of the Vox.
unlike marketing where every dead model is a direct blow to the effectiveness of the system (to a point where if you don't get 4or 5, you're stuck with 2 and 3 and those are most likely worthless), and that's ignoring that moving makes the buffs even more unreliable.
Every dead model is a blow to the effectiveness of the system, but virtually every model in the army gets to benefit from the system. This is the thing that I feel like many people either gloss over or downplay.
Are there some choices in there that are less than optimal? Sure. The Seeker+Destroyer Missile one isn't great but it's not bad either. It has its place.
This is kind of arguable. We get told that they train with the technology and tactics from a young age.
It's still a dedicated caste of warriors. They are at least as well trained as Cadians. With experience they become veterans. Remember, I'm not suggesting that strike teams get BS 3+, just the most veteran troops.
I mean, if you want to argue it...IG veterans warrant BS3+ because they don't get given a mech suit. Even Veteran Tank Crews don't get BS3+ outside of the Shadowsword firing at a Titanic keyworded enemy.
I can understand your argument, but at the same time I can understand why it's not there.
Hey, at least I'm not crazy. That's reassuring.
Though you do have tank commanders, which makes me wonder why Baneblades aren't BS 3+ (being LOW and all). I think my own issue with a lot of these stats is their logical inconsistency. But that's just me I guess. There's also this very large stat gap between Commanders and every other unit that skews internal balance that I don't like. Lance suggested giving them BS 3+, which would be fine for balance, but I would prefer buffing a couple select units.
They don't need Command Squads, but Command Squads do get taken to fill the role of Vox+Special Weapons caddy. Depends on the list in question.
However it doesn't change the point that the "chaff" is targetable and killing it removes the advantage.
I think we're getting off track here. The only point I made was that markerlights can be shutdown, which means that BS 2+ rerolling ones won't happen much after the first turn, and maybe not even then if the Tau player goes second. After that the player will rely on fireblades and the stratagem. So we're only talking one target a turn, which is of course limiting on who gets the buff. (the first to shoot) After that, everyone is back to standard stats. Which is why I think it's a bit unfair to shut down any suggestions for BS 3+ based on that alone.
This is kind of arguable. We get told that they train with the technology and tactics from a young age.
It's still a dedicated caste of warriors. They are at least as well trained as Cadians. With experience they become veterans. Remember, I'm not suggesting that strike teams get BS 3+, just the most veteran troops.
I mean, if you want to argue it...IG veterans warrant BS3+ because they don't get given a mech suit. Even Veteran Tank Crews don't get BS3+ outside of the Shadowsword firing at a Titanic keyworded enemy.
I can understand your argument, but at the same time I can understand why it's not there.
Hey, at least I'm not crazy. That's reassuring.
Though you do have tank commanders, which makes me wonder why Baneblades aren't BS 3+ (being LOW and all). I think my own issue with a lot of these stats is their logical inconsistency. But that's just me I guess. There's also this very large stat gap between Commanders and every other unit that skews internal balance that I don't like. Lance suggested giving them BS 3+, which would be fine for balance, but I would prefer buffing a couple select units.
Like I've said multiple times over the years, I'd rather see a tech solution. Being able to count a target as having double the number of Markerlight Counters would be a huge boost to the big suits and the like.
Tank Commanders are just...weird. They're statted as heroes but then they're not and it's weird and I don't like it and it scares me.
They don't need Command Squads, but Command Squads do get taken to fill the role of Vox+Special Weapons caddy. Depends on the list in question.
However it doesn't change the point that the "chaff" is targetable and killing it removes the advantage.
I think we're getting off track here. The only point I made was that markerlights can be shutdown, which means that BS 2+ rerolling ones won't happen much after the first turn, and maybe not even then if the Tau player goes second. After that the player will rely on fireblades and the stratagem. So we're only talking one target a turn, which is of course limiting on who gets the buff. (the first to shoot) After that, everyone is back to standard stats. Which is why I think it's a bit unfair to shut down any suggestions for BS 3+ based on that alone.
Fireblades and Firesight Marksmen both exist and I think a lot of people forget about the latter. I'm genuinely considering a few sets of Sniper Drones so that I can get some of them.
Downside is that he's an Elite and our Elites are kinda crowded.
I already did mate. A crisis team with tri fusion plus marker support is about 400 pts to kill one 200 pt Russ. Again, not game breaking. Not to mention those suits need to get real close to work thus exposing themselves to massive return fire.
A similarly buffed Fusion Ghostkeel doesn't even kill the Russ (7 damage average)
Again... look at the guns you are trying to make 2+ rerolling 1s. Is it so hard a concept to understand?
They're the same guns the commander gets. and he only needs one marker to get BS 2+ reroll ones. He's also untargetable. So I'm skeptical as to how bad this could be.
Many IG regiments are also trained from birth. gak, tyranid bioforms are literally genetically designed from the ground up to serve a single purpose. Shouldn't they ALL be BS 2+? Again, fluff is not crunch. Dumb argument to make.
Except that wasn't my argument.
Here's how I break down these stats:
BS 4+: trained, proficient
BS 3+: Veteran, elite
BS 2+: masters of their art
Shas'vre are the elite, ergo they should get BS 3+. That's it.
Tau are trained from birth to be soldiers. They only train in shooting. How are they not "exceptionally trained soldiers"?
.
They are, but they are biologically bad at it. Bad vision, IIRC.
Tau are worse than human beings, physically.. The BS4+ _is_ training from birth.
From the wiki: "Tau vision is considered slightly superior to that of humans - their visual spectrum extends a little more into the ultraviolet and infrared wavelengths. However their pupils do not dilate, giving poorer depth perception and providing slower vision focusing reflexes than humans."
This is just a justification for being bad in close combat, cuz they have bad reflexes.
Anyway I'm not suggesting regular Tau get BS 3+ just the big suits. And even if they have worse eyesight, can't the battlesuit system correct that?
I dunno how they can consider that vision better...
Whoa you see that the Leman Russ is in fact a slightly DIFFERENT shade of Brown than Humans thought!
However it did take the Tau 5 seconds to focus in on it...
Sounds like eye focus speed would be a lot better aid than seeing colours and infrared.
Also people really need to stop thinking a BS4+ Guardsman is the same as a BS4+ Crisis Suit when it comes to lore.
Trying to grade ever single unit on a 1-6 scale just does not work when the skill gap is this wide. See my previous comment on what it would be on a 1-100 scale.
I dunno how they can consider that vision better...
Whoa you see that the Leman Russ is in fact a slightly DIFFERENT shade of Brown than Humans thought!
However it did take the Tau 5 seconds to focus in on it...
Sounds like eye focus speed would be a lot better aid than seeing colours and infrared.
Also people really need to stop thinking a BS4+ Guardsman is the same as a BS4+ Crisis Suit when it comes to lore.
Trying to grade ever single unit on a 1-6 scale just does not work when the skill gap is this wide. See my previous comment on what it would be on a 1-100 scale.
To be fair, GW isn't known for having the best grasp of science. We also don't know how "slow" their focusing is, just that it is slower. It could only be a half second difference (which would only be meaningful in close combat). Besides, we currently make cameras that adjust focus, why can't the Tau do that with theirs? They all wear helmets anyway...
Also, I am not talking about regular crisis suits, I'm talking about Crisis bodyguards. The more expensive ones that no one uses anyway, whose only selling point is the "bodyguard" rule. Which is redundant next to drones.
Even fluff wise Tau are not exceptionally trained shooters.They are average shooters with the forethought to make use of thei technology to help and enhance their troops. They are the only race in the game with the idea to use laser sights and then go a step further and network that taregeting data across their entire force with a HUD to help them find track and hit targets. It's not any particular Taus individual ability that makes them great shooters. It's this data network and their use of practical technology.
Tau are trained from birth to be soldiers. They only train in shooting. How are they not "exceptionally trained soldiers"?
This is kind of arguable. We get told that they train with the technology and tactics from a young age.
Also, Shas'vre are not your average troops: (from the wiki)
"However, it is only once a Fire Warrior has become skilled in the use of an XV8 Crisis Battlesuit in combat that they can truly rise up through the ranks. The mantle of command is only earned once a Fire Warrior has attained the rank of Shas'Vre and leads their own XV8 Crisis Battlesuit team. From there, they must continue to prove their worth in battle before being chosen to be part of another Tau Commander's bodyguard. At that point, proof of accomplishment in not only the tactical, but also the strategic arts of war may earn the Commander’s approval and elevation from Shas'Vre to the rank of Shas'El."
Added emphasis.
As you can see, Shas'vre are the most elite Tau troops aside from commanders, in fact they are only one step below commanders. They can only reach that rank if they are skilled enough. The way I see it, if IG veterans warrant BS 3+ then so should Shas'vre. And like I said earlier, it would not necessarily break the game. I actually think it would help it. If I thought it would be bad for gameplay I wouldn't be suggesting it.
I mean, if you want to argue it...IG veterans warrant BS3+ because they don't get given a mech suit. Even Veteran Tank Crews don't get BS3+ outside of the Shadowsword firing at a Titanic keyworded enemy.
I can understand your argument, but at the same time I can understand why it's not there.
Big difference between an untargetable character surround by chaff and a 10man squad of targetable T3 5+ (the minimum number for an average 5 hits)
And when that "untargetable character surrounded by chaff" needs a Command Squad(which is targetable) to extend his range beyond 6 inches...
I'm not trying to say the two are the same, but it is worth mentioning that an officer with everything killed around him has nobody to issue Orders to. Just like a Markerlight heavy list with nobody to shoot the things has problems.
I thought officers only needed a vox caster, they don't need command squads. So long as they hang out with their infantry they can get that range boost.
They don't need Command Squads, but Command Squads do get taken to fill the role of Vox+Special Weapons caddy. Depends on the list in question.
However it doesn't change the point that the "chaff" is targetable and killing it removes the advantage.
Until they kill said chaff however (or, atleast every model with a vox caster) the buff source is untargetable and active with no rolls required to activate
Since it's 1 vox per Infantry, Veteran, or Command Squad(you can't use non-<Regiment> voxes BTW), that's a bit easier to do than you think when it requires the Officer to be within 3" of the Vox.
unlike marketing where every dead model is a direct blow to the effectiveness of the system (to a point where if you don't get 4or 5, you're stuck with 2 and 3 and those are most likely worthless), and that's ignoring that moving makes the buffs even more unreliable.
