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.

gmaleron wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
What the actual- you want a BUFF?!
No
no
NO
NEVER.
There is no way in hell that the Tau need yet another round of the buff bandage. You do not need a S9 railrifle, you do not lack long range AT choices - you have Hammerheads and Rapetides enough. You do not need Special Weapon Firewarriors. Apart from being unfluffy it would also break them even more.
And ALL formations need to go. No exceptions.
And as for inexperienced: I first started properly playing in 4th edition, though I did have several small games in 3rd. I have a hell of a lot of experience with this game so dont try to act all high and mighty.

First and foremost stop being so sensitive, inexperienced comment is directed at those who are throwing comments just because they hate Tau and don't provide any facts to back up their statements which, the way you are coming off you are fitting the description. Its not me acting "High and Mighty" as you so claim, its the fact that all that is being stated is plain anger with no facts to back it up. Also:

-Hammerheads are not that great at taking out Heavy Armor without Markerlight Support and even then statistics show that it is not an automatic thing, stop exaggerating the problem. Courtesy of Matt_Kingsley (A Hammerhead with a Railgun has a 7.4% (9.2% at BS5) chance to actually get a destroyed result on your AV14 Leman Russ tanks and only a 14.8% (18.5% at BS5) chance to get the same on AV12 of a Chimera. Not exactly dependable odds)

-Riptides are not as scary as you make them out to be in regards to offensive output, they are durable and I do think the Ion Accelerator needs to go up in points but other then that its perfectly fine the way it is. You complain about the Riptide yet Imperial Armies get Grav spam galore and D weapon heavy Imperial Knights...hmmm.

-How is Fire Warriors having a few Rail Guns unfluffy? The fact of the matter is in a game where fluff is constantly changed and updated it is irrelevant and even then whats stopping them from taking them in the fluff, do you have an example?

-And guess what regardless of your personal opinions Formations are not going anywhere so you might as well start looking at ways with dealing with them instead of demanding for a change that will never happen.

From the perspective of an IG player riptides are unkillable. We dont get the D, we dont get the high strength amassed fire. We get.... Nothing.

Hammerheads are still better than Leman Russ against tanks, even the Vanquisher is under performing in its role.

Good call, TBF the railrifles thing would not be that major. Im just thinking of pulse cannons and other nasties though.

Formations are broken as hell. You can tell me to find a way to deal with them but when my opponent is bringing 500+ points worth of free stuff because his formation gives him free transports or free gear or he is negating my gun line on turn one and I have nothing to counter it.... Its just not right.

Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:

-Hammerheads are not that great at taking out Heavy Armor without Markerlight Support and even then statistics show that it is not an automatic thing, stop exaggerating the problem. Courtesy of Matt_Kingsley (A Hammerhead with a Railgun has a 7.4% (9.2% at BS5) chance to actually get a destroyed result on your AV14 Leman Russ tanks and only a 14.8% (18.5% at BS5) chance to get the same on AV12 of a Chimera. Not exactly dependable odds)

Once again, look at this from the perspective of an IG player. Compared to the Vanquisher the Hammerhead is king.

While I wish I had posted those statistics, that was actually IXLoiero95XI.
I understand the confusion though, since in the other thread it switched from a short sub-discussion between you and I before switching straight away into a conversation between you, IXLoiero95XI and MoO.

But yeah, Hammerheads are not super-mega-crazy-awesome AT.

Sidstyler wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
My hatred of Supporting Fire is probably illogical, and I'll admit as such, but by god do I hate it... *grumble grumble*

Not at all, you're absolutely right that it's bullgak and about the reasons why. It encourages castling up in the corner which is not only boring to play with but really frustrating to play against. It needs to go.

 master of ordinance wrote:
And ALL formations need to go. No exceptions.

Yeah, well seeing as how literally every codex release this year has had formations printed in them, I don't see that happening. Nor do I see them reprinting Eldar, Marines, etc. again just to get rid of them for you.

Well, I hope that we in the IG actually get some formations soon then because we might as well not be here at this rate.

You will, when your new Codex is released.
How long will that take? No one knows.


And if anyone may as well not be here it's CSMs, whose only formations all involve god-awful Helbrutes (as in, 2 of them are just made of Helbrutes, and one is a Helbrute and a cultist squad) or Chosen & Cypher (meh) and only manage to hobble about because of a crutch made of Chaos Daemons and a crutch made of Forgeworld releases.

