But you are still way overpaying for those lascannons vs 4++ targets. Autocannon-esque weapons don't care. The Storm cannon is just an extreme autocannon.

Martel732 wrote:
But you are still way overpaying for those lascannons vs 4++ targets. Autocannon-esque weapons don't care. The Storm cannon is just an extreme autocannon.

Yea, but autocannons do that much less. Only the Storm Cannon with its absurd shots and mega-durability for the cost gets away with it. Regular AC are still fine in the generalist role, but you need a mountain of them to make a dent.

Essentially you're mentally assigning a points value to the AP of the weapon and getting upset that you didn't use the full value of that weapon.

That's exactly what I'm doing because GW charges an assload for high AP. The FIRST point of AP is the most valuable, not the third or fourth. But that's not how GW charges.

Autocannons do less, but they cost less. And do better vs say primaris marines. And they don't lose value if I draw a demon or drukhari opponent.

Pretty sure you are paying for the S9 on a lascannon. As said, the problem is that this doesn't do much unless the target is T8.

Since this is relatively rare, its easier to have the upside of lower S/higher ROF weapons and just brute force it (via stratagems, rerolls etc) when you need to.

Its weapon dependent though - because its about points. Dissie spam is still the main thing DE really have going for them. I don't think autocannon spam has ever really been a thing outside of forum theorising. There are no great platforms for it.

I'm not saying to spam it. I'm just using it as an example weapon.

Martel732 wrote:
That's exactly what I'm doing because GW charges an assload for high AP. The FIRST point of AP is the most valuable, not the third or fourth. But that's not how GW charges.

Autocannons do less, but they cost less. And do better vs say primaris marines. And they don't lose value if I draw a demon or drukhari opponent.

Yea, but you're determining that extra cost to be all AP when there's 2 pips of strength and nearly double damage there as well. Of the point difference the AP is maybe...5 points? So the QLP overspends 20 points when shooting a 4++, but is still more effective overall.

Daemons with PA and 9th will be rolling more greater daemons and soul grinders shooting into combat. DE always have some damn flying crap that needs a good shooting.

Tyel wrote:
I don't think autocannon spam has ever really been a thing outside of forum theorising. There are no great platforms for it.

Are Havocs not a good platform for them? 4 to a unit, 110points, T5 and no -1 to hit for moving.

Rihgu wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I don't think autocannon spam has ever really been a thing outside of forum theorising. There are no great platforms for it.

Are Havocs not a good platform for them? 4 to a unit, 110points, T5 and no -1 to hit for moving.

But CSM don't gunline nearly as well as Imperial Marines.

I mean, the problem is that the Quadlas Pred does about double the wounds to tanks than its anti-infantry counterpart (the two TFCs in this math)...

... but the anti-infantry counterpart does WAY MORE THAN DOUBLE the Quadlas Pred will against infantry. So if I am looking for a TAC weapon, the one that's 100% against infantry and 50% against tanks is way better than the one that's 100% against tanks and 2% against infantry.

Isnt the non las version also a lot cheaper?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I don't think autocannon spam has ever really been a thing outside of forum theorising. There are no great platforms for it.

Are Havocs not a good platform for them? 4 to a unit, 110points, T5 and no -1 to hit for moving.

But CSM don't gunline nearly as well as Imperial Marines.

I think the issue with Havocs is more that its hard for them not to die to a stiff breeze when running at 22 points average per wound.
Admittedly you might be tempted to just ignore 4 autocannons plinking at you when there are other priorities - but its a relatively easy grab for anything that can reach out and get them.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean, the problem is that the Quadlas Pred does about double the wounds to tanks than its anti-infantry counterpart (the two TFCs in this math)...

... but the anti-infantry counterpart does WAY MORE THAN DOUBLE the Quadlas Pred will against infantry. So if I am looking for a TAC weapon, the one that's 100% against infantry and 50% against tanks is way better than the one that's 100% against tanks and 2% against infantry.

Yes - there is infantry to shoot almost always. That's the purpose for taking TFCs. Not to shoot tanks. If your TFC has to pull duty shooting tanks it will do fine, but it won't do as much as anti-tank despite perceived "invuln advantage". No one takes just TFCs and other anti-infantry to handle both infantry and tanks - the vast majority of winning lists all have some form of direct anti-tank.

I don't know about that. The ones I'm most familiar with don't even shoot; they just exploit tripoint.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's exactly what I'm doing because GW charges an assload for high AP. The FIRST point of AP is the most valuable, not the third or fourth. But that's not how GW charges.

Autocannons do less, but they cost less. And do better vs say primaris marines. And they don't lose value if I draw a demon or drukhari opponent.

Yea, but you're determining that extra cost to be all AP when there's 2 pips of strength and nearly double damage there as well. Of the point difference the AP is maybe...5 points? So the QLP overspends 20 points when shooting a 4++, but is still more effective overall.

Daemons with PA and 9th will be rolling more greater daemons and soul grinders shooting into combat. DE always have some damn flying crap that needs a good shooting.

I'm also losing a shot. Lascannons are obviously better than the gak show that is melta, but I'm still hesitant to pay 25 pts for a single shot that needs babysitters to be remotely effective. It's all about GW's pricing on single shot high AP weapons.

 catbarf wrote:


I have a friend who runs the SSAG in Deathskulls, and I was curious about the averages, so I wrote up a simulator in Java to simulate firing under Deathskulls (one free hit, wound, and damage roll reroll). I also threw in some code to simulate having a CP to spend.