Every dead model is a blow to the effectiveness of the system, but virtually every model in the army gets to benefit from the system. This is the thing that I feel like many people either gloss over or downplay.
Are there some choices in there that are less than optimal? Sure. The Seeker+Destroyer Missile one isn't great but it's not bad either. It has its place.
Really? Seekers and Destroyers are trash, especially if fired without ML. Seekers are 18ppm (counting the cheapest source of two ML you can get, because no one in their right mind should ever fire one without the buff), and deal ONE mortal wound. ONE. Destroyers are barely better, dealing D3 (which means they might as well be a seeker missile 1/3 of the time, but average out at being 2MW obviously hence being the price of 2 seekers) and cost 23ppm (again, counting the cheapest source of two ML, because no one in their right mind should ever fire one without the buff). "Sub optimal" is breacher teams, or ethereals. They can do stuff, it's just much harder than an optimal choice (i.e. fireblades/commanders or strike teams). Plus, unlike every previous edition seekers no longer hit on a 2+ (or at least disregard modifiers), but use the BS4 of the majority of the army (or 3+ for hammerhead hulls, minus devilfish, until they get bracketed) tau missiles are trash, plain and simple, and that's despite the fact they're basically our only source of MW.
On top of that, they only all benefit if they all shoot the same target which is about the biggest definition of overkill there is, and a waste of a lot of shooting unless your opponent only brought models that can survive that much shooting reliably (i.e. a land raider perhaps, or a titan). I'd gladly trade the ML system for being within 3" of a vox caster to issue my buffs, without the possibility of missing a to hit roll to activate them, or hitting less because I had to move, or because the enemy has a -1 trait.
Really? Seekers and Destroyers are trash, especially if fired without ML. Seekers are 18ppm (counting the cheapest source of two ML you can get, because no one in their right mind should ever fire one without the buff), and deal ONE mortal wound. ONE. Destroyers are barely better, dealing D3 (which means they might as well be a seeker missile 1/3 of the time, but average out at being 2MW obviously hence being the price of 2 seekers) and cost 23ppm (again, counting the cheapest source of two ML, because no one in their right mind should ever fire one without the buff). "Sub optimal" is breacher teams, or ethereals. They can do stuff, it's just much harder than an optimal choice (i.e. fireblades/commanders or strike teams). Plus, unlike every previous edition seekers no longer hit on a 2+ (or at least disregard modifiers), but use the BS4 of the majority of the army (or 3+ for hammerhead hulls, minus devilfish, until they get bracketed) tau missiles are trash, plain and simple, and that's despite the fact they're basically our only source of MW.
On top of that, they only all benefit if they all shoot the same target which is about the biggest definition of overkill there is, and a waste of a lot of shooting unless your opponent only brought models that can survive that much shooting reliably (i.e. a land raider perhaps, or a titan). I'd gladly trade the ML system for being within 3" of a vox caster to issue my buffs, without the possibility of missing a to hit roll to activate them, or hitting less because I had to move, or because the enemy has a -1 trait.
In the codex, seekers are now hunter killer missiles. (S8 D6 damage) So there's that.
Really? Seekers and Destroyers are trash, especially if fired without ML. Seekers are 18ppm (counting the cheapest source of two ML you can get, because no one in their right mind should ever fire one without the buff), and deal ONE mortal wound. ONE. Destroyers are barely better, dealing D3 (which means they might as well be a seeker missile 1/3 of the time, but average out at being 2MW obviously hence being the price of 2 seekers) and cost 23ppm (again, counting the cheapest source of two ML, because no one in their right mind should ever fire one without the buff). "Sub optimal" is breacher teams, or ethereals. They can do stuff, it's just much harder than an optimal choice (i.e. fireblades/commanders or strike teams). Plus, unlike every previous edition seekers no longer hit on a 2+ (or at least disregard modifiers), but use the BS4 of the majority of the army (or 3+ for hammerhead hulls, minus devilfish, until they get bracketed) tau missiles are trash, plain and simple, and that's despite the fact they're basically our only source of MW.
On top of that, they only all benefit if they all shoot the same target which is about the biggest definition of overkill there is, and a waste of a lot of shooting unless your opponent only brought models that can survive that much shooting reliably (i.e. a land raider perhaps, or a titan). I'd gladly trade the ML system for being within 3" of a vox caster to issue my buffs, without the possibility of missing a to hit roll to activate them, or hitting less because I had to move, or because the enemy has a -1 trait.
In the codex, seekers are now hunter killer missiles. (S8 D6 damage) So there's that.
Really minor improvement I guess, but for 18ppm, that's pretty expensive, triple the price of a hunter killer for one seeker AND requires a support unit to actually hit something.
I stand by the fact seekers and destroyers are trash.
In the codex, seekers are now hunter killer missiles. (S8 D6 damage) So there's that.
Really minor improvement I guess, but for 18ppm, that's pretty expensive, triple the price of a hunter killer for one seeker AND requires a support unit to actually hit something.
I stand by the fact seekers and destroyers are trash.
Well, you can stack multiple and fire all of them at once, so that initial price dampens out the more you fire (also they're 5 ppm). I personally think they're fine. I'm thinking of loading them on fusion piranhas and seeing how it goes.
----
Back on thread topic: someone brought up that commander wargear couldn't be limited due to index/codex transition, but stimulant injectors are no longer wargear in the codex. So we have a precedent now, I guess. It might mean that GW hadn't even considered their own flowchart. So I still think they could have limited commander gear.
In the codex, seekers are now hunter killer missiles. (S8 D6 damage) So there's that.
Really minor improvement I guess, but for 18ppm, that's pretty expensive, triple the price of a hunter killer for one seeker AND requires a support unit to actually hit something.
I stand by the fact seekers and destroyers are trash.
Well, you can stack multiple and fire all of them at once, so that initial price dampens out the more you fire (also they're 5 ppm). I personally think they're fine. I'm thinking of loading them on fusion piranhas and seeing how it goes.
Don't load them too heavily. I go 1 Seeker/Piranha and it works well...but I run 2x Piranhas and some Devilfish with Burst and Seekers along with 30 Pathfinders so maybe I'm not the right person to talk about it...
Back on thread topic: someone brought up that commander wargear couldn't be limited due to index/codex transition, but stimulant injectors are no longer wargear in the codex. So we have a precedent now, I guess. It might mean that GW hadn't even considered their own flowchart. So I still think they could have limited commander gear.
The flowchart tends to be focused on models and representation on the models. I don't think stim injectors ever were modeled were they?
Nope stimulant injectors can still be taken on codex units aslong as the index unit has the ability as per GW's own ruling. Mental I know but I'm happy as it means FNP's for everyone is still a thing take that MW spam. Untill they inevitably decied to make T'au the exception to that rule in the FAQ
Ice_can wrote: Nope stimulant injectors can still be taken on codex units aslong as the index unit has the ability as per GW's own ruling. Mental I know but I'm happy as it means FNP's for everyone is still a thing take that MW spam. Untill they inevitably decied to make T'au the exception to that rule in the FAQ
That is precisely my point. There was discussion that the commander limit was required due to the wording of the flowchart because GW couldn't restrict wargear without leaving a loophole. With the stimulant injector, I don't think they even thought about it.
The flowchart tends to be focused on models and representation on the models. I don't think stim injectors ever were modeled were they?
Well, no. But the support systems don't really have a model anymore (who's going to know the difference anyway?). In regards to the flowchart, there's nothing that specifically calls out representation, just legacy rules. (I believe)
Don't load them too heavily. I go 1 Seeker/Piranha and it works well...but I run 2x Piranhas and some Devilfish with Burst and Seekers along with 30 Pathfinders so maybe I'm not the right person to talk about it...
I'm liking the look of two Seekers on my Piranha, there's no turning back.
Apparently in the twitch stream he gets rules (that he wrote!) wrong and insinuates that he only picked up Tau recently so likely did not play them while writing the rules.
Without having seen the stream and with the fact that the reddit never explicitly calls out what he does/doesn't get wrong("During the T'au Q&A session on Friday, the team that worked on the T'au codex got a number of rules wrong, including how markerlights work, what was changed, and why. They were unable to answer basic questions about the Codex or the rules." doesn't really tell us how or what he got wrong), I find it a bit silly that all this is being made of that.
Lead designer is a guy named James Gallagher (sp?). Bald guy with a long beard, looks like he could be part of Metallica or something.
And he's had two Tau armies in the past; both Sa'cea. He even posted up a painted Breacher last week on Twitter, testing a new color scheme for Sa'cea.
I've seen the stream and can summarize. He did indeed frantically look up a lot of the rules (even the old ones that were the same in the index like the Kauyon and Mont'ka HQ abilities, the coolness of which they discussed extensively) they discussed a few of the new stratagems and tenets. They also discussed ways of killing T'au as spacemarines. Most of the subscriber rule questions in stream chat were ignored due to large amounts of T'au salt coming from there. They could only answer the meme questions "because the screen was scrolling super fast". The biggest misstep he made was when he was talking about the markerlight table changes.
To those uninitiated, the markerlight table change from index to codex was switching levels 3 and 4 to make so that the "ignores cover bonuses" rule is in position 3 and the "removes movement penalties" rule was in position 4. What he said was that they switched 3 and 2 so the "launch seekers at ballistic skill" bonus was now on lvl 2 and his explanation for that was that doing this would enable the Skyray to use it's 2 markerlights to launch seeker missiles without other unit support. His mistakes were:
A) Seekers buff was always on lvl 2
B) When you're shooting, you have to declare your targets and assign weapons before you roll the dice. So by using the Skyray the way he described, you're basically shooting yourself in the foot with Seeker missiles.
The showmatch against a shooty ork army was mostly uneventful besides the T'au player using the new homing beacon incorrectly by placing it after he moved his units and Farsight dying in melee to a bunch of boyz equipped with shootas. Otherwise the shooty ork index list was easily destroyed by the new codex T'au even with the ork player doing some impressing t-shirt save rolls.
Bonus for all the heretic purgers: the lore part of the stream was Duncan and the New Guy taking the piss of T'au for an hour. I.e. they recited all the lore instances about T'au getting crushed/dissected/tricked by Imperium and DE. And spoke as little as possible about the new codex lore while getting sidetracked by memeing about charging T'au with imperial knights every 3rd sentence. I found it slightly hilarious but also in bad taste as the stream was meant to hype people for the new codex release.
