Orks and Tyranids rely almost entirely upon cover for protection. Ignores Cover just shuts out those codexes.

Ignores Cover should be toned down to just make a -2 to cover saves instead of negating them completely.

I completely agree with this. Taudar is just too ridiculously broken that there is no possible way I could even imagine having fun playing 40k.

Ignores cover is fine as is. Orks and nids have so many models that it almost doesn't matter. And some army's need the ignores cover to deal with such army's.

1: Title is misleading

2: Ignores cover doesn't need to be removed, Markerlights do. I would argue that certain armies don't have enough Ignores Cover.

Nids could have other things to help it, like giving the Carnifex back the stuff that made it awesome in 4th edition, Let warrior squads be taken as HQ choices instead of the overcosted "prime" model, Make SitW not suck, give back how Synapse gave pseudo-Eternal Warrior (not immunity from weapons with the Instant Death Rule, but prevented instant death through double toughness), Warlord Traits that didn't suck half the time, buffing the weaker units with better rules, and do something about that damn pyrovore!

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Nids could have other things to help it, like giving the Carnifex back the stuff that made it awesome in 4th edition, Let warrior squads be taken as HQ choices instead of the overcosted "prime" model, Make SitW not suck, give back how Synapse gave pseudo-Eternal Warrior (not immunity from weapons with the Instant Death Rule, but prevented instant death through double toughness), Warlord Traits that didn't suck half the time, buffing the weaker units with better rules, and do something about that damn pyrovore!

The pyrovore? You have a better pyrovore and its called the Exocrine

Why would synapse give anything close to EW? Thats not even how synapse works fluff wise

HQ Warrior squads? Because that remotely makes sense. Warriors have no synapse in the fluff

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
1: Title is misleading

2: Ignores cover doesn't need to be removed, Markerlights do. I would argue that certain armies don't have enough Ignores Cover.

Yeah, pretty much this. The excuse that "orks have enough bodies to not care" doesn't work when Tau have enough bullets to not care. I'm fine with a handful of things ignoring cover, but when an entire army has it every turn (Markerlights) then yeah, that's a big fething problem.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Nids could have other things to help it, like giving the Carnifex back the stuff that made it awesome in 4th edition, Let warrior squads be taken as HQ choices instead of the overcosted "prime" model, Make SitW not suck, give back how Synapse gave pseudo-Eternal Warrior (not immunity from weapons with the Instant Death Rule, but prevented instant death through double toughness), Warlord Traits that didn't suck half the time, buffing the weaker units with better rules, and do something about that damn pyrovore!

The pyrovore? You have a better pyrovore and its called the Exocrine

Why would synapse give anything close to EW? Thats not even how synapse works fluff wise

HQ Warrior squads? Because that remotely makes sense. Warriors have no synapse in the fluff

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or trying to troll me, so I'm just gonna say that this is exactly how the 4th edition worked, and that was the time that Nids were considered as one of the top-tier armies.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
1: Title is misleading

2: Ignores cover doesn't need to be removed, Markerlights do. I would argue that certain armies don't have enough Ignores Cover.

Actually, as a Tau player (among others), I'd argue that Markerlights should lose the ability to grant Ignores Cover, rather than being deleted outright - the ability to boost Ballistic Skill is still useful. (Though maybe it should be 1 token to re-roll 1s, 2 tokens to re-roll misses hitting on a 4+, 3 tokens to get twin-linked instead?)

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Nids could have other things to help it, like giving the Carnifex back the stuff that made it awesome in 4th edition, Let warrior squads be taken as HQ choices instead of the overcosted "prime" model, Make SitW not suck, give back how Synapse gave pseudo-Eternal Warrior (not immunity from weapons with the Instant Death Rule, but prevented instant death through double toughness), Warlord Traits that didn't suck half the time, buffing the weaker units with better rules, and do something about that damn pyrovore!

The pyrovore? You have a better pyrovore and its called the Exocrine

Why would synapse give anything close to EW? Thats not even how synapse works fluff wise

HQ Warrior squads? Because that remotely makes sense. Warriors have no synapse in the fluff

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or trying to troll me, so I'm just gonna say that this is exactly how the 4th edition worked, and that was the time that Nids were considered as one of the top-tier armies.

The last two things I said don't even match anywhere near the fluff. Its synapse. Every organism is connected to the big one because "it is special." Thats it; they are just under his control. How do you see that as getting EW for your dudes? If my warrior gets shot by a battlecannon and my Tyrant is next to him, the only thing that's happening is:

Tyrant: "Well Jimmy, you just got pasted"

not

Tyrant: "Shrug it off Jimmy, I am right here lending my thinking powers"

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Nids could have other things to help it, like giving the Carnifex back the stuff that made it awesome in 4th edition, Let warrior squads be taken as HQ choices instead of the overcosted "prime" model, Make SitW not suck, give back how Synapse gave pseudo-Eternal Warrior (not immunity from weapons with the Instant Death Rule, but prevented instant death through double toughness), Warlord Traits that didn't suck half the time, buffing the weaker units with better rules, and do something about that damn pyrovore!

The pyrovore? You have a better pyrovore and its called the Exocrine

No, the Exocrine is a better Biovore. Pyrovore is still a hunk of garbage.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Nids could have other things to help it, like giving the Carnifex back the stuff that made it awesome in 4th edition, Let warrior squads be taken as HQ choices instead of the overcosted "prime" model, Make SitW not suck, give back how Synapse gave pseudo-Eternal Warrior (not immunity from weapons with the Instant Death Rule, but prevented instant death through double toughness), Warlord Traits that didn't suck half the time, buffing the weaker units with better rules, and do something about that damn pyrovore!

The pyrovore? You have a better pyrovore and its called the Exocrine

Why would synapse give anything close to EW? Thats not even how synapse works fluff wise

HQ Warrior squads? Because that remotely makes sense. Warriors have no synapse in the fluff

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or trying to troll me, so I'm just gonna say that this is exactly how the 4th edition worked, and that was the time that Nids were considered as one of the top-tier armies.

The last two things I said don't even match anywhere near the fluff. Its synapse. Every organism is connected to the big one because "it is special." Thats it; they are just under his control. How do you see that as getting EW for your dudes? If my warrior gets shot by a battlecannon and my Tyrant is next to him, the only thing that's happening is:

Tyrant: "Well Jimmy, you just got pasted"

not

Tyrant: "Shrug it off Jimmy, I am right here lending my thinking powers"

Your interpritation of the fluff is not the be all end all, nor is should fluff be a major deciding factor in rules. If it was space marine armies would be ten models.

I can just as easily say that synapse granting EW is the hive mind shutting off pain, rerouting blood, and activating backup organs.

I would love for warriors to be more than a tax and actually viable to take in mass.

We decided some time ago to change ignore cover to be a simple modifier but instead of a flat one for everything we use IngoreCover1/2/3/4.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
1: Title is misleading

2: Ignores cover doesn't need to be removed, Markerlights do. I would argue that certain armies don't have enough Ignores Cover.

Markerlights don't even need to be removed. What needs to be removed is the flat "2 Markerlight Counters=Ignores Cover".

When we were getting rumors about the new/updated Tau Codex, I put forward a bunch of ideas that would have removed that easy access to Ignores Cover and instead made incremental reductions in Cover saves through complimentary abilities.

The one I'm particularly fond of?
Markerlights have no "Ignores Cover" or "Reduce Cover by 1 point for each Markerlight Counter expended" ability but rather if a target is fired upon by a Markerlight you reduce their Cover Save by 1 point.
Blacksun Filters reduce a unit's Cover Save by 1 point(might seem like a weird one, but it's implied that Blacksun Filters are multi-spectrum, including IR).

Add in a special rule that Markerlights reduce the Cover Save by an additional point for every turn they remain trained upon the target(to a maximum of -3) and make it so that Pathfinders can keep their Markerlights on a target as long as the target remains stationary and they do as well, you get a bit less of an obnoxious version of Markerlights.

lonestarr777 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Nids could have other things to help it, like giving the Carnifex back the stuff that made it awesome in 4th edition, Let warrior squads be taken as HQ choices instead of the overcosted "prime" model, Make SitW not suck, give back how Synapse gave pseudo-Eternal Warrior (not immunity from weapons with the Instant Death Rule, but prevented instant death through double toughness), Warlord Traits that didn't suck half the time, buffing the weaker units with better rules, and do something about that damn pyrovore!

The pyrovore? You have a better pyrovore and its called the Exocrine

Why would synapse give anything close to EW? Thats not even how synapse works fluff wise

HQ Warrior squads? Because that remotely makes sense. Warriors have no synapse in the fluff

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or trying to troll me, so I'm just gonna say that this is exactly how the 4th edition worked, and that was the time that Nids were considered as one of the top-tier armies.

The last two things I said don't even match anywhere near the fluff. Its synapse. Every organism is connected to the big one because "it is special." Thats it; they are just under his control. How do you see that as getting EW for your dudes? If my warrior gets shot by a battlecannon and my Tyrant is next to him, the only thing that's happening is:

Tyrant: "Well Jimmy, you just got pasted"

not

Tyrant: "Shrug it off Jimmy, I am right here lending my thinking powers"

Your interpritation of the fluff is not the be all end all, nor is should fluff be a major deciding factor in rules. If it was space marine armies would be ten models.

I can just as easily say that synapse granting EW is the hive mind shutting off pain, rerouting blood, and activating backup organs.

I would love for warriors to be more than a tax and actually viable to take in mass.

If your warrior gets shot by a battlecannon, it turns into paste. There is no brain to shut off pain, blood to rerout or back up organs. You have an unidentifiable pile of bloody paste

Dman137 wrote:
Ignores cover is fine as is. Orks and nids have so many models that it almost doesn't matter. And some army's need the ignores cover to deal with such army's.

Clearly not enough models to deal with our Eldar overlords. If they had triple the model count, they might not be tabled every game by Eldar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Even markerlights are fine. The markerlights wouldn't be so bad if the Tau weapon platforms weren't immortal.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


If your warrior gets shot by a battlecannon, it turns into paste.

Unless it doesn't. Really, though, any Space Marine captain would also turn to paste, except for those super characters who have Eternal Warrior and therefore, somehow, don't get pasted.

Tyranid warriors suffer from T4 being craptastic in apoca40K.

 KharnsRightHand wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


If your warrior gets shot by a battlecannon, it turns into paste.

Unless it doesn't. Really, though, any Space Marine captain would also turn to paste, except for those super characters who have Eternal Warrior and therefore, somehow, don't get pasted.

So jimmy the Warrior gets shot by a battle cannon and the shell land five feet from it. Jimmy Warrior loses half his body, but according to what you keep saying about synapse, Jimmy Warrior is all fine and dandy and casually noms that guardsman with half a head

If Jimmy the warrior were T5, this magically wouldn't happen. Like it doesn't for TWC. Because wolves.

Martel732 wrote:
If Jimmy the warrior were T5, this magically wouldn't happen. Like it doesn't for TWC. Because wolves.

