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.

 Orock wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
It's not like markerlights helped against invisibile deathstars, due to their ruling that sets bs at 1 and multiple modifiers overriding all changes to bs.

wrong. markerlights specifically up your balistic skill even when snapfiring. Its written right in the rules. And its VERY important for tau, seeing as we have no other counter to invis, and aparently nobody wants us to ever either.

ally a Culexus?
(what else could we bring to counter invis?)

nothing. and allying a IoM unit is bad. thats not a tau unit. and makes no sence from viepoint of fluff

 _ghost_ wrote:
nothing. and allying a IoM unit is bad. that's not a tau unit. and makes no sense from viewpoint of fluff

review some of the older (Harlequin) ally mechanics. they had justifications for them joining any force, and they are still valid today - but I wouldn't mind having something along the lines of Specialists from PP masters. for when I'm not facing psykers.

But whats the point? Sure there exist such things.

Tau dont have battle brothers. so allying such a thing wont be that good. and its not a Tau thing to counter invissible. so allying cant be a answer to the question : what can Tau do against it?"

the solution to ally is a answer to the question. " what can a Tau player put in the army to counter it." wich is totaly different to the first question.

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
LOL .....This is beyond stupid.

So you take an army that pre-buffs was doing extremely poorly at tournaments, in fact it was totally irrelevant. Then you take their new ''decurion'' and nerf it completely out of existence, with 0 playtesting, completely against the RAI and even RAW. Anybody who doesn't play Tau and who plays at ITC events will obviously vote to nerf, it's in their best interest to do so. You can just read the poor posts on dakka about it to see it isn't even majority tournament players that vote, it's primarily casual players. How are these nerfs in any way justified when compared against today's meta?

Why has Tau been so arbitrarily smashed into the ground but not Eldar? or Gladius? Necron decurion? or War Convocation? etc.

ITC is a complete farce. Thank goodness we don't use that rubbish in Europe.

RIP Tau.

This +1. This nerf feels personal and not logical. I wonder how it would have turned out if it was only registered ITC players who voted.

 Orock wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
It's not like markerlights helped against invisibile deathstars, due to their ruling that sets bs at 1 and multiple modifiers overriding all changes to bs.

wrong. markerlights specifically up your balistic skill even when snapfiring. Its written right in the rules. And its VERY important for tau, seeing as we have no other counter to invis, and aparently nobody wants us to ever either.

I didn't mention snapshots for a reason.

Now is that ruling for tau the way we all have to play it now

Only if you play under itc

Reading the ITC results comments makes me sick. Some guy was talking how cheesy we are with the fireblade + firewarrior combos and our supremacy suit (he didn't' know its name). He said he couldn't beat it with the not nerfed version of the rule. Then a commenter points out his math didn't add up on the shots he said were fired at him. Then another poster points out the Supremacy armor is banned in the ITC. So much for the "op" tau build he knows so much about.

That's the real shame. None of them know anything about the rules. They seen Tau got a new codex, some new toys, and they came out to nerf us just because. Your average ITC voter when they opened it up the the public folks. They're knee jerk reactions are coming for you. Well feth the ITC.

I agree. At least playtest before you ban.

So let me get this straight this how my brother must play his tau when he goes and play any one. So his new dex is nerffd and he hasn't had it a month. What bs that a bunch of people can nuff a dex for ever one

Only under ITC. If you've got your own house rules you would use them.

newguy1984 wrote:
So let me get this straight this how my brother must play his tau when he goes and play any one. So his new dex is nerffd and he hasn't had it a month. What bs that a bunch of people can nuff a dex for ever one

Just ignore it and instead go to tournaments with a no-restriction approach. When playing with friends/flgs go for the way it's intended to be played, core rulebook and forgeworld.

Doesn't affect me as we don't play ITC, but I think the votes were fine and I think people should play it as its been voted.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Doesn't affect me as we don't play ITC, but I think the votes were fine and I think people should play it as its been voted.

Guess you don't play in tournaments? Or play Tau?

Thanks for your input lmao.

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Doesn't affect me as we don't play ITC, but I think the votes were fine and I think people should play it as its been voted.

Guess you don't play in tournaments? Or play Tau?

Thanks for your input lmao.

I play Tau AND I plan on going to tournament with them. Im saddened by the rule as it limits our options... But I'll still play, the sky has not fallen.

I just don't see how anybody can say with a straight face that arbitrarily changing RAI and RAW to nerf just one new faction while leaving all the other top tier armies virtually untouched is fair.

You can still take TAU to ITC tournies just like you could with the old codex, and the results are likely to be quite similar.