Apparently in the twitch stream he gets rules (that he wrote!) wrong and insinuates that he only picked up Tau recently so likely did not play them while writing the rules.
Without having seen the stream and with the fact that the reddit never explicitly calls out what he does/doesn't get wrong("During the T'au Q&A session on Friday, the team that worked on the T'au codex got a number of rules wrong, including how markerlights work, what was changed, and why. They were unable to answer basic questions about the Codex or the rules." doesn't really tell us how or what he got wrong), I find it a bit silly that all this is being made of that.
Lead designer is a guy named James Gallagher (sp?). Bald guy with a long beard, looks like he could be part of Metallica or something.
And he's had two Tau armies in the past; both Sa'cea. He even posted up a painted Breacher last week on Twitter, testing a new color scheme for Sa'cea.
I've seen the stream and can summarize. He did indeed frantically look up a lot of the rules (even the old ones that were the same in the index like the Kauyon and Mont'ka HQ abilities, the coolness of which they discussed extensively) they discussed a few of the new stratagems and tenets. They also discussed ways of killing T'au as spacemarines. Most of the subscriber rule questions in stream chat were ignored due to large amounts of T'au salt coming from there. They could only answer the meme questions "because the screen was scrolling super fast". The biggest misstep he made was when he was talking about the markerlight table changes.
This sounds like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Even if the old ones were the same, if he got them wrong in their new iteration he'd be accused of "saying they were better than they were". Not surprising about the "salty" rules questions being ignored, especially if they were phrased in such a way that it was obviously a "Gotcha!" attempt.
To those uninitiated, the markerlight table change from index to codex was switching levels 3 and 4 to make so that the "ignores cover bonuses" rule is in position 3 and the "removes movement penalties" rule was in position 4. What he said was that they switched 3 and 2 so the "launch seekers at ballistic skill" bonus was now on lvl 2 and his explanation for that was that doing this would enable the Skyray to use it's 2 markerlights to launch seeker missiles without other unit support. His mistakes were: A) Seekers buff was always on lvl 2
Ehhh...even with the book handy and reading it often, I've made the mistake of when/where specifics are.
B) When you're shooting, you have to declare your targets and assign weapons before you roll the dice. So by using the Skyray the way he described, you're basically shooting yourself in the foot with Seeker missiles.
Yes, you declare your targets and assign weapons before you roll the dice...so he fires the Markerlights first, hits with them and then uses the Seekers next. If he only hits with 1 he uses the stratagem for 1+D3 Markerlight Counters instead of the one hit he'd get.
Not sure how this is a problem? Especially with this FAQ answer existing in Xenos 2:
Xenos 2 FAQ wrote:Q: Can a unit of Pathfinders benefit from their own markerlights (e.g. if half the unit shoots their markerlights, and the other other half shoot the same target with other weapons)? A: Yes. Declare which models in the unit will fire markerlights at the same time you declare targets for the unit to shoot at, then resolve the models firing markerlights first, one at a time
The showmatch against a shooty ork army was mostly uneventful besides the T'au player using the new homing beacon incorrectly by placing it after he moved his units and Farsight dying in melee to a bunch of boyz equipped with shootas. Otherwise the shooty ork index list was easily destroyed by the new codex T'au even with the ork player doing some impressing t-shirt save rolls.
Bonus for all the heretic purgers: the lore part of the stream was Duncan and the New Guy taking the piss of T'au for an hour. I.e. they recited all the lore instances about T'au getting crushed/dissected/tricked by Imperium and DE. And spoke as little as possible about the new codex lore while getting sidetracked by memeing about charging T'au with imperial knights every 3rd sentence. I found it slightly hilarious but also in bad taste as the stream was meant to hype people for the new codex release.
It's no different than any other new codex stream then.
Just everybody's getting pissy because it's someone they were unfamiliar with. Got it...the sad part is they could actually have looked up that the guy has had other Tau armies in the past. Pretty sure he's even been in WD back in the mid/late 2000s with one of them.
It's not really about whether or not he's had previous armies, but that they couldn't even be bothered to get someone who was familiar with the army to write the rules.
(And I'm sure I'm starting to understand the pain ork players have had since like, 4th I think?)
Don't you think that, knowing you were going to a Q&A on something that you wrote, you would... prepare a bit?
I mean, he knew questions were coming, and that he would be expected to answer. That is kind of the definition of a Q&A, isn't it?
Apparently in the twitch stream he gets rules (that he wrote!) wrong and insinuates that he only picked up Tau recently so likely did not play them while writing the rules.
Without having seen the stream and with the fact that the reddit never explicitly calls out what he does/doesn't get wrong("During the T'au Q&A session on Friday, the team that worked on the T'au codex got a number of rules wrong, including how markerlights work, what was changed, and why. They were unable to answer basic questions about the Codex or the rules." doesn't really tell us how or what he got wrong), I find it a bit silly that all this is being made of that.
Lead designer is a guy named James Gallagher (sp?). Bald guy with a long beard, looks like he could be part of Metallica or something.
And he's had two Tau armies in the past; both Sa'cea. He even posted up a painted Breacher last week on Twitter, testing a new color scheme for Sa'cea.
I've seen the stream and can summarize. He did indeed frantically look up a lot of the rules (even the old ones that were the same in the index like the Kauyon and Mont'ka HQ abilities, the coolness of which they discussed extensively) they discussed a few of the new stratagems and tenets. They also discussed ways of killing T'au as spacemarines. Most of the subscriber rule questions in stream chat were ignored due to large amounts of T'au salt coming from there. They could only answer the meme questions "because the screen was scrolling super fast". The biggest misstep he made was when he was talking about the markerlight table changes.
This sounds like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Even if the old ones were the same, if he got them wrong in their new iteration he'd be accused of "saying they were better than they were". Not surprising about the "salty" rules questions being ignored, especially if they were phrased in such a way that it was obviously a "Gotcha!" attempt.
To those uninitiated, the markerlight table change from index to codex was switching levels 3 and 4 to make so that the "ignores cover bonuses" rule is in position 3 and the "removes movement penalties" rule was in position 4. What he said was that they switched 3 and 2 so the "launch seekers at ballistic skill" bonus was now on lvl 2 and his explanation for that was that doing this would enable the Skyray to use it's 2 markerlights to launch seeker missiles without other unit support. His mistakes were:
A) Seekers buff was always on lvl 2
Ehhh...even with the book handy and reading it often, I've made the mistake of when/where specifics are.
B) When you're shooting, you have to declare your targets and assign weapons before you roll the dice. So by using the Skyray the way he described, you're basically shooting yourself in the foot with Seeker missiles.
Yes, you declare your targets and assign weapons before you roll the dice...so he fires the Markerlights first, hits with them and then uses the Seekers next. If he only hits with 1 he uses the stratagem for 1+D3 Markerlight Counters instead of the one hit he'd get.
Not sure how this is a problem? Especially with this FAQ answer existing in Xenos 2:
Xenos 2 FAQ wrote:Q: Can a unit of Pathfinders benefit from their own markerlights (e.g. if half the unit shoots their markerlights, and the other other half shoot the same target with other weapons)?
A: Yes. Declare which models in the unit will fire markerlights at the same time you declare targets for the unit to shoot at, then resolve the models firing markerlights first, one at a time
The showmatch against a shooty ork army was mostly uneventful besides the T'au player using the new homing beacon incorrectly by placing it after he moved his units and Farsight dying in melee to a bunch of boyz equipped with shootas. Otherwise the shooty ork index list was easily destroyed by the new codex T'au even with the ork player doing some impressing t-shirt save rolls.
Bonus for all the heretic purgers: the lore part of the stream was Duncan and the New Guy taking the piss of T'au for an hour. I.e. they recited all the lore instances about T'au getting crushed/dissected/tricked by Imperium and DE. And spoke as little as possible about the new codex lore while getting sidetracked by memeing about charging T'au with imperial knights every 3rd sentence. I found it slightly hilarious but also in bad taste as the stream was meant to hype people for the new codex release.
It's no different than any other new codex stream then.
Just everybody's getting pissy because it's someone they were unfamiliar with. Got it...the sad part is they could actually have looked up that the guy has had other Tau armies in the past. Pretty sure he's even been in WD back in the mid/late 2000s with one of them.
Just for to clear up any possible confusion, the New Guy I was referring to isn't the rules writer, but Duncan's new partner from the youtube channel.
But continuing on, the number of Tau armies the rules writer guy may have had or not has no bearing on how he looked on the stream. As a lead rule writer he should be sufficiently prepared to represent GW in a televised stream i.e. at least flip through the rules to know what you're talking about, even if you didn't write them yourself (being a lead something doesn't mean you do it all on your own, but you still take on responsibility for the things your subordinates mess up, so you make sure they don't, otherwise you get fired).
Continuing on, your example of using the stratagem is imo the exact reason why markerlights are considered bad in this edition compared to the previous ones. Looking at it from a games design perspective, in the move from 7th to 8th the markerlights changed for the worse.
In 7th you sacrificed movement and used a more reliable (no modifiers you just have to succeed a hit roll) shooting attack to give a large boost in reliability to the shooting of, realistically, 1 or 2 units. You essentially removed the to hit roll from the shooting for those units. The only drawback was that if the markers missed you shot at your regular BS and risked not doing enough damage to the unit and remain exposed to counter.... oh wait JSJ.
In 8th you use a shooting attack of same reliability to increase the shooting reliability to your entire army. The difference now is that the bonus is smaller (you can get a max of 1+ to hit and reroll ones which is only impressive if you already have the +1, but you can also get a -1 if you fail the marker rolls and will likely have your units be sitting ducks because you didn't do enough damage), the complexity is increased manyfold (instead of buffing and shooting with 1 or 2 units you have to coordinate multiple units), and the reliability is also decreased manyfold (way more dice rolls, enemy modifiers). That's a collection of game design no-nos because if you increase complexity, decrease player's control over the outcome but won't increase the reward (even add punishment in some situations) you'll just end up with tears and salt. The armywide buff imo is not really a buff rather than an additional complexity where you have to decide if you want a mediocre buff against many units which would allow you to utilize shooting at different toughness targets, or get an ok buff against one unit but then you're limited to only using a part of your army shooting because the rest would be wasted due to unsuitable weapon stats. The lack of risk/reward/effort balance of this key mechanic in the army is imo why people didn't even use it and resorted to things like commander spam, because commanders are the exact opposite, you have a simple, reliable and high reward unit.
