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.

 Talamare wrote:

MilkmanAl wrote:
23 Gun Drones in 3 units - 184

Drones have terrible Ld, Spread them out in more units.

Similar with Pathfinders.

Fair enough. There are 3 spare FA slots in there, so 2 min units of PF and 5 units of drones should be fine.

A Ghostkeel with CIR and 2 fusions is 163pts. Add an ATS, a target lock, and 2 stealth drones, and it's 203. Just sayin'.

MilkmanAl wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

MilkmanAl wrote:
23 Gun Drones in 3 units - 184

Drones have terrible Ld, Spread them out in more units.

Similar with Pathfinders.

Fair enough. There are 3 spare FA slots in there, so 2 min units of PF and 5 units of drones should be fine.

A Ghostkeel with CIR and 2 fusions is 163pts. Add an ATS, a target lock, and 2 stealth drones, and it's 203. Just sayin'.

Keep in mind thats an easy 3 kill points for your opponent in some missions. Not always the best idea to run min squads.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Yeah. I was sitting pretty on 9 Crisis Suits, 3 Riptides, Two Y'vahra and a Commander from 7th, as well as around 16 drones. Been trying to figure out my next starting point.

Tau are fine.

This keeps coming up - they are different - but it is all not doom and gloom.

did they get nerfs? Yes (needed some too). Did they get too much? yes. (looking at the riptide).

Just the fact that there are many different tau lists doing well, is cause to show they are fine.

Too many people got used to tau when they were OP - and had OP formations - now they are having to work for their games, and its all doom and gloom.

Go check out some boards where the whining is less - like advanced tau tactica - yes, they admit the tau took an over nerf.
But they are also talking about how they are kicking ass and taking names in games.

Finally, pay some attention but do NOT take math hammer and unit efficiency as the end all be all. Pure damage numbers at theoretical ranges DO not represent and actual game or real unit strengths. The coldstar for example, is "not as good" as a regular commander. That is true - in a stand up fight against the same opponnet in the exact same circumstance.

But can the regular commander jump behind lines to take a shot at an enemy character? Can the regular commander do an advance move of 40" and take that objective you need to take right now? No, he can't - and math hammer will NEVER take those things into consideration.

nothing replaces the experience of actually playing games. nothing.

Oh, and the 109 - is OP, don't run more than one unless playing against an all knight army or a bunch of chaos leviathans.
you don't want to be that guy ...

Finally, pay some attention but do NOT take math hammer and unit efficiency as the end all be all. Pure damage numbers at theoretical ranges DO not represent and actual game or real unit strengths. The coldstar for example, is "not as good" as a regular commander. That is true - in a stand up fight against the same opponnet in the exact same circumstance.

But can the regular commander jump behind lines to take a shot at an enemy character? Can the regular commander do an advance move of 40" and take that objective you need to take right now? No, he can't - and math hammer will NEVER take those things into consideration.

nothing replaces the experience of actually playing games. nothing.

QFT.

Personally I'm getting a little tired of going into this thread and seeing every discussion of every unit ending with the same math being posted again and again for the Crisis Commander proving how efficient it is at shooting. Yes, point per wound caused the Commander is our best and most competitive unit. I know that. You know that. Every Tau player on the internet knows that. Stop posting it, please. Instead of saying that every unit besides the Y'vahra is worse than the Commander and shouldn't be taken, let's see if we can't find ways to make those units work.

And as davethepak said, mathhammer is not the end all be all. Movement, survivability, special rules, and most importantly ability to take and hold objectives (remember that outside of the No Mercy mission, unless you can reliably table any opponent you face objectives win you games, not kills) all factor into points costs and unit viability. As much as a Commander is more points efficient at killing things compared to a Crisis Team, that Commander will always be worse at holding objectives than that same Crisis Team (Objectives held by models, not units, and a 3 man unit will always hold objectives better than a single model).

 GI_Redshirt wrote:

Personally I'm getting a little tired of going into this thread and seeing every discussion of every unit ending with the same math being posted again and again for the Crisis Commander proving how efficient it is at shooting. Yes, point per wound caused the Commander is our best and most competitive unit. I know that. You know that. Every Tau player on the internet knows that. Stop posting it, please. Instead of saying that every unit besides the Y'vahra is worse than the Commander and shouldn't be taken, let's see if we can't find ways to make those units work.

