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.
This is kind of arguable. We get told that they train with the technology and tactics from a young age.
It's still a dedicated caste of warriors. They are at least as well trained as Cadians. With experience they become veterans. Remember, I'm not suggesting that strike teams get BS 3+, just the most veteran troops.
I mean, if you want to argue it...IG veterans warrant BS3+ because they don't get given a mech suit. Even Veteran Tank Crews don't get BS3+ outside of the Shadowsword firing at a Titanic keyworded enemy.
I can understand your argument, but at the same time I can understand why it's not there.
Hey, at least I'm not crazy. That's reassuring.
Though you do have tank commanders, which makes me wonder why Baneblades aren't BS 3+ (being LOW and all). I think my own issue with a lot of these stats is their logical inconsistency. But that's just me I guess. There's also this very large stat gap between Commanders and every other unit that skews internal balance that I don't like. Lance suggested giving them BS 3+, which would be fine for balance, but I would prefer buffing a couple select units.
They don't need Command Squads, but Command Squads do get taken to fill the role of Vox+Special Weapons caddy. Depends on the list in question.
However it doesn't change the point that the "chaff" is targetable and killing it removes the advantage.
I think we're getting off track here. The only point I made was that markerlights can be shutdown, which means that BS 2+ rerolling ones won't happen much after the first turn, and maybe not even then if the Tau player goes second. After that the player will rely on fireblades and the stratagem. So we're only talking one target a turn, which is of course limiting on who gets the buff. (the first to shoot) After that, everyone is back to standard stats. Which is why I think it's a bit unfair to shut down any suggestions for BS 3+ based on that alone.
This is kind of arguable. We get told that they train with the technology and tactics from a young age.
It's still a dedicated caste of warriors. They are at least as well trained as Cadians. With experience they become veterans. Remember, I'm not suggesting that strike teams get BS 3+, just the most veteran troops.
I mean, if you want to argue it...IG veterans warrant BS3+ because they don't get given a mech suit. Even Veteran Tank Crews don't get BS3+ outside of the Shadowsword firing at a Titanic keyworded enemy.
I can understand your argument, but at the same time I can understand why it's not there.
Hey, at least I'm not crazy. That's reassuring.
Though you do have tank commanders, which makes me wonder why Baneblades aren't BS 3+ (being LOW and all). I think my own issue with a lot of these stats is their logical inconsistency. But that's just me I guess. There's also this very large stat gap between Commanders and every other unit that skews internal balance that I don't like. Lance suggested giving them BS 3+, which would be fine for balance, but I would prefer buffing a couple select units.
Like I've said multiple times over the years, I'd rather see a tech solution. Being able to count a target as having double the number of Markerlight Counters would be a huge boost to the big suits and the like.
Tank Commanders are just...weird. They're statted as heroes but then they're not and it's weird and I don't like it and it scares me.
They don't need Command Squads, but Command Squads do get taken to fill the role of Vox+Special Weapons caddy. Depends on the list in question.
However it doesn't change the point that the "chaff" is targetable and killing it removes the advantage.
I think we're getting off track here. The only point I made was that markerlights can be shutdown, which means that BS 2+ rerolling ones won't happen much after the first turn, and maybe not even then if the Tau player goes second. After that the player will rely on fireblades and the stratagem. So we're only talking one target a turn, which is of course limiting on who gets the buff. (the first to shoot) After that, everyone is back to standard stats. Which is why I think it's a bit unfair to shut down any suggestions for BS 3+ based on that alone.
Fireblades and Firesight Marksmen both exist and I think a lot of people forget about the latter. I'm genuinely considering a few sets of Sniper Drones so that I can get some of them.
Downside is that he's an Elite and our Elites are kinda crowded.
I already did mate. A crisis team with tri fusion plus marker support is about 400 pts to kill one 200 pt Russ. Again, not game breaking. Not to mention those suits need to get real close to work thus exposing themselves to massive return fire.
A similarly buffed Fusion Ghostkeel doesn't even kill the Russ (7 damage average)
Again... look at the guns you are trying to make 2+ rerolling 1s. Is it so hard a concept to understand?
They're the same guns the commander gets. and he only needs one marker to get BS 2+ reroll ones. He's also untargetable. So I'm skeptical as to how bad this could be.
Many IG regiments are also trained from birth. gak, tyranid bioforms are literally genetically designed from the ground up to serve a single purpose. Shouldn't they ALL be BS 2+? Again, fluff is not crunch. Dumb argument to make.
Except that wasn't my argument.
Here's how I break down these stats:
BS 4+: trained, proficient
BS 3+: Veteran, elite
BS 2+: masters of their art
Shas'vre are the elite, ergo they should get BS 3+. That's it.
Tau are trained from birth to be soldiers. They only train in shooting. How are they not "exceptionally trained soldiers"?
.
They are, but they are biologically bad at it. Bad vision, IIRC.
Tau are worse than human beings, physically.. The BS4+ _is_ training from birth.
From the wiki: "Tau vision is considered slightly superior to that of humans - their visual spectrum extends a little more into the ultraviolet and infrared wavelengths. However their pupils do not dilate, giving poorer depth perception and providing slower vision focusing reflexes than humans."
