Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Rockfish wrote:


You can say that but I want to be able to field a balanced force of infantry backed up with a few crisis suits and broadsides, a semi fluffy feeling list. However in order to do so I have to take units that are statistically worse than others in my faction, to the point where I effectively have to spend 30% of my points to be objectively worse than the boring lists of commanders and fire warriors that are flooding tau forums. Would it be unreasonable to expect that crisis suits perform competitively compared to commanders?

From ATT:

One Commander costs much less than two identically-armed XV8s, yet has more firepower. For example, one Commander with 4 Burst Cannons costs 116 points and statistically hits 13 times, while two XV8s armed with three Burst Cannons each cost 144 points total, yet will only statistically hit 12 times.

Most of issues tau players are complaining about are that our units are a often a commander but worse, a HYMP broadside is a commander with 4xMP but worse, etc. One can make the argument that maybe commanders are undercosted, and this maybe true, but at the same time people are spamming the commanders without curbstomping people so far. This may change with tournaments overtime, but if people are still not breaking even with our 'ideal' units maybe it would at least be fine to bring our other units back in line when compared to commanders at least.

Oh yeah and people complaining about markerlights should be aware of the the AM spotlight
From Facepunch

They also accidentally created one of the best units in the game with the Sabre platform with defensive searchlight, which is unfortunately no longer for sale. However if you were to make your own out of vehicle spotlights, for 20 points per platform (available in teams of 1-3) you get a unit which can target any enemy unit within 48" and line of sight. Then, one Imperial Guard unit can use the marker to get +1 to hit, much like an old school Tau markerlight. Even better, these do not have to roll to hit, and there is nothing that says the benefit doesn't stack with multiple spotlights or other bonuses. With 3 Saber platforms and an officer giving front rank fire, second rank fire, a unit of 50 conscripts will hit on 2+'s with 100 lasgun shots at 24", or 200 lasgun shots within 12".

In terms of the Commander, I do concede that he is statistically better than two crisis suits on average. However the Crisis suits do bring something else to the mix. First (going by the example listed, this is assuming we're talking about two suits armed with 3 burst cannons each, totaling 6 over the commander's 1 suit with 4) is that it's two models rather than one, mitigating multi-damage weapons a little bit better than the commander (although only in the case of low rate of fire multi damage weapons, like the lascannon). And while the Commander has more hits on average, the suits have the potential for more hits in total. On the other hand, the commander, as I understand it, can hand out buffs on top of this. Whether or not the differences is worth the extra 30 points is up for debate, but for me the differences are small enough that I wouldn't go and say Crisis suits are worthless. The reason I focus on potential rather than statistics is because this edition is something I view as a far more tactical game, so flat out potential can sometimes be worth more than statistical calculation. At the very least, the absolute maximum number of shots the commander can put out per turn might make me thing twice about who he shoots, even if he's statistically going to kill more than two crisis suits. If I remember, crisis suits now come bare minimum of 3 models, so in this example there would be somewhere around 9 burst cannons in that one unit. Against hordes and swarms (which seem pretty prevailant this edition) I would rather use crisis suits on them over the commander if given the option; statistically more will die to the commander, but the suits have the potential to wipe the entire unit. And as several of these threads have shown, sometimes the difference between completely wiping a unit and leaving one or two models alive can mean all the difference.

Again, not saying the Crisis suits are better than commanders (in fact I do agree they are statistically worse), but they do have their uses. And unlike last edition, even units that are "worse" are worse by a smaller margin this time around (with a few exceptions, like the Dire Avengers). It wasn't a giant chasm of suck like the 7th ed Berserkers vs World Eaters Chaos Space Marines.

On the subject of the AM though, I believe that's a forge world unit? I fully agree that FW dropped the ball on their Index and that one needs a rewrite. That is a completely different issue than the GW indexes. But then again it is forge world; they've never had a stellar track record for their rules (GW at least had some moments in the past, like the Dark Eldar 5E codex).

The problem with potential is that the Tau already suffer from unreliability in their big guns (hammerhead, HRR broadside, etc), without also having to suffer from it in their small guns too. Crisis suits can win a game with their potential, but over a tournament that unreliability is gonna bite you. Why would you bring a squad of crisis suits for 216 and hit ~18 shots, when you can bring two commanders for 232 and hit ~26?