Jimmy the warrior would still be wounded. Synapse could grant FnP at half range or so with a certain cap limit (so you can't crowd Carl Carnefexes around Terry Tyrant)

Eternal Warrior is clearly plot armor. Realism is not why we play toy soldiers.

axisofentropy wrote:
Eternal Warrior is clearly plot armor. Realism is not why we play toy soldiers.

I think its more of a "I'm super badass, you can't kill me" thing. If it were plot armour, Cato Sicarius would have it

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

axisofentropy wrote:
Eternal Warrior is clearly plot armor. Realism is not why we play toy soldiers.

I think its more of a "I'm super badass, you can't kill me" thing. If it were plot armour, Cato Sicarius would have it

And it makes zero sense either way for exactly the same reason you described above. Being a hardcore mutha doesn't stop a lascannon shot from completely vaporizing a space marine special character, but somehow it does, because reasons.

Synapse used to be described as letting bigger bugs shrug off otherwise fatal wounds (by psychically willing their bodies to keep moving, they're free to die when the hive mind's work is done). Warriors also used to be lesser synapse nodes, not much to dispute here, it's no big stretch that they could be an HQ choice.

Your knowledge of fluff is shallow and weak, young grasshopper. Reach back further...

Also, Eternal Warrior doesn't mean "you take no damage", it means "you get wounded but don't auto-die". So just like the hypothetical T5 example, you'd still take damage. That ignores armor. Oh, and ignores FNP, too, since EW just means you don't insta-die from the S8 wound, not that the S8 wound doesn't have the Instant Death special rule for doubling your toughness.

As for fluff, maybe what the Synapse web is doing, is telling that warrior/ravener/etc to sidestep just enough to almost - but not quite - get out of the way, or something like that. Think of it like a half-assed version of Forewarning. (50% of the time, that railgun does nothing to that Ratling, because the Ratling wasn't there.)

What does this have to do with ITC?

I think the instadeath rule should be gone and heavy weapons should go back to doing multiple wounds. And get rid of eternal warrior.

Martel732 wrote:
I think the instadeath rule should be gone and heavy weapons should go back to doing multiple wounds. And get rid of eternal warrior.

You know who benefits from that? Tau/Eldar.

"Oh I guess all heavy weapons do d3 wounds now instead of ID... Good thing I can spam them."




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

axisofentropy wrote:
Eternal Warrior is clearly plot armor. Realism is not why we play toy soldiers.

I think its more of a "I'm super badass, you can't kill me" thing. If it were plot armour, Cato Sicarius would have it

And it makes zero sense either way for exactly the same reason you described above. Being a hardcore mutha doesn't stop a lascannon shot from completely vaporizing a space marine special character, but somehow it does, because reasons.

Synapse used to be described as letting bigger bugs shrug off otherwise fatal wounds (by psychically willing their bodies to keep moving, they're free to die when the hive mind's work is done). Warriors also used to be lesser synapse nodes, not much to dispute here, it's no big stretch that they could be an HQ choice.

Your knowledge of fluff is shallow and weak, young grasshopper. Reach back further...

Well when the character has a storm shield (like Lysander or some mook with the shield eternal) he can deflect LC shots because thats what Storm Shields do.

Also, you say lesser synapse nodes. Key word is lesser. How do 3 Jimmy warriors control the inevitable Gary Gaunt hordes? How do they control Carl Carnefex? Thats what Terry Tyrant is for. Synapse would grant FnP or IWND do the bigger bugs but they are T6 and most ID weapons have a reason for being ID.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Well when the character has a storm shield (like Lysander or some mook with the shield eternal) he can deflect LC shots because thats what Storm Shields do.

Yea, that's how they have a 3++, the shield deflects it. When that lascannon shot gets through that, and a T4 Marine takes a S9 wound, he should be vaporized. Except he isn't, he just takes 1 wound instead. Because reasons.

 KharnsRightHand wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Well when the character has a storm shield (like Lysander or some mook with the shield eternal) he can deflect LC shots because thats what Storm Shields do.

Yea, that's how they have a 3++, the shield deflects it. When that lascannon shot gets through that, and a T4 Marine takes a S9 wound, he should be vaporized. Except he isn't, he just takes 1 wound instead. Because reasons.

No because story elements. Lysander for instance, is wearing terminator armour, has and Iron halo and a storm shield. Fluff wise, that LC shot could deflect from more things than just the shield

But it hasn't. The wound has gone through. He now has 1 fewer wound than he did before from that LC shot.

 KharnsRightHand wrote:
But it hasn't. The wound has gone through. He now has 1 fewer wound than he did before from that LC shot.

Which could be categorized as anything, not just a literal wound taken. Try to be more abstract

"You know who benefits from that? Tau/Eldar.

"Oh I guess all heavy weapons do d3 wounds now instead of ID... Good thing I can spam them." "

It would be done on a weapon by weapon basis. Not a blanket rule.

If I had my way, scatterlasers would be unable to affect vehicles in order to balance them out and would cause .5 wounds to MCs. They're just there to mow down infantry. They don't get to be one-stop shopping.

As I said, ID is stupid (Esp the jump from T4 to T5) and we need to go back to weapons causing different amounts of wounds and having more varied wound profiles.

While I agree Ignores Cover is one of the most potent special rules in the game, I think as a rule itself, it's okay. What I don't like is how some armies have none, and some armies bathe in it. I also don't like how some armies don't benefit from cover often, and some armies need it to live. Then, add on the fact that Tyranids pay a pretty penny for Venomthropes, and the rest of their stuff is bad and/or expensive. Also, Orks aren't that good in general.

So, numerous factors to take into account here.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 KharnsRightHand wrote:
But it hasn't. The wound has gone through. He now has 1 fewer wound than he did before from that LC shot.

Which could be categorized as anything, not just a literal wound taken. Try to be more abstract

In that case, Synapse granting a pseudo-EW could be categorized as anything as well. Whether it be pure psychic will from the Hive Mind keeping it going, spotters from other creatures in synapse seeing the big shot coming and psychically communicating the threat so it dodges, or even the Hive Mind using a broken body as a puppet because the link is still there even if the thing is dead.

The disparity of how cover works for a 6+ armor list like Orks vs a 3+ power armor list is also very stupid. Where I play, players with a lot of 2+ and 3+ armor are always pushing for less cover, less terrain. The argument being that cover is giving horde lists free saves that they don't pay for.

Martel732 wrote:

If I had my way, scatterlasers would be unable to affect vehicles in order to balance them out and would cause .5 wounds to MCs. They're just there to mow down infantry. They don't get to be one-stop shopping.

As I said, ID is stupid (Esp the jump from T4 to T5) and we need to go back to weapons causing different amounts of wounds and having more varied wound profiles.

How about this for scatter lasers: 36" S3 AP- Heavy 4, Shred

Get enough of them and they mess things up, but they're wounding Guardsmen on 4s (allowing saves), T7 is flat-out immune, AV10 is flat-out immune.

Though maybe that's too weak - needs 5 shots to match a shuriken cannon against a Guardsman, 6 against a Space Marine and 8 against a Carnifex. (Assuming no cover. Cover takes a bigger bite out of the shuricannon's effectiveness)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
The disparity of how cover works for a 6+ armor list like Orks vs a 3+ power armor list is also very stupid. Where I play, players with a lot of 2+ and 3+ armor are always pushing for less cover, less terrain. The argument being that cover is giving horde lists free saves that they don't pay for.

Also, yes, this is definitely a thing. Those Orks are going to get absolutely mulched by bolters, spinefists, splinter rifles, you name it, if they don't have cover. Those Space Marines in the open have a better chance of bouncing an autocannon round than the Nobz in the ruin, though.

There should be some fixes to both cover and overkill mechanics. The first thought is stacking saves, though when you consider how hard folks with good saves and FNP, or Necrons with RP, are to put down for good, this could get terrifying real quick, and still favors the heavily-armored force.

jade_angel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

If I had my way, scatterlasers would be unable to affect vehicles in order to balance them out and would cause .5 wounds to MCs. They're just there to mow down infantry. They don't get to be one-stop shopping.

As I said, ID is stupid (Esp the jump from T4 to T5) and we need to go back to weapons causing different amounts of wounds and having more varied wound profiles.

How about this for scatter lasers: 36" S3 AP- Heavy 4, Shred

Get enough of them and they mess things up, but they're wounding Guardsmen on 4s (allowing saves), T7 is flat-out immune, AV10 is flat-out immune.

Though maybe that's too weak - needs 5 shots to match a shuriken cannon against a Guardsman, 6 against a Space Marine and 8 against a Carnifex. (Assuming no cover. Cover takes a bigger bite out of the shuricannon's effectiveness)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
The disparity of how cover works for a 6+ armor list like Orks vs a 3+ power armor list is also very stupid. Where I play, players with a lot of 2+ and 3+ armor are always pushing for less cover, less terrain. The argument being that cover is giving horde lists free saves that they don't pay for.

Also, yes, this is definitely a thing. Those Orks are going to get absolutely mulched by bolters, spinefists, splinter rifles, you name it, if they don't have cover. Those Space Marines in the open have a better chance of bouncing an autocannon round than the Nobz in the ruin, though.

There should be some fixes to both cover and overkill mechanics. The first thought is stacking saves, though when you consider how hard folks with good saves and FNP, or Necrons with RP, are to put down for good, this could get terrifying real quick, and still favors the heavily-armored force.

Guys, Scatterlasers aren't the problem. The fact they are spammable is a problem.

jade_angel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

If I had my way, scatterlasers would be unable to affect vehicles in order to balance them out and would cause .5 wounds to MCs. They're just there to mow down infantry. They don't get to be one-stop shopping.

As I said, ID is stupid (Esp the jump from T4 to T5) and we need to go back to weapons causing different amounts of wounds and having more varied wound profiles.

How about this for scatter lasers: 36" S3 AP- Heavy 4, Shred

Get enough of them and they mess things up, but they're wounding Guardsmen on 5s (allowing saves), T7 is flat-out immune, AV10 is flat-out immune.

Though maybe that's too weak - needs 5 shots to match a shuriken cannon against a Guardsman, 6 against a Space Marine and 8 against a Carnifex. (Assuming no cover. Cover takes a bigger bite out of the shuricannon's effectiveness)

S6 ROF 4 AP 6, vehicles immune, MCs take .5 wounds seems more like a niche to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

jade_angel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

If I had my way, scatterlasers would be unable to affect vehicles in order to balance them out and would cause .5 wounds to MCs. They're just there to mow down infantry. They don't get to be one-stop shopping.

As I said, ID is stupid (Esp the jump from T4 to T5) and we need to go back to weapons causing different amounts of wounds and having more varied wound profiles.

How about this for scatter lasers: 36" S3 AP- Heavy 4, Shred

Get enough of them and they mess things up, but they're wounding Guardsmen on 4s (allowing saves), T7 is flat-out immune, AV10 is flat-out immune.

Though maybe that's too weak - needs 5 shots to match a shuriken cannon against a Guardsman, 6 against a Space Marine and 8 against a Carnifex. (Assuming no cover. Cover takes a bigger bite out of the shuricannon's effectiveness)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
The disparity of how cover works for a 6+ armor list like Orks vs a 3+ power armor list is also very stupid. Where I play, players with a lot of 2+ and 3+ armor are always pushing for less cover, less terrain. The argument being that cover is giving horde lists free saves that they don't pay for.