To summarize, the current 8th ed markerlights in my opinion seem to be just plain old bad game design, and while they may be balanced or not (I don't know) they sure as hell ain't fun to use.
Deadawake1347 wrote:Don't you think that, knowing you were going to a Q&A on something that you wrote, you would... prepare a bit?
I mean, he knew questions were coming, and that he would be expected to answer. That is kind of the definition of a Q&A, isn't it?
If we had a Q&A session over a project you worked on, would you prepare for questions about a thing that didn't get much change and that everyone knew had been leaked...or would you prepare for questions over stuff that hadn't been leaked?
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
Just for to clear up any possible confusion, the New Guy I was referring to isn't the rules writer, but Duncan's new partner from the youtube channel.
Chris Peach. He's not new; he's just "new" on the streams.
But continuing on, the number of Tau armies the rules writer guy may have had or not has no bearing on how he looked on the stream. As a lead rule writer he should be sufficiently prepared to represent GW in a televised stream i.e. at least flip through the rules to know what you're talking about, even if you didn't write them yourself (being a lead something doesn't mean you do it all on your own, but you still take on responsibility for the things your subordinates mess up, so you make sure they don't, otherwise you get fired).
You'd have to prove to me, personally, whether or not he was the "lead rule writer". Might sound like moving goalposts, but people have long confused "lead rules writers" with "project leads".
Continuing on, your example of using the stratagem is imo the exact reason why markerlights are considered bad in this edition compared to the previous ones. Looking at it from a games design perspective, in the move from 7th to 8th the markerlights changed for the worse.
Only if you don't know how things work. It's easier to stack Markerlights on a few different targets and not have to worry about 'consuming' the tokens.
In 7th you sacrificed movement and used a more reliable (no modifiers you just have to succeed a hit roll) shooting attack to give a large boost in reliability to the shooting of, realistically, 1 or 2 units. You essentially removed the to hit roll from the shooting for those units. The only drawback was that if the markers missed you shot at your regular BS and risked not doing enough damage to the unit and remain exposed to counter.... oh wait JSJ.
In 8th you use a shooting attack of same reliability to increase the shooting reliability to your entire army. The difference now is that the bonus is smaller (you can get a max of 1+ to hit and reroll ones which is only impressive if you already have the +1, but you can also get a -1 if you fail the marker rolls and will likely have your units be sitting ducks because you didn't do enough damage), the complexity is increased manyfold (instead of buffing and shooting with 1 or 2 units you have to coordinate multiple units), and the reliability is also decreased manyfold (way more dice rolls, enemy modifiers). That's a collection of game design no-nos because if you increase complexity, decrease player's control over the outcome but won't increase the reward (even add punishment in some situations) you'll just end up with tears and salt. The armywide buff imo is not really a buff rather than an additional complexity where you have to decide if you want a mediocre buff against many units which would allow you to utilize shooting at different toughness targets, or get an ok buff against one unit but then you're limited to only using a part of your army shooting because the rest would be wasted due to unsuitable weapon stats. The lack of risk/reward/effort balance of this key mechanic in the army is imo why people didn't even use it and resorted to things like commander spam, because commanders are the exact opposite, you have a simple, reliable and high reward unit.
You don't ever get a "-1" for failing a Markerlight hit. You just function at your normal stats.
To summarize, the current 8th ed markerlights in my opinion seem to be just plain old bad game design, and while they may be balanced or not (I don't know) they sure as hell ain't fun to use.
As opposed to playing "Stack the Markerlights until you're BS10"?
Yeah. Nope. Your idea of "ain't fun to use" is nowhere near the same as mine.
Deadawake1347 wrote:Don't you think that, knowing you were going to a Q&A on something that you wrote, you would... prepare a bit?
I mean, he knew questions were coming, and that he would be expected to answer. That is kind of the definition of a Q&A, isn't it?
If we had a Q&A session over a project you worked on, would you prepare for questions about a thing that didn't get much change and that everyone knew had been leaked...or would you prepare for questions over stuff that hadn't been leaked?
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
As a professional I would prepare to answer any reasonable question asked of me. And yes. I have done this kind of thing before. It can be a pain in the ass to have to prepare for this kind of presentation... but that's why it's a job.
To summarize, the current 8th ed markerlights in my opinion seem to be just plain old bad game design, and while they may be balanced or not (I don't know) they sure as hell ain't fun to use.
As opposed to playing "Stack the Markerlights until you're BS10"?
Yeah. Nope. Your idea of "ain't fun to use" is nowhere near the same as mine.
There could be a limit like the 4th ed codex... I mean, that only let you use ML to go up to BS5. Crazy, but it would prevent BS10, despite the fact the increase in hits from BS5 to BS10 is 2.78% (rounded), so I'm not sure why you're flipping out over the possibility of BS10. My math was wrong, it's 14%ish, regardless, 5 tokens past BS5 for a 14% increase in accuracy is acceptable, I mean, going from BS4+ to BS3+ or BS3+ to BS2+ is a 16.67% increase in hits. There's a natural soft cap, where after you get a 2+, the increase from ballistic skill in 7th and older editions started to drop, and with the current edition of stacking negative to hit modifiers being stupidly strong (i.e., shooting at raven guard after moving with a plasma cannon at night makes you more likely to blow up than hit the enemy), I don't think it'd be too crazy to have some sort of access to a modified previous version of markerlights since that effectively hard counters tau totally and completely (i.e. spend a markerlight to increase your to hit roll by 1, cannot ever go beyond a 2+ after all modifiers)
and by the -1 to hit, I think they're referring to heavy weapons moving and firing, and the 3rd (iirc) effect of markerlights removing the penalty for moving + shooting with heavy weapons/advancing with assault weapons.
Deadawake1347 wrote:Don't you think that, knowing you were going to a Q&A on something that you wrote, you would... prepare a bit?
I mean, he knew questions were coming, and that he would be expected to answer. That is kind of the definition of a Q&A, isn't it?
If we had a Q&A session over a project you worked on, would you prepare for questions about a thing that didn't get much change and that everyone knew had been leaked...or would you prepare for questions over stuff that hadn't been leaked?
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
Just for to clear up any possible confusion, the New Guy I was referring to isn't the rules writer, but Duncan's new partner from the youtube channel.
Chris Peach. He's not new; he's just "new" on the streams.
But continuing on, the number of Tau armies the rules writer guy may have had or not has no bearing on how he looked on the stream. As a lead rule writer he should be sufficiently prepared to represent GW in a televised stream i.e. at least flip through the rules to know what you're talking about, even if you didn't write them yourself (being a lead something doesn't mean you do it all on your own, but you still take on responsibility for the things your subordinates mess up, so you make sure they don't, otherwise you get fired).
You'd have to prove to me, personally, whether or not he was the "lead rule writer". Might sound like moving goalposts, but people have long confused "lead rules writers" with "project leads".
Continuing on, your example of using the stratagem is imo the exact reason why markerlights are considered bad in this edition compared to the previous ones. Looking at it from a games design perspective, in the move from 7th to 8th the markerlights changed for the worse.
Only if you don't know how things work. It's easier to stack Markerlights on a few different targets and not have to worry about 'consuming' the tokens.
In 7th you sacrificed movement and used a more reliable (no modifiers you just have to succeed a hit roll) shooting attack to give a large boost in reliability to the shooting of, realistically, 1 or 2 units. You essentially removed the to hit roll from the shooting for those units. The only drawback was that if the markers missed you shot at your regular BS and risked not doing enough damage to the unit and remain exposed to counter.... oh wait JSJ.
In 8th you use a shooting attack of same reliability to increase the shooting reliability to your entire army. The difference now is that the bonus is smaller (you can get a max of 1+ to hit and reroll ones which is only impressive if you already have the +1, but you can also get a -1 if you fail the marker rolls and will likely have your units be sitting ducks because you didn't do enough damage), the complexity is increased manyfold (instead of buffing and shooting with 1 or 2 units you have to coordinate multiple units), and the reliability is also decreased manyfold (way more dice rolls, enemy modifiers). That's a collection of game design no-nos because if you increase complexity, decrease player's control over the outcome but won't increase the reward (even add punishment in some situations) you'll just end up with tears and salt. The armywide buff imo is not really a buff rather than an additional complexity where you have to decide if you want a mediocre buff against many units which would allow you to utilize shooting at different toughness targets, or get an ok buff against one unit but then you're limited to only using a part of your army shooting because the rest would be wasted due to unsuitable weapon stats. The lack of risk/reward/effort balance of this key mechanic in the army is imo why people didn't even use it and resorted to things like commander spam, because commanders are the exact opposite, you have a simple, reliable and high reward unit.
You don't ever get a "-1" for failing a Markerlight hit. You just function at your normal stats.
To summarize, the current 8th ed markerlights in my opinion seem to be just plain old bad game design, and while they may be balanced or not (I don't know) they sure as hell ain't fun to use.
As opposed to playing "Stack the Markerlights until you're BS10"?
Yeah. Nope. Your idea of "ain't fun to use" is nowhere near the same as mine.
He was introduced on the stream by Duncan and Chris as "lead rules writer for the T'au codex" and they even told some of the viewers to ask their rules questions in the next section because tat's when "the guy who knows the rules" will be there so idk how less ambiguous can that be.
My reasoning on the -1 to hit is that, if you make a conscious decision, to move/advance to get into position to shoot a target, with the intent of using markerlights to buff yourself and synergise, but the markerlights are not reliable and you will end up with a movement penalty which you otherwise would not have gotten if you didn't make the attempt to focus fire and shot a different target instead at your regular BS, it's exactly that, a penalty for putting in effort. You can nitpick the technicality but it will just be a case of "you're not wrong you're just a Blueblood" and will end the discussion with you "winning".