I achieved optimal results by CP re-rolling a # of shots roll of 1, CP re-rolling a Strength roll of < 4 (if not already blown on # of shots), and using the Deathskulls damage re-roll on a roll of 1-2.

Average damage:
vs T7- 8.9 wounds
vs T8- 8.0 wounds

Without CP:
vs T7- 7.4 wounds
vs T8- 6.5 wounds

Without Deathskulls, with CP:
vs T7- 5.8 wounds
vs T8- 5.1 wounds

Without Deathskulls or CP:
vs T7- 4.6 wounds
vs T8- 4.0 wounds

So basically, playing as Deathskulls and having a CP to burn on it dramatically increases its damage output. You need six Marines with lascannons to beat it on damage output against either T7 or T8 if the Ork player is spending a CP, or five lascannons to beat it without the CP reroll.

That's some strong shooting.

I think your math overestimates the damage output, and you're also forgetting that those SM lascannons would likely have free re-rolls.

I play deathskulls SSAG everytime since Vigilus release, sometimes even SSAG + 2SAG. Thing is the SSAG has the potential to one-shot a knight but rolling average results it'll likely scratch a rhino stripping 3-4 of its wounds. If it's a normale SAG it has 50% of possibilities of achieving the same result and 50% to do nothing at all. The opponent will definitely remember the extremely lucky roll and forgetting all the rounds in which massed big mek shooting (like 3 of them) fails to destroy something valuable.

That weapon, even the enhanced one, is extremely unreliable but in a system in which orks players are encouraged to field 6 HQs and an horde of cheap bodies they are an excellent option. With the 9th system standard SAG will disappear completely, probably even non deathskulls or freebooterz SSAG, while the deathskull/freebooterz SSAG will still be one of the viable options among all HQ datasheets, but not the auto take that currently is. This assuming that points costs in the codex will stay the same, of course.

My point is the SAG or even the SSAG are unreliable weapons but useful or even auto-take because the mechanics in list building favor them. With other mechanics their effectiveness could drop dramatically.

Take melta weapons, SM players don't see them as viable options but they are very common in sisters' lists, and the weapons are exactly the same ones. What I wanted to say is that meltas aren't bad at all, they just suffer from having too much competition in SM armies, including very powerful anti tank options. At the same time SAG aren't spectacular weapons but due to how competitive orks lists work in 8th they are almost auto-taken by every player.

Meltas are terrible. I wouldn't use them even if they had no competition at all. I wouldn't use them in sisters lists either, as they are a waste of points. They can't do their job.

Regarding the structural issue of stuff like Lascannons and Melta Guns rolling 1 dice and other stuff like Assault Cannons rolling 6 dice so that the supposedly non-AT stuff is more reliable anti-tank than the AT stuff, maybe it should be like Blast weapons were they roll more damage against targets with more wounds?

It seems like having AT weapons roll lots of dice and apply them to a single model would be the way to go about it. Like a Melta would be Assault 6 but can only affect 1 model per unit.

Yeah, maybe. I'm open to a broad range of fixes at this point. But Rof 1 Str 8 -4 AP d6 damage 12" range is a joke. A large part is that a huge chunk of melta targets are T8. Melta should double strength in melta range at a minimum. It would still be sketchy as hell, though.

I mean, I like single-shot weapons as a concept. The big feth-off railgun that ruins something on a hit, but it's hard to get the hit, is fun to me so I'd rather make them more viable than basically decide to give up on that weapon type.

Things I might do do:
Expand the strength range on the guns, maybe also the vehicles - The really heavy guns should get nearly everything but current t8 on a 2+. Man-portable melta should probably get 3+ on the big stuff, but 2+ on light vehicles is probably a bit much. Your current S6/7 guns would move to a lower bracket, wounding on 6+ on current t8 and 5+ on most tanks.
Increase the damage characteristics and have damage-floors on most stuff - Melta might be 3+d6, with the melta rule being 3+ the best of two d6.
Many invulns on high-toughness vehicles turning into damage-reduction, and probably better armor saves on several vehicles. Combined with the one immediately above massed D2 Stalker Rifles will do half damage where a melta is still going 80%+

That would really differentiate med-weight fire from the big stuff.

Rather than buffing other shooting weapons I'd rather tone down mid strenght high rate of fire combos and limit invulns.

Invulns in general should be very limited, 2pts for 3++ is wrong in any possible level and T7-8 W10+ vehicles should have a 5++ at most, and not as a free ability.

 Blackie wrote:
Invulns in general should be very limited, 2pts for 3++ is wrong in any possible level and T7-8 W10+ vehicles should have a 5++ at most, and not as a free ability.

Agreed.

Honestly, I don't think high-toughness targets with good armour saves (generally vehicles and monsters - including Super-Heavies) should ever have invulnerable saves, as it completely screws the weapons like Meltas which are supposed to be effective against precisely those targets. Give them more wounds instead.

 vipoid wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Invulns in general should be very limited, 2pts for 3++ is wrong in any possible level and T7-8 W10+ vehicles should have a 5++ at most, and not as a free ability.

Agreed.