Also, yes, this is definitely a thing. Those Orks are going to get absolutely mulched by bolters, spinefists, splinter rifles, you name it, if they don't have cover. Those Space Marines in the open have a better chance of bouncing an autocannon round than the Nobz in the ruin, though.

There should be some fixes to both cover and overkill mechanics. The first thought is stacking saves, though when you consider how hard folks with good saves and FNP, or Necrons with RP, are to put down for good, this could get terrifying real quick, and still favors the heavily-armored force.

Guys, Scatterlasers aren't the problem. The fact they are spammable is a problem.

They are still way too good for their cost. They're a problem in general, but a super problem because of spam.

As for the Orks, the argument goes that they are priced to die.

Where's the option for "It's fine, suck it up."?

 raverrn wrote:
Where's the option for "It's fine, suck it up."?

See, that's the problem...

It's actually not fine. Ignores Cover used to be exceedingly rare or difficult to obtain. Now, some armies are able to basically negate armies built around Cover saves or modifying Cover saves.

Raven Guard? There's no point in playing them as anything but Deep Strike/Drop Pod.

Scatterlasers aren't the real problem, it's the fact they can be spammed on a highly survivable and mobile troops choice. War Walkers aren't OP, are they?

Also congratulations on derailing a bad thread with more Eldar discussion.

Perhaps "for each markerlight expended, the closest model still in cover is treated as not being in cover"

Things I don't like are bad. ITC nerf please.

 Lukash_ wrote:
Scatterlasers aren't the real problem, it's the fact they can be spammed on a highly survivable and mobile troops choice. War Walkers aren't OP, are they?

Also congratulations on derailing a bad thread with more Eldar discussion.

Doesn't seem derailed to me.

jade_angel wrote:
How about this for scatter lasers: 36" S3 AP- Heavy 4, Shred

And how about this for Scatter Lasers: 36" S(D) AP1 Heavy 6.

Seems fair to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 raverrn wrote:
Where's the option for "It's fine, suck it up."?

I think that's the "ban Tau" option.

I guess you don't agree that scatterlasers are stupid?

Martel732 wrote:

jade_angel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

If I had my way, scatterlasers would be unable to affect vehicles in order to balance them out and would cause .5 wounds to MCs. They're just there to mow down infantry. They don't get to be one-stop shopping.

As I said, ID is stupid (Esp the jump from T4 to T5) and we need to go back to weapons causing different amounts of wounds and having more varied wound profiles.

How about this for scatter lasers: 36" S3 AP- Heavy 4, Shred

Get enough of them and they mess things up, but they're wounding Guardsmen on 5s (allowing saves), T7 is flat-out immune, AV10 is flat-out immune.

Though maybe that's too weak - needs 5 shots to match a shuriken cannon against a Guardsman, 6 against a Space Marine and 8 against a Carnifex. (Assuming no cover. Cover takes a bigger bite out of the shuricannon's effectiveness)

S6 ROF 4 AP 6, vehicles immune, MCs take .5 wounds seems more like a niche to me.

AP6 just seems like a big middle finger to Orks and Nids. Like, c'mon, why not AP-?

 KharnsRightHand wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

jade_angel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

If I had my way, scatterlasers would be unable to affect vehicles in order to balance them out and would cause .5 wounds to MCs. They're just there to mow down infantry. They don't get to be one-stop shopping.

As I said, ID is stupid (Esp the jump from T4 to T5) and we need to go back to weapons causing different amounts of wounds and having more varied wound profiles.

How about this for scatter lasers: 36" S3 AP- Heavy 4, Shred

Get enough of them and they mess things up, but they're wounding Guardsmen on 5s (allowing saves), T7 is flat-out immune, AV10 is flat-out immune.

Though maybe that's too weak - needs 5 shots to match a shuriken cannon against a Guardsman, 6 against a Space Marine and 8 against a Carnifex. (Assuming no cover. Cover takes a bigger bite out of the shuricannon's effectiveness)

S6 ROF 4 AP 6, vehicles immune, MCs take .5 wounds seems more like a niche to me.

AP6 just seems like a big middle finger to Orks and Nids. Like, c'mon, why not AP-?

Because we are getting rid of the ability to have an army wide Ignores cover. Were you paying attention at all?

Your title es no bueno.

As an ork player... thats a crazy idea.

I think if I did the poll I'd say that anything that ignores cover says they get 6+ cover instead. Armies like Marines and such with good saves will still get their good armour saves against most things, but armies that have their armour negated by almost everything at least get some kind of t-shirt save always.

In fact, that was the idea I'd go with for Markerlights if I ever wrote my Tau fandex, that two Markerlights just give things a 6+ cover save instead of ignoring it.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 KharnsRightHand wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

jade_angel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

If I had my way, scatterlasers would be unable to affect vehicles in order to balance them out and would cause .5 wounds to MCs. They're just there to mow down infantry. They don't get to be one-stop shopping.

As I said, ID is stupid (Esp the jump from T4 to T5) and we need to go back to weapons causing different amounts of wounds and having more varied wound profiles.

How about this for scatter lasers: 36" S3 AP- Heavy 4, Shred

Get enough of them and they mess things up, but they're wounding Guardsmen on 5s (allowing saves), T7 is flat-out immune, AV10 is flat-out immune.

Though maybe that's too weak - needs 5 shots to match a shuriken cannon against a Guardsman, 6 against a Space Marine and 8 against a Carnifex. (Assuming no cover. Cover takes a bigger bite out of the shuricannon's effectiveness)

S6 ROF 4 AP 6, vehicles immune, MCs take .5 wounds seems more like a niche to me.

AP6 just seems like a big middle finger to Orks and Nids. Like, c'mon, why not AP-?

Because we are getting rid of the ability to have an army wide Ignores cover. Were you paying attention at all?

Ok...so? For Orks especially, I doubt you're sitting your boyz in cover for an entire game, whether an entire army has ignores cover or not. AP6 in general just seems like a, "and feth you in particular."

 KharnsRightHand wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 KharnsRightHand wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

jade_angel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

If I had my way, scatterlasers would be unable to affect vehicles in order to balance them out and would cause .5 wounds to MCs. They're just there to mow down infantry. They don't get to be one-stop shopping.

As I said, ID is stupid (Esp the jump from T4 to T5) and we need to go back to weapons causing different amounts of wounds and having more varied wound profiles.

How about this for scatter lasers: 36" S3 AP- Heavy 4, Shred

Get enough of them and they mess things up, but they're wounding Guardsmen on 5s (allowing saves), T7 is flat-out immune, AV10 is flat-out immune.

Though maybe that's too weak - needs 5 shots to match a shuriken cannon against a Guardsman, 6 against a Space Marine and 8 against a Carnifex. (Assuming no cover. Cover takes a bigger bite out of the shuricannon's effectiveness)

S6 ROF 4 AP 6, vehicles immune, MCs take .5 wounds seems more like a niche to me.

AP6 just seems like a big middle finger to Orks and Nids. Like, c'mon, why not AP-?

Because we are getting rid of the ability to have an army wide Ignores cover. Were you paying attention at all?

Ok...so? For Orks especially, I doubt you're sitting your boyz in cover for an entire game, whether an entire army has ignores cover or not. AP6 in general just seems like a, "and feth you in particular."

So we should just get rid of Ap 5/6 because your dudes have bad armour?

Dman137 wrote:
Ignores cover is fine as is. Orks and nids have so many models that it almost doesn't matter. And some army's need the ignores cover to deal with such army's.

AoE and high RoF says hi.

They don't have more models than the enemy has shots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I guess you don't agree that scatterlasers are stupid?

Scatter lasers are fine. Its when they are spammed that it becomes stupid. They are only S6AP6 Heavy 4 36", right?
Imagine Space Marine bikes all having assault cannons.

Then damaging vehicles is more of a problem of vehicles being too fragile, imo. Its been 7 editions and they still haven't given vehicles a type of armor save.

Anyway, my 2c.
Ignore Cover should remain, as there should be weapons that can naturally ignore cover.
Flamers come to mind.

What should change is how ridiculously common that rule is. It should be a rare rule that applies to only a few weapons.
It should not be an army wide buff, nor should it be on long range weapons, unless said weapon is few in number and expensive.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

What should change is how ridiculously common that rule is. It should be a rare rule that applies to only a few weapons.
It should not be an army wide buff, nor should it be on long range weapons, unless said weapon is few in number and expensive.

The explosion of readily available Ignores Cover is necessary because of the tremendous amount of units that can get access to 2+ cover or rerollable cover saves. If there weren't so many ways to buff cover saves into the stratosphere then it wouldn't be necessary to deny it. Changing Ignores Cover to a modifer would just screw armies that don't have access to that, while only inconveniencing things like bike armies that are cruising around with 2+ jink.

The problem isn't Ignores Cover, the problem is a metagame with a preponderance of 2+ jink saves. If, for instance, bikes and skimmers weren't so tremendously popular in competitive play (in part because of their cover saves), then the metagame would evolve away from taking so much Ignores Cover because people aren't going to spend the points to cram it into their list just to punish some orks hiding in a ruin.

Ignore Cover should remain, as there should be weapons that can naturally ignore cover.
Flamers come to mind.

What should change is how ridiculously common that rule is. It should be a rare rule that applies to only a few weapons.
It should not be an army wide buff, nor should it be on long range weapons, unless said weapon is few in number and expensive.

This here.

And scatter lasers are a problem. They are practically assault cannons on bikes. No the lasers don't have rending and are ap6, but they have 12" better range and are a lot cheaper of an upgrade on, usually, what is cheaper (and just plain better) versions of similar or comparable models of other codices. This might not be a problem if scatter lasers weren't so freaking easy to spam. If there were a limit to the number of them in a unit like is done for special and heavy weapons ect in the SM dex for most every unit it might not be a problem.

As to the marker light issue, I would say let them reduce cover saves by 1 or 2 points at most so they are advantageous but not game breakingly so. Tau are good enough even without ignores cover.

The +12" range is what really makes them an unfair weapon to the extreme, imo. You can't get away from them.

So S6 Ap6 Heavy 3 or 4 Range 24?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
So S6 Ap6 Heavy 3 or 4 Range 24?

Both improvements. I believe the one is identical to the multilaser, however. Increasing the cost is also an idea.

Martel732 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
So S6 Ap6 Heavy 3 or 4 Range 24?

Both improvements. I believe the one is identical to the multilaser, however. Increasing the cost is also an idea.

I would honestly leave it as a multilaser, but make it a "1 in every 3 dudes can take it" weapon

Pythius Primus wrote:
The problem isn't Ignores Cover, the problem is a metagame with a preponderance of 2+ jink saves. If, for instance, bikes and skimmers weren't so tremendously popular in competitive play (in part because of their cover saves), then the metagame would evolve away from taking so much Ignores Cover because people aren't going to spend the points to cram it into their list just to punish some orks hiding in a ruin.

This.

Cover saves and such are supposed to be 5+, exceptionally 4+. Not 2+ rerollable invulnerables.