The above may be a slight exaggeration but seriously, formations aren't the be-all, end-all. Only the latest ones have been, or are you trying to tell me that the Ork Warband formation or Helfist Murderpack are as good as the Canoptek Harvest?

While we're at it, hopefully some non-Cadian plastic infantry, too. Other than that I agree with you on formations (or at least in regards to the way GW has implemented them), but I don't see GW doing away with them anytime soon.

I wish people would stop defending the riptide. Regardless of how anyone feels about it, it's still underpriced for everything it can do. It has better firepower than an MBT and is great at killing both infantry and vehicles, it's more durable, it's faster, and all for a competitive price. It needs a price increase and/or some other kind of limiting factor at the very least. It's one of the few things in the book that is blatantly over-the-top and claiming it's anything but is just going to keep causing arguments.

I'm just not seeing it in regards to the hammerhead, though, I still think they're very comparable to vanquishers. They both have pros and cons. They're both under-performing. They both need to be fixed.

 Sidstyler wrote:
I wish people would stop defending the riptide. Regardless of how anyone feels about it, it's still underpriced for everything it can do. It has better firepower than an MBT and is great at killing both infantry and vehicles, it's more durable, it's faster, and all for a competitive price. It needs a price increase and/or some other kind of limiting factor at the very least. It's one of the few things in the book that is blatantly over-the-top and claiming it's anything but is just going to keep causing arguments.

The only thing that is undercosted on the Riptide is the price of the Ion Accelerator, I agree that thing should be about a 15pt. upgrade at least. However in regards to everything else the Tau Riptide can do I feel it is fairly priced, especially when compared to other units such as the Wraithknight and Dreadknight. The Dreadknight has the same exact durability in regards to armor and invulnerable save (only difference being it has 1 less wound and an absolute beast in CC where the Riptide is only good at shooting) as the Riptide for a very cheap points cost and has its own boat of shenanigans to go along with it much like the Riptide does. The fact that a Riptide can hurt itself 1/3 of the time every time it uses its Nova Charge on top of its dependence on other units (Marker Lights) is what makes it fairly costed outside the Ion Accelerator. As stated before the Riptide is a good unit, however now especially with amount of Grav weaponry at the IoM's disposal and Ally Shenanigans with Drop Pods, ect. it is definitely not nearly as strong as it used to be.

The Wraithknight is stupidly underpriced, so that's a terrible comparison.

The Dreadknight is also underpriced by a fair bit

 Kanluwen wrote:
The Wraithknight is stupidly underpriced, so that's a terrible comparison.

It is undercosted however it along with the Dreadknight are the closest things to the Riptide in the game so it is not a terrible comparison, more of "working with what I got" kind of comparison.

 gmaleron wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The Wraithknight is stupidly underpriced, so that's a terrible comparison.

It is undercosted however it along with the Dreadknight are the closest things to the Riptide in the game so it is not a terrible comparison.

So the Riptide and Dreadknights are Gargantuan Creatures?

Price it along the Wraithlord's lines. That thing is properly priced and as such sees no table time compared to the stupidly underpriced Wraithknight.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The Wraithknight is stupidly underpriced, so that's a terrible comparison.

It is undercosted however it along with the Dreadknight are the closest things to the Riptide in the game so it is not a terrible comparison.

So the Riptide and Dreadknights are Gargantuan Creatures?

Price it along the Wraithlord's lines. That thing is properly priced and as such sees no table time compared to the stupidly underpriced Wraithknight.

To be honest I don't know much about the Wraithlord at all since I haven't seen one played in quite some time lol. However it is why I elaborated on the Dreadknight more was that its stats are similar in regards to armor value, save and wound count. Shenanigans aside the Riptide is 50pts. more expensive base with the only difference being 1 wound.

But y'see, that's the thing.

Those "shenanigans" you're wanting set aside, they're big ones. A Nova Reactor goes off on 3+, and it's a no-brainer to pay the 35 points for the Stimulant Injector Support System for that FNP.

I get that you might feel that "X has this and it's broken too, so why can't I have it?". Just because someone else has something broken, doesn't mean you should.

Perhaps one of the weakest codexes is screaming for us to be nerfed? You may as well be screaming for every army better than your to be nerfed (almost all of them). It's not like the Tau are the most op faction around if you look at tournaments results it's been a long time since regular TE has even been a thing.

Right. i'll wait until you get a codex on the level like everyone else before I start taking your arguments with more consideration in mind. Not to mention if they nerf us to your level and then buff the IG to the level of the average new codex now that's effectively double nerf.

