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.

People who complain and that need to suck it up.

 Gamgee wrote:
Your assessment is mostly spot on. Breachers though can be pretty good with the right list to support them. The top Tau list at LVO had some. Crisis Battlesuits can be good but trying to find enough of the new weapons to field a team with their new non-experimental gun is hard. The one that is str 7 and short range. Drones are usually preferred markerlight platform in tournaments because when paired with the commander and his build it makes them very effective and they are all average toughness of 4 as opposed to pathfinders 3. Piranah Firestream wing and Drone Net is extremely potent combination from FSE. Drown them in drones.

Anything can be good when a list is built around it.

No I meant the Breachers do well in a list where the opponent has bigger problems than them. The list they were included in took two 5 man breachers w./ emp grenades, an ethereal, and put them in two devilfish.

It also had two Stormsurges, and I think three Y'vahrah. If I'm not mistaken. So what are you going to shoot at? The SS and Y'vahrah? Or the Breachers?

The more heat you can take off of them the better they will perform which is why I think the list had so much unexpected success. He went undefeated. So it's making me want to test some Breachers out in a more casual list without the insane amount of MC and GMC's. I know a lot of bad players who have bad target priority though. So it all depends on how that goes.

ThatGuyFromThatPlace wrote:

Turn one the Tau fire 44 shots, 22 hits, 14 wounds 7 dead orks, orks move 6 and run 4 (20 inches away.)
Turn two the tau move back 6 inches, fire 44 shots kill 7 more orks, Orks move forward 6 run 4 (16 inches away)
Turn three tau move back 6 inches, fire 44 shots and kill 7 more orks, Orks move forward 6 run 4 (12 inches away)
Turn four Tau move back 6 inches, fire 44 shots, kill 7 more orks, Orks move forward 6 run 4 (8 inches away)
Turn five Tau move back 6 inches DOUBLE TAP fire 88 shots kill 14 more orks, orks move forward 6 attempt 8 inch Charge, OVERWATCH 88 shots = 14 hits 10 wounds and 5 more dead orks. Total casualties so far: Tau: 0 Orks: 47. Orks now have 13 remaining models Tau have 44.

Your Fire Warriors started 30" from the Orks and moved back 24", when the standard setup is 24" apart, 12" from the board edge. It's physically imposisble on a 4" table.

Your 13 remaining Orks also win combat by 2 or 3. Well by more probably since 44 FWs are unikely to make it all into combat.

So this thought experiment didn't work very well.

 Grizzyzz wrote:
So actually I am going to post my 2000 point list i usually take here for critique from those who hate playing Tau to see what you think.

We have started following ITC at my FLGS.. it matters

Dawn Blade: Retaliation Cadre
Fusion Blade commander
1x3 misslesides, plasma, target locks
Riptide, IA, fusion, FNP, EWO
1x3 Crisis, dual plasma
2x3 Crisis, dual burst cannons
+
Drone Net:
4x4 Marker drones
+
Piranha Firestream:
4x1 Piranha, 2 seekers, MTC
+
Allies: Ghostkeel wing:
3x1 Ghostkeel, Raker, flamers, EWO


I left out some of the fine tuned equipment.. but this is the gist of it... OK IM READY, let me have it.

Crisis suits and a riptide?

No thanks.

Alcibiades wrote:

ThatGuyFromThatPlace wrote:

Turn one the Tau fire 44 shots, 22 hits, 14 wounds 7 dead orks, orks move 6 and run 4 (20 inches away.)
Turn two the tau move back 6 inches, fire 44 shots kill 7 more orks, Orks move forward 6 run 4 (16 inches away)
Turn three tau move back 6 inches, fire 44 shots and kill 7 more orks, Orks move forward 6 run 4 (12 inches away)
Turn four Tau move back 6 inches, fire 44 shots, kill 7 more orks, Orks move forward 6 run 4 (8 inches away)
Turn five Tau move back 6 inches DOUBLE TAP fire 88 shots kill 14 more orks, orks move forward 6 attempt 8 inch Charge, OVERWATCH 88 shots = 14 hits 10 wounds and 5 more dead orks. Total casualties so far: Tau: 0 Orks: 47. Orks now have 13 remaining models Tau have 44.

