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.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
It still annoys me to no end that I am outright forced to take ethreals and fireblades though. I want my commanders in suits damnit.

And we have the crux of the complaint.

Increase the cost: So you want commanders to cost 500 points? Because to limit them to the numbers GW clearly wants on the field, that is what you're asking.

But I can just include more patrols: Yes, in a couple formats this is possible, but in Matched Play, which is the accepted competitive format, you get 3.

Commander spam wasn't even that good: Again, this is a dumb and disingenuous argument (we all know this is just an argument to have the best of both worlds). Obviously under the new rules, it was going to be pretty amazing, this is only true from an Index perspective, which is no longer valid.

They could have just given them fewer hard points: As pointed out previously, no, they could not given their previous rulings on Index units.

Everybody has squishy commanders that are included just because they bring specific abilities to the table, you haven't been singled out for punishment and harassment, get over it. You have an amazing codex that is unbelievably synergistic with the currently dominant meta.

Serious question:
Would people have been more amenable to them making Crisis Suit Bodyguard Teams an HQ choice instead of an Elite choice in addition to the 1 Commander/Detachment change?

I would be pretty okay with that. As it stands now there is very little reason to take a Bodyguard team over a standard Crisis team unless you just feel like paying extra.

I would have! It could have been quite fun and fluffy, especially if they gave them some sort of buff aura or ability, or made the commander's aura actually useful, and let the bodyguards act as a sort of amplifier, spreading it further. Maybe something like if they're within six inches of the commander, things withing six inches of them count as being withing the commander's aura. Or maybe three inches. I can't tell if that'd be too good without testing it. But they'd still need to do something else with either the cost of crisis suits or the weapons they wield, but that wouldn't be a bad start.

The problem is a full unit of crisis suits puts out about the same level of hurt as a commander, for significantly more. While not being significantly tougher.

So any situation in which you want crisis suits, commanders are just better. Actually... That's true for the vast majority of units in the Tau books. Just about any role (anti-tank, anti-infantry, anti-heavy infantry, etc) is done better by a commander than any other unit. Compare a quad-fusion commander to a Hammerhead for anti-tank for example... And then compare that same commander to a quad-lascannon predator.

No one is spamming the hell out of predators, but they put out approximately the same level of hurt as a quad-fusion commander, unarguably the single best anti-tank unit in the Tau book, index or codex.

They're good, I'm not arguing that, but they're definitely not the boogyman that some people make them out to be. Otherwise they would have been doing a lot better than middle of the pack in tournaments.

On top of that, as someone else pointed out earlier, a crisis suit with burst cannon is two points shy of a custodian guard... Compare those two units and tell me crisis suits are anywhere near the same level.

Deadawake1347 wrote:

On top of that, as someone else pointed out earlier, a crisis suit with burst cannon is two points shy of a custodian guard... Compare those two units and tell me crisis suits are anywhere near the same level.

This is indeed one of the main issues Tau face. Overcosted suits and weapons (some got fixed but not all). But, this is not exactly unique either (hi terminators,flash gits and half of every codex). So, I'm just going to hope that once all the codices get released GW actually takes a hard look at overall balance within and between armies. This year's chapter approved should give us something tangible in that regard, but it could also be very light as well since Orks won't be out till September I heard. We might need to wait for 2019 to get some serious changes.

Until then, I'm going to be fine with this codex, and as I play I'll try to figure out what is over or underperforming and send feedback based on that. (newsflash, I still think commanders overperform, but we'll see how it shakes out)

 Lance845 wrote:

It SHOULD be factored in but so should a units maximum upward potential. It's not possible for me to make my termagants 3+ BS rerolling 1s. And it's not possible for me to make the vast majority of my army that way at the same time when focus firing.

Is it Leviathan that has a stratagem for a Fly and non-Fly units to team up and get rerolls on to-hit and wound? Do you factor that potential into your analysis of all units in a Leviathan army? I just think people have gotten sloppy with markerlights and Tau. Markerlights are like any other option in an army - they serve a role, but also have a cost.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
It still annoys me to no end that I am outright forced to take ethreals and fireblades though. I want my commanders in suits damnit.