I don't like Tau. Their meta of playing seemed very non-interactive to me with their gobs of mid strength shooting. They remain my least favorite army to play against.

That being said, I think their CF rule should have been played with all the special rules included first, before getting somewhat nerfed. I voted to allow this (but voted no on allowing the split firing suits to take advantage of it).

It does seem to be a bit of a knee jerk reaction personally.

The broadest reading of CF is IMO pretty obviously wrong, and it is so for reasons that have to do with game design rather than power levels directly.

1. Conceptually speaking, coordinating fire on one target does not confer benefits to people firing at different targets via target locks. This makes no sense. Yes, GW writes strange rules sometimes, but this is not a mere mispricing of a unit or cover stretching up the foot of a GC all the way to its noggin, but the opposite of what the rule is supposed to represent.

2. The massive rules sharing interpretation makes the Tau army orbit around a couple of particular items of wargear, which would be grotesquely underpriced if this rules interpretation is correct. This would be abhorrently poor game design.

Alcibiades wrote:
The broadest reading of CF is IMO pretty obviously wrong, and it is so for reasons that have to do with game design rather than power levels directly.

1. Conceptually speaking, coordinating fire on one target does not confer benefits to people firing at different targets via target locks. This makes no sense. Yes, GW writes strange rules sometimes, but this is not a mere mispricing of a unit or cover stretching up the foot of a GC all the way to its noggin, but the opposite of the what the rule is supposed to represent.

2. The massive rules sharing interpretation makes the Tau army orbit around a couple of particular items of wargear, which would be grotesquely underpriced if this rules interpretation is correct. This would be abhorrently poor game design.

Which particular war gear items are you referring to?

 bomtek80 wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
The broadest reading of CF is IMO pretty obviously wrong, and it is so for reasons that have to do with game design rather than power levels directly.

1. Conceptually speaking, coordinating fire on one target does not confer benefits to people firing at different targets via target locks. This makes no sense. Yes, GW writes strange rules sometimes, but this is not a mere mispricing of a unit or cover stretching up the foot of a GC all the way to its noggin, but the opposite of the what the rule is supposed to represent.

2. The massive rules sharing interpretation makes the Tau army orbit around a couple of particular items of wargear, which would be grotesquely underpriced if this rules interpretation is correct. This would be abhorrently poor game design.

Which particular war gear items are you referring to?

Puretide Engram Chip and the ones that confer Ignores Cover and Twin Linked.

All this does is shift the Tau meta list a little for ITC events, nothing more than that. As with anything, if you don't like, don't support it.

For the record, I voted for shared special rules during coordinated fire, including the -1 toughness shenanigan (I also voted for Orks and for Crush). Not because I play Tau (or Orks, or tanks), but because I play RAW.

SJ

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
I just don't see how anybody can say with a straight face that arbitrarily changing RAI and RAW to nerf just one new faction while leaving all the other top tier armies virtually untouched is fair.

You can still take TAU to ITC tournies just like you could with the old codex, and the results are likely to be quite similar.

How about we see how the new Tau fair before claiming the sky is falling? Or do you really think that cheap Stompa is gonna make Orks walk all over the ITC? I really don't think the votes were one-sided, I think they're trying to evenly balance an army that could bring out loads of cheese due to GW's poor rules writing.

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
I just don't see how anybody can say with a straight face that arbitrarily changing RAI and RAW to nerf just one new faction while leaving all the other top tier armies virtually untouched is fair.

You can still take TAU to ITC tournies just like you could with the old codex, and the results are likely to be quite similar.

You... really don't want to open that can of worms that is not changing raw when it's stupid. Lest you like Necron units that are immune to anything but Str D weaponry and removes from play stuff (hint: modifiers change a number into another number, they don't change the original target number into another target number), or Psykers not working when they join a unit.

Apparently, some people here din't bother to click the link or actually read the results. Allow me to amend that.

Gamgee wrote:

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
LOL .....This is beyond stupid.

So you take an army that pre-buffs was doing extremely poorly at tournaments, in fact it was totally irrelevant. Then you take their new ''decurion'' and nerf it completely out of existence, with 0 playtesting, completely against the RAI and even RAW. Anybody who doesn't play Tau and who plays at ITC events will obviously vote to nerf, it's in their best interest to do so. You can just read the poor posts on dakka about it to see it isn't even majority tournament players that vote, it's primarily casual players. How are these nerfs in any way justified when compared against today's meta?

Why has Tau been so arbitrarily smashed into the ground but not Eldar? or Gladius? Necron decurion? or War Convocation? etc.