Most of my bringing up the AM is that people are gonna use them, just like people use Y'Vahra.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

In terms of the Commander, I do concede that he is statistically better than two crisis suits on average. However the Crisis suits do bring something else to the mix. First (going by the example listed, this is assuming we're talking about two suits armed with 3 burst cannons each, totaling 6 over the commander's 1 suit with 4) is that it's two models rather than one, mitigating multi-damage weapons a little bit better than the commander (although only in the case of low rate of fire multi damage weapons, like the lascannon). And while the Commander has more hits on average, the suits have the potential for more hits in total. On the other hand, the commander, as I understand it, can hand out buffs on top of this. Whether or not the differences is worth the extra 30 points is up for debate, but for me the differences are small enough that I wouldn't go and say Crisis suits are worthless. The reason I focus on potential rather than statistics is because this edition is something I view as a far more tactical game, so flat out potential can sometimes be worth more than statistical calculation. At the very least, the absolute maximum number of shots the commander can put out per turn might make me thing twice about who he shoots, even if he's statistically going to kill more than two crisis suits. If I remember, crisis suits now come bare minimum of 3 models, so in this example there would be somewhere around 9 burst cannons in that one unit. Against hordes and swarms (which seem pretty prevailant this edition) I would rather use crisis suits on them over the commander if given the option; statistically more will die to the commander, but the suits have the potential to wipe the entire unit. And as several of these threads have shown, sometimes the difference between completely wiping a unit and leaving one or two models alive can mean all the difference.

Again, not saying the Crisis suits are better than commanders (in fact I do agree they are statistically worse), but they do have their uses. And unlike last edition, even units that are "worse" are worse by a smaller margin this time around (with a few exceptions, like the Dire Avengers). It wasn't a giant chasm of suck like the 7th ed Berserkers vs World Eaters Chaos Space Marines.

Basically you're arguing that the Maximum should be taken into consideration. You are absolutely correct.
A Crisis Suit Team with 2 Missile Pods+ATS would have 12 Shots... the problem is that this will cost 294 points
A Commander in comparison will have 3 Missile Pods+ATS, so 6 Shots... at 156 points

So, 2 Commanders will have equal number of shots as 3 Crisis Suits, for only 18 points more.

Maybe that was a bad example? Regardless Commanders have 4 Slots, compared to 3 Slots for Crisis Suits.
Even with Full Weapon Loadouts, that still means 8 to 9.

Martel732 wrote:
Fire warriors are 8 pts. You'll be fine.

OMFG Just looked this up.

Ork Players Would KILL to get a 4+ save on their BS5+ 18" st 4 shoota boys for 8 lousy points. Absolutely KILL for something that good.

Except you get 30" range at bs4+ and st 5.

I don't get it. What is Tau complaining about? Just line up 200 fire warriors and blast the world off the table.

Because most Tau players own the large suits from 6/7th, and don't go back to fish of fury.

 JimOnMars wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Fire warriors are 8 pts. You'll be fine.

OMFG Just looked this up.

Ork Players Would KILL to get a 4+ save on their BS5+ 18" st 4 shoota boys for 8 lousy points. Absolutely KILL for something that good.

Except you get 30" range at bs4+ and st 5.

I don't get it. What is Tau complaining about? Just line up 200 fire warriors and blast the world off the table.

You know, ork boys are supposed to be melee unit and they are damn good at it right now. 4 atk per model + hidden claws.

About the FW: switch them to gundrones, 4+, T4, assault4 str5 18' shooting (BS5+) for the same 8 pts. And this is how the Tau works this edition. 100+ drones and commanders. The question is - will you wan't to play such army? The only tactical decision you made is choosing shooting order. This is boring as hell and still statistically worse than those 150+ boys.

 JimOnMars wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Fire warriors are 8 pts. You'll be fine.

OMFG Just looked this up.

Ork Players Would KILL to get a 4+ save on their BS5+ 18" st 4 shoota boys for 8 lousy points. Absolutely KILL for something that good.

Except you get 30" range at bs4+ and st 5.