It's a very dumb thing many game and video game companies fall for. They buff one faction and then nerf another faction that was too strong at the exact same time and it usually leads to the nerf faction having double the nerfs.

I would have thought that would be common sense or basic logic but I guess not.

The Dreadknight is actually a bit overcosted. They are much, much, MUCH easier to take down than Riptide because of operation range issues. No FNP option, crap shooting. CC ability? In a 7th ed? Please.

If your're worried about non-SKyhammer drop grav, use bubble wrap. The thing is still stupid hard to kill.

 Gamgee wrote:
Perhaps one of the weakest codexes is screaming for us to be nerfed? You may as well be screaming for every army better than your to be nerfed (almost all of them). It's not like the Tau are the most op faction around if you look at tournaments results it's been a long time since regular TE has even been a thing.

And yet, FSE is doing fairly well right?

What differences are there between FSE and TE?
The main difference is that Crisis Suits are Troops choices and require a mandatory option of 1 XV-8 Crisis Team numbering 3 models(not counting Drones) instead of XV-8 Crisis Teams as Elites, meaning more room for Riptides.

Add in the Signature Systems for FSE and suddenly some of the larger weaknesses of the army are mitigated... not to mention Farsight's Commander Team allowing you to double-dip on your Signature Systems, taking both from FSE and TE.

Right. i'll wait until you get a codex on the level like everyone else before I start taking your arguments with more consideration in mind. Not to mention if they nerf us to your level and then buff the IG to the level of the average new codex now that's effectively double nerf.

Do you really think that you're going to get "effectively a double nerf"?

It's a very dumb thing many game and video game companies fall for. They buff one faction and then nerf another faction that was too strong at the exact same time and it usually leads to the nerf faction having double the nerfs.

That's patently untrue and quite frankly you can't compare video games to tabletop. MMORPGs(the only real place where "factions" come into play) are living games and tend to get constant tweaks. When you have instances like "buff/nerf one faction"(not really the case even in MMOs, the tweaks usually are to specific races within the faction).

An army book isn't like that. They have a set lifespan.

I would have thought that would be common sense or basic logic but I guess not.

I would suggest that if you think these arguments are contrary to "common sense or basic logic", that you have a care as to how you state this position.

"It's a very dumb thing many game and video game companies fall for"

Starcraft is still infinitely better than this game ever will be at balance. And their marines don't miss and can hit flyers.

 Farseer Uruvion wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Farseer Uruvion wrote:
I will sound ignorant for this, but what exactly is an exalt? I've only joined this site a few days ago.

A like essentially. Its an up vote to you.

Oh. Well. Thank you, in that case.

What's the point of an exalt anyway? Apart from making the thread more visible in the "most exalted thread" ranking.
Can you see how many exalts/followers your thread/post has?

But on topic: I personally believe that the Riptide needs to be either more expensive, or a bit less tough (say, lose FnP or have a worse save)
A buff to the Tau tanks (apart from the Skyray) would be welcome.

Nova Reactor becoming a bit less reliable for getting exactly what you want would be a good way to nerf the Riptide without doing too much...maybe make it so that it operates similar to Psykers, giving a certain number of Nova Reactor Charges a turn and then having to "harness" them for certain numbers on the abilities?

Tanks, in general, need buffs. Vehicles are fairly weak this edition unless they're Skimmers/Flyers.

The main problem with Tau for both players and opponents is that they have a very limited army list with basically only one good option in each slot, which totally hampers variety of army and play style. And if you're opponent isn't tailored or prepared for that play style, they have problems.

So let's try and fix that by allowing more variety:

First off, I like the idea of moving Pathfinders to troops; at the moment you have to use basically all three fast attack slots for them, because you need multiple small squads to get marker lights, which is a core element of the army. This allows some of the other, reasonable units in fast attack to become viable (e.g. Pirahnas). The other option would be multiple squads in a single slot, but I'm not sure that fits with the Tau aesthetic. Pathfinders as troops would also solve some of the issue people have with supporting fire, as there would be a limit to the number of Firewarriors on the board.

Second we need to reduce the reliance on Crisis suits / Riptide for anti-armour; that means buffing Hammerheads and/or Railsides. S9 works for the Railsides, I'm not sure on the Hammerhead, Preferred Enemy maybe? Plus ordinance for the railgun? Losing the stim injector for the Riptide is probably a good idea too.