This is just a justification for being bad in close combat, cuz they have bad reflexes.
Anyway I'm not suggesting regular Tau get BS 3+ just the big suits. And even if they have worse eyesight, can't the battlesuit system correct that?
I dunno how they can consider that vision better...
Whoa you see that the Leman Russ is in fact a slightly DIFFERENT shade of Brown than Humans thought!
However it did take the Tau 5 seconds to focus in on it...
Sounds like eye focus speed would be a lot better aid than seeing colours and infrared.
Also people really need to stop thinking a BS4+ Guardsman is the same as a BS4+ Crisis Suit when it comes to lore.
Trying to grade ever single unit on a 1-6 scale just does not work when the skill gap is this wide. See my previous comment on what it would be on a 1-100 scale.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/13 19:03:43
I dunno how they can consider that vision better...
Whoa you see that the Leman Russ is in fact a slightly DIFFERENT shade of Brown than Humans thought!
However it did take the Tau 5 seconds to focus in on it...
Sounds like eye focus speed would be a lot better aid than seeing colours and infrared.
Also people really need to stop thinking a BS4+ Guardsman is the same as a BS4+ Crisis Suit when it comes to lore.
Trying to grade ever single unit on a 1-6 scale just does not work when the skill gap is this wide. See my previous comment on what it would be on a 1-100 scale.
To be fair, GW isn't known for having the best grasp of science. We also don't know how "slow" their focusing is, just that it is slower. It could only be a half second difference (which would only be meaningful in close combat). Besides, we currently make cameras that adjust focus, why can't the Tau do that with theirs? They all wear helmets anyway...
Also, I am not talking about regular crisis suits, I'm talking about Crisis bodyguards. The more expensive ones that no one uses anyway, whose only selling point is the "bodyguard" rule. Which is redundant next to drones.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/03/13 19:15:18
Even fluff wise Tau are not exceptionally trained shooters.They are average shooters with the forethought to make use of thei technology to help and enhance their troops. They are the only race in the game with the idea to use laser sights and then go a step further and network that taregeting data across their entire force with a HUD to help them find track and hit targets. It's not any particular Taus individual ability that makes them great shooters. It's this data network and their use of practical technology.
Tau are trained from birth to be soldiers. They only train in shooting. How are they not "exceptionally trained soldiers"?
This is kind of arguable. We get told that they train with the technology and tactics from a young age.
Also, Shas'vre are not your average troops: (from the wiki)
"However, it is only once a Fire Warrior has become skilled in the use of an XV8 Crisis Battlesuit in combat that they can truly rise up through the ranks. The mantle of command is only earned once a Fire Warrior has attained the rank of Shas'Vre and leads their own XV8 Crisis Battlesuit team. From there, they must continue to prove their worth in battle before being chosen to be part of another Tau Commander's bodyguard. At that point, proof of accomplishment in not only the tactical, but also the strategic arts of war may earn the Commander’s approval and elevation from Shas'Vre to the rank of Shas'El."
Added emphasis.
As you can see, Shas'vre are the most elite Tau troops aside from commanders, in fact they are only one step below commanders. They can only reach that rank if they are skilled enough. The way I see it, if IG veterans warrant BS 3+ then so should Shas'vre. And like I said earlier, it would not necessarily break the game. I actually think it would help it. If I thought it would be bad for gameplay I wouldn't be suggesting it.
I mean, if you want to argue it...IG veterans warrant BS3+ because they don't get given a mech suit. Even Veteran Tank Crews don't get BS3+ outside of the Shadowsword firing at a Titanic keyworded enemy.
I can understand your argument, but at the same time I can understand why it's not there.
Big difference between an untargetable character surround by chaff and a 10man squad of targetable T3 5+ (the minimum number for an average 5 hits)
And when that "untargetable character surrounded by chaff" needs a Command Squad(which is targetable) to extend his range beyond 6 inches...
I'm not trying to say the two are the same, but it is worth mentioning that an officer with everything killed around him has nobody to issue Orders to. Just like a Markerlight heavy list with nobody to shoot the things has problems.
I thought officers only needed a vox caster, they don't need command squads. So long as they hang out with their infantry they can get that range boost.
They don't need Command Squads, but Command Squads do get taken to fill the role of Vox+Special Weapons caddy. Depends on the list in question.
However it doesn't change the point that the "chaff" is targetable and killing it removes the advantage.
Until they kill said chaff however (or, atleast every model with a vox caster) the buff source is untargetable and active with no rolls required to activate
Since it's 1 vox per Infantry, Veteran, or Command Squad(you can't use non-<Regiment> voxes BTW), that's a bit easier to do than you think when it requires the Officer to be within 3" of the Vox.
unlike marketing where every dead model is a direct blow to the effectiveness of the system (to a point where if you don't get 4or 5, you're stuck with 2 and 3 and those are most likely worthless), and that's ignoring that moving makes the buffs even more unreliable.
Every dead model is a blow to the effectiveness of the system, but virtually every model in the army gets to benefit from the system. This is the thing that I feel like many people either gloss over or downplay.