ITC is a complete farce. Thank goodness we don't use that rubbish in Europe.

RIP Tau.

This +1. This nerf feels personal and not logical. I wonder how it would have turned out if it was only registered ITC players who voted.

Tau were not "totally irrelevant" in tournaments, at least in North America. They were doing about as well as Eldar,placing highly but never taking the win. You could argue at that level that once you reach the top eight player skill is the bigger factor in determining the win.
Second, Tau have neither been "nerfed out of existence" without any playtesting. Tau can still use the CFP special rule, only now the only benefit is to get +1BS and the ability to share Makerlights. It isn't like the codex just dropped yesterday. People have already played against Tau, and the ability to share special rules in CFP was found to be broken beyond belief. When the ITC was playtesting it (yes, they did, the battle reports are online) the only thing that could beat it reliably was assaulting form Deep-Strike, which is a whole new level of broken entirely.

Third, while anyone could vote in the poll, only ITC members could cast votes that actually counted. And did you see how close the margin of victory was? If nine more people had voted against the nerf, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The ITC has done a great job of balancing the game IMO. The nerfs to ranged D, Invisibility, 2+ re-rollable, Stomps, and limits on the number of GCs have affected all of the armies that you listed, especially Eldar. The ovte on Tank Shock prevented Gladius from becoming more overpowered than it already is.

At a tournament level of play, you should expect people to bring the most overpowered things they have available. Oh wait, I forgot that in Europe 50% of all tournament armies apparently are Eldar cheese lists. That would explain a lot.

Gamgee wrote:Reading the ITC results comments makes me sick. Some guy was talking how cheesy we are with the fireblade + firewarrior combos and our supremacy suit (he didn't' know its name). He said he couldn't beat it with the not nerfed version of the rule. Then a commenter points out his math didn't add up on the shots he said were fired at him. Then another poster points out the Supremacy armor is banned in the ITC. So much for the "op" tau build he knows so much about.

That's the real shame. None of them know anything about the rules. They seen Tau got a new codex, some new toys, and they came out to nerf us just because. Your average ITC voter when they opened it up the the public folks. They're knee jerk reactions are coming for you. Well feth the ITC.

If you're expecting internet comments on any article to be intelligent and edifying, you clearly haven't been on the internet very long.

It wasn't that people didn't like that Tau got some new rules and units. It was that one particular special rule was game-breakingly overpowered. The ITC and others played with Tau sharing special rules for CFP and found that it turned the game into a point-and-click adventure for the Tau player, which wasn't very fun for anyone else. In the interest of keeping the game balanced and allowing as many players and armies as possible a chance to compete, CFP had to be nerfed.

Your "screw the ITC" attitude might hold sway now, but you'll have to temper yourself if you wish to play in any local, regional, or major GT west of the Mississippi river. And judging by your past behavior, especially one notorious thread, I'd be wary of calling people out for "knee jerk" reactions.

Disagree

1. Conceptually speaking, coordinating fire on one target does not confer benefits to people firing at different targets via target locks. This makes no sense. Yes, GW writes strange rules sometimes, but this is not a mere mispricing of a unit or cover stretching up the foot of a GC all the way to its noggin, but the opposite of what the rule is supposed to represent.

You take 2+ units, those units are now one unit for the CF shooting and thus get any USR that a unit would normally benefit from. Now since all units have the USR and thus all the models any model with a special rule (Target Lock) may use that to fire at another target. If 3+ units then firing models get +1BS.

2. The massive rules sharing interpretation makes the Tau army orbit around a couple of particular items of wargear, which would be grotesquely underpriced if this rules interpretation is correct. This would be abhorrently poor game design.

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
I just don't see how anybody can say with a straight face that arbitrarily changing RAI and RAW to nerf just one new faction while leaving all the other top tier armies virtually untouched is fair.

You can still take TAU to ITC tournies just like you could with the old codex, and the results are likely to be quite similar.

You... really don't want to open that can of worms that is not changing raw when it's stupid. Lest you like Necron units that are immune to anything but Str D weaponry and removes from play stuff (hint: modifiers change a number into another number, they don't change the original target number into another target number), or Psykers not working when they join a unit.

Also, I heard recently that with RAW, the number of psychic powers each level of mastery conveys is not actually defined as 1:1. It's described only as a "function" which is a math term referring to pretty much any algebraic equation.

so let me get this straight. . .
a buffmander with a unit of suits where each has a target lock can share the benefits conferred by a buffmander's gear but when I use combined fire with that same unit and 2 others the buffs cease to apply?