Your Fire Warriors started 30" from the Orks and moved back 24", when the standard setup is 24" apart, 12" from the board edge. It's physically imposisble on a 4" table.

Your 13 remaining Orks also win combat by 2 or 3. Well by more probably since 44 FWs are unikely to make it all into combat.

So this thought experiment didn't work very well.

I guess you missed that thing I said in an earlier post about this being in a vacuum.

I like Fire warriors, they are probably one of the least appreciated infantry units in the game, and I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that they are over shadowed by GW's Gundam Wing. Fire Warriors are amazing at holding objectives and still being useful with the rng and Strength of their weapons. Compared to other standard infantry they have long ranged High strength weapons. I actually fear these guys in regular games because they pop my vehicles left and right (except my Battle Wagonz).

I generally avoid playing Tau unless I know the individual isn't a tool, not to say all Tau players are tools, but when you challenge the resident Ork player to a game and intend to camp the back field the entire game it gets rather boring. Not to mention that with the exception of Eldar, Tau beat Orks more handily then any other army in the game.

ThatGuyFromThatPlac wrote:I guess you missed that thing I said in an earlier post about this being in a vacuum.

I like Fire warriors, they are probably one of the least appreciated infantry units in the game, and I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that they are over shadowed by GW's Gundam Wing. Fire Warriors are amazing at holding objectives and still being useful with the rng and Strength of their weapons. Compared to other standard infantry they have long ranged High strength weapons. I actually fear these guys in regular games because they pop my vehicles left and right (except my Battle Wagonz).

I generally avoid playing Tau unless I know the individual isn't a tool, not to say all Tau players are tools, but when you challenge the resident Ork player to a game and intend to camp the back field the entire game it gets rather boring. Not to mention that with the exception of Eldar, Tau beat Orks more handily then any other army in the game.

You play orks? You play me, and I'll even ignore Pedro Kantor's preferred enemy rule.

Traditio wrote:

ThatGuyFromThatPlac wrote:I guess you missed that thing I said in an earlier post about this being in a vacuum.

I like Fire warriors, they are probably one of the least appreciated infantry units in the game, and I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that they are over shadowed by GW's Gundam Wing. Fire Warriors are amazing at holding objectives and still being useful with the rng and Strength of their weapons. Compared to other standard infantry they have long ranged High strength weapons. I actually fear these guys in regular games because they pop my vehicles left and right (except my Battle Wagonz).

I generally avoid playing Tau unless I know the individual isn't a tool, not to say all Tau players are tools, but when you challenge the resident Ork player to a game and intend to camp the back field the entire game it gets rather boring. Not to mention that with the exception of Eldar, Tau beat Orks more handily then any other army in the game.

You play orks? You play me, and I'll even ignore Pedro Kantor's preferred enemy rule.

you can keep his rule and I still have a better chance against you then Eldar or Tau.

Since I play orks, I can safely say that tau are fun to play...if all of their models are proxies for another army.

 JimOnMars wrote:
Since I play orks, I can safely say that tau are fun to play...if all of their models are proxies for another army.

I love orks.

1. The players who play orks aren't playing to win. They are generally all-around fun people with generally agreeable personalities. If you tell me that you play orks, I automatically assume that you'd be a riot. I want to have a beer with you.

2. If you play orks, I don't even care if I win. Chances are, your army looks cool and has a ton of personality. I don't care if you stomp me. Orks, bro!'

Tons of fun will be had regardless of the outcome of the game.

Sadly, last Saturday I saw an Ork army proxied as Tau. I'll give him credit he put work into his conversions.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Sadly, last Saturday I saw an Ork army proxied as Tau.

That truly is sad.

And compelling evidence that Tau should be eradicated from 40k entirely.

Or, at least, severely nerfed.

Traditio wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:
So actually I am going to post my 2000 point list i usually take here for critique from those who hate playing Tau to see what you think.

We have started following ITC at my FLGS.. it matters

Dawn Blade: Retaliation Cadre
...
...

Crisis suits and a riptide?