Are there some choices in there that are less than optimal? Sure. The Seeker+Destroyer Missile one isn't great but it's not bad either. It has its place.
Really? Seekers and Destroyers are trash, especially if fired without ML. Seekers are 18ppm (counting the cheapest source of two ML you can get, because no one in their right mind should ever fire one without the buff), and deal ONE mortal wound. ONE. Destroyers are barely better, dealing D3 (which means they might as well be a seeker missile 1/3 of the time, but average out at being 2MW obviously hence being the price of 2 seekers) and cost 23ppm (again, counting the cheapest source of two ML, because no one in their right mind should ever fire one without the buff). "Sub optimal" is breacher teams, or ethereals. They can do stuff, it's just much harder than an optimal choice (i.e. fireblades/commanders or strike teams). Plus, unlike every previous edition seekers no longer hit on a 2+ (or at least disregard modifiers), but use the BS4 of the majority of the army (or 3+ for hammerhead hulls, minus devilfish, until they get bracketed) tau missiles are trash, plain and simple, and that's despite the fact they're basically our only source of MW.
On top of that, they only all benefit if they all shoot the same target which is about the biggest definition of overkill there is, and a waste of a lot of shooting unless your opponent only brought models that can survive that much shooting reliably (i.e. a land raider perhaps, or a titan). I'd gladly trade the ML system for being within 3" of a vox caster to issue my buffs, without the possibility of missing a to hit roll to activate them, or hitting less because I had to move, or because the enemy has a -1 trait.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
Really? Seekers and Destroyers are trash, especially if fired without ML. Seekers are 18ppm (counting the cheapest source of two ML you can get, because no one in their right mind should ever fire one without the buff), and deal ONE mortal wound. ONE. Destroyers are barely better, dealing D3 (which means they might as well be a seeker missile 1/3 of the time, but average out at being 2MW obviously hence being the price of 2 seekers) and cost 23ppm (again, counting the cheapest source of two ML, because no one in their right mind should ever fire one without the buff). "Sub optimal" is breacher teams, or ethereals. They can do stuff, it's just much harder than an optimal choice (i.e. fireblades/commanders or strike teams). Plus, unlike every previous edition seekers no longer hit on a 2+ (or at least disregard modifiers), but use the BS4 of the majority of the army (or 3+ for hammerhead hulls, minus devilfish, until they get bracketed) tau missiles are trash, plain and simple, and that's despite the fact they're basically our only source of MW.
On top of that, they only all benefit if they all shoot the same target which is about the biggest definition of overkill there is, and a waste of a lot of shooting unless your opponent only brought models that can survive that much shooting reliably (i.e. a land raider perhaps, or a titan). I'd gladly trade the ML system for being within 3" of a vox caster to issue my buffs, without the possibility of missing a to hit roll to activate them, or hitting less because I had to move, or because the enemy has a -1 trait.
In the codex, seekers are now hunter killer missiles. (S8 D6 damage) So there's that.
Really? Seekers and Destroyers are trash, especially if fired without ML. Seekers are 18ppm (counting the cheapest source of two ML you can get, because no one in their right mind should ever fire one without the buff), and deal ONE mortal wound. ONE. Destroyers are barely better, dealing D3 (which means they might as well be a seeker missile 1/3 of the time, but average out at being 2MW obviously hence being the price of 2 seekers) and cost 23ppm (again, counting the cheapest source of two ML, because no one in their right mind should ever fire one without the buff). "Sub optimal" is breacher teams, or ethereals. They can do stuff, it's just much harder than an optimal choice (i.e. fireblades/commanders or strike teams). Plus, unlike every previous edition seekers no longer hit on a 2+ (or at least disregard modifiers), but use the BS4 of the majority of the army (or 3+ for hammerhead hulls, minus devilfish, until they get bracketed) tau missiles are trash, plain and simple, and that's despite the fact they're basically our only source of MW.
On top of that, they only all benefit if they all shoot the same target which is about the biggest definition of overkill there is, and a waste of a lot of shooting unless your opponent only brought models that can survive that much shooting reliably (i.e. a land raider perhaps, or a titan). I'd gladly trade the ML system for being within 3" of a vox caster to issue my buffs, without the possibility of missing a to hit roll to activate them, or hitting less because I had to move, or because the enemy has a -1 trait.
In the codex, seekers are now hunter killer missiles. (S8 D6 damage) So there's that.
Really minor improvement I guess, but for 18ppm, that's pretty expensive, triple the price of a hunter killer for one seeker AND requires a support unit to actually hit something.
I stand by the fact seekers and destroyers are trash.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/13 19:35:03
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
In the codex, seekers are now hunter killer missiles. (S8 D6 damage) So there's that.
Really minor improvement I guess, but for 18ppm, that's pretty expensive, triple the price of a hunter killer for one seeker AND requires a support unit to actually hit something.
I stand by the fact seekers and destroyers are trash.
Well, you can stack multiple and fire all of them at once, so that initial price dampens out the more you fire (also they're 5 ppm). I personally think they're fine. I'm thinking of loading them on fusion piranhas and seeing how it goes.
