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.

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.