The fundamental rules are bad, and Ignores Cover is simply a bandaid.

I look forward to GW AoSing 40k.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
So S6 Ap6 Heavy 3 or 4 Range 24?

Both improvements. I believe the one is identical to the multilaser, however. Increasing the cost is also an idea.

I would honestly leave it as a multilaser, but make it a "1 in every 3 dudes can take it" weapon

Yeah what the hell is with Chaos Bikers being limited to like two guys taking something better than a combi-bolter yet Eldar can upgrade an entire squad with long range assault cannons?

Heck, even a Devastator or Havoc squad can only upgrade four guys with heavy weapons.

Yeah, 1 in 3 isn't bad, and is about what it should be. Admittedly, the fact that the default weapon only has a 12" range makes it feel like much more of a handicap than for other bikers, but being able to take scatter lasers all around is kinda dumb.

Also, the internal balance on the scatter laser is a bit off - it's nearly always better than the starcannon, too, on the platforms that can pick between them.

Kanluwen wrote:

 raverrn wrote:
Where's the option for "It's fine, suck it up."?

See, that's the problem...

It's actually not fine. Ignores Cover used to be exceedingly rare or difficult to obtain. Now, some armies are able to basically negate armies built around Cover saves or modifying Cover saves.

Raven Guard? There's no point in playing them as anything but Deep Strike/Drop Pod.

If everyone changes a rule they don't like.. then no matter what GW does to bring back balance in the future won't work, and even could make things worse in combination.

Ignores cover is far from OP; I play Tau, but I also play other armies.. and can gain ignore cover just as easily. The majority of the time, Tau players are using markerlights to gain increased ballistic skill anyway.

If you can't handle a unit that's T3 with a 5+ armor save, then you need to rethink your list in competitive play, or come up with a better strategy at large. Tau are good, far from unbeatable. Any army with Psychic powers can gain ignore cover. Even space marines have easy access to ignores cover (white scars have a relic now even). Guard, can give units ignore cover with orders... The new Raven Guard formations are also really good.

Pythius Primus wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

What should change is how ridiculously common that rule is. It should be a rare rule that applies to only a few weapons.
It should not be an army wide buff, nor should it be on long range weapons, unless said weapon is few in number and expensive.

The explosion of readily available Ignores Cover is necessary because of the tremendous amount of units that can get access to 2+ cover or rerollable cover saves. If there weren't so many ways to buff cover saves into the stratosphere then it wouldn't be necessary to deny it. Changing Ignores Cover to a modifer would just screw armies that don't have access to that, while only inconveniencing things like bike armies that are cruising around with 2+ jink.

The problem isn't Ignores Cover, the problem is a metagame with a preponderance of 2+ jink saves. If, for instance, bikes and skimmers weren't so tremendously popular in competitive play (in part because of their cover saves), then the metagame would evolve away from taking so much Ignores Cover because people aren't going to spend the points to cram it into their list just to punish some orks hiding in a ruin.

exactly right. I myself exploit this all the time, so I know how much of a pain in the butt it is. You know what else is more of an issue.. Invisibility (if you don't play ITC that is). And a good majority of armies have easy access to obtain that as well. markers only help so much there.


You can't give a poll directed at nerfing Tau further because you lost a game. learn to deal with the cards that were dealt.

jade_angel wrote:
Yeah, 1 in 3 isn't bad, and is about what it should be. Admittedly, the fact that the default weapon only has a 12" range makes it feel like much more of a handicap than for other bikers, but being able to take scatter lasers all around is kinda dumb.

Also, the internal balance on the scatter laser is a bit off - it's nearly always better than the starcannon, too, on the platforms that can pick between them.

1 in 3 is still crazy good. Because the weapon is crazy good. And yes, it is almost always better than a starcannon.

Personally, I don't think Tau having access to ignore cover through marker lights is that big of a deal. It's really the fact that they have immortal MCs and are purely focused on shooting in a shooting edition.

" Tau are good, far from unbeatable"

For BA they are. As fast as BA are, they can kill them even faster.

Martel732 wrote:

For BA they are. As fast as BA are, they can kill them even faster.

Let's be honest here... BAs got shafted getting updated before space marines did so. That said, they have problems with more than just tau lol

 Grizzyzz wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

For BA they are. As fast as BA are, they can kill them even faster.

Let's be honest here... BAs got shafted getting updated before space marines did so. That said, they have problems with more than just tau lol

Even still, marines also get wiped up by Tau unless they bring VERY specific units.

Putting it bluntly, Tau are the only real offender in the "Ignores Cover abuse" category.

There is NO OTHER ARMY that can put out as much widespread Ignores Cover, and that was before the addition of Coordinated Firepower making them apply to multiple units at once.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Putting it bluntly, Tau are the only real offender in the "Ignores Cover abuse" category.

There is NO OTHER ARMY that can put out as much widespread Ignores Cover, and that was before the addition of Coordinated Firepower making them apply to multiple units at once.

That's not true, really. Eldar with psyker support can throw a lot of perfect timing. IG with psyker support and orders can do something similar, yet inferior, because they aren't Eldar. Tau happen to have the ion accelerator, which is stupid broken with ignore cover, so there is that .

 Kanluwen wrote:
Putting it bluntly, Tau are the only real offender in the "Ignores Cover abuse" category.

There is NO OTHER ARMY that can put out as much widespread Ignores Cover, and that was before the addition of Coordinated Firepower making them apply to multiple units at once.

D weapons don't need ignore cover. They just are.

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Putting it bluntly, Tau are the only real offender in the "Ignores Cover abuse" category.

There is NO OTHER ARMY that can put out as much widespread Ignores Cover, and that was before the addition of Coordinated Firepower making them apply to multiple units at once.

D weapons don't need ignore cover. They just are.

How about ignore cover on a squad of scatterbikes? Goodbye, black knights.

Pythius Primus wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

What should change is how ridiculously common that rule is. It should be a rare rule that applies to only a few weapons.
It should not be an army wide buff, nor should it be on long range weapons, unless said weapon is few in number and expensive.

The explosion of readily available Ignores Cover is necessary because of the tremendous amount of units that can get access to 2+ cover or rerollable cover saves. If there weren't so many ways to buff cover saves into the stratosphere then it wouldn't be necessary to deny it. Changing Ignores Cover to a modifer would just screw armies that don't have access to that, while only inconveniencing things like bike armies that are cruising around with 2+ jink.

The problem isn't Ignores Cover, the problem is a metagame with a preponderance of 2+ jink saves. If, for instance, bikes and skimmers weren't so tremendously popular in competitive play (in part because of their cover saves), then the metagame would evolve away from taking so much Ignores Cover because people aren't going to spend the points to cram it into their list just to punish some orks hiding in a ruin.

And that's still a horrible way of solving it, as units that did not exploit such a cheesy rule get punished even harder.
When something is broken, you fix the broken thing. You don't make something else broken.
That's like blowing something up to try to put out a fire. Yeah, it'll work as the explosion consumes all the oxygen, but you'll cause more problems.

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Putting it bluntly, Tau are the only real offender in the "Ignores Cover abuse" category.

There is NO OTHER ARMY that can put out as much widespread Ignores Cover, and that was before the addition of Coordinated Firepower making them apply to multiple units at once.

D weapons don't need ignore cover. They just are.

D weapons aren't part of this conversation though, now are they?
This is about Ignores Cover. You want to complain about Strength D, do it in its own thread.

And really, you didn't refute my point as well as you seem to think.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Pythius Primus wrote:
The problem isn't Ignores Cover, the problem is a metagame with a preponderance of 2+ jink saves. If, for instance, bikes and skimmers weren't so tremendously popular in competitive play (in part because of their cover saves), then the metagame would evolve away from taking so much Ignores Cover because people aren't going to spend the points to cram it into their list just to punish some orks hiding in a ruin.

This.

Cover saves and such are supposed to be 5+, exceptionally 4+. Not 2+ rerollable invulnerables.

The fundamental rules are bad, and Ignores Cover is simply a bandaid.

I look forward to GW AoSing 40k.

I look forward to GW's rule writers and management getting replaced by someone who knows how to make a game and takes their system seriously.
Its a job. They should act like professionals. Not a bunch of teenagers with the mentality of "lol, beer and pretzels!!!" and use that as an excuse to release a poorly written product at high prices.

Martel732 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Putting it bluntly, Tau are the only real offender in the "Ignores Cover abuse" category.

There is NO OTHER ARMY that can put out as much widespread Ignores Cover, and that was before the addition of Coordinated Firepower making them apply to multiple units at once.

That's not true, really. Eldar with psyker support can throw a lot of perfect timing. IG with psyker support and orders can do something similar, yet inferior, because they aren't Eldar. Tau happen to have the ion accelerator, which is stupid broken with ignore cover, so there is that .

Tau "happen to have" a ton of things that become stupid broken with Ignores Cover granted so damned easily. And none of them actually have the same hazards that Psykers do.

There's a reason Tau players were flipping about the Optimised Stealth Cadre. Ignores Cover with +1 Ballistic Skill(potentially +3 for the Ghostkeels if in a Fireteam of 3 for an additional +1 and you declare a Coordinated Firepower attack for an additional +1) always hitting vehicles on rear armor on 6 Stealth Battlesuits(potentially 12) and a Ghostkeel(potentially 3) with no Markerlight Counters being expended for Ignores Cover is kind of a big deal, wouldn't you agree?

Eldar psykers face few hazards, but I get your point.

Yes, the Tau have some crazy formations. There's no denying that. Expending two presumably BS 3 marker lights for ignores cover does't seem that unfair to me, though.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Putting it bluntly, Tau are the only real offender in the "Ignores Cover abuse" category.

There is NO OTHER ARMY that can put out as much widespread Ignores Cover, and that was before the addition of Coordinated Firepower making them apply to multiple units at once.

That's not true, really. Eldar with psyker support can throw a lot of perfect timing. IG with psyker support and orders can do something similar, yet inferior, because they aren't Eldar. Tau happen to have the ion accelerator, which is stupid broken with ignore cover, so there is that .

Tau "happen to have" a ton of things that become stupid broken with Ignores Cover granted so damned easily. And none of them actually have the same hazards that Psykers do.

There's a reason Tau players were flipping about the Optimised Stealth Cadre. Ignores Cover with +1 Ballistic Skill(potentially +3 for the Ghostkeels if in a Fireteam of 3 for an additional +1 and you declare a Coordinated Firepower attack for an additional +1) always hitting vehicles on rear armor on 6 Stealth Battlesuits(potentially 12) and a Ghostkeel(potentially 3) with no Markerlight Counters being expended for Ignores Cover is kind of a big deal, wouldn't you agree?

Holy gak, that's a thing now?
Goddamit GW

Martel732 wrote:
Eldar psykers face few hazards, but I get your point.

Yes, the Tau have some crazy formations. There's no denying that. Expending two presumably BS 3 marker lights for ignores cover does't seem that unfair to me, though.

When it only applied to a single unit?
Yeah, that wasn't too unfair. It was still annoying as all hell, but it was limited to a single unit.

