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.

Tau as a whole is currently underpowered*, and I believe the main cause is that their primary force multiplier is currently underpowered.
* Disclaimer, let's not argue this.

Proposed Markerlight Table
1 - Tau Units Reroll 1s
2 - Target unit gains no bonus to its saving throws for being in cover.
3 - Add 1 to hit rolls for Tau Units attacking this unit.

That's it!

What about Seeker Missiles? You ask.

Seeker Missiles changed to
"This weapon only hits on a 6+, regardless of the firing model's Ballistic Skill. Add 1 to the hit modifier for each Markerlight counter on the target."

Now Seeker Missiles are actually Seeking! The more Markerlights you use, the more accurate it gets.
Every modifier matters, so you will only really need 3 Markerlights to hit on a +2.
Since the 3rd Markerlight will effectively give you +2 to hit.

A few more slightly offtopic changes... partially on topic
Seeker Missiles to be d3, and Destroyer Missiles to be d6... (a small cost increase would be acceptable)
Ethereal "Storm of Fire" - No longer overlaps with Markerlight benefit, changed to reroll wound of 1.

The general idea seems reasonable to me. No more overlap between markerlight bonuses and other unit abiliies as well as a better incentive to go for that +1 BS.

Maybe too good of an incentive with only 3 hits necessary, but that would have to be tested. Going down to a 4-step system first might be a safer approach.

Simple and balanced, I guess. I like it.

Let's remember how getting the last bonus requires 6 ML shots (a 48 point investment). A good bonus that only brings the Tau shooting on par with other armies (who can also fight in melee and have psykers).

I like the changes. I don't think it would need much balancing since rerolling 1s is the new black (for every army), and 3 marker hits still requires a reasonable commitment. All the seeker missile changes are good. Perhaps increase both their costs by 50% or so to account for the better hitting? That'd be 8pts per seeker and 15 per destroyer. Seems reasonable.

I'd agree that this is a better table for those purposes.

If we don't want 3 ML to be the +1 to Hit, you could always add a step 2 or 3 that functions like current 3 MLs or a TL.

It still limits the to-hit roll of T'au to 3+ rerolling 1's (which while not awesomesauce is still reasonably decent) without requiring an entire Pathfinder squad's average efforts.

I agree that Seekers should probably be increased in points, though if we want to be precise, we might as well make it 2:3.5 (to represent the average damages), or 8 points for Seekers and 14 points for Destroyers.

3 ML being the sweet spot is about correct.

Remember that a lot of Tau stuff is priced like Space Marines but have the stat line of Guardsman.

Markerlights is Tau's primary Force Multiplier. Similar to how Guardsman Force Multiplier is Orders and Low Cost.

A MSU of Pathfinders with 5 guys will most of the time be able to reach the 3 Markerlight goal.

As far as the Target Lock effect, Tau has very few Heavy Weapons to begin with. Most of their Heavy Weapon options are limited to suits which can take Target Locks. As long as Markerlights give that benefit, then you are invalidating the need for that upgrade. Not to mention that Commander's Once Per Game ability which also gives that benefit would be invalidated.

I felt it was important that Tau gained easy access to ignoring cover. Most Tau Weaponry have rather poor AP values, Ion and Imperial Plasma is directly comparable, but Ion has terrible AP. Against models with decent saves that hide in cover it can be incredibly difficult for Tau to dislodge them. So to be able to situationally negate additional saves will often support their low AP value.

You don't think that having the full bonus of markerlights, on the entire army, with only 3 ml is broken over kill? Try to remember how many markerlights were needed in 7th to sustain the entire army.

 Lance845 wrote:
You don't think that having the full bonus of markerlights, on the entire army, with only 3 ml is broken over kill? Try to remember how many markerlights were needed in 7th to sustain the entire army.

It's against one target, though. That's like saying Doom is broken overkill, because that effects your entire army while hitting the target unit.

Now, if I shoot my entire army at a single unit, I would hope that it dies... Otherwise there's something wrong, because my opponent also has the rest of his army.

 Lance845 wrote:
You don't think that having the full bonus of markerlights, on the entire army, with only 3 ml is broken over kill? Try to remember how many markerlights were needed in 7th to sustain the entire army.

I think it's within acceptable range.

Our costs went up pretty steeply by comparison to the cost increases other armies saw.
Example
4 Lascannon Predator went from 140 to 200
HRR+SMS Broadside went from 65 to 180

Markerlights may be capable of technically supporting infinity number of units, but there are significantly less units on the board.
No one /really/ cares that Fire Warriors get +1 BS. We want +1 BS on the hard hitters.
Also, If you're focusing a few hard hitters on a target, more than likely that Target will be gone within two or three units.

So, it's one of those "OMG IT CAN THEORETICALLY SUPPORT 1 TRILLION UNITS!"
but practically, you're only supporting 2-3 viable units.

After all, 1 Crisis Suit Team and 2 Broadsides is already ~700 points.
In 7th that would have been about ~300 points.

Also, bear in mind that those markerlights, back in 7e, were often letting you hit on a 2+ (2ML, for most things; just one for a Hammerhead or Skyray) and ignore cover, which may be the only defense a unit has against AP1/2 weapons.

Under this suggestion, most Tau units would get up to 3+/reroll 1s, and even when ignoring cover, it's fairly rare to deny a target its save entirely. (Exception for fusion blasters and railguns, which pay for their AP -4 and come in small numbers.)