And I never said anything about 10BS stacking I just said that markerlights in the 8th are more complex, take away control of the outcome from the player and offer less reward, while offering my reasoning why I think so. If you wanted to use the 7th markerlights efficiently you had to just buff 1 unit that had the appropriate weapons to shoot the target and all you needed was to land 1 or 2 markers to get a superb effect which was maybe op but it was rewarding and not super annoying to pull off, in 8th you have to decide which unit to mark because he is the one for this turn, position multiple units so that they can take advantage of the marks, land 5 markers and/or use a stratagem, then shoot at an ok but not spectacular BS. All of this has a lot of failure points ranging from bad rolls while marking, to bad rolls while shooting because it's still 3+RR1 at best with the most of the army not including any negative mods, to maybe having your marker sources already be dead or being out of CP. Or you can make your life easier and just try to hit 1 marker on as many units as possible and not bother. Which was exactly what happened with the index, even the marker stratagem wasn't really that impacting because competitive players still spammed commanders who are strong, independent blubois and don't need no markers. IMO they still should have done a proper redesign with the codex, not try to patch the already broken system.
Was gonna pre-order the book and cards today, thinking I might hold off now. Not sure it's worth giving GW any more of my money when they clearly don't give a gak.
Doesn't sound like the codex is really that much of an upgrade anyway. Certainly not one worth paying full price for.
Sidstyler wrote: Was gonna pre-order the book and cards today, thinking I might hold off now. Not sure it's worth giving GW any more of my money when they clearly don't give a gak.
Doesn't sound like the codex is really that much of an upgrade anyway. Certainly not one worth paying full price for.
various points drops, stratagems, and septs alone making it a massive upgrade over the index. Maybe not eldar or IG tier, but that's ok. Can still be not worth your cash, that is an intensely personal choice that reflects all the values and goings on of your life. But i think "not really much of an upgrade" could be selling it short
pumaman1 wrote: various points drops, stratagems, and septs alone making it a massive upgrade over the index. Maybe not eldar or IG tier, but that's ok. Can still be not worth your cash, that is an intensely personal choice that reflects all the values and goings on of your life. But i think "not really much of an upgrade" could be selling it short
Careful sir, you are wandering into reasonable discourse, I will report you to the mods if this continues.
Sidstyler wrote: Was gonna pre-order the book and cards today, thinking I might hold off now. Not sure it's worth giving GW any more of my money when they clearly don't give a gak.
Doesn't sound like the codex is really that much of an upgrade anyway. Certainly not one worth paying full price for.
various points drops, stratagems, and septs alone making it a massive upgrade over the index. Maybe not eldar or IG tier, but that's ok. Can still be not worth your cash, that is an intensely personal choice that reflects all the values and goings on of your life. But i think "not really much of an upgrade" could be selling it short
That is true, however there's more than one way to view it as an upgrade.
For example I don't view this as much of an upgrade when it comes to variety of list building options and play styles.
For competitive play it went from a single viable build to... pretty much just a different single viable build. Maybe two or three.
There's still no reason to use the better part of the book in any setting, the rules are still clunky and a lot of the special rules still redundant.
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
There is no context to not knowing the rule. The way the mistake was worded is not simply misspeaking, it's blatantly not knowing the rules. His opinion on it's worth is irrelevant.
You're really extending yourself to defend him, not sure why.
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
There is no context to not knowing the rule. The way the mistake was worded is not simply misspeaking, it's blatantly not knowing the rules. His opinion on it's worth is irrelevant.
You're really extending yourself to defend him, not sure why.
Considering the poster I was replying to didn't even know that yes, a Skyray can benefit from its own Markerlights?
It should be obvious as to why I'm "extending myself to defend him".
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
There is no context to not knowing the rule. The way the mistake was worded is not simply misspeaking, it's blatantly not knowing the rules. His opinion on it's worth is irrelevant.
You're really extending yourself to defend him, not sure why.
Considering the poster I was replying to didn't even know that yes, a Skyray can benefit from its own Markerlights?
It should be obvious as to why I'm "extending myself to defend him".
A Skyray's ability to benefit from it's own markerlights was not anywhere near the context though. The premise that the Skyray can benefit from it's markerlights was already a given, the crux was that you're shooting yourself in the foot by committing to shooting Seekers before knowing if you have enough marker hits landed, thus putting yourself in a position to either A) sacrifice the seekers or B) sacrifice 1 CP to get markers. You're just making up strawmen at this point.
None of that matters. The dude didn't know a basic rule.
I just want to keep it honest. Sloppy rules writing has been a weakness for a while. 8th has shown some promise regarding GW starting to take the rules for their game more seriously. Some of the codex are really good (Nids are great for balance/army feel). Some seem to really not understand their armies (Eldar/Tau). Tau will be able to field some very powerful lists. But some of the stuff in here makes no sense whatsoever, and seeing that the designers do not fully understand the army they just wrote the book on is disturbing.
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
There is no context to not knowing the rule. The way the mistake was worded is not simply misspeaking, it's blatantly not knowing the rules. His opinion on it's worth is irrelevant.
You're really extending yourself to defend him, not sure why.
Considering the poster I was replying to didn't even know that yes, a Skyray can benefit from its own Markerlights?
It should be obvious as to why I'm "extending myself to defend him".
I wouldn't bother anymore Kan. They have their narrative for why their army sucks and nothing but a GT win will shake them out of it.
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
There is no context to not knowing the rule. The way the mistake was worded is not simply misspeaking, it's blatantly not knowing the rules. His opinion on it's worth is irrelevant.
You're really extending yourself to defend him, not sure why.
Considering the poster I was replying to didn't even know that yes, a Skyray can benefit from its own Markerlights?
It should be obvious as to why I'm "extending myself to defend him".
I wouldn't bother anymore Kan. They have their narrative for why their army sucks and nothing but a GT win will shake them out of it.
I wouldn't say Tau suck, they're probably solidly mid tier, but that doesn't change the fact that skyrays will still suck (i.e.), or that the commander "fix" was incredibly lazy, and was probably the result of getting a lead rules designer who hasn't touched tau before.
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
There is no context to not knowing the rule. The way the mistake was worded is not simply misspeaking, it's blatantly not knowing the rules. His opinion on it's worth is irrelevant.
You're really extending yourself to defend him, not sure why.
Considering the poster I was replying to didn't even know that yes, a Skyray can benefit from its own Markerlights?
It should be obvious as to why I'm "extending myself to defend him".
I wouldn't bother anymore Kan. They have their narrative for why their army sucks and nothing but a GT win will shake them out of it.
I wouldn't say Tau suck, they're probably solidly mid tier, but that doesn't change the fact that skyrays will still suck (i.e.), or that the commander "fix" was incredibly lazy, and was probably the result of getting a lead rules designer who hasn't touched tau before.
Lol. Tau are such a weird community to belong to. I can only assume the reason Gamgee is being quiet is because he is standing outside Warhammer World yelling "Blue Lives Matter".
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
There is no context to not knowing the rule. The way the mistake was worded is not simply misspeaking, it's blatantly not knowing the rules. His opinion on it's worth is irrelevant.
You're really extending yourself to defend him, not sure why.
Considering the poster I was replying to didn't even know that yes, a Skyray can benefit from its own Markerlights?
It should be obvious as to why I'm "extending myself to defend him".
I wouldn't bother anymore Kan. They have their narrative for why their army sucks and nothing but a GT win will shake them out of it.
I wouldn't say Tau suck, they're probably solidly mid tier, but that doesn't change the fact that skyrays will still suck (i.e.), or that the commander "fix" was incredibly lazy, and was probably the result of getting a lead rules designer who hasn't touched tau before.
Lol. Tau are such a weird community to belong to. I can only assume the reason Gamgee is being quiet is because he is standing outside Warhammer World yelling "Blue Lives Matter".
Did you miss the stream where he said he only started tau a few weeks before? Or would you like to continue conveniently ignoring that?
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
There is no context to not knowing the rule. The way the mistake was worded is not simply misspeaking, it's blatantly not knowing the rules. His opinion on it's worth is irrelevant.
You're really extending yourself to defend him, not sure why.
Considering the poster I was replying to didn't even know that yes, a Skyray can benefit from its own Markerlights?
It should be obvious as to why I'm "extending myself to defend him".
I wouldn't bother anymore Kan. They have their narrative for why their army sucks and nothing but a GT win will shake them out of it.
I wouldn't say Tau suck, they're probably solidly mid tier, but that doesn't change the fact that skyrays will still suck (i.e.), or that the commander "fix" was incredibly lazy, and was probably the result of getting a lead rules designer who hasn't touched tau before.
Lol. Tau are such a weird community to belong to. I can only assume the reason Gamgee is being quiet is because he is standing outside Warhammer World yelling "Blue Lives Matter".
Did you miss the stream where he said he only started tau a few weeks before? Or would you like to continue conveniently ignoring that?
Correction:
He stated that he only picked up a Start Collecting a few weeks before. Dude is in the process of actually painting a new Sa'cea army.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xmbk wrote: None of that matters. The dude didn't know a basic rule.
So? I know "tournament" players who don't know basic rules. Doesn't mean jack.
I just want to keep it honest. Sloppy rules writing has been a weakness for a while. 8th has shown some promise regarding GW starting to take the rules for their game more seriously. Some of the codex are really good (Nids are great for balance/army feel). Some seem to really not understand their armies (Eldar/Tau). Tau will be able to field some very powerful lists. But some of the stuff in here makes no sense whatsoever, and seeing that the designers do not fully understand the army they just wrote the book on is disturbing.
It's not a good sign for GW to allow this.
What I would be more concerned about is the fact that balance keeps seeming to be done in response to tournament results, not actual play.
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
There is no context to not knowing the rule. The way the mistake was worded is not simply misspeaking, it's blatantly not knowing the rules. His opinion on it's worth is irrelevant.
You're really extending yourself to defend him, not sure why.
Considering the poster I was replying to didn't even know that yes, a Skyray can benefit from its own Markerlights?
It should be obvious as to why I'm "extending myself to defend him".
I wouldn't bother anymore Kan. They have their narrative for why their army sucks and nothing but a GT win will shake them out of it.
I wouldn't say Tau suck, they're probably solidly mid tier, but that doesn't change the fact that skyrays will still suck (i.e.), or that the commander "fix" was incredibly lazy, and was probably the result of getting a lead rules designer who hasn't touched tau before.
Lol. Tau are such a weird community to belong to. I can only assume the reason Gamgee is being quiet is because he is standing outside Warhammer World yelling "Blue Lives Matter".