And we have the crux of the complaint.

Increase the cost: So you want commanders to cost 500 points? Because to limit them to the numbers GW clearly wants on the field, that is what you're asking.

But I can just include more patrols: Yes, in a couple formats this is possible, but in Matched Play, which is the accepted competitive format, you get 3.

Commander spam wasn't even that good: Again, this is a dumb and disingenuous argument (we all know this is just an argument to have the best of both worlds). Obviously under the new rules, it was going to be pretty amazing, this is only true from an Index perspective, which is no longer valid.

They could have just given them fewer hard points: As pointed out previously, no, they could not given their previous rulings on Index units.

Everybody has squishy commanders that are included just because they bring specific abilities to the table, you haven't been singled out for punishment and harassment, get over it. You have an amazing codex that is unbelievably synergistic with the currently dominant meta.

Serious question:
Would people have been more amenable to them making Crisis Suit Bodyguard Teams an HQ choice instead of an Elite choice in addition to the 1 Commander/Detachment change?

Not as much as I'd preferred to just have 2 commanders and not the insane coldstar buff, but yes-I'd fine that acceptable.

And twinpole-exactly who is forced to include a squishy commander except those who are a squishy army?
I don't see a limit on nid monsters, or on daemon princes (and greater daemons), or custodian superdudes, or GK nemesis grandmasters-and each of these is a bigger, meaner HQ choice than the tau commander (at least of their index era)

We have already pointed out SO many ways to fix the commanders that would not cause a backlash.
And yes, you COULD limit them to two guns and outright errata the index to not have the 4 gun option any more and give the codex commander a real aura (not the idiotic once-per-battle-even-if-you-got-ten-dudes ones that somehow partly overlapping with warlord traits, markerlights AND sept tactics. we really get the same abilities over and over from a bazillion sources.)

They didn't need to increase costs, they didn't need to introduce a fixed limit, they could settle for giving the commander an actual job EXCEPT being a gunship, and then drop his gunship potential without having him turn to junk. right now, a commander liturally does nothing except shooting people good and having a once-per-army ability that you might never use anyway even if you have multiple commanders around, because it's that unimpressive when you factor in the limitations, and overlaps.
And yes-the commander spam wasn't even that hot, it was just the best we had.
They had ample of ways to handle the situation, and they chose poorly. that's it.

People used to complain (with valid points) about how good markerlights were, Now with the ease of access to good aura buffs, it's interesting to see how people still complain about markerlights possibly being too strong. Getting 5 on a single unit requires 80pt of investment, which isn't a lot, but then you're assuming none of those t3, 5+ models die, and average hits when they fire and they're never below average. Plus, any unit that your entire army shoots at, regardless of how many ML you put on it, will die, outside of maybe a Warlord Titan or something.

(and that's not even getting into how 2 ML is basically useless, 3 is half covered by a sept trait)

xmbk wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

It SHOULD be factored in but so should a units maximum upward potential. It's not possible for me to make my termagants 3+ BS rerolling 1s. And it's not possible for me to make the vast majority of my army that way at the same time when focus firing.

Is it Leviathan that has a stratagem for a Fly and non-Fly units to team up and get rerolls on to-hit and wound? Do you factor that potential into your analysis of all units in a Leviathan army? I just think people have gotten sloppy with markerlights and Tau. Markerlights are like any other option in an army - they serve a role, but also have a cost.

There is no tyranid adaptation that gives reroll to hit and to wound.

<Hive Fleet> Adaptations


And no. Because even if we pretended that there was that, it is a adaptation, not a mechanic that some half the units in the army can bring with them. A better comparison would be how everyone considers all tyranids to be immune to morale. Despite most units having a real gak leadership, coming in large numbers, and dieing like crazy. Because Synapse exists and Tyranids are going to be running around maintaining a synaptic web. Tyranids are not JUST fearless. They pay for it with synapse creatures and paying attention to positioning throughout the game.