No thanks.

That is a very informative critique that includes very nice detail and logical reasoning with no shed of ignorance or emotion at all

In all seriousness.. if you don't know how to handle 9 crisis suits and 1 riptide at 2000 points... then I think you should start asking for advice instead of throwing out negatives. I Know I put myself on the chopping block, but I guess I expected more reasoning.. oh well.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Sadly, last Saturday I saw an Ork army proxied as Tau. I'll give him credit he put work into his conversions.

Well, fluff wise there is a precedent. When the Tau were fighting against one of the Ork incursions into their space the Orks were using a lot of scavenged Tau tech, which made beating them much more difficult than the Tau were accustomed to ar the time.

late to the party but i hate playing tau because of marker lights. The concept of cover is very important in this game, and Tau makes that trivial. One marker light should be needed for each point of cover to be removed, not 2 ML removing upto a 2+ cover save. Now when i play Tau its all about how much complete LOS blocking terrain i can fit on the field. Lucky for me i have plenty of terrain options to choose from on my table.

stopcallingmechief wrote:
late to the party but i hate playing tau because of marker lights. The concept of cover is very important in this game, and Tau makes that trivial. One marker light should be needed for each point of cover to be removed, not 2 ML removing upto a 2+ cover save. Now when i play Tau its all about how much complete LOS blocking terrain i can fit on the field. Lucky for me i have plenty of terrain options to choose from on my table.

I think Cover at its core in this game needs fixing .. then anything that manipulates that can be resolved after.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I never played WFB but I heard that cover in that game was effecting your firing range rather then your save?

stopcallingmechief wrote:
late to the party but i hate playing tau because of marker lights. The concept of cover is very important in this game, and Tau makes that trivial. One marker light should be needed for each point of cover to be removed, not 2 ML removing upto a 2+ cover save. Now when i play Tau its all about how much complete LOS blocking terrain i can fit on the field. Lucky for me i have plenty of terrain options to choose from on my table.

I'm inclined to agree. A lot of units rely on cover or jink saves as a major part of their durability. Weapons that inherently ignore cover generally have the disadvantage of being relatively short-ranged, so there's a tradeoff. Being able to apply Ignores Cover to an entire unit's total firepower is a bit much, especially considering how few markerlight hits it takes. If it were two markerlight hits per weapon, I think it'd be much more reasonable. Then it wouldn't get applied to a whole unit's shooting, but Tau players could save it for weapons with either a high ROF or a large area of effect, and it would still be useful without being overpowered.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Sadly, last Saturday I saw an Ork army proxied as Tau. I'll give him credit he put work into his conversions.

Well, fluff wise there is a precedent. When the Tau were fighting against one of the Ork incursions into their space the Orks were using a lot of scavenged Tau tech, which made beating them much more difficult than the Tau were accustomed to ar the time.

Sounds interesting. What book was that story in?

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

stopcallingmechief wrote:
late to the party but i hate playing tau because of marker lights. The concept of cover is very important in this game, and Tau makes that trivial. One marker light should be needed for each point of cover to be removed, not 2 ML removing upto a 2+ cover save. Now when i play Tau its all about how much complete LOS blocking terrain i can fit on the field. Lucky for me i have plenty of terrain options to choose from on my table.

I'm inclined to agree. A lot of units rely on cover or jink saves as a major part of their durability. Weapons that inherently ignore cover generally have the disadvantage of being relatively short-ranged, so there's a tradeoff. Being able to apply Ignores Cover to an entire unit's total firepower is a bit much, especially considering how few markerlight hits it takes. If it were two markerlight hits per weapon, I think it'd be much more reasonable. Then it wouldn't get applied to a whole unit's shooting, but Tau players could save it for weapons with either a high ROF or a large area of effect, and it would still be useful without being overpowered.

The issue is greater then simply Tau. Psychers can cast a blessing that ignores cover (and with the conclave / tiggy) you have a very high chance of getting that power and others you want. Then their is the white scars relic that simply grants the unit ignore cover. Then there are space marine formations (white scars again? maybe ravenguard?) That units grant each other ignore cover saves lol.