Did you miss the stream where he said he only started tau a few weeks before? Or would you like to continue conveniently ignoring that?
Correction:
He stated that he only picked up a Start Collecting a few weeks before. Dude is in the process of actually painting a new Sa'cea army.
So maybe I missed something, but he is new to Tau right? I mean saying he was a "recent convert to the Greater Good" along with the bit about only picking up a Start Collecting box, doesn't exactly sound like a long term tau player, or someone who's touched them before.
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
There is no context to not knowing the rule. The way the mistake was worded is not simply misspeaking, it's blatantly not knowing the rules. His opinion on it's worth is irrelevant.
You're really extending yourself to defend him, not sure why.
Considering the poster I was replying to didn't even know that yes, a Skyray can benefit from its own Markerlights?
It should be obvious as to why I'm "extending myself to defend him".
I wouldn't bother anymore Kan. They have their narrative for why their army sucks and nothing but a GT win will shake them out of it.
I wouldn't say Tau suck, they're probably solidly mid tier, but that doesn't change the fact that skyrays will still suck (i.e.), or that the commander "fix" was incredibly lazy, and was probably the result of getting a lead rules designer who hasn't touched tau before.
Lol. Tau are such a weird community to belong to. I can only assume the reason Gamgee is being quiet is because he is standing outside Warhammer World yelling "Blue Lives Matter".
So maybe I missed something, but he is new to Tau right? I mean saying he was a "recent convert to the Greater Good" along with the bit about only picking up a Start Collecting box, doesn't exactly sound like a long term tau player, or someone who's touched them before.
He is not. He mentioned he's played them in years past, shelved them, and came back to them since he got to work on the book.
While it may seem a very harsh way to impose a hard limit on commanders atleast they didn't get comissared, into being unplayable. Also allowing coldstars to take any 4 weapons is essentially a buff.
Tau is going to be a good playable army it just might not play in the way the fluff would suggest.
The more I have seen of the codex the more it looks like a powerful army can be built from it but its going to take some weird list building to maximise the potential
So maybe I missed something, but he is new to Tau right? I mean saying he was a "recent convert to the Greater Good" along with the bit about only picking up a Start Collecting box, doesn't exactly sound like a long term tau player, or someone who's touched them before.
He is not. He mentioned he's played them in years past, shelved them, and came back to them since he got to work on the book.
You don't happen to have a time stamp (or a rough estimate) of it do you? I don't remember that offhand
So maybe I missed something, but he is new to Tau right? I mean saying he was a "recent convert to the Greater Good" along with the bit about only picking up a Start Collecting box, doesn't exactly sound like a long term tau player, or someone who's touched them before.
He is not. He mentioned he's played them in years past, shelved them, and came back to them since he got to work on the book.
You don't happen to have a time stamp (or a rough estimate) of it do you? I don't remember that offhand
It's not in the video. His personal social media has it:
Sa'cea has historically been the Sept I paint. Have had two T'au armies in the past, both with orange markings. It's more because I like the colour contrast than any particular rules effect though!
So maybe I missed something, but he is new to Tau right? I mean saying he was a "recent convert to the Greater Good" along with the bit about only picking up a Start Collecting box, doesn't exactly sound like a long term tau player, or someone who's touched them before.
He is not. He mentioned he's played them in years past, shelved them, and came back to them since he got to work on the book.
You don't happen to have a time stamp (or a rough estimate) of it do you? I don't remember that offhand
It's not in the video. His personal social media has it:
Sa'cea has historically been the Sept I paint. Have had two T'au armies in the past, both with orange markings. It's more because I like the colour contrast than any particular rules effect though!
Hm, ok. Wonder how long ago then. 4th ed tau played very differently from 6th/7th.
Wolfblade wrote: Hm, ok. Wonder how long ago then. 4th ed tau played very differently from 6th/7th.
I'd consider that a huge boon, 4th edition Tau were way better written and had a clearer direction than fanboy-like inflation of every number, bad balance and OP stuff everywhere they got later. If anything, all the insane, fluff breaking changes should be reverted back to 4th then built up from there, and while Codex doesn't do perfect job in this regard it does have some needed changes.
Anyway, I am puzzled this is still going on. The Tau got to have their cake and eat it too, in the form of keeping their OP unit at the cost of slight spam reduction, the injustice!
Seeing GW could have say deleted Commanders from book completely, making them just Crisis Suit upgrade adding slight buff aura on top of one suit per army for 3 CP (SM style nerf), or have Commanders douse your own units with his guns once enemy starts killing them to ""bolster their resolve"", making the commander kill more units than enemy did (plus slashing the Fire Warrior BS to 6+ for no reason whatsoever in overnerf kneejerk, aka IG style nerf), or slap the "loss of focus" rule on Commanders, giving them -1 cumulative penalty to firing more than one gun of the same type per army, while limiting fusion, ion and plasma guns to one per army total (psyker style nerf), complaining they instead chose """nerf""" that is completely meaningless for anyone who wasn't spamming only the thing that was supposed to be the army general to the exclusion of everything else, is pretty insane.
Especially in the era where horribly broken things like ass cannons or terminators are nerfed into the ground, instead of being left alone with tiny, easily circumvented restriction fluffy players will never even notice...
Wolfblade wrote: Hm, ok. Wonder how long ago then. 4th ed tau played very differently from 6th/7th.
I'd consider that a huge boon, 4th edition Tau were way better written and had a clearer direction than fanboy-like inflation of every number, bad balance and OP stuff everywhere they got later. If anything, all the insane, fluff breaking changes should be reverted back to 4th then built up from there, and while Codex doesn't do perfect job in this regard it does have some needed changes.
Anyway, I am puzzled this is still going on. The Tau got to have their cake and eat it too, in the form of keeping their OP unit at the cost of slight spam reduction, the injustice!
Seeing GW could have say deleted Commanders from book completely, making them just Crisis Suit upgrade adding slight buff aura on top of one suit per army for 3 CP (SM style nerf), or have Commanders douse your own units with his guns once enemy starts killing them to ""bolster their resolve"", making the commander kill more units than enemy did (plus slashing the Fire Warrior BS to 6+ for no reason whatsoever in overnerf kneejerk, aka IG style nerf), or slap the "loss of focus" rule on Commanders, giving them -1 cumulative penalty to firing more than one gun of the same type per army, while limiting fusion, ion and plasma guns to one per army total (psyker style nerf), complaining they instead chose """nerf""" that is completely meaningless for anyone who wasn't spamming only the thing that was supposed to be the army general to the exclusion of everything else, is pretty insane.
Especially in the era where horribly broken things like ass cannons or terminators are nerfed into the ground, instead of being left alone with tiny, easily circumvented restriction fluffy players will never even notice...
Its very noticeable even if you aren't trying to spam commanders. Non-T'au septs are going to have to spam Cadre Fireblades and Ethereals if they want multiple battalions let alone brigades. Cadre fireblades abilities do not stack besides being a solid markerlight platform. Ethereals are largely useless, and do not even work on the first turn if you go second. Spamming multiple Ethereals on the battlefield is even worse for fluff than Commander spam was. If named characters weren't Sept locked then it wouldn't be nearly as big of a problem as it is.
Anyway, I am puzzled this is still going on. The Tau got to have their cake and eat it too, in the form of keeping their OP unit at the cost of slight spam reduction, the injustice!
I would just like to clarify my stance on the commander nerf. You see, I fully understand the need to nerf commanders, and I'm sure tourney players will appreciate the reduction in spam going forward. However, I and many others simply feel that GW could have done more (or something else) to balance commanders internally. Heck, I don't even mind the commander limit, it's just that commanders are still too good next to other units. That is what this thread was about, and many of us therefore decided to voice our opinions on this "fix".
Also, this thread was pretty much done as everything has already been said, and we even went off topic a couple times.
Wolfblade wrote: Hm, ok. Wonder how long ago then. 4th ed tau played very differently from 6th/7th.
I'd consider that a huge boon, 4th edition Tau were way better written and had a clearer direction than fanboy-like inflation of every number, bad balance and OP stuff everywhere they got later. If anything, all the insane, fluff breaking changes should be reverted back to 4th then built up from there, and while Codex doesn't do perfect job in this regard it does have some needed changes.
Well, except most of those changes do nothing to bring back the feel of 4th edition Tau. Our railguns are still poor at the job they're meant to do, we still can't JSJ unless you play a sept that gets bonuses for standing still or play Tau and use up a relic to get the ability on one model, Crisis suits are still too expensive, our plasma is still inferior in every way to imperium plasma for negligible points decrease, Skyray is still crap, markerlights and support systems are still doing the same things and now some of our sept traits and stratagems do those same things, too!
Wolfblade wrote: Hm, ok. Wonder how long ago then. 4th ed tau played very differently from 6th/7th.
I'd consider that a huge boon, 4th edition Tau were way better written and had a clearer direction than fanboy-like inflation of every number, bad balance and OP stuff everywhere they got later. If anything, all the insane, fluff breaking changes should be reverted back to 4th then built up from there, and while Codex doesn't do perfect job in this regard it does have some needed changes.
Well, except most of those changes do nothing to bring back the feel of 4th edition Tau. Our railguns are still poor at the job they're meant to do, we still can't JSJ unless you play a sept that gets bonuses for standing still or play Tau and use up a relic to get the ability on one model, Crisis suits are still too expensive, our plasma is still inferior in every way to imperium plasma for negligible points decrease, Skyray is still crap, markerlights and support systems are still doing the same things and now some of our sept traits and stratagems do those same things, too!
Statistically, A skyray is a like-for-like tank killer. you blow your entire reserve, but it can kill an equivalent tank like a predator when you get the markerlights on it for the missiles. Still not ideal, but far from the dog turd we saw in the index.
Wolfblade wrote: Hm, ok. Wonder how long ago then. 4th ed tau played very differently from 6th/7th.
I'd consider that a huge boon, 4th edition Tau were way better written and had a clearer direction than fanboy-like inflation of every number, bad balance and OP stuff everywhere they got later. If anything, all the insane, fluff breaking changes should be reverted back to 4th then built up from there, and while Codex doesn't do perfect job in this regard it does have some needed changes.