I kinda like it. I would still want the move heavy weapons bonus to be in there though.

 SevenSeasOfRhye wrote:
I kinda like it. I would still want the move heavy weapons bonus to be in there though.

It's inherently a trap, Since you need to move before you know if you have the bonus

It helps only a few models, and most of the few models it helps have alternative options.

It bloats the table for little gain. It's effectively a limited conditional +1 BS.

It a move towards removing tactical choice.
Do I move with this heavy weapon and suffer slightly or do I stay still and fire more accurate?
Do I buy a Target Lock for mobility, or do I buy a different equipment?
Do I choose Pathfinders who suffer from moving, or do I choose Marker Drones who don't?

Proposed Markerlight Table
1 - Tau Units Reroll 1s
2 - Target unit gains no bonus to its saving throws for being in cover.
3 - Tau units ignore hit penalties on target unit ( special rules, abilities etc )
4 - Add 1 to hit rolls for Tau Units attacking this unit.

Seeker Missiles changed to
" This weapon only hits on a 6+, regardless of the firing model's Ballistic Skill. Add 1 to the hit modifier for each Markerlight counter on the target. In addition, if there are 3 markers on the target, seeker missiles re roll 1's, if there are 4 markers on the target, seeker missiles automatically hit "

There we go.

 Crusaderobr wrote:
Proposed Markerlight Table
1 - Tau Units Reroll 1s
2 - Target unit gains no bonus to its saving throws for being in cover.
3 - Tau units ignore hit penalties on target unit ( special rules, abilities etc )
4 - Add 1 to hit rolls for Tau Units attacking this unit.

Seeker Missiles changed to
" This weapon only hits on a 6+, regardless of the firing model's Ballistic Skill. Add 1 to the hit modifier for each Markerlight counter on the target. In addition, if there are 3 markers on the target, seeker missiles re roll 1's, if there are 4 markers on the target, seeker missiles automatically hit "

There we go.

Hah, I was thinking about mentioning the same thing for ignoring hit penalties.

By the way, the Seeker Missile mentioning the reroll 1s. It shouldn't be needed, If you have 3 then you will have 1.

I don't like having such a high likeliness that an army will ignore cover so often, it limits the tactical options and weight of the opponent. (making playing vs imperial fists all that much more boring.) I don't want fighting against T'au to be boring, we should be improving our marksmanship not denying their playstyle. Rather, we could do reroll 1's to wound, or reroll failed wounds if you want to be powerful. Or +1 to wound is powerful without taking the usefulness of cover away. Tau don't get any reroll wound except shaper in melee and if it's rerolls to wound while the opponent gets cover bonus they aren't being denied anything since the 2nd roll result is still based on their toughness and they have improved armor. Besides, recon drone needs a purpose in life right?

I do agree that 3 ML is just right in that it takes effort to get that many with consistency and works fine with our loadout of 18" or minimum # of shots weapons especially since our missile pods have little ap so the enemy still has a chance even if we are doing well on our end. As for seekers you've just about nailed it d3 damage and always on 6+ irrespective of modifiers except +1 for each ML. Actually I think having the seeker hit value on the table would be best. 6 natural, 5 for 1ml, 4 for 2ml, 3 for 3 ml and no mods apply (technically rerolling 1s isn't a mod)

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
I don't like having such a high likeliness that an army will ignore cover so often, it limits the tactical options and weight of the opponent. (making playing vs imperial fists all that much more boring.) I don't want fighting against T'au to be boring, we should be improving our marksmanship not denying their playstyle. Rather, we could do reroll 1's to wound, or reroll failed wounds if you want to be powerful. Or +1 to wound is powerful without taking the usefulness of cover away. Tau don't get any reroll wound except shaper in melee and if it's rerolls to wound while the opponent gets cover bonus they aren't being denied anything since the 2nd roll result is still based on their toughness and they have improved armor. Besides, recon drone needs a purpose in life right?

I do agree that 3 ML is just right in that it takes effort to get that many with consistency and works fine with our loadout of 18" or minimum # of shots weapons especially since our missile pods have little ap so the enemy still has a chance even if we are doing well on our end. As for seekers you've just about nailed it d3 damage and always on 6+ irrespective of modifiers except +1 for each ML. Actually I think having the seeker hit value on the table would be best. 6 natural, 5 for 1ml, 4 for 2ml, 3 for 3 ml and no mods apply (technically rerolling 1s isn't a mod)

What if
1 - Tau Units Reroll 1s
2 - Tau units ignore negative modifiers to hit*
3 - Add 1 to hit rolls for Tau Units attacking this unit.

I would love to see our army have more Reroll 1s to wound, but I would want it to be on a different source than Markerlights.

* Might be too good? It would bring back the Move and Shoot Heavy Weapons and would ignore things like Flyer negative modifiers.

Markerlights__ Effect __ Seeker BS (No mods)
0_______None_______6
1____Reroll 1s to hit___5
2_May target without LOS,_4
__Target treated as in cover
3 ______+1 Hit _____3

Thoughts? It makes hiding behind terrain LESS nice but not totally pointless. Also the ML would have to be able to see it in the first place obviously

Heheheh, Tau cheesecakes*

* Disclaimer lets not argue this