And as davethepak said, mathhammer is not the end all be all. Movement, survivability, special rules, and most importantly ability to take and hold objectives (remember that outside of the No Mercy mission, unless you can reliably table any opponent you face objectives win you games, not kills) all factor into points costs and unit viability. As much as a Commander is more points efficient at killing things compared to a Crisis Team, that Commander will always be worse at holding objectives than that same Crisis Team (Objectives held by models, not units, and a 3 man unit will always hold objectives better than a single model).

So...
Vespids

 Talamare wrote:

 GI_Redshirt wrote:

Personally I'm getting a little tired of going into this thread and seeing every discussion of every unit ending with the same math being posted again and again for the Crisis Commander proving how efficient it is at shooting. Yes, point per wound caused the Commander is our best and most competitive unit. I know that. You know that. Every Tau player on the internet knows that. Stop posting it, please. Instead of saying that every unit besides the Y'vahra is worse than the Commander and shouldn't be taken, let's see if we can't find ways to make those units work.

And as davethepak said, mathhammer is not the end all be all. Movement, survivability, special rules, and most importantly ability to take and hold objectives (remember that outside of the No Mercy mission, unless you can reliably table any opponent you face objectives win you games, not kills) all factor into points costs and unit viability. As much as a Commander is more points efficient at killing things compared to a Crisis Team, that Commander will always be worse at holding objectives than that same Crisis Team (Objectives held by models, not units, and a 3 man unit will always hold objectives better than a single model).

So...
Vespids

Vespids are OP and more than one shouldn't be taken unless playing against a Knight list. You don't wanna be that guy, do you?

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

 GI_Redshirt wrote:

Personally I'm getting a little tired of going into this thread and seeing every discussion of every unit ending with the same math being posted again and again for the Crisis Commander proving how efficient it is at shooting. Yes, point per wound caused the Commander is our best and most competitive unit. I know that. You know that. Every Tau player on the internet knows that. Stop posting it, please. Instead of saying that every unit besides the Y'vahra is worse than the Commander and shouldn't be taken, let's see if we can't find ways to make those units work.

And as davethepak said, mathhammer is not the end all be all. Movement, survivability, special rules, and most importantly ability to take and hold objectives (remember that outside of the No Mercy mission, unless you can reliably table any opponent you face objectives win you games, not kills) all factor into points costs and unit viability. As much as a Commander is more points efficient at killing things compared to a Crisis Team, that Commander will always be worse at holding objectives than that same Crisis Team (Objectives held by models, not units, and a 3 man unit will always hold objectives better than a single model).

So...
Vespids

Vespids are OP and more than one shouldn't be taken unless playing against a Knight list. You don't wanna be that guy, do you?

It's amazing what a something like changing a weapon from 1 shot to 2 shots can do, but Vespids are not OP.
They are just OP in relation to how bad Tau are currently.
In relation to other Armies? They are about even.
Worse than options in a few Armies, Better than options in others.

Its true you don’t have to take a commander suit. One of my best games was a mechanised themed list. 1 Longstirke with 2 hammerheads, 2 Fusion Piranhas (unit), 1 Burst Piranha, 4 markerlight drones & a bomber. 999pts. Technically a fireblade in the middle of the 3 hammerheads would make sense as it boosts all those drones shots but I didn’t want to break my theme.

Piranhas seem really good this edition.

Although the drones on the bomber are really badly written it sounds like they get all the bomber datasheet ability's, hard to hit, can only turn up to 90, Crash and burn. Not that I had any but missile drones get bonding knifes.

 Talamare wrote:

 GI_Redshirt wrote:

Personally I'm getting a little tired of going into this thread and seeing every discussion of every unit ending with the same math being posted again and again for the Crisis Commander proving how efficient it is at shooting. Yes, point per wound caused the Commander is our best and most competitive unit. I know that. You know that. Every Tau player on the internet knows that. Stop posting it, please. Instead of saying that every unit besides the Y'vahra is worse than the Commander and shouldn't be taken, let's see if we can't find ways to make those units work.