Do whatever you want to markerlights and cover saves would still be disfunctional at the core. And in most situations i would rather up my BS then spend to remove cover.

FURTHER =P bit of advice, pathfinders are bad at shooting and incredibly squishy.. continuing the theme of marines, You have so many options to immediately deal with this problem.. drop a tac squad in a pod with a flamer.. wipe them out in one pass as they have 5+ saves at T3.

 Grizzyzz wrote:

I think Cover at its core in this game needs fixing .. then anything that manipulates that can be resolved after.

Putting it bluntly, no. Cover at its core is fine, and the majority of things that manipulate it? They don't have "on demand Ignores Cover". Either you need formation benefits, Orders, or Psykers to gain Ignores Cover--excluding Tau who just expend 2 Markerlight Counters and can grant Ignores Cover to multiple units at once now.

I never played WFB but I heard that cover in that game was effecting your firing range rather then your save?

Nope!
Cover modified the "To Hit" rolls of the firer. To give you an example if it were to affect 40k:
A unit is in soft cover(trees). The firing unit would be at a -1 to their Hit Roll.

In WHFB as well, there were penalties for firing at over half of a weapon's range band(A bow with a 30" range would be at a penalty for firing beyond 15").


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

The issue is greater then simply Tau. Psychers can cast a blessing that ignores cover (and with the conclave / tiggy) you have a very high chance of getting that power and others you want.

Raven Guard have no access to a Conclave as part of their new Detachment. They have to ally it in as a standalone Formation--and if they take Tigurius, they can't attach him to any of their units unless

Then their is the white scars relic that simply grants the unit ignore cover.

One unit gains Ignore Cover.

Then there are space marine formations (white scars again? maybe ravenguard?) That units grant each other ignore cover saves lol.

The Pinion Demi-Company does this, but it only does the following:
A Scout/Veteran Scout Sergeant from this formation(you HAVE to take 1 unit minimum but can have up to 5--so you can have up to 5 Scout Sergeants) can grant Ignores Cover to a unit within 9" of a unit from this Formation for the duration of the shooting phase.

The units in that formation?
Captain or Chaplain(may not have Terminator Armor)
0-1 Command Squad
3 Tactical Squads
1 Assault Squad
1 Devastator Squad
1-5 Scout or Scout Bike Squads


You REALLY want to pretend that them being able to grant Ignores Cover to those specific units is gamebreaking?

Do whatever you want to markerlights and cover saves would still be disfunctional at the core. And in most situations i would rather up my BS then spend to remove cover.

I'm calling shenanigans on this.

FURTHER =P bit of advice, pathfinders are bad at shooting and incredibly squishy.. continuing the theme of marines, You have so many options to immediately deal with this problem.. drop a tac squad in a pod with a flamer.. wipe them out in one pass as they have 5+ saves at T3.

Tactical Squad in a pod with a Flamer drops--massed EWO fire potentially shoots them down before they get the chance to fire.

Stop pretending that it's "so easy" to bring down Pathfinders. Markerlights are a 36" range weapon in an army with dirt-cheap access to Interceptor on fairly nasty weaponry.

Traditio wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Since I play orks, I can safely say that tau are fun to play...if all of their models are proxies for another army.

I love orks.

1. The players who play orks aren't playing to win. They are generally all-around fun people with generally agreeable personalities. If you tell me that you play orks, I automatically assume that you'd be a riot. I want to have a beer with you.

2. If you play orks, I don't even care if I win. Chances are, your army looks cool and has a ton of personality. I don't care if you stomp me. Orks, bro!'

Tons of fun will be had regardless of the outcome of the game.

You should meet our resident ork player....

A massive failing rule lawyer, which often results in him getting upset when counter-lawyered, spams LOW in smaller games then complains when we ban them because "I want to play my best units, why can't I?" etc etc etc

He's hyper competitive in one of the most relaxed and casual meta I've been in absolute years!

 Kanluwen wrote:

Putting it bluntly, no. Cover at its core is fine, and the majority of things that manipulate it? They don't have "on demand Ignores Cover". Either you need formation benefits, Orders, or Psykers to gain Ignores Cover--excluding Tau who just expend 2 Markerlight Counters and can grant Ignores Cover to multiple units at once now.