Honestly, I don't think high-toughness targets with good armour saves (generally vehicles and monsters - including Super-Heavies) should ever have invulnerable saves, as it completely screws the weapons like Meltas which are supposed to be effective against precisely those targets. Give them more wounds instead.

Absolutely. GW have this weird attitude where they have a system that already has 3 variables for how resilient something is (T, W, Sv) but they then feel the need to add an Invulnerable as well. One of the biggest mistakes of 8th was not taking the opportunity to properly evaluate the stats on various weapons, so Melta and Lascannons, for example, just kept their stats, effectively from 3rd edition, with a simple conversion of the old AP value to the new one. If GW had modified the Toighness and Strength values a bit more for vehicles we likely wouldn't have a s big a problem as we do now with mid-strength relatively high-RoF weapons.

Going back to the maths on the previous page comparing high-ROF weapons to one-shot AT guns, I think it somewhat misses the point. Yes, technically the dedicated AT gun is better at killing tanks but the problem is it's not better by anywhere near enough to matter. The problem with the high-RoF weapons like Autocannons (or the souped-up versions FW keeps pumping out) is they're too good at everything. Not the best, but good enough in every role that you can comfortably forget about taking "proper" AT if you have enough of these types of weapons. That's mainly down to stat inflation and GW's continued inability to write a coherent design bible at the start of an edition and stick to it. The multiple points of failure are also a problem. Yes, statistically you can look at it and say "well, it's generally superior to take a Lascannon" but the big advantage of fixed-damage high-RoF guns is consistency and reliability. That's exacerbated by the stat inflation too, as we see heavy weapons happily kicking out 10+ shots per model, sometimes double that or more. It's also the case that firing a single-shot AT weapon at anything with a 4+ Invulnerable save gives your opponent much more agency in avoiding it as well. Regardless of how well you roll, they still ultimately end up with a 75% chance to avoid the incoming damage if they have a CP to spend.

Martel732 wrote:
So reality is not valid? Okay, there's no real comeback to that.

Just because the Germans had 88s, that didn't discourage allied vehicle production.

I mean, not really, not in a universe of space wizards, superhuman soldiers, and demons.

Oddly enough, the widespread use of effective anti-tank guns by the Axis powers did influence the design of American armor. It's one of the reasons why the M4 Sherman was made as cheaply as it was, and why it wasn't built to kill other tanks. It's also why we used a lot of lightly armored tank destroyers and very few Shermans actually carried real anti-tank weapons.

 vipoid wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Invulns in general should be very limited, 2pts for 3++ is wrong in any possible level and T7-8 W10+ vehicles should have a 5++ at most, and not as a free ability.

Agreed.

Honestly, I don't think high-toughness targets with good armour saves (generally vehicles and monsters - including Super-Heavies) should ever have invulnerable saves, as it completely screws the weapons like Meltas which are supposed to be effective against precisely those targets. Give them more wounds instead.

Agreed as well. Giving them higher toughness and better armour saves would work as well. Marine super heavys are surprisingly tough at T9, 2+ without invuls. And anti-tank weapons actually work the way they should against them.

 Blackie wrote:
Rather than buffing other shooting weapons I'd rather tone down mid strenght high rate of fire combos and limit invulns.

Invulns in general should be very limited, 2pts for 3++ is wrong in any possible level and T7-8 W10+ vehicles should have a 5++ at most, and not as a free ability.

Not sure I agree about the storm shield. If you charge too much weight of fire takes them down and it will never be a worthwhile investment. For all the panicking we still don't see storm shields much.

"I mean, not really, not in a universe of space wizards, superhuman soldiers, and demons."

Agree to disagree. Fantastical elements don't render logic and physics irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Rather than buffing other shooting weapons I'd rather tone down mid strenght high rate of fire combos and limit invulns.

Invulns in general should be very limited, 2pts for 3++ is wrong in any possible level and T7-8 W10+ vehicles should have a 5++ at most, and not as a free ability.

Not sure I agree about the storm shield. If you charge too much weight of fire takes them down and it will never be a worthwhile investment. For all the panicking we still don't see storm shields much.

Really? No SW players in your group?

It took me some time to realise that there is a difference between a battle simulation and table top game. Would have never understood it if my dad, didn't show me how old military "war games" worked.

But what I think is important, even for a non simulation game, is to be at least a bit true to the setting it is in. the fact that a ranges are odd for games of w40k, wasn't something I noticed till my dad showed me a the table for military "war games" which was the size of 5-6 our shops, had whole villages, towns etc on it. But I can live with that. Stat squish, so we somehow end up with catachan as strong as ogryns, who are as strong as power armored primaris, is a mechanic thing.

But an anti tank gun should do anti tank, it should be a scary thing for tanks to be shot with it. And light or medium multi shot suddenly become the bane of tanks and infantry.

It is as if in WWII the deadliest anti tank weapon was the flak wirbel. Same with melee units being bad at melee. And anti personal stuff, like flamers being good at AA, but bad vs horde control.

And no explanation that there is magic in the setting explains those things. Other stuff is mechanical or GW choice to make the game in specific way. The other is just bad design. If a tank gets shot at close range by 4 MM, the avarge result shouldn't be a change to the paint job.

Karol wrote:

It is as if in WWII the deadliest anti tank weapon was the flak wirbel.