I'd love to suggest more weapons options for Stealth Suits, but unfortunately not going to happen under the current GW "we only provide rules for models we make" edict. Points drop is about the best we can expect there, although I do wonder if moving them to Fast Attack would make them a more desirable choice?

Likewise moving sniper drones to elites, if we've reduced the reliance on the other options there.

Fundamentally, yes Tau have a few good units, but they're all we get to use due to slot congestion and sub-optimal alternatives. Hence a very monotonous experience for both ourselves and our opponents.

I would give all rail weapons Lance.

That or the rule that torsion cannons have.

 gmaleron wrote:
Maybe we can return the thread to what we would like to see in the new Tau codex instead of another thread of inexperienced players bitching about the codex? There's another thread on here for that (and FYI we're not OP).

Now back to the original purpose of the thread personally I would like to see the following:

-Broadsides TL-Heavy Rail Rifle goes up to strength 9 at the minimum, I would love for it to go back to being strength 10 but I would be happy with it being strength 9 because as of right now we could use the extra punch for long range anti tank which we already lack.

-Riptide Formation just because of the amount of Imperial Knight armies running around has reached pretty crazy proportions (according to my FLGS store owner both riptides and Imperial Knights are some of the best sellers currently) and really I just think would be cool to see two armies of monstrous walkers duking it out. Probably will get some flack for saying this but hey if Imperial Armies can have an army of giant walkers why can't we? At least our army won't be able to spam an insane amount of D weapons.

-Fire Warriors get access to special weapons, I loved the Railgun but almost never see it. If Fire Warriors cant get special weapons at least have a special weapon squad that can field them.

-Stealth Suits go down in points.

-Barracuda becomes a flyer choice in the new codex or they fix the current fighter and bomber.

1. The reason the Broadside railguns were made S8 is because they can shoot at flyers. Any higher and there wouldn't be a reason to take flyers. Instead, I would support giving Tau railguns lance.

2. I can get behind this, if the Riptide and Ion Accelerator receive a needed points increase. I do agree that this would be very cool.

3. That would involve remaking the Fire Warrior kit, and the Crisis Suit kit needs it more. I would argue for Pathfinders to go to troops.

4. 100% agree. They are such cool models and have a great idea, and it's a shame they aren't really useable.

5. The Barracuda is an awesome flyer, but I can't see it becoming part of the main codex. How could the Tau flyers be fixed? A points decrease?

Codex flyers? Err...

Well for starters, need to free up some fast attack slots (I.e. Move pathfinders)

For the Sunshark bomber:
1) Take away the rule that means it might only ever drop one bomb in the entire game (stupid)
2) Give the interceptor drones some form of "Look out sir!" (If a drone is within 12" of the bomber on a 4+ they take the hit instead maybe?)
3) Either make the bomb more dangerous to infantry (S5 AP5 isn't all that) or maybe give it Haywire so it can target vehicles too.
4) maybe make the interceptor drones flyers in their own right (10 all round, 2hp, kind of a mini-Remora)

For the Razorshark:
1) Give it strafing run
2) Maybe extend the range of the guns?
3) Drop it to ~100 points

Too bad we can't do anything about the aesthetics of the models!

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
Perhaps one of the weakest codexes is screaming for us to be nerfed? You may as well be screaming for every army better than your to be nerfed (almost all of them). It's not like the Tau are the most op faction around if you look at tournaments results it's been a long time since regular TE has even been a thing.

And yet, FSE is doing fairly well right?

What differences are there between FSE and TE?
The main difference is that Crisis Suits are Troops choices and require a mandatory option of 1 XV-8 Crisis Team numbering 3 models(not counting Drones) instead of XV-8 Crisis Teams as Elites, meaning more room for Riptides.

Add in the Signature Systems for FSE and suddenly some of the larger weaknesses of the army are mitigated... not to mention Farsight's Commander Team allowing you to double-dip on your Signature Systems, taking both from FSE and TE.

Right. i'll wait until you get a codex on the level like everyone else before I start taking your arguments with more consideration in mind. Not to mention if they nerf us to your level and then buff the IG to the level of the average new codex now that's effectively double nerf.

Do you really think that you're going to get "effectively a double nerf"?

It's a very dumb thing many game and video game companies fall for. They buff one faction and then nerf another faction that was too strong at the exact same time and it usually leads to the nerf faction having double the nerfs.