Tau pay 8 ppm for a marker drone or pathfinder and then they use markerlights. When a Tau player wants something dead they will get at least one ML onto that thing and have a stratagem to add an additional 2-4 for 1 cp.

 Lance845 wrote:

Tau pay 8 ppm for a marker drone or pathfinder and then they use markerlights. When a Tau player wants something dead they will get at least one ML onto that thing and have a stratagem to add an additional 2-4 for 1 cp.

1-3, it replaces the 1 with 1+d3 (and marker drones are 10ppm)

Deadawake1347 wrote:


No one is spamming the hell out of predators, but they put out approximately the same level of hurt as a quad-fusion commander, unarguably the single best anti-tank unit in the Tau book, index or codex.

Predators can be directly targeted, have brackets, and BS3. Not that I'm on either side, but I just thought that needed pointing out.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Tau pay 8 ppm for a marker drone or pathfinder and then they use markerlights. When a Tau player wants something dead they will get at least one ML onto that thing and have a stratagem to add an additional 2-4 for 1 cp.

1-3, it replaces the 1 with 1+d3 (and marker drones are 10ppm)

Thanks for the correction. The point stands.

People should absolutely be considering what Tau units do with Markerlight support in the same way that people consider what Genestealers, hormagaunts, and termagants do with Synapse support.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Deadawake1347 wrote:


No one is spamming the hell out of predators, but they put out approximately the same level of hurt as a quad-fusion commander, unarguably the single best anti-tank unit in the Tau book, index or codex.

Predators can be directly targeted, have brackets, and BS3. Not that I'm on either side, but I just thought that needed pointing out.

You're absolutely correct, and I wasn't saying that commanders aren't easier to protect, or don't hit a bit more accurately. I was just saying when it comes to offensive output they're not that different, and against T8, the S9 puts them on basically even footing with the BS2+, since fusion is only S8.
Predators also have higher toughness and significantly more wounds, so I'd argue that the bracketing evens out. By the time the predator is down enough to be useless, the commander's been dead for a bit.

Which really only leaves the big thing, which is the character rules. Which I will gladly admit is a problem. But one of GW's own making, and one of the big reasons (aside from the fact that they're offensively better than a similarly kitted out crisis suit squad for significantly less cost), that Tau players were spamming them to begin with.
But here's the thing... Those Tau lists were solidly middle of the pack in rankings. The best of the best, spammiest of spammiest, most broken of broken Tau lists were middle of the tournament ranking.

So... What does that say about everything else in the index those super competitive players were leaving behind?

Commander spam needed to be fixed.

It arguably has been made a better idea with the coldstar the way it is now. Literally only a hard limit is actually stopping people from taking more commanders than before. That's a bad thing.
And commanders are still the best option for any job in the Tau codex, from everything spoiled so far. Hammerheads are still laughably bad anti-tank, crisis suits are still hideously overcosted for what they are, There's still absolutely no reason to take bodyguards... ever. Half the markerlight table is still either pointless or redundant.
They ignored the majority of the issues of the index. Honestly... The only thing I'm actually pleased with in the codex is the drop in price on Broadsides, but like the majority of the codex there's still no real reason to take them over commanders unless you hit the point of "I can't legally take any more commanders" and that's just terrible game design.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Tau pay 8 ppm for a marker drone or pathfinder and then they use markerlights. When a Tau player wants something dead they will get at least one ML onto that thing and have a stratagem to add an additional 2-4 for 1 cp.

1-3, it replaces the 1 with 1+d3 (and marker drones are 10ppm)

Thanks for the correction. The point stands.

People should absolutely be considering what Tau units do with Markerlight support in the same way that people consider what Genestealers, hormagaunts, and termagants do with Synapse support.

I agree, however if we include any possible buff they may or may not get, soup factions would have to be balanced heavily around the fact that other armies might grab units/buffs for them specifically.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Tau pay 8 ppm for a marker drone or pathfinder and then they use markerlights. When a Tau player wants something dead they will get at least one ML onto that thing and have a stratagem to add an additional 2-4 for 1 cp.