And as davethepak said, mathhammer is not the end all be all. Movement, survivability, special rules, and most importantly ability to take and hold objectives (remember that outside of the No Mercy mission, unless you can reliably table any opponent you face objectives win you games, not kills) all factor into points costs and unit viability. As much as a Commander is more points efficient at killing things compared to a Crisis Team, that Commander will always be worse at holding objectives than that same Crisis Team (Objectives held by models, not units, and a 3 man unit will always hold objectives better than a single model).

So...
Vespids

And gun drones...

MilkmanAl wrote:Generally speaking, I'd have enough markers to reliably drop 5 on a tough target turn 1, but that's it. Maybe 15 Pathfinders, at the absolute most. After that, they're just there for spreading around rerolls of 1s.

Longstrike I feel is underrated by many on these boards. He's a solid choice, but he's not nearly as good as Commanders. The Coldstar is merely okay, in my estimation. The movement is certainly nice, but it's nothing you can't get elsewhere on a less expensive platform.

As for Kauyon (don't see much reason to use Mont'ka, honestly), you're probably going to be best served by clustering your forward units as much as possible to get those rerolls. You could clump all your FW, I suppose, but rerolling all your small arms fire is a mediocre use of such a powerful 1-shot ability.

In terms of heavy fire, you're a little on the light side. You may focus more on fusions on the Crisis Suits. Otherwise, the amount of small arms you have should see you through.

The shield gen isn't wasted on the Ghostkeel, but you might be better off saving those 40pts. I'm not sure, really. Give it a shot and see if it works well enough to warrant using.

Extremely similar line of thinking, though I will be passing on Markerlights (the table is just too crappy, and nothing in this list will really benefit from it most of the time) and Stealth Suits in favor of more Drones.

Eh, I think 80pts is a worthwhile investment for game-long rerolls of 1s. To each his own, though. As for Stealth Suits, I'll likely cut back to 1 unit for an extra 15 drones. That's a rather lopsided trade, and I figure that Stealth unit can pawn hits to drones as necessary to get the drones in firing range. I do definitely want a DC around, though. That's a gigantic increase in effectiveness for a very small cost.

Thank you, I'll see about getting more firepower. I'll have 6 XV8 Suits with the two Start Collecting boxes so I'll mount some of them for Vehicle killing and the others for Infantry killing.

Yeah I don't see how to use the Kauyon effectively, speaking of placement. You'd want to have your Commander close to units that shoot well but are spread close enough to benefit from hit. Really odd.

 Kaeldran wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

 GI_Redshirt wrote:

Personally I'm getting a little tired of going into this thread and seeing every discussion of every unit ending with the same math being posted again and again for the Crisis Commander proving how efficient it is at shooting. Yes, point per wound caused the Commander is our best and most competitive unit. I know that. You know that. Every Tau player on the internet knows that. Stop posting it, please. Instead of saying that every unit besides the Y'vahra is worse than the Commander and shouldn't be taken, let's see if we can't find ways to make those units work.

And as davethepak said, mathhammer is not the end all be all. Movement, survivability, special rules, and most importantly ability to take and hold objectives (remember that outside of the No Mercy mission, unless you can reliably table any opponent you face objectives win you games, not kills) all factor into points costs and unit viability. As much as a Commander is more points efficient at killing things compared to a Crisis Team, that Commander will always be worse at holding objectives than that same Crisis Team (Objectives held by models, not units, and a 3 man unit will always hold objectives better than a single model).

So...
Vespids

And gun drones...

Vespid for pin point strikes where you need the accurate firepower since they don't have to deal with drone targetting issues and they can also back cap and do line breaker ect. They are a workhorse, but gun drones are the best for padding out an army here and there just to add some weight of fire. If your ever deep striking any suit without gun drones your doing yourself a disservice.

 Vector Strike wrote:

 Haechi wrote:
I'm completely against FW in tournaments as their entries are completely overpowered and harmful to the balance of the game.

Huh, no? GW stuff is way out of hand. The new 5-6 SM flyer meta is entirely composed of GW flyers.

It's true that GW often messes things up, but not to the degree that FW does. Did you never play against a Corsair army in 7th? FW brought us the Torrent D weapon, scatter bikes with yet another move, even better wraithknights... the list goes on.

To be fair the FW indexes don't seem all that badly balanced - when the rules work at all. They managed to write rules for relic superheavies that required a FAQ so you could legally include them in an army, a plane that couldn't ever fire its main guns, and there's the ongoing argument about what happens when a Y'Vahra nova charges - among other things.