I don't recall the Wirbelwind or Ostwind ever squaring up against something like a Churchill, Pershing, T-34 or even M4. That gun was dangerous, but more for light vehicles.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Rather than buffing other shooting weapons I'd rather tone down mid strenght high rate of fire combos and limit invulns.

Invulns in general should be very limited, 2pts for 3++ is wrong in any possible level and T7-8 W10+ vehicles should have a 5++ at most, and not as a free ability.

Not sure I agree about the storm shield. If you charge too much weight of fire takes them down and it will never be a worthwhile investment. For all the panicking we still don't see storm shields much.

2pts shields are too undercosted for units like Wulfen, Wolf Guard Bikers or Wolf Guard Terminators, at the point that are auto-takes for them. TWC and characters are ok because their shields are way more expensive, in fact it's perfectly fine not to give the shield to all the thunderwolf dudes in their unit but also the Wolf Lord can skip it. We don't see storm shields that much because not many units can have them, it doesn't mean that at 2pts they are broken for 2W models.

2W models with 5+++ FNP.

T'au players get to rejoice - they don't need the strat at all.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
T'au players get to rejoice - they don't need the strat at all.

Sigh.

Did you really expect Tau not to get Overwatch for free as their blanket army superdoctrine?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Did you really expect Tau not to get Overwatch for free as their blanket army superdoctrine?

Fear not, I learned long ago not to expect anything worthwhile to come out of GW's rules department.

Or maybe you're just being pouty because the army that's had a benefit to Overwatch gets...a benefit to Overwatch?

And putting it rather delicately, unless you give the Tau a whole schlock of melee options out of the blue...this is going to be the way.

How does GW decide when a rule was good and part of a faction core game play or bad and has to be nerfed?

First, I am not a Tau player, and second I think it is bad rules design in general for an entire faction to ignore one set of rules in the game (anyone who play WH fantasy and had to deal with undead or daemons being immune to psychology, while your units were not will get it).

However, at this point I am not going to speculate on the rules being good, bad or otherwise. I know that the table top tactics guys, and I believe the front line gaming guys (among others), were involved in play testing and I trust both of those studios to have provided solid input, and the TTT guys specifically stated in their youtube video that they felt that GW was really listening. Now maybe that is all smoke up the community's ass, maybe not, but if true then perhaps the reason Tau got to keep their very powerful overwatch rules was that with the base rule (one OW costing CP) they were getting curb stomped in play testing. That is not beyond belief, and quite frankly probably pretty likely as if you got past the OW against Tau, you basically cut them to pieces, especially if fly can't move out of combat and shoot anymore. And we don't know how all the other rule interactions (like LOS blocking terrain or -1 to hit terrain) is affecting the armies in play testing, we don't know if the points are going to reflect this OW ability, etc.

So right now I would say that I don't know if this is good or bad or whatever, but I am really looking forward to playing 9th to find out.

I trust FLG to have no solid or useful input, frankly. They care about their tournaments and their tournaments only.

And let's be real here:
Previously, "For the Greater Good"? Wasn't even really considered that "powerful" of an ability. It definitely could be strong with the right setups but given the way we have had Charges suggested to work so far?

This isn't as big of a deal as people are making it out to be.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:

It is as if in WWII the deadliest anti tank weapon was the flak wirbel.

I don't recall the Wirbelwind or Ostwind ever squaring up against something like a Churchill, Pershing, T-34 or even M4. That gun was dangerous, but more for light vehicles.

On the eastern front the Germans loved using the quick firing 20mm autocannons against Soviet thans, they were incredibly effective in AT roles, albeit not actually knocking out enemy vehicles. They were also popular for their ability to be used against both soft ground and air targets.

Basically if you're in a tank being hit by those things, you have no idea what's actually firing at you, you just hear these big shots hitting your vehicle but not penetrating. So often the T-34's etc would fall back as fast as possible after coming under fire from such weapons. It's the main reason the 2cm Autocannon half tracks replaced the 3.7cm traditional AT gun on platoon commander's half tracks.

Ok it's rare you're going to see a Wirbelwind or Ostwind in such roles, but it was an incredibly effective weapon and widely documented, albeit not in the traditional sense.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:

It is as if in WWII the deadliest anti tank weapon was the flak wirbel.

I don't recall the Wirbelwind or Ostwind ever squaring up against something like a Churchill, Pershing, T-34 or even M4. That gun was dangerous, but more for light vehicles.

On the eastern front the Germans loved using the quick firing 20mm autocannons against Soviet thans, they were incredibly effective in AT roles, albeit not actually knocking out enemy vehicles. They were also popular for their ability to be used against both soft ground and air targets.

Basically if you're in a tank being hit by those things, you have no idea what's actually firing at you, you just hear these big shots hitting your vehicle but not penetrating. So often the T-34's etc would fall back as fast as possible after coming under fire from such weapons. It's the main reason the 2cm Autocannon half tracks replaced the 3.7cm traditional AT gun on platoon commander's half tracks.

Ok it's rare you're going to see a Wirbelwind or Ostwind in such roles, but it was an incredibly effective weapon and widely documented, albeit not in the traditional sense.

So you're saying a gun that wasn't able to penetrate armor was used to effectively neuter tanks. Must have been rolling a lot of 6s.

Also, thanks for the insight - I quite enjoyed that.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
T'au players get to rejoice - they don't need the strat at all.