X078 wrote:
Disagree

1. Conceptually speaking, coordinating fire on one target does not confer benefits to people firing at different targets via target locks. This makes no sense. Yes, GW writes strange rules sometimes, but this is not a mere mispricing of a unit or cover stretching up the foot of a GC all the way to its noggin, but the opposite of what the rule is supposed to represent.

You take 2+ units, those units are now one unit for the CF shooting and thus get any USR that a unit would normally benefit from. Now since all units have the USR and thus all the models any model with a special rule (Target Lock) may use that to fire at another target. If 3+ units then firing models get +1BS.

2. The massive rules sharing interpretation makes the Tau army orbit around a couple of particular items of wargear, which would be grotesquely underpriced if this rules interpretation is correct. This would be abhorrently poor game design.

It makes the buffmander and his wargear highly valuable yes. But it also puts him in a place of being a prioritized target even more so than before, if he dies most of the buff sharing CF tactics die with him. It's a trade off.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Apparently, some people here din't bother to click the link or actually read the results. Allow me to amend that.

Gamgee wrote:

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
LOL .....This is beyond stupid.

So you take an army that pre-buffs was doing extremely poorly at tournaments, in fact it was totally irrelevant. Then you take their new ''decurion'' and nerf it completely out of existence, with 0 playtesting, completely against the RAI and even RAW. Anybody who doesn't play Tau and who plays at ITC events will obviously vote to nerf, it's in their best interest to do so. You can just read the poor posts on dakka about it to see it isn't even majority tournament players that vote, it's primarily casual players. How are these nerfs in any way justified when compared against today's meta?

Why has Tau been so arbitrarily smashed into the ground but not Eldar? or Gladius? Necron decurion? or War Convocation? etc.

ITC is a complete farce. Thank goodness we don't use that rubbish in Europe.

RIP Tau.

This +1. This nerf feels personal and not logical. I wonder how it would have turned out if it was only registered ITC players who voted.

Tau were not "totally irrelevant" in tournaments, at least in North America. They were doing about as well as Eldar,placing highly but never taking the win. You could argue at that level that once you reach the top eight player skill is the bigger factor in determining the win.
Second, Tau have neither been "nerfed out of existence" without any playtesting. Tau can still use the CFP special rule, only now the only benefit is to get +1BS and the ability to share Makerlights. It isn't like the codex just dropped yesterday. People have already played against Tau, and the ability to share special rules in CFP was found to be broken beyond belief. When the ITC was playtesting it (yes, they did, the battle reports are online) the only thing that could beat it reliably was assaulting form Deep-Strike, which is a whole new level of broken entirely.

Third, while anyone could vote in the poll, only ITC members could cast votes that actually counted. And did you see how close the margin of victory was? If nine more people had voted against the nerf, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The ITC has done a great job of balancing the game IMO. The nerfs to ranged D, Invisibility, 2+ re-rollable, Stomps, and limits on the number of GCs have affected all of the armies that you listed, especially Eldar. The ovte on Tank Shock prevented Gladius from becoming more overpowered than it already is.

At a tournament level of play, you should expect people to bring the most overpowered things they have available. Oh wait, I forgot that in Europe 50% of all tournament armies apparently are Eldar cheese lists. That would explain a lot.

Gamgee wrote:Reading the ITC results comments makes me sick. Some guy was talking how cheesy we are with the fireblade + firewarrior combos and our supremacy suit (he didn't' know its name). He said he couldn't beat it with the not nerfed version of the rule. Then a commenter points out his math didn't add up on the shots he said were fired at him. Then another poster points out the Supremacy armor is banned in the ITC. So much for the "op" tau build he knows so much about.

That's the real shame. None of them know anything about the rules. They seen Tau got a new codex, some new toys, and they came out to nerf us just because. Your average ITC voter when they opened it up the the public folks. They're knee jerk reactions are coming for you. Well feth the ITC.

If you're expecting internet comments on any article to be intelligent and edifying, you clearly haven't been on the internet very long.

It wasn't that people didn't like that Tau got some new rules and units. It was that one particular special rule was game-breakingly overpowered. The ITC and others played with Tau sharing special rules for CFP and found that it turned the game into a point-and-click adventure for the Tau player, which wasn't very fun for anyone else. In the interest of keeping the game balanced and allowing as many players and armies as possible a chance to compete, CFP had to be nerfed.

Your "screw the ITC" attitude might hold sway now, but you'll have to temper yourself if you wish to play in any local, regional, or major GT west of the Mississippi river. And judging by your past behavior, especially one notorious thread, I'd be wary of calling people out for "knee jerk" reactions.

Exalted. But hey, the sky is falling