The issue I see with the FW stuff is that it is probably added as an afterthought and thus not in line with the internal balancing of the codex.

Not that the internal balance of codices is particularly good in the first place, but to me FW has always felt a little out of place, both in terms of rules and design.

Mandragola wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:

 Haechi wrote:
I'm completely against FW in tournaments as their entries are completely overpowered and harmful to the balance of the game.

Huh, no? GW stuff is way out of hand. The new 5-6 SM flyer meta is entirely composed of GW flyers.

It's true that GW often messes things up, but not to the degree that FW does. Did you never play against a Corsair army in 7th? FW brought us the Torrent D weapon, scatter bikes with yet another move, even better wraithknights... the list goes on.

I did. My opponent had a bunch of those better bikes behind an impassable terrain and his Prince was there too. He attempted to cast a power, periled and had to make a Ld test on 3d6 for all Corsair units within 12". He failed them all and in one phase 400p left the table.

As he used to play Dark Eldar, it was fine having him playing Corsairs. He didn't keep playing them long, however; when Haemonculus Coven book hit, he had a blast with it.

BertBert wrote:
The issue I see with the FW stuff is that it is probably added as an afterthought and thus not in line with the internal balancing of the codex.

Things that come out after the initial codex should be even better balanced than as they can adjust the stats before the full release.

Tho, honestly it doesn't seem that FW teams has much communication with normal GW teams.

 Aaranis wrote:


Yeah I don't see how to use the Kauyon effectively, speaking of placement. You'd want to have your Commander close to units that shoot well but are spread close enough to benefit from hit. Really odd.

I'd like to try it with a Coldstar Commander. Call it at the start of turn 1 and advance 40" to a manta strike drop point. Then have a whole bunch of crisis suits and gun drones drop in next to them. That's a lot of re-rolls you're getting!

This is all rules allowing of course - I did put in a rules query here.

I find it quite funny that the GW design team working on the Tau faction, and the Riptide specifically, reworked the nova reactor in such a way that to even use it wounds the Riptide. It's almost like a sick inside joke.

"Hey Bob, since the playerbase hates the Tau so much and wants it nerfed, let's really increase the points cost, nerf it's main weapon options, and make the Markerlight table it used to use really crappy. Any other ideas on making it even worse?"

"Hmm, well...we could make the Nova Reactor make it cause a mortal wound every turn it's used, but that's kinda..."

"I LOVE IT!"

The nova reactor has always had a risk of hurting the riptide. In previous editions it had a 1/3 (or 1/9 in a riptide wing, which was part of the problem) chance of failing and hurting the suit. This mattered more when the suit only had 6 wounds, of course.

Now it always works, but it always hurts you - and you have a lot more wounds to start with. That seems fine. The thing that isn't fine is the points cost.

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
I find it quite funny that the GW design team working on the Tau faction, and the Riptide specifically, reworked the nova reactor in such a way that to even use it wounds the Riptide. It's almost like a sick inside joke.

"Hey Bob, since the playerbase hates the Tau so much and wants it nerfed, let's really increase the points cost, nerf it's main weapon options, and make the Markerlight table it used to use really crappy. Any other ideas on making it even worse?"

"Hmm, well...we could make the Nova Reactor make it cause a mortal wound every turn it's used, but that's kinda..."

"I LOVE IT!"

Sadly, this is not that funny....(well it is funny, just funny "uh oh" not funny "ha ha").

I mean, what if centurions were like "hey, you can fire those missiles and two las cannons each at bs3+, but you take a wound to do it!".

No, don't think so.

Sadly, this is the hand we have been dealt.

Just finished my droneport - may use it in another game this weekend - I really like how it is an open topped vehicle now for my pathfinders (or what ever I choose to put in it).
I mean, we have been wanting tau open topped vehicles for years (well, some of us have). The better shooting for the drones is just gravy.

Mandragola wrote:
The nova reactor has always had a risk of hurting the riptide. In previous editions it had a 1/3 (or 1/9 in a riptide wing, which was part of the problem) chance of failing and hurting the suit. This mattered more when the suit only had 6 wounds, of course.

Now it always works, but it always hurts you - and you have a lot more wounds to start with. That seems fine. The thing that isn't fine is the points cost.