That's patently untrue and quite frankly you can't compare video games to tabletop. MMORPGs(the only real place where "factions" come into play) are living games and tend to get constant tweaks. When you have instances like "buff/nerf one faction"(not really the case even in MMOs, the tweaks usually are to specific races within the faction).

An army book isn't like that. They have a set lifespan.

I would have thought that would be common sense or basic logic but I guess not.

I would suggest that if you think these arguments are contrary to "common sense or basic logic", that you have a care as to how you state this position.

I said it's been years since default plain old TE has been a thing. Then you go and say FSE w/ TE allied detachment does good (fourth in tourney). So thanks for proving my point. that's FSE/TE combo and it only placed fourth after all that hard work and it's an outdated 6th edition codex.

 Gamgee wrote:

I said it's been years since default plain old TE has been a thing. Then you go and say FSE w/ TE allied detachment does good (fourth in tourney). So thanks for proving my point. that's FSE/TE combo and it only placed fourth after all that hard work and it's an outdated 6th edition codex.

The point.

You seem to have missed it in your haste to post some snarky comment and a youtube link.
Nowhere did I say "FSE w/ TE allied detachments", I simply said "FSE is doing fairly well right?".

So, again, what are the big differences between FSE and TE to make them "does good(fourth in tourney)"?
The key one is Crisis Teams as Troops, allowing for more flexibility in Elites.

Martel732 wrote:
The Dreadknight is actually a bit overcosted. They are much, much, MUCH easier to take down than Riptide because of operation range issues. No FNP option, crap shooting. CC ability? In a 7th ed? Please.

That's a ridiculous argument. A Dreadknight is only 10 points more than a carnifex, but has:

+2 WS
+1 initiative
+6'' move
Jump-pack move
Once-per-game 30'' move
At-initiative strength 10 or instant death
2+ armor save
5+ invulnerable save
Psychic ability that gives it a 4+ invulnerable save
ATSKNF

All for ten points. There is no way in hell the Dreadknight is "overcosted".

This is also why the arguments about the Riptide being fairly costed are insane.

Or it could be that it's the carnifix that's overcosted. Although, I personally think the riptide should go up, maybe 15-30 points, and make the IA a ~35 point upgrade. Then make the HBC not gets hot! with the nova, and it's pretty much set. Maybe fiddle with the prices of the upgrades?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Or it could be that it's the carnifix that's overcosted.

Carnifex is one example of many. Comparing the DK to a stock Hive Tyrant, Wraithlord or Keeper of Secrets makes the disparity even worse.

Sure, you can lower the points values of 80% of MC's in the game so that the the Dreadknight and Riptide look less ridiculous in comparison... or you can just accept that they break the precedent and adjust them so that they fall back into line.

Which is why I put the "although" part. I'm not too sure on the pricing of other armies (I only really know my own).

I get you- I just wanted to make a general point about the overcosted vs undercosted thing.

Generally speaking, few units are actually overcosted. If they're ineffective it's usually some other aspect of their design (or the game's design itself) that's the issue.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The Dreadknight is actually a bit overcosted. They are much, much, MUCH easier to take down than Riptide because of operation range issues. No FNP option, crap shooting. CC ability? In a 7th ed? Please.

That's a ridiculous argument. A Dreadknight is only 10 points more than a carnifex, but has:

+2 WS
+1 initiative
+6'' move
Jump-pack move
Once-per-game 30'' move
At-initiative strength 10 or instant death
2+ armor save
5+ invulnerable save
Psychic ability that gives it a 4+ invulnerable save
ATSKNF

All for ten points. There is no way in hell the Dreadknight is "overcosted".

This is also why the arguments about the Riptide being fairly costed are insane.

And most of that crap you listed makes NO difference. It's overcosted because it must work at short range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I get you- I just wanted to make a general point about the overcosted vs undercosted thing.

Generally speaking, few units are actually overcosted. If they're ineffective it's usually some other aspect of their design (or the game's design itself) that's the issue.

If a unit is not effective for their price, they are, by definition, overcosted. There are a TON of overcosted units in 40K.

Overcosted/undercosted doesn't exist in a vacuum, they're adjectives, meaning they're comparison terms. A unit can't be undercosted or overcosted outside of a metric. It performs just fine compared to the other units in its points-group (significantly better then tthe units within its points-group, actually), therefore it isn't overcosted.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
That is not how game balance works.

Actually, I think it kind of is. Ineffective units need to become more effective, or become cheaper. Until that happens, they are overcosted. Or underpowered. Take your pick.