1-3, it replaces the 1 with 1+d3 (and marker drones are 10ppm)

Thanks for the correction. The point stands.

People should absolutely be considering what Tau units do with Markerlight support in the same way that people consider what Genestealers, hormagaunts, and termagants do with Synapse support.

I agree, however if we include any possible buff they may or may not get, soup factions would have to be balanced heavily around the fact that other armies might grab units/buffs for them specifically.

No, we don't have to consider and balance soup the same way that we do a single army out of a single codex. There is little to nothing that CAN benefit outside of their own army in terms of buffs. It's not like commissars are issuing first rank fire second rank fire to Space Marines. And we are not talking about what a single character model provides within a 6" bubble. We are talking about a core army mechanics that literally effects the entire army so long as they are targeting the same enemy. With Tau ranges you could have 2 units 4 ft away from each other both gaining the benefit of the same markerlight. gak, depending on the units that could be on the absolute opposite ends of the table.

You can't argue "but look at imperial soup" when discussing what Tau do on their own. You get markerlights. for an average 16 points (2 pathfinders having BS 4+ one of which should hit) your entire army is reolling 1s to hit against your called target. Name another army that gets that as a core mechanic.

 Lance845 wrote:

xmbk wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

It SHOULD be factored in but so should a units maximum upward potential. It's not possible for me to make my termagants 3+ BS rerolling 1s. And it's not possible for me to make the vast majority of my army that way at the same time when focus firing.

Is it Leviathan that has a stratagem for a Fly and non-Fly units to team up and get rerolls on to-hit and wound? Do you factor that potential into your analysis of all units in a Leviathan army? I just think people have gotten sloppy with markerlights and Tau. Markerlights are like any other option in an army - they serve a role, but also have a cost.

There is no tyranid adaptation that gives reroll to hit and to wound.

<Hive Fleet> Adaptations

Spoiler:

And no. Because even if we pretended that there was that, it is a adaptation, not a mechanic that some half the units in the army can bring with them. A better comparison would be how everyone considers all tyranids to be immune to morale. Despite most units having a real gak leadership, coming in large numbers, and dieing like crazy. Because Synapse exists and Tyranids are going to be running around maintaining a synaptic web. Tyranids are not JUST fearless. They pay for it with synapse creatures and paying attention to positioning throughout the game.

Tau pay 8 ppm for a marker drone or pathfinder and then they use markerlights. When a Tau player wants something dead they will get at least one ML onto that thing and have a stratagem to add an additional 2-4 for 1 cp.

As I said, it's the Leviathan stratagem. Reasonably applicable since it involves planning, has a cost, and doesn't affect all your models.

I play Nids myself. Synapse is far less effort to cover your whole army with than ML. Synapse creatures also do a lot more than just provide synapse, the same cannot be said for most markerlight providers.

Marker drones are the cheapest and most abundant ablative wounds in the game. Pathfinders are excellent screens and have some great special weapons and come with drones that buff other units in really great ways.

The leviathan stratagem is not comparable at all.

1) its the fight phase. So the units that can benefit from it have to actually fit within 1" of the unit your targetting with it. There is a MASSIVE difference between shooting with 20+"range weapons and fitting with 1" melee.

2) it requires you opponent to have units that fly and unuts that dont.

3) its only available to a single hivefleet. And not even one of the top 3 most popular. Markerlights are available to everyone.

4) you can use that stratagem once a turn at best. You can fire markerlights at as many units as you have markerlight guns.

How the hell do you think thats comparable?

Marker Drones are ablative wounds? What happens when they are ablated away?

 Lance845 wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Tau pay 8 ppm for a marker drone or pathfinder and then they use markerlights. When a Tau player wants something dead they will get at least one ML onto that thing and have a stratagem to add an additional 2-4 for 1 cp.

1-3, it replaces the 1 with 1+d3 (and marker drones are 10ppm)

Thanks for the correction. The point stands.