When they use markerlights for "multiple" units at once, that means they are all shooting at ONE unit, but that is a strength of marines.. the ability at deployment to suddenly MSU like crazed dogs

I would not be objected to a cover change for markerlights, I think 1 to 1 might be too much of a penalty given the statistics of actually landing markers... 1 per 2 models. Markers seem really really strong when they are all pointed at one unit .. but spread out they don't have the same escalation. Maybe 1 marker to remove -2 cover.. OR simply reduces the cover save to a minimum of 6+ rather then no cover.

 Kanluwen wrote:

I never played WFB but I heard that cover in that game was effecting your firing range rather then your save?

Nope!
Cover modified the "To Hit" rolls of the firer. To give you an example if it were to affect 40k:
A unit is in soft cover(trees). The firing unit would be at a -1 to their Hit Roll.

In WHFB as well, there were penalties for firing at over half of a weapon's range band(A bow with a 30" range would be at a penalty for firing beyond 15").

Thats right.. What if that cover system was used instead of the current one? Penalties for such long range fire?

There's a guy where I play whose Tau list is an absolute blast to play. His theme is "as close to close combat as possible while not being in it", and he can play any level from casual to super competitive.

He primarily runs short ranged crisis suits, breacher teams, Piranhas, stealth teams, carbine drones and the new Ghostkeel suit with its close range option.

He creates extremely mobile glass cannon short ranged lists and extensively uses terrain. If you want to play competitive, you'll be up against the new Tau-curion with Optimized Stealth Cadre and if you're into fluffy play you'll be fighting an on-foot strike team of breachers backed up by melta stealth suits fighting house-to-house and using terrain to their advantage.

His lists are more fun than any shooting-only army I've ever seen since 5th ed, and he is by far the most popular Tau player in a gaming group I've ever encountered. All that, and he can still punch it out with the most competitive players in our club (who run Gladius, Centstar, WK/Scatbike spam and the like).

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Putting it bluntly, no. Cover at its core is fine, and the majority of things that manipulate it? They don't have "on demand Ignores Cover". Either you need formation benefits, Orders, or Psykers to gain Ignores Cover--excluding Tau who just expend 2 Markerlight Counters and can grant Ignores Cover to multiple units at once now.

When they use markerlights for "multiple" units at once, that means they are all shooting at ONE unit, but that is a strength of marines.. the ability at deployment to suddenly MSU like crazed dogs

And...?
Marines aren't the only army in the game to use cover.

Sure, Coordinated Firepower means that "they are all shooting at ONE unit"--but it also means that ALL of the benefits of the Markerlights are given to the firing units. And let's not forget that you get a +1 BS when you're using 3 or more units for Coordinated Firepower to begin with--and it applies to your entire Detachment.

That's a pretty hefty proposition for anyone to have to deal with Suit level firepower getting +1BS(potentially +2 BS if the unit has Fire Team) in addition to whatever Markerlight boosts they get and Ignores Cover.

I would not be objected to a cover change for markerlights, I think 1 to 1 might be too much of a penalty given the statistics of actually landing markers... 1 per 2 models. Markers seem really really strong when they are all pointed at one unit .. but spread out they don't have the same escalation. Maybe 1 marker to remove -2 cover.. OR simply reduces the cover save to a minimum of 6+ rather then no cover.

Until you get SOME kind of protection from Markerlights(whether it be an Initiative test or Leadership test or whatever), it doesn't matter how often you miss. There's no protection from Markerlights when they hit.

If Markerlights were like Luminagen for AdMech, it'd be one thing. Remove a point of Cover for unsaved Wounds caused by a unit with this special rule.

 Kanluwen wrote:

I never played WFB but I heard that cover in that game was effecting your firing range rather then your save?

Nope!
Cover modified the "To Hit" rolls of the firer. To give you an example if it were to affect 40k:
A unit is in soft cover(trees). The firing unit would be at a -1 to their Hit Roll.