This monumentally sucks.

 blood reaper wrote:


This monumentally sucks.

Why?

 blood reaper wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
T'au players get to rejoice - they don't need the strat at all.

This monumentally sucks.

Once more for those who are hard of hearing, Overwatch *IS* the T'au Fight Phase.

sanguine40k wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
T'au players get to rejoice - they don't need the strat at all.

Spoiler:

This monumentally sucks.

Once more for those who are hard of hearing, Overwatch *IS* the T'au Fight Phase.

Yes. Until they rewrite the entire Tau Codex to allow Tau to Fall Back and shoot or shoot into close combat, Tau get to Overwatch better than anyone else.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:


On the eastern front the Germans loved using the quick firing 20mm autocannons against Soviet thans, they were incredibly effective in AT roles, albeit not actually knocking out enemy vehicles. They were also popular for their ability to be used against both soft ground and air targets.

Basically if you're in a tank being hit by those things, you have no idea what's actually firing at you, you just hear these big shots hitting your vehicle but not penetrating. So often the T-34's etc would fall back as fast as possible after coming under fire from such weapons. It's the main reason the 2cm Autocannon half tracks replaced the 3.7cm traditional AT gun on platoon commander's half tracks.

Ok it's rare you're going to see a Wirbelwind or Ostwind in such roles, but it was an incredibly effective weapon and widely documented, albeit not in the traditional sense.

Can you tell me on what book this is based, or at least when this was used to happen?
Because Achtung Panzer , or at least the reprint of the version from 1941 doesn't write anything about it being used as an anti tank weapon, or it having big impact on stoping anti tank charges, besides one mention of it being good vs fiziliers.

Russian sources write more about it being used as an anti infantry weapons sometimes, but most of the time it was needed to protect german colums from superior Russian Air Forces.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:


This monumentally sucks.

Why?

Because I was basically forced to never play close-combat as my army because of the Tau's ability to effectively totally circumvent close quarters fighting by virtue of how costly it is to even get there (anyone who suggests forking out £200 to buy Forge World droppods just so I can get a fight phase can spack off).

I had to move to an entirely ranged-focussed CSM army to handle the fact Tau escaped the CC phase entirely (which to be fair, got me something like a 60% win rate against Tau). I thought this might be a sign I didn't have to constantly meta-game to win against Tau, but nope, back to the Alpha Legion it is.

 blood reaper wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:


This monumentally sucks.

Why?

Because I was basically forced to never play close-combat as my army because of the Tau's ability to effectively totally circumvent close quarters fighting by virtue of how costly it is to even get there (anyone who suggests forking out £200 to buy Forge World droppods just so I can get a fight phase can spack off).

I had to move to an entirely ranged-focussed CSM army to handle the fact Tau escaped the CC phase entirely (which to be fair, got me something like a 60% win rate against Tau). I thought this might be a sign I didn't have to constantly meta-game to win against Tau, but nope, back to the Alpha Legion it is.

I think it might be too early to call. They can't fallback and shoot with their fly units any longer. Where actual Fallback stands I don't know.

I expected something like this, and Tau definitely need something to compensate for their weak melee phase, but like others I was hoping for something different. I dislike the idea of introducing a limitation in the game mechanics and then giving a whole faction a pass. Hopefully overwatch doesn’t get this treatment elsewhere too.

It’s the same way I dislike ATSKNF, and other rules that effectively ignore morale.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:


This monumentally sucks.

Why?

Because I was basically forced to never play close-combat as my army because of the Tau's ability to effectively totally circumvent close quarters fighting by virtue of how costly it is to even get there (anyone who suggests forking out £200 to buy Forge World droppods just so I can get a fight phase can spack off).

I had to move to an entirely ranged-focussed CSM army to handle the fact Tau escaped the CC phase entirely (which to be fair, got me something like a 60% win rate against Tau). I thought this might be a sign I didn't have to constantly meta-game to win against Tau, but nope, back to the Alpha Legion it is.

I think it might be too early to call. They can't fallback and shoot with their fly units any longer. Where actual Fallback stands I don't know.

Damn two less units can shoot at me? Woah, I guess my dust caked Khorne Bezerkers can return to the field after all this time.

 blood reaper wrote:

Damn two less units can shoot at me? Woah, I guess my dust caked Khorne Bezerkers can return to the field after all this time.

90% of their damage is on platforms that fly.

9th edition forces you to the center of the table. Without some form of overwatch, Tau were done as a faction.

Castling is a technique that was already failing in the last part of 8th, especially in CA19 missions. In 9th if you try to castle in a corner and shoot until nothing moves, you may as well concede.

Spoletta wrote:
9th edition forces you to the center of the table. Without some form of overwatch, Tau were done as a faction.

Castling is a technique that was already failing in the last part of 8th, especially in CA19 missions. In 9th if you try to castle in a corner and shoot until nothing moves, you may as well concede.

When is scoring in CA19? Bottom of phasing player or top of non-phasing? I can't remember now.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or maybe you're just being pouty because the army that's had a benefit to Overwatch gets...a benefit to Overwatch?

A 'benefit to overwatch' would have been "Whenever you use the [Overwatch] stratagem, you can choose an additional unit to Overwatch with." or "whenever you use the [Overwatch] stratagem, up to two friendly units within 3" of the chosen unit may also overwatch against the target (even if they weren't the declared targets)."