That's no longer the case though. In a Hunter Contingent, I can have 3 units gaining Ignores Cover with +1 BS at the cost of two Markerlight Counters and them firing at the same target.
Markerlights should have been nerfed or significantly altered, end of story, before they added in the Hunter Contingent.

It is rather insane...

This would be why I pretty much only run Tau in a CAD, and Riptides only with the HBC anymore - self-nerf some of the insanity.

Maybe for Markerlights, do this:

Scour: expend 2 Marker Tokens. If the target was able to reroll failed cover saves, it loses that ability. It may still reroll failed armor or invulnerable saves if normally able to do so. Additionally, the target must reroll successful cover saves. These effects apply only to the shooting attack for which these marker tokens were expended.

Reveal: Expend 2 Marker Tokens. Target loses the benefit of the Stealth and Shrouded special rules against the shooting attack for which these tokens were used.

Now the best you can get is "reroll successes, no stealth or shrouded", and that needs 4 markers. Still too strong?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alternatively: Delete markerlights outright. Replace it with the following ability:

Network Link Targeting: Once per game, a unit consisting entirely of models with this special rule may choose to invoke Network Link Targeting. If it does, all shooting attacks made by that unit, and only by that unit, are resolved at Ballistic Skill 10 for the rest of that player turn. On all subsequent turns, the unit may only fire Snap Shots. No special rule or interaction of rules may ever permit the effects of Network Link Targeting to affect a unit other than the one which invoked it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Eldar psykers face few hazards, but I get your point.

Yes, the Tau have some crazy formations. There's no denying that. Expending two presumably BS 3 marker lights for ignores cover does't seem that unfair to me, though.

When it only applied to a single unit?
Yeah, that wasn't too unfair. It was still annoying as all hell, but it was limited to a single unit.

That's no longer the case though. In a Hunter Contingent, I can have 3 units gaining Ignores Cover with +1 BS at the cost of two Markerlight Counters and them firing at the same target.
Markerlights should have been nerfed or significantly altered, end of story, before they added in the Hunter Contingent.

Yeah, markerlights shouldn't be able to be run through a force multiplier.

Alternatively, I might be OK with removing Markerlights completely, if some of the major Tau units were BS4 instead of BS3. (Before you mention Guard, remember that they have psykers, orders and a lot of Blast/Large Blast weapons, plus the option to buy units that do have BS4, and here I'm proposing to remove Tau's equivalent to psykers and orders)

jade_angel wrote:
Alternatively, I might be OK with removing Markerlights completely, if some of the major Tau units were BS4 instead of BS3. (Before you mention Guard, remember that they have psykers, orders and a lot of Blast/Large Blast weapons, plus the option to buy units that do have BS4, and here I'm proposing to remove Tau's equivalent to psykers and orders)

They are an iconic Tau gimmick though.
It would be like taking away IG platoons, Necron RP / WBB, and Eldar psi.
They just need to be nerfed. A BS bonus is fine. Being able to ignore saves is not fine.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

jade_angel wrote:
Alternatively, I might be OK with removing Markerlights completely, if some of the major Tau units were BS4 instead of BS3. (Before you mention Guard, remember that they have psykers, orders and a lot of Blast/Large Blast weapons, plus the option to buy units that do have BS4, and here I'm proposing to remove Tau's equivalent to psykers and orders)

They are an iconic Tau gimmick though.
It would be like taking away IG platoons, Necron RP / WBB, and Eldar psi.
They just need to be nerfed. A BS bonus is fine. Being able to ignore saves is not fine.

If they operated like Auspexes do in Codex: Space Marines (-1 cover save, non-cumulative) they'd be fine. The guy I always play with never brings a lot of ML and when he does, he BS buffs his crisis suits or hammer heads. I have never seen him use Ignores Cover with those.

jade_angel wrote:
Alternatively, I might be OK with removing Markerlights completely, if some of the major Tau units were BS4 instead of BS3. (Before you mention Guard, remember that they have psykers, orders and a lot of Blast/Large Blast weapons, plus the option to buy units that do have BS4, and here I'm proposing to remove Tau's equivalent to psykers and orders)

So what if Guard have Psykers or Orders? Orders are once per turn, per unit, and if you roll double 6s? You cannot issue any more Orders, at all, that turn.
Oh yeah, and Orders have a 12" issue radius.

You can bring up the new Cadian Battle Group if you want to counter this argument, but then I can throw out the points value of a list I wrote up yesterday consisting of a Command(mandatory) and a Core(in order to take any Auxiliary, you need a Core):
2540 points.
For 150 Guardsmen, 3 Platoon Command Squads, 2 Company Command Squads, and 9 Armored Sentinels(6 with Autocannons and 3 with Plasma Cannons).

That's what I would need to do in order to have a 24" Order radius and the ability to roll 3D6 discarding the highest when issuing Orders.

Additionally, nobody is saying "remove Markerlights completely". I hate people trying to twist this argument around whenever someone says that they needed to be changed. Removing their ability to do Ignores Cover so easily is not the same as removing the ability.

Hell, even just making it so that units cannot claim a Cover save if they fired their Markerlights this turn(amusingly enough, while "nearly-invisible" Markerlights have been mentioned since the beginning as still visible to the point that when Imperial soldiers started seeing their tanks designated with Markerlights during the initial Damocles Gulf Crusade? They referred to the Markerlight designations as "Valkyrie's Marks"--it's not unbelievable that someone could spot a Pathfinder's Markerlight) or so that units can claim a Cover save against the initial Markerlight attack or Markerlights "wound" versus the Initiative of the target and have a S value of 1 or 2 to match would go a long way towards making players feel less bothered by the "cruise control victory" perception of Markerlights.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

jade_angel wrote:
Alternatively, I might be OK with removing Markerlights completely, if some of the major Tau units were BS4 instead of BS3. (Before you mention Guard, remember that they have psykers, orders and a lot of Blast/Large Blast weapons, plus the option to buy units that do have BS4, and here I'm proposing to remove Tau's equivalent to psykers and orders)

They are an iconic Tau gimmick though.
It would be like taking away IG platoons,

As an IG player, I would gladly give up Platoons if Tau gave up Markerlights. Right now, Platoons suck, where Markerlights are stupidly awesome. I'd also give up the new IG formation if Necrons and Tau and SM gave up theirs. IG are so far back on the power curve, and they gain so very little from "iconic" Platoons and their formation, it's not a hard call. Hands down, no hesitation.
___

@Kan - note that more than 30% of the poll respondents voted to Ban Tau entirely. That's a slight bit stronger than "ban Markerlights".

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

jade_angel wrote:
Alternatively, I might be OK with removing Markerlights completely, if some of the major Tau units were BS4 instead of BS3. (Before you mention Guard, remember that they have psykers, orders and a lot of Blast/Large Blast weapons, plus the option to buy units that do have BS4, and here I'm proposing to remove Tau's equivalent to psykers and orders)

They are an iconic Tau gimmick though.
It would be like taking away IG platoons,

As an IG player, I would gladly give up Platoons if Tau gave up Markerlights. Right now, Platoons suck, where Markerlights are stupidly awesome. I'd also give up the new IG formation if Necrons and Tau and SM gave up theirs. IG are so far back on the power curve, and they gain so very little from "iconic" Platoons and their formation, it's not a hard call. Hands down, no hesitation.
___

@Kan - note that more than 30% of the poll respondents voted to Ban Tau entirely. That's a slight bit stronger than "ban Markerlights".

SM aren't that bad. I could barely fit a double Gladius under 2000 points and I only took 3 razorbacks... Pretty much had to sacrifice everything to take it

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
SM aren't that bad. I could barely fit a double Gladius under 2000 points and I only took 3 razorbacks... Pretty much had to sacrifice everything to take it

This doesn't really make the IG players feel any better...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

jade_angel wrote:
Alternatively, I might be OK with removing Markerlights completely, if some of the major Tau units were BS4 instead of BS3. (Before you mention Guard, remember that they have psykers, orders and a lot of Blast/Large Blast weapons, plus the option to buy units that do have BS4, and here I'm proposing to remove Tau's equivalent to psykers and orders)

They are an iconic Tau gimmick though.
It would be like taking away IG platoons,

As an IG player, I would gladly give up Platoons if Tau gave up Markerlights. Right now, Platoons suck, where Markerlights are stupidly awesome. I'd also give up the new IG formation if Necrons and Tau and SM gave up theirs. IG are so far back on the power curve, and they gain so very little from "iconic" Platoons and their formation, it's not a hard call. Hands down, no hesitation.

See, I feel like they DO gain a bit from the formation...but the problem is that the formations that make it up? Blargh.

@Kan - note that more than 30% of the poll respondents voted to Ban Tau entirely. That's a slight bit stronger than "ban Markerlights".

I'm ignoring the poll. That 30% is 27 people voting.

First thing....I did not vote because this is just stupid. Sorry if that sounds blunt but flailing discussions like this (change the rule because it hurts my army) are ruining this game. I play against a DA player all the time with a 2+ rerollable cover save on T5 models.....ignores cover is the only chance I have to get through to him. And why does the title say anything about ITC? I see no connection at all and recommend the title remove that reference.

My solution to those rerollable jink saves is assault. But that's the orks' answer to everything, but I still agree that a 2+ rerollable is stupid as hell. I didn't actually know it could do that until I wasted a bunch of shots at it, so that was doubly frustrating.

My solution to "rerollable Jink saves" is to remove Jink saves from the Cover heading.

Jink saves should be their own thing. Hell, FW has been giving things the ability to ignore/reduce Jink saves for a LONG time now.

This guy is so mad about tau. Honestly who cares if the entire army gains BS10 and ignore cover if shooting at the same unit.. it's ONE unit.

The entire tau contingent is designed to kill deathstars. Is that why your bitter?

I would be more than happy to see 1 marker -1 cover. Wouldn't change anything because most tau players don't rely on marker lights for that alone.

Besides.. even if you remove tau from the picture you really underestimate the availability to other armies. Tossing it to the side guard pass a leadership test to gain ignores cover. My Guard friends cast about 4 orders a turn.

The new librarious conclave.. tiggy.. relics. SM are well covered. Seer councils. The only ones that don't readily gain ignore cover tend to be armies that have insane cover themselves or use other means of dealing with the threat.

Also... I brought up D weapons because yes.. they don't care about cover.. which is pretty on topic to me. I play eldar all the time, I have learned how to deal with them. Learn to deal with marker lights they have been the same for a long time.

 Grizzyzz wrote:
This guy is so mad about tau.

Yeah...no.

I suggest you get a clue before you start accusing people of being "so mad about tau".

Honestly who cares if the entire army gains BS10 and ignore cover if shooting at the same unit.. it's ONE unit.

The entire tau contingent is designed to kill deathstars. Is that why your bitter?

"You're".

And no. I run no deathstars. I've run Cover heavy foot lists(last Eldar book I ran War Walkers, Illic Nightspear, and upgraded Rangers for a themed Alaitoc list and I'm currently running a Raptors Chapter force for Space Marines) for quite some time, and against anything not Tau? I do fairly well--because despite your insistence that every army has this crazy abundance of Ignores Cover?

It ain't true.

I would be more than happy to see 1 marker -1 cover. Wouldn't change anything because most tau players don't rely on marker lights for that alone.