In WHFB as well, there were penalties for firing at over half of a weapon's range band(A bow with a 30" range would be at a penalty for firing beyond 15").

Thats right.. What if that cover system was used instead of the current one? Penalties for such long range fire?

There's a reason why Shooting in WHFB required a boatload of models.

Kanlewen, I'm really not sure how you can say that Tau Ignores cover is "on demand" while IG Ignores Cover is not.

-Tau requires a dedicated unit with mostly useless equipment besides the markers, with light durability that needs to be protected

-IG requires a dedicated unit with mostly useless equipment besides the orders, with light durability that needs to be protected

-Tau needs to roll a to-hit roll with options that can buff that up to make it easier to land their Ignores Cover

-IG needs to roll a LD test with options that can buff it up to make it easier (Or, now with the new relic, all but impossible to fail)

Now that I can have a unit of Ignores-Cover Basilisks and Manticores which succeed orders on anything but a 12 on 2D6, I'm really not certain how anyone can say Tau have access to more ignores cover.

IG can grant ignores cover to EVERY infantry unit AND all the artillery, AND the best artillery unit they have comes with it, stock.

Ignores Cover does not make an army strong, or toxic, and it is not a "broken" mechanic. If anything, cover is currently too strong on a number of highly problematic units. Exactly how many of the crazy strong units that exist in the game are the way they are because of the power of the "jink" rule or other cover saves?

Toe in cover for MCs? 2+ rerollable jink save bikes? Jinking Scatterbikes? 2+ Cover Ghostkeels? Anyone?

 Kanluwen wrote:

You REALLY want to pretend that them being able to grant Ignores Cover to those specific units is gamebreaking?

Just want to clarify I never said it was game breaking, I was just citing other available options for the current armies to gain ignores cover (which you can't deny is more available now then it ever was)

 Kanluwen wrote:

Do whatever you want to markerlights and cover saves would still be disfunctional at the core. And in most situations i would rather up my BS then spend to remove cover.

I'm calling shenanigans on this.

Call it what you want. Hop in the Tau Tactics forum and ask which most people would choose. They would choose higher BS most of the time, like i said. Its a math game. There are times yes, your 2+ rerollable bikers I want to remove cover on because statistically thats better.. but on a 4+ cover.. 5+ cover.. I will take the massed hits to get as many wounds as i can.

 Kanluwen wrote:

FURTHER =P bit of advice, pathfinders are bad at shooting and incredibly squishy.. continuing the theme of marines, You have so many options to immediately deal with this problem.. drop a tac squad in a pod with a flamer.. wipe them out in one pass as they have 5+ saves at T3.

Tactical Squad in a pod with a Flamer drops--massed EWO fire potentially shoots them down before they get the chance to fire.

Stop pretending that it's "so easy" to bring down Pathfinders. Markerlights are a 36" range weapon in an army with dirt-cheap access to Interceptor on fairly nasty weaponry.

Are you ever dropping 1 pod no (unless its a melta vet pod.. i did that all the time ) . It's about target saturation, giving me options. For example from a space wolf game i just played a few weeks ago.. Friend dropped 9 pods on me turn 1 plus had a unit of Thunder Wolf Cav charging at me.. That is target saturation at its best, there was no way to intercept all the threats, not to mention I couldn't simply ignore the TWC that was charging up the table (intercept means i cant shoot that weapon in my next turn).

More realistic to not "blackmanes".. your probably dropping 2 or 3 pods. what if 2 of those pods are grav devastators in skyhammer, and the third is a flamer squad... I am probably going to give up my pathfinders in this specific example, and hopefully you spread out enough to let your meat shields aborb wounds before your grav models.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Sadly, last Saturday I saw an Ork army proxied as Tau. I'll give him credit he put work into his conversions.

Well, fluff wise there is a precedent. When the Tau were fighting against one of the Ork incursions into their space the Orks were using a lot of scavenged Tau tech, which made beating them much more difficult than the Tau were accustomed to ar the time.

Sounds interesting. What book was that story in?

The Farsight Enclaves supplement, if I remember correctly.

the_scotsman wrote:
Kanlewen, I'm really not sure how you can say that Tau Ignores cover is "on demand" while IG Ignores Cover is not.