People should absolutely be considering what Tau units do with Markerlight support in the same way that people consider what Genestealers, hormagaunts, and termagants do with Synapse support.

I agree, however if we include any possible buff they may or may not get, soup factions would have to be balanced heavily around the fact that other armies might grab units/buffs for them specifically.

No, we don't have to consider and balance soup the same way that we do a single army out of a single codex. There is little to nothing that CAN benefit outside of their own army in terms of buffs. It's not like commissars are issuing first rank fire second rank fire to Space Marines. And we are not talking about what a single character model provides within a 6" bubble. We are talking about a core army mechanics that literally effects the entire army so long as they are targeting the same enemy. With Tau ranges you could have 2 units 4 ft away from each other both gaining the benefit of the same markerlight. gak, depending on the units that could be on the absolute opposite ends of the table.

You can't argue "but look at imperial soup" when discussing what Tau do on their own. You get markerlights. for an average 16 points (2 pathfinders having BS 4+ one of which should hit) your entire army is reolling 1s to hit against your called target. Name another army that gets that as a core mechanic.

Isn't there a custode banner that buffs "imperium" units? I imagine that might become a trend as GW homogenizes factions under one umbrella. Maybe... IDK

Anyway, there are pros and cons to markerlights, like any other buff:
Pros:
- Affects all units
- Gives 5 buffs, that stack
- Gives reroll ones and +1 BS with 5 hits. Which is very powerful.
Cons:
- It requires a to hit roll.
- It's a heavy weapon. If the pathfinder moves it hits on 5s. If you want them to move you need 3 pathfinders to hit once or 15 pathfinders to hit 5 times.
- It only works on one target at a time. If that target is killed, you no longer get the buff.
- Most buffs don't synergize well. This leaves tiers 2-4 as being largely ignored.
- Pathfinders are squishy and will die quickly. This reduces effectiveness severely.
- To hit modifiers shut down markerlights.

So I really don't see how markerlights are all that much better than regular buffs. Not to mention the fact that Tau have very few buffs that affect to wound rolls (in the index there were none) but plenty of other ways to buff to hit rolls (multi trackers, command drone, Kauyon). And Tau guns aren't that much better than Imperial weapons, aside from pulse weapons. Fusion is just melta, railguns are just lascannons, Ion is like plasma, burst cannons are like heavy bolters. Heck that new armiger thermal lance is a better fusion collider.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
Marker drones are the cheapest and most abundant ablative wounds in the game.

Eh, at 10 points and no save (assuming savior protocols) they're not great ablative wounds. Shield drones are better. They also only hit on 5s, so you'd need 3 average for 1 hit. And if they take wounds you no longer your markerlights.

 Lance845 wrote:

Pathfinders are excellent screens and have some great special weapons and come with drones that buff other units in really great ways.

That's true, pathfinders are definitely solid. Though if you take a special weapon, that's one fewer markerlight.

So, if markerlights are really a problem, are they costed correctly? What is available in the other army books that give the same benefits, and what do they cost?

Dandelion wrote:


Anyway, there are pros and cons to markerlights, like any other buff:
Pros:
- Affects all units
- Gives 5 buffs, that stack
- Gives reroll ones and +1 BS with 5 hits. Which is very powerful.

I love that you totally disregard move and fire heavy weapons and advance and fire assault weapons, not to mention ignoring cover. That's priceless.

Most people consider those pretty solid abilities.

Dandelion wrote:
- It requires a to hit roll.

Mine require a psychic check that can be failed or kill my buffing unit. Also, they can be denied. The ones that don't require a psychic check also have an effective radius of 6" typically, not table wide.

Dandelion wrote:
- It's a heavy weapon. If the pathfinder moves it hits on 5s. If you want them to move you need 3 pathfinders to hit once or 15 pathfinders to hit 5 times.

Sautekh detachment solves this issue.

Dandelion wrote:
- It only works on one target at a time. If that target is killed, you no longer get the buff.

This affects numerous buffs and the armies that provide them.