----
Back on thread topic: someone brought up that commander wargear couldn't be limited due to index/codex transition, but stimulant injectors are no longer wargear in the codex. So we have a precedent now, I guess. It might mean that GW hadn't even considered their own flowchart. So I still think they could have limited commander gear.
In the codex, seekers are now hunter killer missiles. (S8 D6 damage) So there's that.
Really minor improvement I guess, but for 18ppm, that's pretty expensive, triple the price of a hunter killer for one seeker AND requires a support unit to actually hit something.
I stand by the fact seekers and destroyers are trash.
Well, you can stack multiple and fire all of them at once, so that initial price dampens out the more you fire (also they're 5 ppm). I personally think they're fine. I'm thinking of loading them on fusion piranhas and seeing how it goes.
Don't load them too heavily. I go 1 Seeker/Piranha and it works well...but I run 2x Piranhas and some Devilfish with Burst and Seekers along with 30 Pathfinders so maybe I'm not the right person to talk about it...
Back on thread topic: someone brought up that commander wargear couldn't be limited due to index/codex transition, but stimulant injectors are no longer wargear in the codex. So we have a precedent now, I guess. It might mean that GW hadn't even considered their own flowchart. So I still think they could have limited commander gear.
The flowchart tends to be focused on models and representation on the models. I don't think stim injectors ever were modeled were they?
Nope stimulant injectors can still be taken on codex units aslong as the index unit has the ability as per GW's own ruling. Mental I know but I'm happy as it means FNP's for everyone is still a thing take that MW spam. Untill they inevitably decied to make T'au the exception to that rule in the FAQ
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/13 19:56:41
Ice_can wrote: Nope stimulant injectors can still be taken on codex units aslong as the index unit has the ability as per GW's own ruling. Mental I know but I'm happy as it means FNP's for everyone is still a thing take that MW spam. Untill they inevitably decied to make T'au the exception to that rule in the FAQ
That is precisely my point. There was discussion that the commander limit was required due to the wording of the flowchart because GW couldn't restrict wargear without leaving a loophole. With the stimulant injector, I don't think they even thought about it.
The flowchart tends to be focused on models and representation on the models. I don't think stim injectors ever were modeled were they?
Well, no. But the support systems don't really have a model anymore (who's going to know the difference anyway?). In regards to the flowchart, there's nothing that specifically calls out representation, just legacy rules. (I believe)
Don't load them too heavily. I go 1 Seeker/Piranha and it works well...but I run 2x Piranhas and some Devilfish with Burst and Seekers along with 30 Pathfinders so maybe I'm not the right person to talk about it...
I'm liking the look of two Seekers on my Piranha, there's no turning back.
Apparently in the twitch stream he gets rules (that he wrote!) wrong and insinuates that he only picked up Tau recently so likely did not play them while writing the rules.
Without having seen the stream and with the fact that the reddit never explicitly calls out what he does/doesn't get wrong("During the T'au Q&A session on Friday, the team that worked on the T'au codex got a number of rules wrong, including how markerlights work, what was changed, and why. They were unable to answer basic questions about the Codex or the rules." doesn't really tell us how or what he got wrong), I find it a bit silly that all this is being made of that.
Lead designer is a guy named James Gallagher (sp?). Bald guy with a long beard, looks like he could be part of Metallica or something.
And he's had two Tau armies in the past; both Sa'cea. He even posted up a painted Breacher last week on Twitter, testing a new color scheme for Sa'cea.
I've seen the stream and can summarize. He did indeed frantically look up a lot of the rules (even the old ones that were the same in the index like the Kauyon and Mont'ka HQ abilities, the coolness of which they discussed extensively) they discussed a few of the new stratagems and tenets. They also discussed ways of killing T'au as spacemarines. Most of the subscriber rule questions in stream chat were ignored due to large amounts of T'au salt coming from there. They could only answer the meme questions "because the screen was scrolling super fast". The biggest misstep he made was when he was talking about the markerlight table changes.
To those uninitiated, the markerlight table change from index to codex was switching levels 3 and 4 to make so that the "ignores cover bonuses" rule is in position 3 and the "removes movement penalties" rule was in position 4. What he said was that they switched 3 and 2 so the "launch seekers at ballistic skill" bonus was now on lvl 2 and his explanation for that was that doing this would enable the Skyray to use it's 2 markerlights to launch seeker missiles without other unit support. His mistakes were:
A) Seekers buff was always on lvl 2
B) When you're shooting, you have to declare your targets and assign weapons before you roll the dice. So by using the Skyray the way he described, you're basically shooting yourself in the foot with Seeker missiles.
The showmatch against a shooty ork army was mostly uneventful besides the T'au player using the new homing beacon incorrectly by placing it after he moved his units and Farsight dying in melee to a bunch of boyz equipped with shootas. Otherwise the shooty ork index list was easily destroyed by the new codex T'au even with the ork player doing some impressing t-shirt save rolls.
Bonus for all the heretic purgers: the lore part of the stream was Duncan and the New Guy taking the piss of T'au for an hour. I.e. they recited all the lore instances about T'au getting crushed/dissected/tricked by Imperium and DE. And spoke as little as possible about the new codex lore while getting sidetracked by memeing about charging T'au with imperial knights every 3rd sentence. I found it slightly hilarious but also in bad taste as the stream was meant to hype people for the new codex release.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/13 22:09:36
Apparently in the twitch stream he gets rules (that he wrote!) wrong and insinuates that he only picked up Tau recently so likely did not play them while writing the rules.