Well, except most of those changes do nothing to bring back the feel of 4th edition Tau. Our railguns are still poor at the job they're meant to do, we still can't JSJ unless you play a sept that gets bonuses for standing still or play Tau and use up a relic to get the ability on one model, Crisis suits are still too expensive, our plasma is still inferior in every way to imperium plasma for negligible points decrease, Skyray is still crap, markerlights and support systems are still doing the same things and now some of our sept traits and stratagems do those same things, too!
Statistically, A skyray is a like-for-like tank killer. you blow your entire reserve, but it can kill an equivalent tank like a predator when you get the markerlights on it for the missiles. Still not ideal, but far from the dog turd we saw in the index.
The new ones are S8 -2 D6 which even if they all hit will statisticaly not be enough to kill a predator or even a rhino.
As 6 hits will be 4 wounds and with a 5+ save around 9 damage.
Jorim wrote: The new ones are S8 -2 D6 which even if they all hit will statisticaly not be enough to kill a predator or even a rhino.
As 6 hits will be 4 wounds and with a 5+ save around 9 damage.
Average damage of D6 is 3.5 which makes 3 wounding hits 10.5 damage rounded to 11.
Jorim wrote: The new ones are S8 -2 D6 which even if they all hit will statisticaly not be enough to kill a predator or even a rhino.
As 6 hits will be 4 wounds and with a 5+ save around 9 damage.
Average damage of D6 is 3.5 which makes 3 wounding hits 10.5 damage rounded to 11.
But 2/3 times 4 (amount of wounds after saves) isn't 3, so your damage is too high.
It would be 2,66 wounds and less than 10 damage.
Jorim wrote: The new ones are S8 -2 D6 which even if they all hit will statisticaly not be enough to kill a predator or even a rhino.
As 6 hits will be 4 wounds and with a 5+ save around 9 damage.
Average damage of D6 is 3.5 which makes 3 wounding hits 10.5 damage rounded to 11.
But 2/3 times 4 (amount of wounds after saves) isn't 3, so your damage is too high.
It would be 2,66 wounds and less than 10 damage.
I know that it doesn't statistically sit perfectly but lets play the game as a set of absolutes where we're working with whole numbers and work from there.
6 missiles fired at BS3+ rerolling 1 is statistically 4.66 hits, rounded to 5 hits.
5 missiles wounding on 3+ is 4.2 wounds, round to 4.
4 missiles against a save of 5+ is statistically 2.66 wounds, round to 3.
3 missiles dealing 1 minimum and 6 maximum damage gives an average of 3.5 wounds per missile, so that's 10.5 wounds which you can round up to 11.
I've rolled it out and the math pretty much checks out.
Peregrine wrote: That's not how probability works. You can't round off at each intermediate step.
Yes, I know that and as I said, it doesn't sit statistically perfect but you can't get 2.66 wounding hits, so how else do you work it out when you're actually applying to the game using it's limits?
Tristanleo wrote: Yes, I know that and as I said, it doesn't sit statistically perfect but you can't get 2.66 wounding hits, so how else do you work it out when you're actually applying to the game using it's limits?
You keep the full decimal numbers at each intermediate step and then optionally round off at the end. That's how probability works. You are dealing with average values carried through steps of multiplication, not discrete events, when calculating the average outcome.
Ushtarador wrote: Numerical simulation says a Skyray shooting at a Predator with 2 Markerlights has a 80% chance of dealing 11 or more wounds with 6 missiles. Not so bad I'd say.
Regarding math, either do it or don't. You can't just make up your own rules. If you want to break it down into the ordinal probability of either 2 or 3 hits, or figure out the precise probability of each wound total from 0-36, knock yourself out. But expecting 11 will definitely leave you at a strategic disadvantage.
xmbk wrote: Why do Ethereals not matter in the 1st round?
Regarding math, either do it or don't. You can't just make up your own rules. If you want to break it down into the ordinal probability of either 2 or 3 hits, or figure out the precise probability of each wound total from 0-36, knock yourself out. But expecting 11 will definitely leave you at a strategic disadvantage.
IIRC, ethereals don't get to choose a buff until it's their turn.
Ushtarador wrote: Numerical simulation says a Skyray shooting at a Predator with 2 Markerlights has a 80% chance of dealing 11 or more wounds with 6 missiles. Not so bad I'd say.
It is when it only gets to do it once per game.
Had a bug and corrected my post, it's 25% in fact.
I think the optimal target for a Skyray is multiwound infantry with a good invulnerable save (e.g. Custodes), but it's not a very large niche.
Ushtarador wrote: Numerical simulation says a Skyray shooting at a Predator with 2 Markerlights has a 80% chance of dealing 11 or more wounds with 6 missiles. Not so bad I'd say.
It is when it only gets to do it once per game.
Had a bug and corrected my post, it's 25% in fact.
I think the optimal target for a Skyray is multiwound infantry with a good invulnerable save (e.g. Custodes), but it's not a very large niche.
maybe medium armor, 2+ does a lot to negate AP-2, and broadsides with HYMP will do what the skyray does better in most cases
Ushtarador wrote: Numerical simulation says a Skyray shooting at a Predator with 2 Markerlights has a 80% chance of dealing 11 or more wounds with 6 missiles. Not so bad I'd say.
It is when it only gets to do it once per game.
Had a bug and corrected my post, it's 25% in fact.
I think the optimal target for a Skyray is multiwound infantry with a good invulnerable save (e.g. Custodes), but it's not a very large niche.
maybe medium armor, 2+ does a lot to negate AP-2, and broadsides with HYMP will do what the skyray does better in most cases
Hence the good invulnerable save criteria. If you hit a model with 2+/4++ with AP-2, you make them roll the minimum save possible with no wastage of AP. With AP-3 or -4, if they aren't in cover, the extra AP is wasted as you reduce their AS to be worse than their invulnerable and so you waste some of it.
Ushtarador wrote: Numerical simulation says a Skyray shooting at a Predator with 2 Markerlights has a 80% chance of dealing 11 or more wounds with 6 missiles. Not so bad I'd say.
It is when it only gets to do it once per game.
Had a bug and corrected my post, it's 25% in fact.
I think the optimal target for a Skyray is multiwound infantry with a good invulnerable save (e.g. Custodes), but it's not a very large niche.
maybe medium armor, 2+ does a lot to negate AP-2, and broadsides with HYMP will do what the skyray does better in most cases
Hence the good invulnerable save criteria. If you hit a model with 2+/4++ with AP-2, you make them roll the minimum save possible with no wastage of AP. With AP-3 or -4, if they aren't in cover, the extra AP is wasted as you reduce their AS to be worse than their invulnerable and so you waste some of it.
I get that, but having a narrow target of custodes isn't exactly screaming useful. The skyray is trash, and I can't think of a situation where it would be the best possible choice. Maybe a low armor, multi wound, high toughness unit, but only if it can deal meaningful damage with ~3 separate wound rolls.
The skyray is trash, and I can't think of a situation where it would be the best possible choice.
So either it's the best possible choice, or it's trash. Thank you internet
The missiles are hard to balance - too little and they don't do enough, too much and people whine because skyrays are able to frontload all their damage and alphastrike their army off the board.
Probably the simplest solution would be to give it a normal profile (akin to a Manticore), but then people would whine it lost its flavor. Another approach might be to raise the AP of the missiles to -3 or -4, but the Skyray is close to being balanced. People also always seem to forget about the 2 markerlights and 8 SMS shots on a resilient high BS platform.
The skyray is trash, and I can't think of a situation where it would be the best possible choice.
So either it's the best possible choice, or it's trash. Thank you internet
The missiles are hard to balance - too little and they don't do enough, too much and people whine because skyrays are able to frontload all their damage and alphastrike their army off the board.
Probably the simplest solution would be to give it a normal profile (akin to a Manticore), but then people would whine it lost its flavor. Another approach might be to raise the AP of the missiles to -3 or -4, but the Skyray is close to being balanced. People also always seem to forget about the 2 markerlights and 8 SMS shots on a resilient high BS platform.
Most units have a general situation where they'd be a good pick, but the skyray does not especially in a game that does not favor jack of all trade units (unless they're incredibly broken, like scatbikes in 7th). And the SMS is a 24 point upgrade, that only provides more S5 AP0 (it does ignore cover, so mild use there) and fire warriors or gun drones cover that far better. It's also not particularly durable, being only T7 13W, and after 7 lost wounds it stops being BS3.
And I suppose "best possible choice" should be amended to "Do something better than broadsides or hammerheads (including forgeworld variants)" (which is what I meant, it doesn't need to be the best thing ever, just enough to have a place in the codex by being better at something than the rest of the choices in the same slot.)
IIRC, ethereals don't get to choose a buff until it's their turn.
But the reroll 1's still works. I like them surrounded by FW, who frequently aren't firing at the big target lit up by ML.
As long as they get a movement phase, yeah. That's the problem with them going second, you haven't had a movement phase yet, so you can't choose a buff.
Alcibiades wrote: The Skyray is an anti-air platform. It should be judged on its ability to take down things with the FLY keyword, few of which have battle-tank stats.
A coldstar suit makes an even better anti-air platform. 5 weapons (1 missile, 4 fusions). That has to hurt most flyers. Or you can take 5 missiles and do the same from a distance.
Alcibiades wrote: The Skyray is an anti-air platform. It should be judged on its ability to take down things with the FLY keyword, few of which have battle-tank stats.
Except it isn't good at AA at all. Its AA role is purely a fluff thing, it gets no bonuses rules-wise.
Alcibiades wrote: The Skyray is an anti-air platform. It should be judged on its ability to take down things with the FLY keyword, few of which have battle-tank stats.
A coldstar suit makes an even better anti-air platform. 5 weapons (1 missile, 4 fusions). That has to hurt most flyers. Or you can take 5 missiles and do the same from a distance.
Coldstars can only have 4 total weapons or support systems never 5 weapons.
Alcibiades wrote: The Skyray is an anti-air platform. It should be judged on its ability to take down things with the FLY keyword, few of which have battle-tank stats.
A coldstar suit makes an even better anti-air platform. 5 weapons (1 missile, 4 fusions). That has to hurt most flyers. Or you can take 5 missiles and do the same from a distance.
Coldstars can only have 4 total weapons or support systems never 5 weapons.
That's not what it says in the codex. Replace the burst or missile for 2 different weapons giving you 3. Then add two extra for 5.