This is 'Tau just outright ignore all normal restrictions to the 9th edition Overawtch rules.'

 Kanluwen wrote:
And putting it rather delicately, unless you give the Tau a whole schlock of melee options out of the blue...this is going to be the way.

Why? Overwatch didn't even exist prior to 6th. Why is it now that Tau suddenly can't live without it?

Also, why is it good game design for Tau not to have to make any meaningful gameplay decisions, compared to other factions?

Martel732 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
9th edition forces you to the center of the table. Without some form of overwatch, Tau were done as a faction.

Castling is a technique that was already failing in the last part of 8th, especially in CA19 missions. In 9th if you try to castle in a corner and shoot until nothing moves, you may as well concede.

When is scoring in CA19? Bottom of phasing player or top of non-phasing? I can't remember now.

If i remember correctly, 2 missions are end of turn, 2 missions are end of round, 2 missions are start of the turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, this free overwatch counteracts the HUGE nerf they received.


Only one commander per detachment is staying, and good luck fielding more than one now!

Yeah FSE i know... but still one commander less and OW on 6+...

So approximately 50% of the time, Tau can rely on murdering people off objectives. But that's not enough to place at a tournament.

Personally I think Tau should be charged the 1 CP to use the Overwatch Strat but not have it limited to once per turn.

Make it a non-unique strat for them. Then add in FtGG and it's almost fair to the rest of 40K.


As a side note, iirc Multimeltas in RT / 2nd Edition dealt 1d20 damage that was doubled at half range (12").




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

Why? Overwatch didn't even exist prior to 6th. Why is it now that Tau suddenly can't live without it?

Overwatch existed way back in 2nd Edition but you had to set units in "Overwatch". They couldn't move or fire on their turn, but if an enemy came into LoS and Range you could fire with that unit during the enemy turn.

Tau in tournaments relied on a fairly narrow strategy that allowed them to shoot very effectively for their points, tank wounds efficiently for some time, and routinely podium - even if they never had their glorious time in the sun like IK or Iron Hands.

To me, this is annoying for two reasons - it ignores rather than modifies a major rule everyone else has to deal with, and it does nothing to address the Triptide + drone spam and force diversification of tactics.

From the rules they've announced so far, greater mobility of the big battlesuits and ability to shoot in combat already makes CC much less scary for the Tau - as well as being one the few armies with dedicated anti-deepstrike equipment to keep surprises at bay.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
T'au players get to rejoice - they don't need the strat at all.

This is ridiculous.

Archebius wrote:
and it does nothing to address the Triptide + drone spam and force diversification of tactics.

That's what missions are for. T'au do ok in ITC, because they can consistently get kills and get a little bit of ground. It doesn't appear that dynamic will hold with these new missions that I do hope will override ITC based on what I'm seeing.

From the rules they've announced so far, greater mobility of the big battlesuits and ability to shoot in combat already makes CC much less scary for the Tau - as well as being one the few armies with dedicated anti-deepstrike equipment to keep surprises at bay.

Broadsides are out in the cold in that regard. Riptides are still quite strong and likely the only thing you'll encounter that can shoot into combat, but most of the ones I fought had Target Lock already.

The tried and true tactic of slamming Rhinos into Tau remains. Rejoice and make vroom vroom noises!

How does driving a rhino into a unit of drones get you anywhere? Why would the T'au player even care?

yukishiro1 wrote:
How does driving a rhino into a unit of drones get you anywhere? Why would the T'au player even care?

Negate overwatch for units that follow the Rhino into combat.

But it doesn't. That's the whole point of FTGG. All it does is negate overwatch from the drones that don't even have weapons.

You can still FTGG against a charging unit even if the unit being charged is already in combat. That only stops overwatch from the unit in combat, not from anyone who can FTGG.

He's in his own meta where his hyper fragile geared out marines never get shot at. I wouldn't question it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
But it doesn't. That's the whole point of FTGG. All it does is negate overwatch from the drones that don't even have weapons.

THis is the same reason the angel's wing sucks vs Tau. But as I said, just don't question it. Rhino bumper cars works for him.

yukishiro1 wrote:
How does driving a rhino into a unit of drones get you anywhere? Why would the T'au player even care?

How is any drone alive in turn 2 vs a space marine army?

At least here by putting them behind ruin out of LOS.

tneva82 wrote:
At least here by putting them behind ruin out of LOS.

TFCs go for gold on that one.

yukishiro1 wrote:
But it doesn't. That's the whole point of FTGG. All it does is negate overwatch from the drones that don't even have weapons.

You can still FTGG against a charging unit even if the unit being charged is already in combat. That only stops overwatch from the unit in combat, not from anyone who can FTGG.

It stops Overwatch from any unit the Rhino contacts. . . thus, reducing Overwatch. Potentially blocking LOS too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
He's in his own meta where his hyper fragile geared out marines never get shot at. I wouldn't question it.

Of course they get shot at. I just try to be the one that shoots first.

Not to digress from the topic, but I'd also like to point out, against 70% of the tau's list, the primaris are just as durable as normal marines. 6 -2 2D is the mainstay of most tau forces, and it shreds primaris just as easily as it does tacticals. The tacticals however, lose less firepower per model lost until you get to the SGT/Special at the end.