-Tau requires a dedicated unit with mostly useless equipment besides the markers, with light durability that needs to be protected

Tau have more options than just Pathfinders for Markerlights. Marker Drones are a thing, and Markerlights are purchasable by multiple units.

-IG requires a dedicated unit with mostly useless equipment besides the orders, with light durability that needs to be protected

IG requires a Company Command Squad and you to be within 12". That is the ONLY way to provide "Fire on my Target!"(Ignores Cover Order).

-Tau needs to roll a to-hit roll with options that can buff that up to make it easier to land their Ignores Cover.

Tau needs to roll a "To Hit" roll and then nothing else. There's no penalties for failing To Hit, you can't get locked out of your Markerlights if you miss.

-IG needs to roll a LD test with options that can buff it up to make it easier (Or, now with the new relic, all but impossible to fail)

IG needs to roll a LD test within a 12" range of the target unit.
Taking Volkov's Cane requires you to declare that you are fielding a Cadian Detachment, which prevents you from taking ANY non-Cadian named characters. So you can take Kell, Creed, and Pask.
That's it. No Nork Deddog, no Yarrick, no Straken, no Harker, etc.

Now that I can have a unit of Ignores-Cover Basilisks and Manticores which succeed orders on anything but a 12 on 2D6, I'm really not certain how anyone can say Tau have access to more ignores cover.

You can have a unit of Ignores Cover Basilisks and a SINGLE Manticore. The Emperor's Wrath Artillery Company does not allow for you to take more than one. It specifically states "Manticore", not "Manticore Battery".

IG can grant ignores cover to EVERY infantry unit AND all the artillery, AND the best artillery unit they have comes with it, stock.

IG can grant Ignores Cover to "EVERY infantry unit" assuming they:
A) Have enough Orders on a Senior Officer to provide the Order to all units(The Emperor's Shield Infantry Company formation can only grant "First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire" to any number of Infantry in the formation, they can't use any other Order)
B) They are within range to issue the Order.
C) They succeed in issuing the Order.

Remember that failing to issue an Order? The unit that you attempted to issue the Order to still counts as having received an Order--and if you rolled double 6s attempting to issue the Order then you cannot attempt to issue an Order for the remainder of the turn.

And no, they can't grant Ignores Cover to "all the artillery". They can do that in a single formation.

Using that as the baseline is like me claiming that the Farsight Conclave's "Ranged Support Cadre" is the baseline for Markerlights(Broadsides getting 2x Marker counters for firing at units designated by the formation's Pathfinders).

Ignores Cover does not make an army strong, or toxic, and it is not a "broken" mechanic. If anything, cover is currently too strong on a number of highly problematic units. Exactly how many of the crazy strong units that exist in the game are the way they are because of the power of the "jink" rule or other cover saves?

The Jink rule is something entirely different. It should never have been applied to Cover saves, period. Either that or Skyfire should have been adapted to Ignore Jink Saves while still allowing for Cover saves.

Toe in cover for MCs?

Yeah...this is an issue with MCs, not Cover. MCs/GMCs need to have the 25% obscured rule applied to them.

2+ rerollable jink save bikes? Jinking Scatterbikes?

Jinking Scatterbikes are an issue only because of their armament.

2+ Cover Ghostkeels? Anyone?

Cover isn't the issue with Ghostkeels, it's the HCMs and the ability to be fielded in a trio.

Oh and them in OSCs.

I am not stating the OSC isn't good.. But all the Tau lists at LVO that brought them did poorly.

Stealth suits are actually a tax to that formation, they are just so bad for the cost... its unfortunate honestly, cool concept and fluff.

The point you made about Jink/cover saves is what I am poking at with "cover needs reworking at its core" I agree, they shouldnt be the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OH and IG is just a shame.. they need some really nice love. Some of the Formations they got out of Kauyon were cool, but they didn't fix the core problems with the codex itself.

I understand and agree with several Tau points on here. It still remains that it is unfun to deal with something as durable as the Riptide or Stormsurge. Even if my codex could field them, I don't want to use invisible Centurions.