Prior to the new book, you're right. They didn't rely solely on Markerlights for Ignores Cover.

They would also throw in a Commander with the MSS and use Markerlight tokens for Pinpoint instead.

Besides.. even if you remove tau from the picture you really underestimate the availability to other armies. Tossing it to the side guard pass a leadership test to gain ignores cover. My Guard friends cast about 4 orders a turn.

I really don't underestimate the availability, because despite what you're insisting? It doesn't exist.

Guard passing a leadership test to gain Ignores Cover on a single unit and not applicable to vehicles requires the Company Commander to be within 12 inches of the unit they're applying the Order to.

If ANY of those Orders rolled double 6s? They would be locked out of using any Orders for the remainder of their turn.
It would be like if you rolling 1s to hit with Markerlights locked out the Markerlight network.

The new librarious conclave.. tiggy.. relics. SM are well covered.

Librarius Conclave requires you to roll the power on Divination. You don't automatically get it.

Additionally, taking Tigurius with the Librarius Conclave? That requires a separate CAD if you're fielding a White Scars detachment as you cannot mix and match Chapter Tactics.

Seer councils.

Again, you need to roll "Perfect Timing".

The only ones that don't readily gain ignore cover tend to be armies that have insane cover themselves or use other means of dealing with the threat.

Or that just plain don't have an abundance of Ignores Cover. Know the only way Skitarii get Ignores Cover?
Onager Dunecrawlers with Icarus Array. Their only Ignores Cover is Skyfire, so only hits ground targets on 6s.
Their only other way to deal with Cover save heavy armies? Spam the hell out of Luminagen weapons and have Omnispex(10 point upgrade) on every Ranger/Vanguard unit they bring.

Know how Cult Mechanicus get Ignores Cover?
A single formation, and it requires the Kastelan Robots in the formation to score unsaved Wounds, glancing, or penetrating hits on an enemy unit with a weapon that has the Luminagen special rule--and then it grants the Kataphron Destroyer units(max of 3 in the formation) Ignores Cover and +1 BS.

Also... I brought up D weapons because yes.. they don't care about cover.. which is pretty on topic to me. I play eldar all the time, I have learned how to deal with them. Learn to deal with marker lights they have been the same for a long time.

D weapons don't care about Cover on a roll of a 6. Otherwise you can still make a save.

This topic isn't about D weapons though. You're just throwing crap out and pretending it's some kind of wise insight.

The reality is, as I said, that only Tau have the kinds of crazy on demand Ignores Cover that makes them so dangerous to bike heavy armies. And that's fine.

What isn't fine is that as a sidestep it completely wrecks any armor that depends on Cover saves when fighting Tau, like Guard or Skitarii.

 Grizzyzz wrote:
I brought up D weapons because yes.. they don't care about cover..

... 1/6 of the time.

Usually, cover is a perfectly good defense against D weapons.

OTOH, if D-weapons always ignored cover, like they used to, and should, that would be one thing. But it's not.

Clearly, we need an "ITC" poll for D-weapons to always ignore cover!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:
I brought up D weapons because yes.. they don't care about cover..

... 1/6 of the time.

Usually, cover is a perfectly good defense against D weapons.

OTOH, if D-weapons always ignored cover, like they used to, and should, that would be one thing. But it's not.

Clearly, we need an "ITC" poll for D-weapons to always ignore cover!

And you know who gets a lot of D weapons? Eldar...

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:
I brought up D weapons because yes.. they don't care about cover..

... 1/6 of the time.

Usually, cover is a perfectly good defense against D weapons.

OTOH, if D-weapons always ignored cover, like they used to, and should, that would be one thing. But it's not.

Clearly, we need an "ITC" poll for D-weapons to always ignore cover!

And you know who gets a lot of D weapons? Eldar...

Shh....

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

jade_angel wrote:
Alternatively, I might be OK with removing Markerlights completely, if some of the major Tau units were BS4 instead of BS3. (Before you mention Guard, remember that they have psykers, orders and a lot of Blast/Large Blast weapons, plus the option to buy units that do have BS4, and here I'm proposing to remove Tau's equivalent to psykers and orders)

They are an iconic Tau gimmick though.
It would be like taking away IG platoons, Necron RP / WBB, and Eldar psi.
They just need to be nerfed. A BS bonus is fine. Being able to ignore saves is not fine.

Not even that, just bring them down to the -1 cover per marker that they used to, and bring back the ability to decrease ld for the purposes of tests forced on them by that unit.

The biggest problem with this rule, and ones simmilar to this rule, is that it it completely removes chance from the game which makes it not fun.
I think that removes cover would have not been a problem for tau in 5th addition becuse they did not have all this spammable strength 9 ap 2 blast. Also the BRB rules did not completly favor shotting armies as it does now.
I think a fun game is always having some chance to do something, even if the chance is small. Simply putting models on the table and praying that the other guy shoots really really bad, which is highly unlikely, to just take of models with absolutly no chance of getting any form of save is no fun to anyone, especially true for ork and tyranid players.

@Kanluen. Every army pretty much "needs to take something" to get ignores cover. Space marines can take multiple Auspex in a unit to decrease cover to almost nothing. Marines and Eldar have so many psy options that if they need the ignores cover power they should be able to get it. Bike and Cav armies move so fast that they can get into CC by turn two so that ignores the ignore cover (as can one of the mechanicus units) heh. Marines can also take the thunder fire cannon (which usually is getting a 2+ cover save itself). Guard also have a mortar vehicle that fires ignore cover (can't remember the name....just that it was brutal on my bugs and had a metric crap ton of small blast shots heh). The odds of guard getting it through orders is pretty good as well. Doesn't Mechanicus get ignores cover for a turn if they use the conclave formation? So many armies have flamers or template weapons...that ignore cover. Tau have to "take" marker lights so a shooting unit loses its ability to hurt something(tax seems to be the popular word here hehe) in order to put those markers on you...and at a dismal BS. It seems to me to be an even playing field (I play several different types of armies but sold all my marine stuff in sixth edition and have not built it back up yet).

If we use this discussion as a basis for rules voting then I suggest we put out a poll asking to ban psychic powers since the Tau and Dark Eldar don't have any and it's very bad for them. Ban Scout on marine bike armies because it is bad for my bugs and Tau...and my dark Eldar (but of course everything is bad for them heheh). Or we ban Grav because it is harsh for Eldar. Anything can look bad if taken out of context. There are weaknesses to the Tau that compensate for their strength. MEQ has much fewer weaknesses as compensation for all the benefits they receive and will always be top tier, if not for the rules then because whenever something comes out that can hurt them TO's ban it or nerf it because of discussions like this one. Heck I wish more tournaments went back to victory points as main objectives to help decrease all these spam armies and MSU since just about everything is objective or progressive objective based.

And again I don't see how this is an ITC voting topic so I would recommend changing the title.

 Fishboy wrote:
@Kanluen. Every army pretty much "needs to take something" to get ignores cover. Space marines can take multiple Auspex in a unit to decrease cover to almost nothing.

Do you know how many Auspex you need to take in order to do so?
Five Auspex to get the Cover Save to a 6+. And Auspex are ONLY available on HQ options.

Marines and Eldar have so many psy options that if they need the ignores cover power they should be able to get it.

Not all Marine armies have access to Librarius Conclave. The new Raven Guard Detachment cannot take it.

Bike and Cav armies move so fast that they can get into CC by turn two so that ignores the ignore cover (as can one of the mechanicus units) heh.

Not the same thing as Ignores Cover, now is it?

Marines can also take the thunder fire cannon (which usually is getting a 2+ cover save itself).

Okay, and? That's an Artillery piece that if it gets its Cover save stripped is going down hard.

Guard also have a mortar vehicle that fires ignore cover (can't remember the name....just that it was brutal on my bugs and had a metric crap ton of small blast shots heh).

The Wyvern is well-known to be wildly undercosted, and it really isn't competing with anything beyond Leman Russ tanks for the Heavy Support slots.

The odds of guard getting it through orders is pretty good as well.

And those odds vanish completely if you kill the Company Command Squads. They're the ONLY way to get that Order.

Doesn't Mechanicus get ignores cover for a turn if they use the conclave formation?

Nope. There is no way to get Ignores Cover beyond Onagers with Icarus Arrays or fielding an Elimination Maniple to give Ignores Cover to your Kataphron Destroyers.

So many armies have flamers or template weapons...that ignore cover. Tau have to "take" marker lights so a shooting unit loses its ability to hurt something(tax seems to be the popular word here hehe) in order to put those markers on you...and at a dismal BS. It seems to me to be an even playing field (I play several different types of armies but sold all my marine stuff in sixth edition and have not built it back up yet).

Nobody uses Pathfinders for anything beyond Markerlights. And Markerlights Drones (spoiler alert here) sacrifice their weapons to have Markerlights instead.
And Pathfinders are BS3, same as Guardsmen.

If we use this discussion as a basis for rules voting then I suggest we put out a poll asking to ban psychic powers since the Tau and Dark Eldar don't have any and it's very bad for them. Ban Scout on marine bike armies because it is bad for my bugs and Tau...and my dark Eldar (but of course everything is bad for them heheh). Or we ban Grav because it is harsh for Eldar. Anything can look bad if taken out of context. There are weaknesses to the Tau that compensate for their strength. MEQ has much fewer weaknesses as compensation for all the benefits they receive and will always be top tier, if not for the rules then because whenever something comes out that can hurt them TO's ban it or nerf it because of discussions like this one. Heck I wish more tournaments went back to victory points as main objectives to help decrease all these spam armies and MSU since just about everything is objective or progressive objective based.

What weaknesses compensate for their ability to entirely remove Cover across multiple units firing as one with additional BS?

To add to this, I'm fairly certain the only way orks get "Ignore Cover" is from the Burna Bomms off of the Burna-Bommer, which is a paper-thin flyer unit.

For what it's worth I think Ignores Cover should come in a variety of flavours. Most of the time it should just be a -1 or -2 modifier, which I'd hope we could all agree is good but hardly over powerd, with only flamer templates and the more powerful larg blast templates getting a straight up Ignores Cover (and in the case of the latter only in the event of a direct hit).

Re-rollable jink saves should be banned outright.

I think the way Tau markerlights work along with their massive force multipliers and the ability to run Stormsurges, Ghostkeels and Riptides in squads are big problems but a separate topic. Same goes for the Eldar Farseer psychic trickery, the overabundance of scatter lasers and the under costing of the Wraithknight.

 Imateria wrote:
For what it's worth I think Ignores Cover should come in a variety of flavours. Most of the time it should just be a -1 or -2 modifier, which I'd hope we could all agree is good but hardly over powerd, with only flamer templates and the more powerful larg blast templates getting a straight up Ignores Cover (and in the case of the latter only in the event of a direct hit).

Re-rollable jink saves should be banned outright.

I think the way Tau markerlights work along with their massive force multipliers and the ability to run Stormsurges, Ghostkeels and Riptides in squads are big problems but a separate topic. Same goes for the Eldar Farseer psychic trickery, the overabundance of scatter lasers and the under costing of the Wraithknight.