Without having seen the stream and with the fact that the reddit never explicitly calls out what he does/doesn't get wrong("During the T'au Q&A session on Friday, the team that worked on the T'au codex got a number of rules wrong, including how markerlights work, what was changed, and why. They were unable to answer basic questions about the Codex or the rules." doesn't really tell us how or what he got wrong), I find it a bit silly that all this is being made of that.
Lead designer is a guy named James Gallagher (sp?). Bald guy with a long beard, looks like he could be part of Metallica or something.
And he's had two Tau armies in the past; both Sa'cea. He even posted up a painted Breacher last week on Twitter, testing a new color scheme for Sa'cea.
I've seen the stream and can summarize. He did indeed frantically look up a lot of the rules (even the old ones that were the same in the index like the Kauyon and Mont'ka HQ abilities, the coolness of which they discussed extensively) they discussed a few of the new stratagems and tenets. They also discussed ways of killing T'au as spacemarines. Most of the subscriber rule questions in stream chat were ignored due to large amounts of T'au salt coming from there. They could only answer the meme questions "because the screen was scrolling super fast". The biggest misstep he made was when he was talking about the markerlight table changes.
This sounds like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Even if the old ones were the same, if he got them wrong in their new iteration he'd be accused of "saying they were better than they were". Not surprising about the "salty" rules questions being ignored, especially if they were phrased in such a way that it was obviously a "Gotcha!" attempt.
To those uninitiated, the markerlight table change from index to codex was switching levels 3 and 4 to make so that the "ignores cover bonuses" rule is in position 3 and the "removes movement penalties" rule was in position 4. What he said was that they switched 3 and 2 so the "launch seekers at ballistic skill" bonus was now on lvl 2 and his explanation for that was that doing this would enable the Skyray to use it's 2 markerlights to launch seeker missiles without other unit support. His mistakes were: A) Seekers buff was always on lvl 2
Ehhh...even with the book handy and reading it often, I've made the mistake of when/where specifics are.
B) When you're shooting, you have to declare your targets and assign weapons before you roll the dice. So by using the Skyray the way he described, you're basically shooting yourself in the foot with Seeker missiles.
Yes, you declare your targets and assign weapons before you roll the dice...so he fires the Markerlights first, hits with them and then uses the Seekers next. If he only hits with 1 he uses the stratagem for 1+D3 Markerlight Counters instead of the one hit he'd get.
Not sure how this is a problem? Especially with this FAQ answer existing in Xenos 2:
Xenos 2 FAQ wrote:Q: Can a unit of Pathfinders benefit from their own markerlights (e.g. if half the unit shoots their markerlights, and the other other half shoot the same target with other weapons)? A: Yes. Declare which models in the unit will fire markerlights at the same time you declare targets for the unit to shoot at, then resolve the models firing markerlights first, one at a time
The showmatch against a shooty ork army was mostly uneventful besides the T'au player using the new homing beacon incorrectly by placing it after he moved his units and Farsight dying in melee to a bunch of boyz equipped with shootas. Otherwise the shooty ork index list was easily destroyed by the new codex T'au even with the ork player doing some impressing t-shirt save rolls.
Bonus for all the heretic purgers: the lore part of the stream was Duncan and the New Guy taking the piss of T'au for an hour. I.e. they recited all the lore instances about T'au getting crushed/dissected/tricked by Imperium and DE. And spoke as little as possible about the new codex lore while getting sidetracked by memeing about charging T'au with imperial knights every 3rd sentence. I found it slightly hilarious but also in bad taste as the stream was meant to hype people for the new codex release.
It's no different than any other new codex stream then.
Just everybody's getting pissy because it's someone they were unfamiliar with. Got it...the sad part is they could actually have looked up that the guy has had other Tau armies in the past. Pretty sure he's even been in WD back in the mid/late 2000s with one of them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/13 22:35:36
It's not really about whether or not he's had previous armies, but that they couldn't even be bothered to get someone who was familiar with the army to write the rules.
(And I'm sure I'm starting to understand the pain ork players have had since like, 4th I think?)
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
Don't you think that, knowing you were going to a Q&A on something that you wrote, you would... prepare a bit?
I mean, he knew questions were coming, and that he would be expected to answer. That is kind of the definition of a Q&A, isn't it?
Apparently in the twitch stream he gets rules (that he wrote!) wrong and insinuates that he only picked up Tau recently so likely did not play them while writing the rules.
Without having seen the stream and with the fact that the reddit never explicitly calls out what he does/doesn't get wrong("During the T'au Q&A session on Friday, the team that worked on the T'au codex got a number of rules wrong, including how markerlights work, what was changed, and why. They were unable to answer basic questions about the Codex or the rules." doesn't really tell us how or what he got wrong), I find it a bit silly that all this is being made of that.
Lead designer is a guy named James Gallagher (sp?). Bald guy with a long beard, looks like he could be part of Metallica or something.