Sure SMS and firewarriors exist, but they can be mitigated by things like rhinos (which are absolute champs at soaking HBCs as well)

So, this is interesting- this was originally in the text for the Overwatch reveal, but has since been deleted:



Was GW originally planning to make Tau follow the same rules, but responded to backlash? Or did the left hand just not know what the right was doing?

 catbarf wrote:

Was GW originally planning to make Tau follow the same rules, but responded to backlash? Or did the left hand just not know what the right was doing?

gak - anything is possible at this point. We did know of Day 0 FAQs though, so, whether Stu / WHC were in the dark about that is hard to know.

It would have been the writers at Warhammer Community that would be in the dark.

They've talked in the past about how they usually get four or five weeks notice of things to write about. So it's likely they've been working from home, same as the rest of the world.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Was GW originally planning to make Tau follow the same rules, but responded to backlash? Or did the left hand just not know what the right was doing?

gak - anything is possible at this point. We did know of Day 0 FAQs though, so, whether Stu / WHC were in the dark about that is hard to know.

FAQs aren't printed material, they're digital (yes, I know I'm stating the obvious), so they could be making changes right up to the release. Things could be quite fluid.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Was GW originally planning to make Tau follow the same rules, but responded to backlash? Or did the left hand just not know what the right was doing?

gak - anything is possible at this point. We did know of Day 0 FAQs though, so, whether Stu / WHC were in the dark about that is hard to know.

FAQs aren't printed material, they're digital (yes, I know I'm stating the obvious), so they could be making changes right up to the release. Things could be quite fluid.

True, creating a PDF out of a document takes just a minute or two, depending on the settings and methods used.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
At least here by putting them behind ruin out of LOS.

TFCs go for gold on that one.

Or Eliminators. Or both. Few other armies can deal with the drones though. Realistically here we have one OP mechanic beating the other. ILOS weapons that practically auto hit and can shoot twice vs Bodyguards that work while OLOS and reduce damage to one. Both mechanics could do with an extreme nerf. No bodygaurd units should work out of LOS and ILOS weapons should not hit at the same rate as in LOS.

On the topic of over-watch...Removing it across the board I was thinking okay that is great. Because most the CC units had a mechanic to ignore overwatch anyways and the rest of the time over-watch rarely did anything. maybe do 2 or 3 wounds a turn if they charged mutliple units. Then they came out with the new tau rules and cover rules and I am just scratching my head. How exactly do you take the army with the most absurd overwatch...make it really easy to get over-watch on 5's and allow them to do it exclusively?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
At least here by putting them behind ruin out of LOS.

TFCs go for gold on that one.

Or Eliminators. Or both. Few other armies can deal with the drones though. Realistically here we have one OP mechanic beating the other. ILOS weapons that practically auto hit and can shoot twice vs Bodyguards that work while OLOS and reduce damage to one. Both mechanics could do with an extreme nerf. No bodygaurd units should work out of LOS and ILOS weapons should not hit at the same rate as in LOS.

On the topic of over-watch...Removing it across the board I was thinking okay that is great. Because most the CC units had a mechanic to ignore overwatch anyways and the rest of the time over-watch rarely did anything. maybe do 2 or 3 wounds a turn if they charged mutliple units. Then they came out with the new tau rules and cover rules and I am just scratching my head. How exactly do you take the army with the most absurd overwatch...make it really easy to get over-watch on 5's and allow them to do it exclusively?

I wish there was consistancy in the Bodyguard rule. theres what at least 4 different versions? 1 of those versions lets lascannons potentially kill 6 models in 1 shot. the death guard varient should be how all bodyguard rules work, the hit just transfered to them like how a look out sir should be

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
At least here by putting them behind ruin out of LOS.

TFCs go for gold on that one.

Or Eliminators. Or both. Few other armies can deal with the drones though. Realistically here we have one OP mechanic beating the other. ILOS weapons that practically auto hit and can shoot twice vs Bodyguards that work while OLOS and reduce damage to one. Both mechanics could do with an extreme nerf. No bodygaurd units should work out of LOS and ILOS weapons should not hit at the same rate as in LOS.

On the topic of over-watch...Removing it across the board I was thinking okay that is great. Because most the CC units had a mechanic to ignore overwatch anyways and the rest of the time over-watch rarely did anything. maybe do 2 or 3 wounds a turn if they charged mutliple units. Then they came out with the new tau rules and cover rules and I am just scratching my head. How exactly do you take the army with the most absurd overwatch...make it really easy to get over-watch on 5's and allow them to do it exclusively?

Without psy phase and CC phase how exactly did you expect them to play in an edition where long range alpha strike is gone and you have to engage the opponent in close quarters or concede?

The new terrain rules, board size and strategic reserves completely change the way the game is played. Without Overwatch the T'au would have been sitting ducks. Ducks that can't fly and shoot.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Because most the CC units had a mechanic to ignore overwatch anyways....

Such as? I played three armies in 8th (Orks, drukhari, space wolves) and none of them has a single unit/stratagem/ability that invalidates overwatch.

 Blackie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Because most the CC units had a mechanic to ignore overwatch anyways....

Such as? I played three armies in 8th (Orks, drukhari, space wolves) and none of them has a single unit/stratagem/ability that invalidates overwatch.