Scatterlasers are too common and a Wraithknight should be an Apoc unit, though Unbound (wallet) rules says you can just through the standard CAD in favour for anything.

Auspex do not stack.

I just played in an ITC event against a DA bike squad with three auspex in a bike unit. Took my 3+ cover on my bugs to a six and the judge told me they do stack. All that plasma ate my lunch hehe. Add in that he scouted 12", moved 12" and was in double tap range turn one and in range for all his psy powers ( but I guess that is all okay because it is a MEQ army so it can't be broke huh...). He also had several psy powers that ignore cover so please don't cry for the DA. Nova powers ignore cover so again....no tears for all those psy heavy armies.....Tau can't counter the psy powers so invisibility is extra harsh, all the leadership based psy powers are also harsh. Summon spam lists are also tough.

Don't orks have burna boys anymore? I know they used to have burns trucks too but I am not up on the Ork codex.

Kuan I tried to make a logical argument for you to show you how common ignore cover is but it seems like you are too busy crying that your beer mug is half empty. Tau marker lights do what they are supposed to do and yes...benefit the Tau. Tau can't compete in the psy phase at all, suck in cc, and have to manipulate the list to get enough marker lights to do what they need.

As a side note I play bugs, haemonculus cult, old Eldar foot slogging list ( from fourth edition heh), but am planning on a Tau list mainly due to reading the Kauyan fluff. I am on the receiving end of ignores cover far more than the giving end but I do see soooooo many options for ignore cover throughout most codex's that I just don't see the big deal. If someone is spamming marker lights in a Tau list then they are buying fewer units that do actual damage. I guess I don't understand the perceived rage.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
For what it's worth I think Ignores Cover should come in a variety of flavours. Most of the time it should just be a -1 or -2 modifier, which I'd hope we could all agree is good but hardly over powerd, with only flamer templates and the more powerful larg blast templates getting a straight up Ignores Cover (and in the case of the latter only in the event of a direct hit).

Re-rollable jink saves should be banned outright.

I think the way Tau markerlights work along with their massive force multipliers and the ability to run Stormsurges, Ghostkeels and Riptides in squads are big problems but a separate topic. Same goes for the Eldar Farseer psychic trickery, the overabundance of scatter lasers and the under costing of the Wraithknight.

Scatterlasers are too common and a Wraithknight should be an Apoc unit, though Unbound (wallet) rules says you can just through the standard CAD in favour for anything.

Way to answer the main point of my post.

 Fishboy wrote:
I just played in an ITC event against a DA bike squad with three auspex in a bike unit. Took my 3+ cover on my bugs to a six and the judge told me they do stack.

Then that judge was an idiot.

A unit that is targeted by one or more auspexes has its cover save reduced by 1 until the end of the phase

All that plasma ate my lunch hehe. Add in that he scouted 12", moved 12" and was in double tap range turn one and in range for all his psy powers ( but I guess that is all okay because it is a MEQ army so it can't be broke huh...).

'Scuse me, where did anyone say that?

He also had several psy powers that ignore cover so please don't cry for the DA. Nova powers ignore cover so again....no tears for all those psy heavy armies.....Tau can't counter the psy powers so invisibility is extra harsh, all the leadership based psy powers are also harsh.

Invisibility is only really counterable by Tau if it's already gone off. Markerlight counters let you boost yourself back up to your normal BS, if not still exceed it(in the case of the Ranged Support Cadre). Summon spam lists are also tough.

Don't orks have burna boys anymore? I know they used to have burns trucks too but I am not up on the Ork codex.

Templates != Ignores Cover in the same way that you are thinking.

Kan I tried to make a logical argument for you to show you how common ignore cover is but it seems like you are too busy crying that your beer mug is half empty.

You do understand that "things which function like Ignores Cover" are not the same thing as "things which grant Ignores Cover to other things that could use it", right?

I get that you believe you're genuinely making a point--but you are completely missing the point that myself and others are making. There is effectively NO downside to running Markerlights. You have no real negatives. You lose Pulse Carbine shots in exchange for granting Ignores Cover and/or Ballistic Skill boosts to units that can deliver obscene amounts of firepower.

Tau marker lights do what they are supposed to do and yes...benefit the Tau. Tau can't compete in the psy phase at all, suck in cc, and have to manipulate the list to get enough marker lights to do what they need.

That's not even remotely true anymore.

If I take a Ranged Support Cadre, my three Pathfinder teams get to double the value of any Markerlights placed if used by any of the three Broadside units in the formation.
The Pathfinders also gain Infiltrate and Shrouded, provided they don't move from their starting location and they don't make any attack with any weapon beyond their Markerlights(with double Markerlight counters...why would you EVER do that?)--and the Broadsides can Supporting Fire for the Pathfinders as long as they have weapon range.

As a side note I play bugs, haemonculus cult, old Eldar foot slogging list ( from fourth edition heh), but am planning on a Tau list mainly due to reading the Kauyan fluff. I am on the receiving end of ignores cover far more than the giving end but I do see soooooo many options for ignore cover throughout most codex's that I just don't see the big deal. If someone is spamming marker lights in a Tau list then they are buying fewer units that do actual damage. I guess I don't understand the perceived rage.

Because you haven't actually ever really played against a competent Tau player who used the new lists?

And quite frankly, you listing off weapons that Ignores Cover shows that you don't really grasp the crux of the argument here:
Tau have the ability to grant Ignores Cover across large chunks of their army now, with no realistic penalties or downsides in a way that other armies have to actively build around/get lucky for.

You cannot BUILD around having Perfect Timing or always being able to pull off "Fire on My Target". You CAN however build around having large amounts of Markerlight counters and performing Coordinated Firepower attacks as Tau.

Orks do have burna boyz, but the only weapon that truly gets "ignore cover" in our codex are the burna bomms, which are gonna be super rare since the other two fliers are leagues better. And I probably won't take burnas any time soon either, since they're so goddam flimsy, have gak range, and take up a slot I could use for a lot better things. But having one unit and one flier with ignores cover doesn't really compare to an entire army being able to deny cover whenever the hell they want, wherever the hell they want, at absolutely zero risk.

In general, I'm not against the ignores cover rule. It's a fine thing that can make a unit real nice n' scary. And I'm really not that sore about my codex having pretty much none of it- I don't get lance either, but that's because it doesn't matter that much to my army. The issue is that Tau basically don't have to worry about cover ever, and that's removing a gigantic part of the game.

Tau get all the special rules and can ignore all the special rules... We call that Fair at GW HQ

There is a huge difference between a single S4 AP5 Flamer that requires the firing model to be within 8" of the nearest target, and granting "Ignores Cover" to Tau firepower or something more substantial.

But really, the big problem is with Invulnerable / Jink / other saves being better than a 4+ in any form, much less rerollable.

Yeah, those marine skimmers with the re-rollable +2 saves are goddam stupid. But like it's been said before, markerlights aren't a solution to this, and they shouldn't be. The rules just need to be reworked so that 2+ rerollable saves aren't easily achievable.

Said it before a hundred times, saying it yet again.

Jinks need to be their own save. It's stupid that "Ignores Cover" gets put out to counter Jinks.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Said it before a hundred times, saying it yet again.

Jinks need to be their own save. It's stupid that "Ignores Cover" gets put out to counter Jinks.

That's not a bad idea, actually. That way armies could get more "ignore jink" than "ignore cover," and cover bonuses wouldn't stack with jink saves.

 Vitali Advenil wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Said it before a hundred times, saying it yet again.

Jinks need to be their own save. It's stupid that "Ignores Cover" gets put out to counter Jinks.

That's not a bad idea, actually. That way armies could get more "ignore jink" than "ignore cover," and cover bonuses wouldn't stack with jink saves.

This is actually a pretty good idea. I hate to make the game any more complex, but I think this would be a lot less of a cantankerous change. It would also allow for maybe finding a role for some weapons that no longer have one.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Said it before a hundred times, saying it yet again.

Jinks need to be their own save. It's stupid that "Ignores Cover" gets put out to counter Jinks.

Its not a bad move. The one thing you need to balance out in this change is the fact there currently is no ignore jink save units. The only one I can think of is dark reapers..

This also means that fliers would essentially have a 4+ save you can't remove.. making some flyers very powerful.. crimson hunter formation comes to mind.

@Kan, ranged support cadre is cool and all but you won't see it used. Other formations are better. I think you will see a trend of less marker lights in general now because of bonuses like combined fire.

It's been said by a few others taus access to marker lights is a neccessity because shooting is the phase they need to win. If you removed marker lights, nothing except the relic can grant ignore cover and they would have less ignore cover access then other armies.

Explain to me how access to ignore cover and weapons that ignore cover are so different that you can't discuss them together? I get it, access to it is "better" but the rest should not be ignored.

It also should be noted that once you take out the marker light source, you can really cripple the Taus offense because of their lower BS stat. Not as much now because of the newer contingent and some formation bonuses, but it's still a large factor. Another reason why they are meant to be good upfront.

I have never played a game where I had markerlights last more than a few turns. They usually get flamed by a pod, or inevitably fail a leadership.

What I love about tau now, is the fact I don't run marker lights at all in some of my lists. They just aren't needed in mass like they used to be.

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Said it before a hundred times, saying it yet again.

Jinks need to be their own save. It's stupid that "Ignores Cover" gets put out to counter Jinks.

Its not a bad move. The one thing you need to balance out in this change is the fact there currently is no ignore jink save units. The only one I can think of is dark reapers..

This also means that fliers would essentially have a 4+ save you can't remove.. making some flyers very powerful.. crimson hunter formation comes to mind.

The Hydra Flak Tank, prior to Robin Cruddace getting his filthy meathooks on it, had the ability to ignore Jink saves and the ability to prevent their target from moving Flat Out.

@Kan, ranged support cadre is cool and all but you won't see it used. Other formations are better. I think you will see a trend of less marker lights in general now because of bonuses like combined fire.

Already seen it played actually. It's brutal on armies that like to assault, because if one charges those Pathfinder teams? You're getting Overwatched from across the board. Don't underestimate the RSC. Ever.

It's been said by a few others taus access to marker lights is a neccessity because shooting is the phase they need to win. If you removed marker lights, nothing except the relic can grant ignore cover and they would have less ignore cover access then other armies.

Er, not really. If one looks at the number of weapons that most armies have with Ignores Cover? You're about at the sweet spot of around 1-3 weapons that aren't Flamers or Barrage with Ignores Cover.

Explain to me how access to ignore cover and weapons that ignore cover are so different that you can't discuss them together? I get it, access to it is "better" but the rest should not be ignored.

I shouldn't have to explain how the ability to give Ignores Cover on demand to your heavy hitting weapons that don't come with Ignores Cover as standard is better than building a list around weapons with Ignores Cover.
One of those abilities allows you to build your army to take on anything or everything while just ensuring you have a viable source of Markerlights.
The other restricts you to build around options with Ignores Cover or randomized chances to get Ignores Cover(like Psykers with Divination; unless you have a Psyker who gets to pick their powers? You have a chance to get that Power, not a guarantee) that you have to mitigate.