And he's had two Tau armies in the past; both Sa'cea. He even posted up a painted Breacher last week on Twitter, testing a new color scheme for Sa'cea.
I've seen the stream and can summarize. He did indeed frantically look up a lot of the rules (even the old ones that were the same in the index like the Kauyon and Mont'ka HQ abilities, the coolness of which they discussed extensively) they discussed a few of the new stratagems and tenets. They also discussed ways of killing T'au as spacemarines. Most of the subscriber rule questions in stream chat were ignored due to large amounts of T'au salt coming from there. They could only answer the meme questions "because the screen was scrolling super fast". The biggest misstep he made was when he was talking about the markerlight table changes.
This sounds like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Even if the old ones were the same, if he got them wrong in their new iteration he'd be accused of "saying they were better than they were". Not surprising about the "salty" rules questions being ignored, especially if they were phrased in such a way that it was obviously a "Gotcha!" attempt.
To those uninitiated, the markerlight table change from index to codex was switching levels 3 and 4 to make so that the "ignores cover bonuses" rule is in position 3 and the "removes movement penalties" rule was in position 4. What he said was that they switched 3 and 2 so the "launch seekers at ballistic skill" bonus was now on lvl 2 and his explanation for that was that doing this would enable the Skyray to use it's 2 markerlights to launch seeker missiles without other unit support. His mistakes were:
A) Seekers buff was always on lvl 2
Ehhh...even with the book handy and reading it often, I've made the mistake of when/where specifics are.
B) When you're shooting, you have to declare your targets and assign weapons before you roll the dice. So by using the Skyray the way he described, you're basically shooting yourself in the foot with Seeker missiles.
Yes, you declare your targets and assign weapons before you roll the dice...so he fires the Markerlights first, hits with them and then uses the Seekers next. If he only hits with 1 he uses the stratagem for 1+D3 Markerlight Counters instead of the one hit he'd get.
Not sure how this is a problem? Especially with this FAQ answer existing in Xenos 2:
Xenos 2 FAQ wrote:Q: Can a unit of Pathfinders benefit from their own markerlights (e.g. if half the unit shoots their markerlights, and the other other half shoot the same target with other weapons)?
A: Yes. Declare which models in the unit will fire markerlights at the same time you declare targets for the unit to shoot at, then resolve the models firing markerlights first, one at a time
The showmatch against a shooty ork army was mostly uneventful besides the T'au player using the new homing beacon incorrectly by placing it after he moved his units and Farsight dying in melee to a bunch of boyz equipped with shootas. Otherwise the shooty ork index list was easily destroyed by the new codex T'au even with the ork player doing some impressing t-shirt save rolls.
Bonus for all the heretic purgers: the lore part of the stream was Duncan and the New Guy taking the piss of T'au for an hour. I.e. they recited all the lore instances about T'au getting crushed/dissected/tricked by Imperium and DE. And spoke as little as possible about the new codex lore while getting sidetracked by memeing about charging T'au with imperial knights every 3rd sentence. I found it slightly hilarious but also in bad taste as the stream was meant to hype people for the new codex release.
It's no different than any other new codex stream then.
Just everybody's getting pissy because it's someone they were unfamiliar with. Got it...the sad part is they could actually have looked up that the guy has had other Tau armies in the past. Pretty sure he's even been in WD back in the mid/late 2000s with one of them.
Just for to clear up any possible confusion, the New Guy I was referring to isn't the rules writer, but Duncan's new partner from the youtube channel.
But continuing on, the number of Tau armies the rules writer guy may have had or not has no bearing on how he looked on the stream. As a lead rule writer he should be sufficiently prepared to represent GW in a televised stream i.e. at least flip through the rules to know what you're talking about, even if you didn't write them yourself (being a lead something doesn't mean you do it all on your own, but you still take on responsibility for the things your subordinates mess up, so you make sure they don't, otherwise you get fired).
Continuing on, your example of using the stratagem is imo the exact reason why markerlights are considered bad in this edition compared to the previous ones. Looking at it from a games design perspective, in the move from 7th to 8th the markerlights changed for the worse.
In 7th you sacrificed movement and used a more reliable (no modifiers you just have to succeed a hit roll) shooting attack to give a large boost in reliability to the shooting of, realistically, 1 or 2 units. You essentially removed the to hit roll from the shooting for those units. The only drawback was that if the markers missed you shot at your regular BS and risked not doing enough damage to the unit and remain exposed to counter.... oh wait JSJ.
In 8th you use a shooting attack of same reliability to increase the shooting reliability to your entire army. The difference now is that the bonus is smaller (you can get a max of 1+ to hit and reroll ones which is only impressive if you already have the +1, but you can also get a -1 if you fail the marker rolls and will likely have your units be sitting ducks because you didn't do enough damage), the complexity is increased manyfold (instead of buffing and shooting with 1 or 2 units you have to coordinate multiple units), and the reliability is also decreased manyfold (way more dice rolls, enemy modifiers). That's a collection of game design no-nos because if you increase complexity, decrease player's control over the outcome but won't increase the reward (even add punishment in some situations) you'll just end up with tears and salt. The armywide buff imo is not really a buff rather than an additional complexity where you have to decide if you want a mediocre buff against many units which would allow you to utilize shooting at different toughness targets, or get an ok buff against one unit but then you're limited to only using a part of your army shooting because the rest would be wasted due to unsuitable weapon stats. The lack of risk/reward/effort balance of this key mechanic in the army is imo why people didn't even use it and resorted to things like commander spam, because commanders are the exact opposite, you have a simple, reliable and high reward unit.
