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.

 Gamgee wrote:
This wall is amazing.

Imma just take that for my signature, thank you very much.

jimkurtjimmy wrote:
So if I'm reading this correctly a land raider crusader could kill itself by shooting hurricane bolters at tau on the other side of a shield wall?

Yes, you are correct. However, it's only on successful cover saves (50% chance without Going To Ground) and then only on a six. You're about as vulnerable to massed grav fire as the Tidewall Rampart's shield deflection.

At least RAW you could argue that the units has to be wholly contained within the terrain, so you can't park a Riptide or Stormsurge on it and claim the benefits.

jimkurtjimmy wrote:
So if I'm reading this correctly a land raider crusader could kill itself by shooting hurricane bolters at tau on the other side of a shield wall?

No, I don't think so. You can't "wound" a vehicle. It would still need an armor pen roll & the reflected shot doesn't have a strength value.

A few points Kanluwen. First off, you're right about me misunderstanding your point with the Structural Analyzer. I assumed that you were talking about trying to markerlight unit with Darkstrider's in order for another unit to benefit since whenever Tau players talk about markerlights this is how we are usually talking about them. It's one of the many reasons drone's became such a popular markerlight platform. You can put target locks and missile pods on any suits attached to the squad except for the drone controller so that minimal firepower from the squad is wasted on a unit you are markerlighting for the most suitable platform to actually kill. So, in this case, my own experience was creating a bias in how i interpreted your sentence. Apologies. Seconds, Holy Crap. You're right about Darkstrider's Fighting Retreat isn't a warlord trait. I'll admit that that is news to me because I had the character explained to me by a friend who likes using him and, apparently, needed to do more reading on him myself. So, you just gave me a much happier friend today. Thank you.

Now, on to your actual points. Most of them are just speculation on the fact that he will synergize very well with Breacher squads when they come out. Since I already agreed to this assessment in my initial post I don't see what the point of continuing to say this is. In addition, your idea that he could end up in a Decurion style formation is just speculation. I'll point you to your own advice you have consistently given out in this thread: "Don't make judgments on a units perceived weakness or strength unit we see the whole codex." I'm not trying to say whether or not Darkstrider will be taken with what has yet to come. My entire point was about why he isn't getting taken right now.

Now, as to the one point you made about his power level at the moment. It's not "hypocritical" for players to to recognize that pathfinders are more efficient use of points when markerlighting than when shooting. In fact, it's exactly the behavior that we expect good players to have. Unless you really like a unit/character - or you feel like running a fluffy list - warhammer 40k is a game of points efficiency. It's about how well your (insert the game's point limit) list can match up to your opponents. Players are expected to use their points in an efficient manner if they want to achieve victory. This is Darkstrider's problem. It's not that he is "bad." It's that, within the Tau codex as it currently exists, there are many places where you can use 100 points (not to mention the cost of his unit) to much greater effect. To use an economics analogy: his opportunity cost is too high. This is of particular importance to the Tau. Most armies get 3 phases of the game to use against their opponent. Tau get 1. This means that they need either incredibly high staying power, (Necrons) or incredibly high offensive power to make up for it. A key component of this is target prioritization. You need to put their shots where they will do the most good. The problem with Darkstrider is that his best case use scenario inherently undermines this idea. Either you are shooting a bunch of markerlights into a unit you are already trying to kill with his unit, or you are wasting a bunch shots that could be markerlights for better weapons than their own. Darkstrider does not have an optimal use scenario right now, both ways of using him have inherent disadvantages.

To be honest, I'm not even sure that Breachers will find much use with him unless he changes as well. Even though them seem practically tailored to use his rules effectively, he's still a 100 point character. Think of it this way: throughout this thread we have had people predicting that the usefulness of Breachers will be explicitly dependent on the price of the Devilfish. Given that they are saying a 15-20 point cost on a transport can make or break this unit, do you really think that people are going to want to throw 100 more points into it?

It says automatic glance

 Vryce wrote:

jimkurtjimmy wrote:
So if I'm reading this correctly a land raider crusader could kill itself by shooting hurricane bolters at tau on the other side of a shield wall?

No, I don't think so. You can't "wound" a vehicle. It would still need an armor pen roll & the reflected shot doesn't have a strength value.

It causes a wound OR a glance. So it does work

jimkurtjimmy wrote:
It says automatic glance

Resolved at the AP of the weapon.

Which doesn't matter for glances, unless I really missed something in the new 40K edition. I kinda gave up on it sadly

 B0B MaRlEy wrote:

 Vryce wrote:

jimkurtjimmy wrote:
So if I'm reading this correctly a land raider crusader could kill itself by shooting hurricane bolters at tau on the other side of a shield wall?

No, I don't think so. You can't "wound" a vehicle. It would still need an armor pen roll & the reflected shot doesn't have a strength value.

It causes a wound OR a glance. So it does work

Apologies. It does indeed, I obviously overlooked that.

Wow.

 B0B MaRlEy wrote:
Which doesn't matter for glances, unless I really missed something in the new 40K edition. I kinda gave up on it sadly

It doesn't matter for Glancing Hits, but it does make me suspect there's a typo there. I have a feeling it's meant to be Strength rather than AP.

....Then it wouldn't be a glancing hit.

The AP matters vs infantry, for example Terminators would get their 2+ Armor vs their Stormbolters, but a Tactical marine wouldn't get his 3+ vs a plasma shot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One thing to notice about the shieldline is that if the shooter and the target are both within 1" of the shieldline wall, they both get to bounce shots back.

vitae_drinker wrote:
....Then it wouldn't be a glancing hit.