I get it, I just find it funny that GW couldn't:

A) Let the Nova Reactor work every time without a wound, since the model is much less effective now, or

B) Leave it the way it was, so I could still use the Nova when I'm at one wound without killing myself

davethepak wrote:

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
I find it quite funny that the GW design team working on the Tau faction, and the Riptide specifically, reworked the nova reactor in such a way that to even use it wounds the Riptide. It's almost like a sick inside joke.

"Hey Bob, since the playerbase hates the Tau so much and wants it nerfed, let's really increase the points cost, nerf it's main weapon options, and make the Markerlight table it used to use really crappy. Any other ideas on making it even worse?"

"Hmm, well...we could make the Nova Reactor make it cause a mortal wound every turn it's used, but that's kinda..."

"I LOVE IT!"

Sadly, this is not that funny....(well it is funny, just funny "uh oh" not funny "ha ha").

I mean, what if centurions were like "hey, you can fire those missiles and two las cannons each at bs3+, but you take a wound to do it!".

No, don't think so.

Sadly, this is the hand we have been dealt.

Just finished my droneport - may use it in another game this weekend - I really like how it is an open topped vehicle now for my pathfinders (or what ever I choose to put in it).
I mean, we have been wanting tau open topped vehicles for years (well, some of us have). The better shooting for the drones is just gravy.

Drone port seems pretty cool but the new rules for it made it impossible for me to use them like I did before. I used to use them as broadside platforms. I used to use a gunrig to transport a unit of FW and a firecast to shoot the railgun. Looks like only the droneport is even usable now - I was thinking it helps breachers the most.

Take it with a grain (or a whole sack) of salt, but I feel the majority of "doom & gloom" feelings towards T'au in this edition is from people used to playing them from 7th or even before. You're used to tactics that worked well back then, and don't now. Fixed gunlines or a few Riptides won't do the job no more, today the charge and combat phases are more effective than ever and you should really mind it if your opponent has one or more strong assault units. Yesterday I had a game with my Mechanicus against Imperial Fists and his Assault Terminator squad with storm shields and led by Lysander, all in a Land Raider, caused him to win to game probably almost all by themselves. Once they got in CC they were unstoppable and I had little fire power to deal with such tough units. Same story against Tyranids.

Compared to pure AdMech, T'au have reasonably cheap bubble-wrap in the form of Kroots (and they're even half-decent in CC), ways to disengage more efficiently and return stronger fire power (due to flying units and average of S5 weaponry), and most importantly MOBILITY. To me the T'au army fields a whole variety of deep-striking, Scouting or infiltrating units, that can give you an edge over your opponent and alpha-strike with great fire power while still being able to soak up the damage most of the time and move somewhere else. I believe the T'au are to be used very offensively, daring to go in close range to deliver the most of their guns and even charge when the situation allows (I know, it's a tad unfluffy but the world is vast and full of mysteries) to take advantage of the situation or prevent some unit to act normally for a turn.

You shouldn't forget that the game starts even before the deployment and so does your command re-rolls. You know in Eternal War missions, most of the time you roll a dice to know which player places the first objective. This roll is very important, as the player who wins it gets to deploy first. However the best deal is to lose the roll. When you lose you end up placing the last objective, and to choose the deployment map and your side of the table. So you can place your objectives accordingly, knowing that you can set them in your own zone with its own tactical advantages in the form of terrain. Now look at the different deployment maps and decide which one would be the most advantageous to your army and table side. I'd like to draw attention on the 4th, Hammer and Anvil. It's an interesting one by its deep yet tight (no jokes allowed) deployment zone, allowing your forces to be much farther away from the enemy's if that's your wish, depending on the matchup, and to prevent deep-strike in your deployment zone easier by the less difficult spread of your army. I played a game in such a deployment map and it was really interesting, you have that gap in the middle of the table that the enemy must cross in order to reach you and it can become a nice shooting gallery or a death trap depending on your army. Also, this is where you'll notice that 60" range and more guns are useful. Just be careful as it can quickly turn into a bloody mess if the enemy successfully invades it, yet you have the option to really fortify your position beforehand, and with the T'au Overwatch special rule getting in CC with you will get hard if you plan your army on a defensive position. Even then your mobile units will have plenty of room to work still. Really, consider using a reroll if to lose the roll-off pre-game and try this deployment map once. I'll keep on trying some of them in the future.