I don't get it. What is Tau complaining about? Just line up 200 fire warriors and blast the world off the table.

The problem is that Tau can't be a horde army, morale losses are too much. Other horde armies have ways to negate Morale tests, while Tau do not.

And you cannot win a game spamming infantry, you also need big guns. And Tau big guns are unbalanced and overcosted.

 JimOnMars wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Fire warriors are 8 pts. You'll be fine.

OMFG Just looked this up.

Ork Players Would KILL to get a 4+ save on their BS5+ 18" st 4 shoota boys for 8 lousy points. Absolutely KILL for something that good.

Except you get 30" range at bs4+ and st 5.

I don't get it. What is Tau complaining about? Just line up 200 fire warriors and blast the world off the table.

The problem is a single unit does not make a good codex (see flyrents in 7th), the thing people keep skimming over when considering the Tau balance is that they see we have some good units and point them out without consideration to the internal balance of Tau. I believe that the Orks are suffering from a similar thing right now, tho this may be less visible because of hordes being more viable for them. Right now the Tau index suffers from units beyond FW, Commanders, Vespid, and Longstrike + Hammerhead being inferior to commanders or just plain old worthless like the skyray, resulting in boring lists and even more boring hobby. I am gonna be honest the biggest thing stopping me from spamming FW is that they are honestly pretty boring to paint, other than a squad leader they are effectively identical with little to be creative on, ordinarily this is fine cause I get to have breaks and paint cool suits and stuff but there is no point in doing so right now.

Rockfish wrote:
The problem is a single unit does not make a good codex

And yet people are claiming Orks are good because of Boyz. Go figure.

Silver144 wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Fire warriors are 8 pts. You'll be fine.

OMFG Just looked this up.

Ork Players Would KILL to get a 4+ save on their BS5+ 18" st 4 shoota boys for 8 lousy points. Absolutely KILL for something that good.

Except you get 30" range at bs4+ and st 5.

I don't get it. What is Tau complaining about? Just line up 200 fire warriors and blast the world off the table.

You know, ork boys are supposed to be melee unit and they are damn good at it right now. 4 atk per model + hidden claws.

About the FW: switch them to gundrones, 4+, T4, assault4 str5 18' shooting (BS5+) for the same 8 pts. And this is how the Tau works this edition. 100+ drones and commanders. The question is - will you wan't to play such army? The only tactical decision you made is choosing shooting order. This is boring as hell and still statistically worse than those 150+ boys.

Shoota boyz are 3 attacks per model if there are 20 of them, 2 if not. Yes, they are good at combat, just like tau are good at shooting.

The problem is the 6+ armor for 6 points vs 4+ armor for 8. If and when orks get armor, it is almost certain that they will pay 10 or more points total. This is the problem. 6+ armor should get them some kind of discount relative to all the cheaper 5+ armor around and 4+ armor that is so cheaply found elsewhere.

 Melissia wrote:

Rockfish wrote:
The problem is a single unit does not make a good codex

And yet people are claiming Orks are good because of Boyz. Go figure.

Indeed, I even mentioned this in my post but I don't play Orks so I did not want to comment too much on that. It is particularly interesting when you consider right now the bottom two faction seem to be Orks and Tau, I suspect the reason people are not talking about it is that Ork players already had a enough boys to make lists work.

Rockfish wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

Rockfish wrote:
The problem is a single unit does not make a good codex

And yet people are claiming Orks are good because of Boyz. Go figure.

Indeed, I even mentioned this in my post but I don't play Orks so I did not want to comment too much on that. It is particularly interesting when you consider right now the bottom two faction seem to be Orks and Tau, I suspect the reason people are not talking about it is that Ork players already had a enough boys to make lists work.

Evidently not, they are getting hammered right now. I reckon people are just used to Orks being bad. Nobody ever takes an Ork list looking to be competitive, so we have nobody who's used to just playing "point, click, delete".

Rockfish wrote:
Indeed, I even mentioned this in my post but I don't play Orks so I did not want to comment too much on that. It is particularly interesting when you consider right now the bottom two faction seem to be Orks and Tau, I suspect the reason people are not talking about it is that Ork players already had a enough boys to make lists work.