To summarize, the current 8th ed markerlights in my opinion seem to be just plain old bad game design, and while they may be balanced or not (I don't know) they sure as hell ain't fun to use.
Deadawake1347 wrote:Don't you think that, knowing you were going to a Q&A on something that you wrote, you would... prepare a bit?
I mean, he knew questions were coming, and that he would be expected to answer. That is kind of the definition of a Q&A, isn't it?
If we had a Q&A session over a project you worked on, would you prepare for questions about a thing that didn't get much change and that everyone knew had been leaked...or would you prepare for questions over stuff that hadn't been leaked?
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
Just for to clear up any possible confusion, the New Guy I was referring to isn't the rules writer, but Duncan's new partner from the youtube channel.
Chris Peach. He's not new; he's just "new" on the streams.
But continuing on, the number of Tau armies the rules writer guy may have had or not has no bearing on how he looked on the stream. As a lead rule writer he should be sufficiently prepared to represent GW in a televised stream i.e. at least flip through the rules to know what you're talking about, even if you didn't write them yourself (being a lead something doesn't mean you do it all on your own, but you still take on responsibility for the things your subordinates mess up, so you make sure they don't, otherwise you get fired).
You'd have to prove to me, personally, whether or not he was the "lead rule writer". Might sound like moving goalposts, but people have long confused "lead rules writers" with "project leads".
Continuing on, your example of using the stratagem is imo the exact reason why markerlights are considered bad in this edition compared to the previous ones. Looking at it from a games design perspective, in the move from 7th to 8th the markerlights changed for the worse.
Only if you don't know how things work. It's easier to stack Markerlights on a few different targets and not have to worry about 'consuming' the tokens.
In 7th you sacrificed movement and used a more reliable (no modifiers you just have to succeed a hit roll) shooting attack to give a large boost in reliability to the shooting of, realistically, 1 or 2 units. You essentially removed the to hit roll from the shooting for those units. The only drawback was that if the markers missed you shot at your regular BS and risked not doing enough damage to the unit and remain exposed to counter.... oh wait JSJ.
In 8th you use a shooting attack of same reliability to increase the shooting reliability to your entire army. The difference now is that the bonus is smaller (you can get a max of 1+ to hit and reroll ones which is only impressive if you already have the +1, but you can also get a -1 if you fail the marker rolls and will likely have your units be sitting ducks because you didn't do enough damage), the complexity is increased manyfold (instead of buffing and shooting with 1 or 2 units you have to coordinate multiple units), and the reliability is also decreased manyfold (way more dice rolls, enemy modifiers). That's a collection of game design no-nos because if you increase complexity, decrease player's control over the outcome but won't increase the reward (even add punishment in some situations) you'll just end up with tears and salt. The armywide buff imo is not really a buff rather than an additional complexity where you have to decide if you want a mediocre buff against many units which would allow you to utilize shooting at different toughness targets, or get an ok buff against one unit but then you're limited to only using a part of your army shooting because the rest would be wasted due to unsuitable weapon stats. The lack of risk/reward/effort balance of this key mechanic in the army is imo why people didn't even use it and resorted to things like commander spam, because commanders are the exact opposite, you have a simple, reliable and high reward unit.
You don't ever get a "-1" for failing a Markerlight hit. You just function at your normal stats.
To summarize, the current 8th ed markerlights in my opinion seem to be just plain old bad game design, and while they may be balanced or not (I don't know) they sure as hell ain't fun to use.
As opposed to playing "Stack the Markerlights until you're BS10"?
Yeah. Nope. Your idea of "ain't fun to use" is nowhere near the same as mine.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/14 01:04:08
Deadawake1347 wrote:Don't you think that, knowing you were going to a Q&A on something that you wrote, you would... prepare a bit?
I mean, he knew questions were coming, and that he would be expected to answer. That is kind of the definition of a Q&A, isn't it?
If we had a Q&A session over a project you worked on, would you prepare for questions about a thing that didn't get much change and that everyone knew had been leaked...or would you prepare for questions over stuff that hadn't been leaked?
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
As a professional I would prepare to answer any reasonable question asked of me. And yes. I have done this kind of thing before. It can be a pain in the ass to have to prepare for this kind of presentation... but that's why it's a job.
To summarize, the current 8th ed markerlights in my opinion seem to be just plain old bad game design, and while they may be balanced or not (I don't know) they sure as hell ain't fun to use.
As opposed to playing "Stack the Markerlights until you're BS10"?
Yeah. Nope. Your idea of "ain't fun to use" is nowhere near the same as mine.