Feel free to correct me if you feel what I said was wrong, just giving my feel of the T'au in 8th Edition.

 Aaranis wrote:
snip

One big thing is even if you pick deployment type you are still rolling for it. You don't simply choose which deployment you like. Look at the side note on the deployment page.

 Aaranis wrote:

Yeah I don't see how to use the Kauyon effectively, speaking of placement. You'd want to have your Commander close to units that shoot well but are spread close enough to benefit from hit. Really odd.

Well, if your Commander is leading a bunch of Crisis Suits, Stealth Teams, or Gun Drones, there's not a problem. Also, if there's a lot of later-game scrum in the middle, this could effect more than a few units. Optionally, you take a Missile Pod Commander who hangs back with the gun line. There are options that make it work.

My thoughts on the Tau are that we're in one of, if not the, toughest position in 40k right now (Orks excluded...maybe).

Look at the situation:

1) We have no psychic phase. Nothing. We can't even Deny the Witch anymore with warp dice at the start of the psychic phase. This will prove even more problematic when Codexes are released and most factions have new psychic powers.

2) We have no Close Combat ability with the exception of tying up enemies models for a turn. CC is really not where we want to be with most of our stuff. Can we survive it? Yes. Will we struggle to deal wounds back? Yes.

3) The vast majority of our units are now over-costed and underwhelming. Not all, but most. The viability of our larger suits in competitive games is rather low, with the Riptide and SS being the worst offenders. I truly believe that GW designed the Tau as a horde army. They sold enough Riptides and Stormsurges to pay for the moulds, now they want to sell all the rest of the stuff that sat on the shelf during 7th. We spam hordes now if we want to win most games.

4) Say what you want about the Markerlight table, I truly believe it is a disaster and needs a rewrite. Half of the abilities are near-useless in most situations, and the amount of lights needed to get anything useful is too high. In a word, I find them ineffective.

Mass Drones and infantry backed up by Commanders seems like one of the strongest builds for us, with the Y'Vahra the most effective suit possible (but of course it needs to be nerfed just as hard as all the rest of our suits, just because). I honestly really like the Tau, but what GW has done to the faction as a whole is just sad.

 FirePainter wrote:
One big thing is even if you pick deployment type you are still rolling for it. You don't simply choose which deployment you like. Look at the side note on the deployment page.

Hmm, nobody in my store noticed that before. Most of the time we're more like "this one looks fun" and that's it, we never played Vanguard because nobody wants to take the time to divide the table in such a way

Anyway, that's another random element that may be determined with command re-rolls. Though I agree you might not want to spend two CP before the game even started. We should learn how to use each deployment map to our advantage.

1) Psychic phases is no longer overly powerful. powerful effects but not necessarily invisibility levels of nonsense.
2) we have CC tech that doesnt involve fist punching. everyone can leave combat so no more imperial hostage taking
3) the only things that became over costed and underwhelming in terms of raw offensive output. you cant ignore the defense thats how a lot of armies tanks and MCs got.
4) a single markerlight gives you captain level bonus to everyone in your army at any range. you can also really focus down and go for even more bonuses if you need to.

the only thing im sad about is seeker missiles being hot garbage. poor skyray.

Got to agree the Skyray feels underwhelming, if only he had more missiles. Used by other units Seeker Missiles are really nice though, Mortal Wounds are still very good, on one of the only way to deal with Storm Shields Terminators and such. Railguns are nice for that Mortal Wounds role too. But yeah the Skyray is basically shoot once all the missiles at something you want dead, and then send him to go explode in CC or deliver his drones somewhere.

Seeker Missiles need to be d3 damage
Destroyer Missiles should be d6 damage

Increase the cost of Seeker Missiles to roughly 8~10 points, from 5 points.

Basically fixed.

Seeker Missiles biggest issue is the fact that they don't have enough impact on the battle.

Honestly I would keep the price the same. They are only single shot weapons platforms and they are limited enough in the fact that only highly expensive platforms can take them to begin with. They need to be less than a drone. I could see 6 points maybe 7 for the d3 but I still wouldn't even consider it honestly. Destroyer missiles shouldn't go up in price at all since the unit isn't really that great for its price and once again single shot they need to do a lot to be worth the price.