And yet the Ork win/loss rate is so bad it's only equalled by Tau. It's tragically bad. Even Orks that play spamming Boyz don't have a good winrate. Boyz just aren't that good.

Silver144 wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Fire warriors are 8 pts. You'll be fine.

OMFG Just looked this up.

Ork Players Would KILL to get a 4+ save on their BS5+ 18" st 4 shoota boys for 8 lousy points. Absolutely KILL for something that good.

Except you get 30" range at bs4+ and st 5.

I don't get it. What is Tau complaining about? Just line up 200 fire warriors and blast the world off the table.

You know, ork boys are supposed to be melee unit and they are damn good at it right now. 4 atk per model + hidden claws.

Boyz are only 2 attacks per model with +1 for a choppa that they lose if they go for a shoota. The 4th attack requires support from a wierdboy which I refuse to include by default into this calculation on principal, given the dakkadakka tau community's seeming aversion to markerlights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Silver144 wrote:

About the FW: switch them to gundrones, 4+, T4, assault4 str5 18' shooting (BS5+) for the same 8 pts. And this is how the Tau works this edition. 100+ drones and commanders. The question is - will you wan't to play such army? The only tactical decision you made is choosing shooting order. This is boring as hell and still statistically worse than those 150+ boys.

Gundrones have LD 6 unless they're in an ethereal's bubble. Firewarriors have 7, 8 with a sergeant, and don't need a nearby drone controller.

Gundrones ARE great, especially if you properly support them, but don't go and replace all your firewarriors with them. That's a bad idea.

Like anything, the tool relies on the hand of the user. I didn't have any problems wiping the floor with people in 7th with pure Dark Eldar. But people who rely on old tricks that helped them win in 7th won't help them here. It's way too soon to know what's OP or not.

 Gamerely wrote:
Like anything, the tool relies on the hand of the user. I didn't have any problems wiping the floor with people in 7th with pure Dark Eldar. But people who rely on old tricks that helped them win in 7th won't help them here. It's way too soon to know what's OP or not.

It's really silly to just assume everyone who plays a top tier army is a low tier player. I agree it's generally too soon to judge (though AM is such a massive outlier already that they're a clear problem) but saying that imbalances are fine because you can stomp on bad players is just silly.

 Arandmoor wrote:

Silver144 wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Fire warriors are 8 pts. You'll be fine.

OMFG Just looked this up.

Ork Players Would KILL to get a 4+ save on their BS5+ 18" st 4 shoota boys for 8 lousy points. Absolutely KILL for something that good.

Except you get 30" range at bs4+ and st 5.

I don't get it. What is Tau complaining about? Just line up 200 fire warriors and blast the world off the table.

You know, ork boys are supposed to be melee unit and they are damn good at it right now. 4 atk per model + hidden claws.

Boyz are only 2 attacks per model with +1 for a choppa that they lose if they go for a shoota. The 4th attack requires support from a wierdboy which I refuse to include by default into this calculation on principal, given the dakkadakka tau community's seeming aversion to markerlights.

And they got the Greentide rule, which gives them third base attack when they are 20+ models. And every ork I saw maximaze boyz units due morale mechanic. And with wierdboy it is up to 5 atk.

But overall you right - this is 3(4)(5) atk per model.

Silver144 wrote:

 Arandmoor wrote:

Silver144 wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Fire warriors are 8 pts. You'll be fine.

OMFG Just looked this up.

Ork Players Would KILL to get a 4+ save on their BS5+ 18" st 4 shoota boys for 8 lousy points. Absolutely KILL for something that good.

Except you get 30" range at bs4+ and st 5.

I don't get it. What is Tau complaining about? Just line up 200 fire warriors and blast the world off the table.

You know, ork boys are supposed to be melee unit and they are damn good at it right now. 4 atk per model + hidden claws.

Boyz are only 2 attacks per model with +1 for a choppa that they lose if they go for a shoota. The 4th attack requires support from a wierdboy which I refuse to include by default into this calculation on principal, given the dakkadakka tau community's seeming aversion to markerlights.

And they got the Greentide rule, which gives them third base attack when they are 20+ models. And every ork I saw maximaze boyz units due morale mechanic. And with wierdboy it is up to 5 atk.