Same, my GK only way to avoid overwatch was to charge a unit with two units.

 Blackie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Because most the CC units had a mechanic to ignore overwatch anyways....

Such as? I played three armies in 8th (Orks, drukhari, space wolves) and none of them has a single unit/stratagem/ability that invalidates overwatch.

Drukari = Vexator mask
Spacewoofs = Suppressors like all marines

Orks I dont know well enough to know their answer but 2 out of the three armies you listed certainly have answers.

Ice_can wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Because most the CC units had a mechanic to ignore overwatch anyways....

Such as? I played three armies in 8th (Orks, drukhari, space wolves) and none of them has a single unit/stratagem/ability that invalidates overwatch.

Drukari = Vexator mask
Spacewoofs = Suppressors like all marines

Orks I dont know well enough to know their answer but 2 out of the three armies you listed certainly have answers.

Good spot. Suppressors were only added in march with Sage of the Beast, and I forgot about the Mask since other relics are basically auto-takes. The poster I quoted said "MOST CC UNITS" though, and here I only see a single unit in the SW roster (a pretty Meh one) and a single option for the drukhari army. The mask works only for the specific haemonculus, who is something that unlikely wants to charge as it's basically played by letting him march behind Grots, Wracks and Talos.

For both armies it's more effective to assault and suffer overwatch than relying on those two options. They are real options indeed that I forgot, but none of them is a real answer, maybe Suppressor but mostly against Tau, I fail to see how they could be worth taking in any possible TAC list.

Suppressors dont work vs tau well. SW dont need to stop ow, because wulfen are damn near immortal.

Spoletta wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
At least here by putting them behind ruin out of LOS.

TFCs go for gold on that one.

Or Eliminators. Or both. Few other armies can deal with the drones though. Realistically here we have one OP mechanic beating the other. ILOS weapons that practically auto hit and can shoot twice vs Bodyguards that work while OLOS and reduce damage to one. Both mechanics could do with an extreme nerf. No bodygaurd units should work out of LOS and ILOS weapons should not hit at the same rate as in LOS.

On the topic of over-watch...Removing it across the board I was thinking okay that is great. Because most the CC units had a mechanic to ignore overwatch anyways and the rest of the time over-watch rarely did anything. maybe do 2 or 3 wounds a turn if they charged mutliple units. Then they came out with the new tau rules and cover rules and I am just scratching my head. How exactly do you take the army with the most absurd overwatch...make it really easy to get over-watch on 5's and allow them to do it exclusively?

Without psy phase and CC phase how exactly did you expect them to play in an edition where long range alpha strike is gone and you have to engage the opponent in close quarters or concede?

The new terrain rules, board size and strategic reserves completely change the way the game is played. Without Overwatch the T'au would have been sitting ducks. Ducks that can't fly and shoot.

Which edition is this? Because there's nothing to suggest that long range alphastrike is AT ALL gone or that you have to engage the opponent in close quarters. The new terrain rules are on the whole less detrimental to shooting than ITC's terrain rules are. It's just not a binary 'can see can't see' mechanic. The new outflank rule is better for shooting units than melee units, the smaller board size means that every gun in your army is likely to be in range to pop your opponent.

I agree that the new rules will absolutely change the way the game is played in a lot of ways, but saying long range alpha strike is gone is REALLY premature.

Is it premature? Yeah sure, but we are discussing something that we don't have yet in our hands, so everything we say on the matter is premature.

Are there signs that point to long range alpha strikes being gone? Hell yeah, and you named a big one yourself in your answer.

Not to mention that it was already mostly death in CA19 missions. Castling was a sure way to lose against good players. IH were really good because they were the most mobile marines, not the best at castling.

By the way, the new LoS rules are MORE restrictive than ITC rules. ITC rules only had the first floor being LoS blocking, here the obscuring element is infinitely high, so even taller pieces can be protected.

Spoletta wrote:
Is it premature? Yeah sure, but we are discussing something that we don't have yet in our hands, so everything we say on the matter is premature.

Are there signs that point to long range alpha strikes being gone? Hell yeah, and you named a big one yourself in your answer.

Not to mention that it was already mostly death in CA19 missions. Castling was a sure way to lose against good players. IH were really good because they were the most mobile marines, not the best at castling.

By the way, the new LoS rules are MORE restrictive than ITC rules. ITC rules only had the first floor being LoS blocking, here the obscuring element is infinitely high, so even taller pieces can be protected.

IH weren't 'the most mobile armies' at all. That's blatantly false. They absolutely castled. They could move and shoot so they weren't totally static, but most modern 'castle' lists aren't truly stationary.

Obscuring is only applied to some terrain pieces and only blocks LoS if it's taller than 5". ITC ruins applied to almost all structures and a single 3" floor blocks LoS. I would still argue that as far as protecting things from alphastrike, the ITC rule is more impactful.

Long range alphastriking is never going to be gone, you'll just see Alphastrike lists choosing to go second to force you to either give up a turn of scoring or move out into the open. Which I guess would technically make it a 'beta strike' but that's just semantics at that point.

Read again what I said. Not "The most mobile Army", but "The most mobile marine".

Among the new marines IH were definitely the most mobile.

IH flyers were the cornerstone of competitive IH, without that they could not clear targets from objectives.

Note also that the "1st floor blocks LoS" wasn't an ITC only rule.