Ice_can wrote: The intent is clear but once again GW fluffed the RAW. I would expect that to be errataed in the codex FAQ
Been told there is also a picture in the codex with 5 weapons on it. Given the picture and how clear the rules are I think the intent is clear on 5 weapons.
Ice_can wrote: The intent is clear but once again GW fluffed the RAW. I would expect that to be errataed in the codex FAQ
Been told there is also a picture in the codex with 5 weapons on it. Given the picture and how clear the rules are I think the intent is clear on 5 weapons.
Can't find this picture looking through the codex, highly doubt it's correct that the intent was 5 weapons.
I can't see it either, most suits have 3 weapons max and the coldstar suits are rocking the old school burstcannon missile pod loadout.
If you can provide a page number I'll reconsider but right now to me it sounds like someones just spreading misinformation.
Ice_can wrote: I can't see it either, most suits have 3 weapons max and the coldstar suits are rocking the old school burstcannon missile pod loadout.
If you can provide a page number I'll reconsider but right now to me it sounds like someones just spreading misinformation.
Probably to get commanders nerfed harder.
What a negative attitude you have. No one is spreading misinformation or trying to get commanders nerfed. The rule is very clear 5 weapons with restrictions of no ion weapons allowed and the 5th weapon has to be a burst or Missile.
This is dakka dakka its either OP and GW needs to nerf it or its useless. Don't try and use reasoning and logic on the internet. That may lead to a civil discussion, and if people are being reasonable to strangers on the internet, the world will end
I shall try and ensure my sarcasm is clearer in future.
Alcibiades wrote: The Skyray is an anti-air platform. It should be judged on its ability to take down things with the FLY keyword, few of which have battle-tank stats.
Except it isn't good at AA at all. Its AA role is purely a fluff thing, it gets no bonuses rules-wise.
Gee, GW failing to design something so it suits its role - you shock me, Peregrine...
Alcibiades wrote: The Skyray is an anti-air platform. It should be judged on its ability to take down things with the FLY keyword, few of which have battle-tank stats.
Except it isn't good at AA at all. Its AA role is purely a fluff thing, it gets no bonuses rules-wise.
Doesn't it have a Velocity Tracker?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I haven't seen the data sheet, but I was under the impression that it does. If it does, it's very accurate against aircraft (97% chance to hit with 5 MLs, even if the target has Hard to Hit).
Alcibiades wrote: The Skyray is an anti-air platform. It should be judged on its ability to take down things with the FLY keyword, few of which have battle-tank stats.
Except it isn't good at AA at all. Its AA role is purely a fluff thing, it gets no bonuses rules-wise.
Doesn't it have a Velocity Tracker?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I haven't seen the data sheet, but I was under the impression that it does. If it does, it's very accurate against aircraft (97% chance to hit with 5 MLs, even if the target has Hard to Hit).
Indeed it does have Velocity Trackers.
Amusingly enough, something I hadn't really thought of is the slight benefit that "Hover Tank" can give you in targeting that kind of stuff versus normal ground-based stuff. Just a slight range boost.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I haven't seen the data sheet, but I was under the impression that it does. If it does, it's very accurate against aircraft (97% chance to hit with 5 MLs, even if the target has Hard to Hit).
Oh, fair. I suppose that is a token bonus at least. But it's not really realistic to consider its damage output with 5 ML tokens, as that represents a considerable investment just to allow the Sky Ray to shoot. At that point the advantage over a bunch of conventional units hitting on 3s with a re-roll of 1s should do the job just fine without the burden of a single-role specialist.
Alcibiades wrote: The Skyray is an anti-air platform. It should be judged on its ability to take down things with the FLY keyword, few of which have battle-tank stats.
A coldstar suit makes an even better anti-air platform. 5 weapons (1 missile, 4 fusions). That has to hurt most flyers. Or you can take 5 missiles and do the same from a distance.
Coldstars can only have 4 total weapons or support systems never 5 weapons.
That's not what it says in the codex. Replace the burst or missile for 2 different weapons giving you 3. Then add two extra for 5.
It says:
This model may replace its high-output burst cannon and/or missile pod with two items from the Ranged Weapons and/or Support Systems lists.
This model may take two additional items from the Ranged Weapons and/or Support Systems list.
So when you replace two guns with two items, that's 2 items.
You can take two additional items.
Not sure how you're getting 5?
Because that's what the rule says. You can replace one or both of the BC/MP with two items. You can replace the BC with two items, replace the MP with two items, or replace both weapons with two items (the obvious wrong choice). Though TBH you could also read it as replacing each weapon with two items, for a total of six.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I haven't seen the data sheet, but I was under the impression that it does. If it does, it's very accurate against aircraft (97% chance to hit with 5 MLs, even if the target has Hard to Hit).
Oh, fair. I suppose that is a token bonus at least. But it's not really realistic to consider its damage output with 5 ML tokens, as that represents a considerable investment just to allow the Sky Ray to shoot. At that point the advantage over a bunch of conventional units hitting on 3s with a re-roll of 1s should do the job just fine without the burden of a single-role specialist.
Well, against stuff without Hard to Hit, it should have a 97% with one markerlight. And it's one of the only units in the codex that doesn't have a 4+ to hit -- there aren't any conventional units hitting on 3+ )other than hammerheads and the commander at 2+.)
Anyway, it should be judged on this basis, not its Predator-killing ability.
IIRC, ethereals don't get to choose a buff until it's their turn.
But the reroll 1's still works. I like them surrounded by FW, who frequently aren't firing at the big target lit up by ML.
As long as they get a movement phase, yeah. That's the problem with them going second, you haven't had a movement phase yet, so you can't choose a buff.
I feel like I'm missing something. Movement is before shooting, so they can give reroll 1's on the first turn. They just can't give FNP on the top of one.
IIRC, ethereals don't get to choose a buff until it's their turn.
But the reroll 1's still works. I like them surrounded by FW, who frequently aren't firing at the big target lit up by ML.
As long as they get a movement phase, yeah. That's the problem with them going second, you haven't had a movement phase yet, so you can't choose a buff.
I feel like I'm missing something. Movement is before shooting, so they can give reroll 1's on the first turn. They just can't give FNP on the top of one.
Not being able to give FNP against T1 shooting if your going second is indeed the point being made. Alpha strike is powerful so people look for tools to reduce damage they take on t1.
IIRC, ethereals don't get to choose a buff until it's their turn.
But the reroll 1's still works. I like them surrounded by FW, who frequently aren't firing at the big target lit up by ML.
As long as they get a movement phase, yeah. That's the problem with them going second, you haven't had a movement phase yet, so you can't choose a buff.
I feel like I'm missing something. Movement is before shooting, so they can give reroll 1's on the first turn. They just can't give FNP on the top of one.
if you go 2nd during the first round, you have not yet had a movement phase.
I feel like the real issue with the skyray is no steady main gun. It could really use one good anti air gun (with the +1 to hit fly and -1 to hit anything else) along with it's array of missiles. If it could do something on it's own that mattered along with the missiles the skyray would be fine to great. It's crippled by only being chassis for the 1 off missiles.
Lance845 wrote: I feel like the real issue with the skyray is no steady main gun. It could really use one good anti air gun (with the +1 to hit fly and -1 to hit anything else) along with it's array of missiles. If it could do something on it's own that mattered along with the missiles the skyray would be fine to great. It's crippled by only being chassis for the 1 off missiles.
Just make it a artillery piece with unlimited ammo. We have the hammerhead for long range anti tank artillery, make the Skyrray the anti infantry one with a second mode for anti-air.
Some times as a designer you need to accept when a design just does not work(Like the deathstrike missile) for whatever reason, and try to redesign it.
Lance845 wrote: I feel like the real issue with the skyray is no steady main gun. It could really use one good anti air gun (with the +1 to hit fly and -1 to hit anything else) along with it's array of missiles. If it could do something on it's own that mattered along with the missiles the skyray would be fine to great. It's crippled by only being chassis for the 1 off missiles.
Alternatively, you could make it so that it had a "Velocity Tracking Network" that allowed it to share Velocity Tracker's +1 to hit versus Flying targets with units that are within 6" of it or something like that.
It would be an interesting thing to add, it isn't really something that exists in other armies, and it allows for the Skyray to maintain a bit of relevance after it depletes its Seeker Missiles.
I should add I would totally do something similar for the Deathstrike Launcher. The model actually has a radar dish on it and I'd make it so that it had a Comms Array or something of that nature, allowing for Orders to be issued via it. Adds relevance after it uses its gun and still encourages you to keep it somewhat protected.
IMO just make seeker missiles a proper threat. STR 14, AP -4, 3D6 damage, and you can fire one missile (hitting at BS 2+) per markerlight token you spend. The Sky Ray gets to ignore the -1 penalty to hit aircraft with both its seekers and its markerlights. Dare to go into the area protected by a Sky Ray and you probably die.
(This of course means that railguns need a buff to compensate, but we already knew that one.)
Peregrine wrote: IMO just make seeker missiles a proper threat. STR 14, AP -4, 3D6 damage, and you can fire one missile (hitting at BS 2+) per markerlight token you spend. The Sky Ray gets to ignore the -1 penalty to hit aircraft with both its seekers and its markerlights. Dare to go into the area protected by a Sky Ray and you probably die.
(This of course means that railguns need a buff to compensate, but we already knew that one.)
Seekers are fine imo, it's just the skyray that sucks. (though that is an excellent profile for the railgun)
I think it would help if Skyrays were transports that can carry 6 dudes. That gives them added utility after turn one without needing to horrendously overcompensate with seekers.
On the topic of markerlights though, I had thought of a possible solution to keep them useful but not OP (or swingy):
-One marker token let's you fire a single seeker missile at the marked unit hitting on 2+.
-One marker token let's a single friendly unit reroll hit rolls of 1 against the marked unit.
-The marker tokens are removed after use.
These two can stack, so with 2 markers you can fire a seeker that hits on 2+ rerolling 1s.
So it's similar to previous editions, but not as powerful. It's also less redundant with suit systems and allows room for other buffs. I kinda like it but I haven't tried it yet.
Dandelion wrote: I'm talking about the BS buff being OP, not the seekers. My idea was to replace the current table with what we had before without it being obnoxious.
The BS buff is hardly OP given how much you pay to get it.
That may lead to a civil discussion, and if people are being reasonable to strangers on the internet, the world will end 