But overall you right - this is 3(4)(5) atk per model.

I completely forgot about green tide. Mia culpa.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MoD_Legion wrote:

 Arandmoor wrote:
Yeah. As has been said, it looks like there are a lot of tau players who never learned how to actually play tau. Every step in the markerlight table has a distinct value to it that cannot necessarily be mathed out, and it looks like there are a lot of Tau players who simply don't know the game well enough to take advantage because they take one look at it and say "first hit and last hit are the only ones worth it"

One hit has obvious benefits. Especially if you're firing anything Ion.

If a vehicle has 4 or 5 wounds left, two markerlight hits can let you finish it off one seeker at a time if you have a heavy weapon that doesn't quite get the job done. How many times have you said "Oh man, just one more wound!" or "If I roll a 4, 5, or 6, it dies", only to roll a 3? This fixes that problem.

Piece of area terrain blocking sight for your heavy weapons? Three markerlight hits allows you to move into position and open them up. There are a lot of heavy weapons in the Tau index that 3 markerlight hits will help you get into position, and most of them are attached to highly mobile units that love to move.

Are you fielding Breachers? How about squads of gun drones? Stealth suits? Ghostkeels? Hell...a Riptide? Three markerlight hits let them move, advance, and open up without penalty.

Marines scout-snipers in cover? Four markerlight hits and you can make them gone.

Don't like your odds on finishing off an almost dead target because all your seeker mounting units had to move this turn? Two more markerlight hits can fix that (remember boys and girls. Seeker missiles are Heavy 1)

5-man Marine fire team in a building with a 1+ save because city fight rules are giving them +2 to their saves? Four Markerlight hits and your breacher team will dust them.

Five markerlight hits gets you a +1 BS. However, it also grants the rest of the markerlight benefits as well. Tag something 5 times and you reroll 1's, get your BS on seekers to fix those "I almost killed it!" moments, can move and shoot with heavy weapons and advance and shoot assault weapons without penalty, ignore cover, AND get +1 to hit. All at the same time.

The only people who look at that and think "Gee, only the first markerlight is worth anything" are Tau players. Literally everyone else is telling you that markerlights are awesome, and that we fear them because they will allow you to wreck us.

I just don't get it.

I'm sorry but, how many markerlights does this imaginary tau army have? Even with 2 full squads of pathfinders, which is realistically the max anybody will ever take, you average around 10 ML hits (it might be a little higher when you split fire between the squad or do the slow roll to take advantage of their own 1+ reroll, but given they didnt move and havent take any casualties as well). so yea, how many times can you throw 4+ tokens at a unit in cover? How are you going to ensure those 5+ token on that single vehicle that is already almost dead to 'guarantee' it is dead, without accidentally coming up short or massively over saturating the target (in which case grats those 5+ token are now gone because the target is dead and you lost any opportunity to do more damage which those tokens elsewhere)? And, how many tokens do you have left to get 3+ hits on other targets for all those ghostkeels you didnt take target locks on?

People that think markerlights are still good dont know what they are talking about. The 1+ reroll is nice for a little bit added to hit, and yea its good when overcharging ion weapons, but the rest is just to high a cost and unreliably to be useful. You'll either end up with to few hits to achieve the result you wanted, or to many wasting even more point efficiency. And dont get me started on seeker missiles, they were marginally useful in 7th but hitting at firer bs is just so bad for the dmg they do for a one shot weapon.

With 160 points of pathfinders (before drones), a cadre fireblade, and two to three markerdrones, you should be able to all but guarantee 5 hits on two units every turn unless your opponent focuses on removing your markerlights from the table. With that, you should be actively focusing on utterly removing whatever your markerlight from the table, which suggests a LOT of concentrated fire. The fireblade marks once for one pathfinder squad, and the marker drones mark for the other. The first hit should guarantee the other four.

If you're shooting at more than one or two enemy units per turn, IMO, you're doing it wrong. Doesn't matter what army you run.

You want first blood. You want to un-wrap your enemy's characters and expose them to shooting by killing the units screening for them, and the +1 to hit from markerlights with concentrated fire is the best way to do it.