Dandelion wrote:
- Most buffs don't synergize well. This leaves tiers 2-4 as being largely ignored.

Ignore cover is amazing. Move and fire with Heavy Weapons, Advance and fire with assault weapons, with no penalty, also amazing. The missile bonus is about the only one that looks questionable, but even that is taking a ~17% chance and improving it to 50% at least.

Dandelion wrote:
- Pathfinders are squishy and will die quickly. This reduces effectiveness severely.

So are Sorcerers, still use them.

Dandelion wrote:
- To hit modifiers shut down markerlights.

Everyone has problems with hit modifiers, join the club.

Dandelion wrote:
So I really don't see how markerlights are all that much better than regular buffs.

I wouldn't call them better necessarily, but definitely comparable.

Dandelion wrote:
Not to mention the fact that Tau have very few buffs that affect to wound rolls (in the index there were none) but plenty of other ways to buff to hit rolls (multi trackers, command drone, Kauyon).

Yeah, again, join the club. I have 1 model that provides it in hand to hand only, I have 1 other very specific model that must be my warlord and then only provides that bonus to a very specific subset of unit types. Also, short range.

Yeah, not seeing your points here.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Yeah, not seeing your points here.

I was only making one point. This one.

Dandelion wrote:
So I really don't see how markerlights are all that much better than regular buffs.

To which you already agreed.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

I wouldn't call them better necessarily, but definitely comparable.

All my "points" were just aspects of the whole markerlight system to consider. It doesn't make them bad, it just keeps them from being omnipresent buffs, which is essentially where I disagreed with Lance on.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
- It's a heavy weapon. If the pathfinder moves it hits on 5s. If you want them to move you need 3 pathfinders to hit once or 15 pathfinders to hit 5 times.

Sautekh detachment solves this issue.

You... You mean the Necron dynasty trait? I'm not sure how that helps Tau pathfinders...

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
- Most buffs don't synergize well. This leaves tiers 2-4 as being largely ignored.

Ignore cover is amazing. Move and fire with Heavy Weapons, Advance and fire with assault weapons, with no penalty, also amazing. The missile bonus is about the only one that looks questionable, but even that is taking a ~17% chance and improving it to 50% at least.

The issue with this one is not that it's bad, it's that it's a trap.
You have to move/advance in the movement phase, and markerlights are fired in the shooting phase. So it's a gamble on whether or not you're actually going to get the benefit when you move the models that you want to get that buff.
If you roll poorly or kill the marked target with something else, that model is suffering the penalty still.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
- Pathfinders are squishy and will die quickly. This reduces effectiveness severely.

So are Sorcerers, still use them.

But sorcerers are also characters, which makes them significantly easier to protect.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
- To hit modifiers shut down markerlights.

Everyone has problems with hit modifiers, join the club.

The problem here is that the method Tau are supposed to use to overcome the to hit modifier is itself shut down by the to hit modifier...

Also, TwinPole, it's pretty frustrating when you take posts out of context. I feel like you're more concerned with proving me wrong than actually having a discussion.

BTW, thanks Deadawake. I didn't even know where to start with those.

Deadawake1347 wrote:
Sautekh detachment solves this issue.

Blargh, I'm bored today waiting for problems to occur and cross-posting on multiple things, my bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:
Also, TwinPole, it's pretty frustrating when you take posts out of context. I feel like you're more concerned with proving me wrong than actually having a discussion.

BTW, thanks Deadawake. I didn't even know where to start with those.

Fair enough, I consider the Marker Light system to be a perfectly functional army-wide buff system, very solid even. The other nice thing about it is that it works across different Septs if I'm reading it correctly, which is much better than a lot of our passive buffs, which are locked to Legion/Chapter.

Lance, the trait requires your units to have fly/no-fly, not your opponents.

Anyway, I was trying to help you see that markerlights are conditional and have a cost, and that seemed like a comparison that you might understand.