The AP matters vs infantry, for example Terminators would get their 2+ Armor vs Stormbolter.

Right, and my point--again--is that it's a useless tidbit when placed where it is(directly behind the notation of an automatic Glancing Hit).

Either it's meant to be "Strength and AP value"(which is present on the Kastelan Robots' deflection rule) or it's meant to be just AP or just Strength; and in either of those cases it would make it effectively useless against some vehicles.

We REALLY don't need more crap in the game that brings us to the whole "Glance vehicles to death" situation though.

No, it's in reference to both things. *sigh*

vitae_drinker wrote:
No, it's in reference to both things. *sigh*

And I get that. Really, I do.

What I'm saying is that the lack of the Strength value notation either makes this thing INCREDIBLY broken or having a huuuuuuuge omission that will affect gameplay in a very negative way.
If it really is meant to lack the Strength value notation, it should be reading like so:

On a roll of 6 the attacking unit suffers 1 Randomly Allocated Wound(resolved at the same AP as the attacking weapon) or a Glancing Hit.

That makes it absolutely, unambiguously clear that yes it is meant to do that.

Having strength and AP does matter, AP for determining armour saves and Strength for determining instant death. Vs vehicles, just a glance, but in this case we don't have a strength, so its just a wound

jimkurtjimmy wrote:
So if I'm reading this correctly a land raider crusader could kill itself by shooting hurricane bolters at tau on the other side of a shield wall?

 Kanluwen wrote:

vitae_drinker wrote:
No, it's in reference to both things. *sigh*

And I get that. Really, I do.

What I'm saying is that the lack of the Strength value notation either makes this thing INCREDIBLY broken or having a huuuuuuuge omission that will affect gameplay in a very negative way.
If it really is meant to lack the Strength value notation, it should be reading like so:

On a roll of 6 the attacking unit suffers 1 Randomly Allocated Wound(resolved at the same AP as the attacking weapon) or a Glancing Hit.

That makes it absolutely, unambiguously clear that yes it is meant to do that.

It is unambiguously clear. You have to remember, GW rules writers don't speak English. They speak British.

vitae_drinker wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

vitae_drinker wrote:
No, it's in reference to both things. *sigh*

And I get that. Really, I do.

What I'm saying is that the lack of the Strength value notation either makes this thing INCREDIBLY broken or having a huuuuuuuge omission that will affect gameplay in a very negative way.
If it really is meant to lack the Strength value notation, it should be reading like so:

On a roll of 6 the attacking unit suffers 1 Randomly Allocated Wound(resolved at the same AP as the attacking weapon) or a Glancing Hit.

That makes it absolutely, unambiguously clear that yes it is meant to do that.

It is unambiguously clear. You have to remember, GW rules writers don't speak English. They speak British.

And yet in the other instances where there are these deflection rules they specifically state Strength and AP values of the attack.

 Dr. Delorean wrote:


Limited Edition codex cover

Which also means someone has access to the WD with this picture in it.

I'm sorry if I haven't been following this thread as closely as I could be but is this a new codex? I don't remember what the original limited edition looked like, but has there been any rumours about an upcoming codex for Tau?

jimkurtjimmy wrote:
So if I'm reading this correctly a land raider crusader could kill itself by shooting hurricane bolters at tau on the other side of a shield wall?

Well, assuming it has four hits it's a 1/20736 chance, but it could.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mazik765 wrote:


I'm sorry if I haven't been following this thread as closely as I could be but is this a new codex? I don't remember what the original limited edition looked like, but has there been any rumours about an upcoming codex for Tau?

It's definitely the new one, especially as the bottom cover shows a breacher.

That wall seems a little expensive :/. Cool, but really expensive at the points.

I knew it wasn't likely. Was just saying if you had something like a land raider with only one hull point left you wouldnt drop any mass fire on this thing

Well i was right on the movement part of this thing. It can only move over open terrain. Random craters or barricades be damned!

And good god this thing has a lot of odd rules. I smell a lot of YMDC forums popping up from this thing...

Mobile Pathfinders that can markerlight or use special weapons finally and gain cover saves. This thing is insane. I hope they don't nerf it.

jimkurtjimmy wrote:
I knew it wasn't likely. Was just saying if you had something like a land raider with only one hull point left you wouldnt drop any mass fire on this thing

Well, it is badly designed. The reflection mechanic isn't, in it'self, broken, but auto wound/glace is. If it would just inflict a single hit with the same profile, it would be fine.

Agreed. same as the derpy robots rule


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe it shoots energy back instead of the original projectile?

Oh this seems similar to a more badass version of the shield Aun'va usess.

Edit
Imagine glancing a weakened Knight to death. Ha.

How will blast weapons work with this thing, each wound is reflected back to it? Or what about stuff like the earth-shaker, the idea of shrapnel flying back across the battlefield to blow it up is as ridiculous as it is hilarious.

jimkurtjimmy wrote:
Agreed. same as the derpy robots rule

Except the "derpy robots rule" actually requires you to Wound/roll for Armor Pen with the S/AP values of the weapon and doesn't count for Psychic Shooting Attacks, Template weapons, and Blasts.

Maybe it shoots energy back instead of the original projectile?

If that were the case, it would be given a set profile.

I get a feeling its an energy reflector/redirector. It gets hit with an attack and attempts to gather and convert its energy into a reflected beam attack.

At least that's how I imagine it working.