It also should be noted that once you take out the marker light source, you can really cripple the Taus offense because of their lower BS stat. Not as much now because of the newer contingent and some formation bonuses, but it's still a large factor. Another reason why they are meant to be good upfront.

That's great and all, but so are Guard. Guard aren't "good upfront" though. The new Cadian Detachment does a lot to offset that, but the tax you pay to use the Detachment and its bonuses is obscene. My current list is looking at around 2450 just so I could add some Skyfire in the form of ML with Flakk. I can just eke out 2300 points if I remove Flakk.
That list is for no auxiliary choices as well. That 2300 points gets me:
2 Company Command Squads
3 Platoon Command Squads
15 Infantry Squads, with mixes of Plasma/Meltaguns and Missile Launchers, alongside of Vox-Casters.
9 Armored Sentinels; 6 with Autocannon and 3 with Plasma Cannon.

If you want to complain about bringing Markerlights--I'd gladly trade you issues.

I have never played a game where I had markerlights last more than a few turns. They usually get flamed by a pod, or inevitably fail a leadership.

Not every army is bringing pods or has reliable options for deep strike.

If your Pathfinders are getting flamed by Drop Pods, where is your EWO in all of this? It's a 5 point upgrade for Interceptor. There is literally no excuse not to take it.

What I love about tau now, is the fact I don't run marker lights at all in some of my lists. They just aren't needed in mass like they used to be.

Yep. They're really not; especially if you just run Optimised Stealth Cadres

I haven't done the math on this to be sure, but I suspect that a problem is that, if you make 1 markerlight reduce cover saves by 1, it generally becomes mathematically better to use it to increase BS by 1 instead.

Alcibiades wrote:
I haven't done the math on this to be sure, but I suspect that a problem is that, if you make 1 markerlight reduce cover saves by 1, it generally becomes mathematically better to use it to increase BS by 1 instead.

Which is why time and time again, I have said to make it not "Markerlights reduce 1 point of cover per token expended". Make it so that a Markerlight that hits removes a point of cover and spread out some more cover reduction into other items.

And really, it makes no sense at this juncture that a laser pointer makes it impossible for a unit to hide in a building.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
I haven't done the math on this to be sure, but I suspect that a problem is that, if you make 1 markerlight reduce cover saves by 1, it generally becomes mathematically better to use it to increase BS by 1 instead.

Which is why time and time again, I have said to make it not "Markerlights reduce 1 point of cover per token expended". Make it so that a Markerlight that hits removes a point of cover and spread out some more cover reduction into other items.

And really, it makes no sense at this juncture that a laser pointer makes it impossible for a unit to hide in a building.

They're clearly not laser pointers, but some kind of sophisticated data-sharing thingie, and they do not allow you to fire through walls.

Why have a point of ML remove cover by 1 if you can get the same effect by increasing BS?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yeah I did the math. At least against lightly armored targets like Orks, until you hit BS6, increasing BS and reducing cover save by 1 point per markerlight have identical effects, so you might as well not have any ignored cover effect at all.

Alcibiades wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
I haven't done the math on this to be sure, but I suspect that a problem is that, if you make 1 markerlight reduce cover saves by 1, it generally becomes mathematically better to use it to increase BS by 1 instead.

Which is why time and time again, I have said to make it not "Markerlights reduce 1 point of cover per token expended". Make it so that a Markerlight that hits removes a point of cover and spread out some more cover reduction into other items.

And really, it makes no sense at this juncture that a laser pointer makes it impossible for a unit to hide in a building.

They're clearly not laser pointers, but some kind of sophisticated data-sharing thingie

Have you actually read the fluff on Markerlights?
They actually are effectively "laser pointers", just like the current SOFLAM systems in use. It's a laser designator.

Now, where things get interesting is that the Tau have a widespread "data-net" of which Markerlights are a part of the data being relayed around--but there is no real way to effectively represent that on the tabletop.

and they do not allow you to fire through walls.

And yet, that's what it does for basically everything in the Tau book. Pulse Rifles, Carbines, missile pods, etc all can suddenly start popping through walls at people.
I would be fine with Heavy Railrifles, Railguns, and Railrifles gaining the ability to Ignore Cover when firing at a Markerlight target and only using the "solid shot" variant--but that's for a different thread.

Why have a point of ML remove cover by 1 if you can get the same effect by increasing BS?

Read what I posted, not what you thought I posted.

This is what I posted:

Which is why time and time again, I have said to make it not "Markerlights reduce 1 point of cover per token expended". Make it so that a Markerlight that hits removes a point of cover and spread out some more cover reduction into other items.

You seem to still be under the impression that I'm saying "Each Markerlight counter should remove a point of cover". Absolutely not. I'm saying that rather than giving out Ignores Cover to every flippin' thing in the Tau arsenal, it should be that a Markerlight hit removes a point of cover at the cost of no counter. Rework "Scour" entirely and make it so that it can remove Stealth or Shrouded on units in the open or enables a Tau unit to declare the ruins/fortifications that a unit are sheltering in as a target.

Also, in what world is removing a point of cover the same effect as increasing Ballistic Skill?

In mathhammer number of hits and wounds vs save



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I actually think your version of a free -1 reduction in cover might be more powerful then it already is. Sure I'll take a free -1 cover when the majority of the time units have 5+ intervening cover. I'll then use that marker light I haven't used yet to increase my BS and thus inflicting even more damage because I have more hits to wound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe as someone else mentioned a fair compromise would be reduced cover to a worse save of 6+ in terrain.

Maybe another option scour removes stealth and shrouded.

Again tho I feel like there are going to be other balance issues with however you change it.

All in all, your talking about 6 marker light hits in the average list a turn. So a max of 3 targets being removed cover. That's really not that crazy.

 Grizzyzz wrote:
In mathhammer number of hits and wounds vs save

And in mathhammer, you put forth all of the variables you used. He's just throwing out numbers.
What units were firing at the "lightly armored units in cover"? Was there any template/blast weaponry in there?

I actually think your version of a free -1 reduction in cover might be more powerful then it already is. Sure I'll take a free -1 cover when the majority of the time units have 5+ intervening cover. I'll then use that marker light I haven't used yet to increase my BS and thus inflicting even more damage because I have more hits to wound.

Sure, when you're only playing "5+ intervening cover" that might seem exceedingly powerful. But for units that right now just get their entire cover save wiped out by 2 Markerlight Counters?
That's a marked increase in their survivability going from "No Saves Allowed" to "6+ Save".

That's not taking into account things like Stealth or Shrouded or special rules like Bullgryn Slabshields.

Maybe as someone else mentioned a fair compromise would be reduced cover to a worse save of 6+ in terrain.

A "fair compromise" is that Markerlights have to wound and cannot target units in terrain.

Maybe another option scour removes stealth and shrouded.

Again tho I feel like there are going to be other balance issues with however you change it.

Well yeah, of course there are going to be issues to work out when you change things.

All in all, your talking about 6 marker light hits in the average list a turn. So a max of 3 targets being removed cover. That's really not that crazy.

A max of 3 targets losing ALL cover and being potentially shot at by 3+ units at a boosted Ballistic Skill.

Yeah. It kinda is that crazy.

That's not at all a fair compromise lol. What str and ap would markerlighrs be? Would they be something like poison? I thnk a 50% hit rate is already fair enough.

Not allowing to hit units in terrain is also kinda silly.

If you combine fire your focusing on fewer units. So essentially it's worse against MSU armies.

It's pretty obvious your set in exactly what you want.. and nothing said will make any difference.

You both know that Markerlights are heavy 1 right?

Markers being heavy only affects Pathfinders and Firewarrior Shas'ui that take a Markerlight + Targetlocks. Everything else that can get them are relentless.

And i agree with Grizzyzz: making Markers not hit units in terrain is plain stupid. Since when do you never have terrain cover unless youre about to charge? If you have units not trying to charge out of terrain, you probably need more terrain in your game.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
You both know that Markerlights are heavy 1 right?

They also have 36" range. Being heavy doesn't really matter with such long range.
Not to mention that vehicles and drones can take markerlights as well.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
You both know that Markerlights are heavy 1 right?

They also have 36" range. Being heavy doesn't really matter with such long range.
Not to mention that vehicles and drones can take markerlights as well.

Just had to make sure. I had a buddy who never knew they were heavy.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Markers being heavy only affects Pathfinders and Firewarrior Shas'ui that take a Markerlight + Targetlocks. Everything else that can get them are relentless.

And i agree with Grizzyzz: making Markers not hit units in terrain is plain stupid. Since when do you never have terrain cover unless youre about to charge? If you have units not trying to charge out of terrain, you probably need more terrain in your game.

The Markerlights not hitting units in terrain was a continuation of something I'd said earlier; in that it should "mark" the terrain rather than the unit within.

If I point a SOFLAM at a building, unless you're dropping ordnance? It won't matter because the building is still in the way.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Markers being heavy only affects Pathfinders and Firewarrior Shas'ui that take a Markerlight + Targetlocks. Everything else that can get them are relentless.

And i agree with Grizzyzz: making Markers not hit units in terrain is plain stupid. Since when do you never have terrain cover unless youre about to charge? If you have units not trying to charge out of terrain, you probably need more terrain in your game.

The Markerlights not hitting units in terrain was a continuation of something I'd said earlier; in that it should "mark" the terrain rather than the unit within.

If I point a SOFLAM at a building, unless you're dropping ordnance? It won't matter because the building is still in the way.

How would that work in game though?
Markerlighting a building I can understand, because rules wise a building is more or less an immobile vehicle with a few extra rules, but against more ephemeral cover, such as a KFF?
It does seem logical, but I'm not sure how it work out mechanically.

KFF is an invulnerable save these days.

Oh is it now?
I hate getting my editions confused. Its the worst

KFF being an invul is literally the only GOOD change the Orks got. The other "good" change just made us spam Warbikers instead of Nobbikers so not like you missed much if you didnt get the ork dex.

If we go with markers can't hit people in terrain, we need to take a look at:
- blasts hitting every floor of a building
- blasts even effecting units in buildings.. I mean it just hits the wall right?
- templates only hitting units like they do through fire ports.. or not at all. Cause there is a wall in the way.

There are many things that don't make complete sense.. but make the game faster and sometimes less difficult.. sometimes.

 Grizzyzz wrote:
If we go with markers can't hit people in terrain, we need to take a look at:
- blasts hitting every floor of a building
- blasts even effecting units in buildings.. I mean it just hits the wall right?
- templates only hitting units like they do through fire ports.. or not at all. Cause there is a wall in the way.

There are many things that don't make complete sense.. but make the game faster and sometimes less difficult.. sometimes.

We can look at those when Markerlights don't affect a whole unit when one guy gets hit with a laser pointer.

I still say go back to the 4th edition rules, nobody complained about those.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I still say go back to the 4th edition rules, nobody complained about those.

Heh. This is Dakka. There are people who seriously complain Decurion isn't good enough, and Gladius doesn't give enough benefits...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I still say go back to the 4th edition rules, nobody complained about those.

Heh. This is Dakka. There are people who seriously complain Decurion isn't good enough, and Gladius doesn't give enough benefits...

Obsec Ironclads are awesome. Totally worth the 450 points