Guess not.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Fair enough, I consider the Marker Light system to be a perfectly functional army-wide buff system, very solid even. The other nice thing about it is that it works across different Septs if I'm reading it correctly, which is much better than a lot of our passive buffs, which are locked to Legion/Chapter.

Oh, totally. I was just trying to show that it shouldn't be taken for granted.

xmbk wrote:
Lance, the trait requires your units to have fly/no-fly, not your opponents.

Anyway, I was trying to help you see that markerlights are conditional and have a cost, and that seemed like a comparison that you might understand.

Guess not.

Guess what? Everything in the game is conditional and has a cost. Its a dumb point to make.


I was never arguing that markerlights are op. I argued that they are good. And freely available. Always. In numerous ways. You cant argue for tau having higher than 4+ bs without considering markerlights. They are a key and core component of the tau playstyle.

Any time you think to argue that sich and such should be 3+ you need to consider that it becomes 2+ rerolling 1s with only a little planning ahead.

 Lance845 wrote:
Any time you think to argue that sich and such should be 3+ you need to consider that it becomes 2+ rerolling 1s with only a little planning ahead.

That's a fair point, but I think most people already understand that. When I suggested Shas'vre getting BS 3+ I had the underlying assumption that they would be appropriately costed. Besides, Shas'vre tend to be expensive anyway (ghostkeel, riptide, crisis bodyguards). Like I said, it's not a balance fix, it's just a flavor fix.

And just look at Hammerheads, they have BS 3+ and were shunned until Ion got good, so it won't necessarily be OP. So it's hard to tell how much it would affect balance.

All in all, it shouldn't be too far fetched to implement.

Except i have had great times with some hammerheads and longstrike. And most people didnt like them for the expense of their guns for their output not their bs.

Whats available on a hammerhead is VERY different from whats available on a crisis team.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, fluff does not and should not = crunch.

If fluff was crunch shadow in the warp would be table wide, give a blanket -1 ld which would become -3 to psykers and cause perils on any failed manifest instead of only double 1s and 6s.

Fluff is a crap argument for anything in the game mechanics.

 Lance845 wrote:
Except i have had great times with some hammerheads and longstrike. And most people didnt like them for the expense of their guns for their output not their bs.

Whats available on a hammerhead is VERY different from whats available on a crisis team.

Output is directly related to BS. If with BS 3+ Hammerheads were not good, and people had trouble making them good with markerlights then markerlights are not a counterpoint to increasing BS. Individual performance is easily adjusted by points cost or changing the weapons in question. Right now a fusion crisis team costs 300 pts or so. It costs at least 80 pts to get 5 markers on the target. That's 380 pts to get 9 melta hitting on 2s rerolling ones. Against a Russ that's 9 hits we'll say, 4-5 wounds and on average one dead Russ, but maybe not. Add in the lack of durability for the suits and it's hardly game breaking.

 Lance845 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, fluff does not and should not = crunch.

If fluff was crunch shadow in the warp would be table wide, give a blanket -1 ld which would become -3 to psykers and cause perils on any failed manifest instead of only double 1s and 6s.

Fluff is a crap argument for anything in the game mechanics.

Then on that we disagree. And there is literally nothing that will change my mind.

Fluff is the whole reason this game exists today. It's the only reason most people are still in the hobby (me included). 40k is not the most tactical game out there, and all the rules are based on the fluff. Fluff drives the game mechanics. A marine is tougher than a guardsman, a fire warrior has better gear than a guardsman etc... "Shadow in the Warp" only exists as a rule because of the fluff. Just because things aren't as bonkers as the fluff purports does not mean they are not related (also, propaganda and bad reports exist in lore so...). The fluff and the rules evolve together.

If we applied your logic, I could make Tau super crazy good in close combat because the fluff doesn't matter, just the crunch. I could make marines only as good as a guardsman because that way it's easy to balance. The fluff doesn't matter. Maybe Custodes should have only been terminator level, because crunch not fluff. How about we make all the factions the exact same, just the models are different? You know, crunch.

If I wanted to play a game purely for crunch I would be playing chess.