There could be a limit like the 4th ed codex... I mean, that only let you use ML to go up to BS5. Crazy, but it would prevent BS10, despite the fact the increase in hits from BS5 to BS10 is 2.78% (rounded), so I'm not sure why you're flipping out over the possibility of BS10. My math was wrong, it's 14%ish, regardless, 5 tokens past BS5 for a 14% increase in accuracy is acceptable, I mean, going from BS4+ to BS3+ or BS3+ to BS2+ is a 16.67% increase in hits. There's a natural soft cap, where after you get a 2+, the increase from ballistic skill in 7th and older editions started to drop, and with the current edition of stacking negative to hit modifiers being stupidly strong (i.e., shooting at raven guard after moving with a plasma cannon at night makes you more likely to blow up than hit the enemy), I don't think it'd be too crazy to have some sort of access to a modified previous version of markerlights since that effectively hard counters tau totally and completely (i.e. spend a markerlight to increase your to hit roll by 1, cannot ever go beyond a 2+ after all modifiers)
and by the -1 to hit, I think they're referring to heavy weapons moving and firing, and the 3rd (iirc) effect of markerlights removing the penalty for moving + shooting with heavy weapons/advancing with assault weapons.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/03/14 06:16:19
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
Deadawake1347 wrote:Don't you think that, knowing you were going to a Q&A on something that you wrote, you would... prepare a bit?
I mean, he knew questions were coming, and that he would be expected to answer. That is kind of the definition of a Q&A, isn't it?
If we had a Q&A session over a project you worked on, would you prepare for questions about a thing that didn't get much change and that everyone knew had been leaked...or would you prepare for questions over stuff that hadn't been leaked?
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
Just for to clear up any possible confusion, the New Guy I was referring to isn't the rules writer, but Duncan's new partner from the youtube channel.
Chris Peach. He's not new; he's just "new" on the streams.
But continuing on, the number of Tau armies the rules writer guy may have had or not has no bearing on how he looked on the stream. As a lead rule writer he should be sufficiently prepared to represent GW in a televised stream i.e. at least flip through the rules to know what you're talking about, even if you didn't write them yourself (being a lead something doesn't mean you do it all on your own, but you still take on responsibility for the things your subordinates mess up, so you make sure they don't, otherwise you get fired).
You'd have to prove to me, personally, whether or not he was the "lead rule writer". Might sound like moving goalposts, but people have long confused "lead rules writers" with "project leads".
Continuing on, your example of using the stratagem is imo the exact reason why markerlights are considered bad in this edition compared to the previous ones. Looking at it from a games design perspective, in the move from 7th to 8th the markerlights changed for the worse.
Only if you don't know how things work. It's easier to stack Markerlights on a few different targets and not have to worry about 'consuming' the tokens.
In 7th you sacrificed movement and used a more reliable (no modifiers you just have to succeed a hit roll) shooting attack to give a large boost in reliability to the shooting of, realistically, 1 or 2 units. You essentially removed the to hit roll from the shooting for those units. The only drawback was that if the markers missed you shot at your regular BS and risked not doing enough damage to the unit and remain exposed to counter.... oh wait JSJ.
In 8th you use a shooting attack of same reliability to increase the shooting reliability to your entire army. The difference now is that the bonus is smaller (you can get a max of 1+ to hit and reroll ones which is only impressive if you already have the +1, but you can also get a -1 if you fail the marker rolls and will likely have your units be sitting ducks because you didn't do enough damage), the complexity is increased manyfold (instead of buffing and shooting with 1 or 2 units you have to coordinate multiple units), and the reliability is also decreased manyfold (way more dice rolls, enemy modifiers). That's a collection of game design no-nos because if you increase complexity, decrease player's control over the outcome but won't increase the reward (even add punishment in some situations) you'll just end up with tears and salt. The armywide buff imo is not really a buff rather than an additional complexity where you have to decide if you want a mediocre buff against many units which would allow you to utilize shooting at different toughness targets, or get an ok buff against one unit but then you're limited to only using a part of your army shooting because the rest would be wasted due to unsuitable weapon stats. The lack of risk/reward/effort balance of this key mechanic in the army is imo why people didn't even use it and resorted to things like commander spam, because commanders are the exact opposite, you have a simple, reliable and high reward unit.
You don't ever get a "-1" for failing a Markerlight hit. You just function at your normal stats.
To summarize, the current 8th ed markerlights in my opinion seem to be just plain old bad game design, and while they may be balanced or not (I don't know) they sure as hell ain't fun to use.
As opposed to playing "Stack the Markerlights until you're BS10"?
Yeah. Nope. Your idea of "ain't fun to use" is nowhere near the same as mine.
He was introduced on the stream by Duncan and Chris as "lead rules writer for the T'au codex" and they even told some of the viewers to ask their rules questions in the next section because tat's when "the guy who knows the rules" will be there so idk how less ambiguous can that be.
My reasoning on the -1 to hit is that, if you make a conscious decision, to move/advance to get into position to shoot a target, with the intent of using markerlights to buff yourself and synergise, but the markerlights are not reliable and you will end up with a movement penalty which you otherwise would not have gotten if you didn't make the attempt to focus fire and shot a different target instead at your regular BS, it's exactly that, a penalty for putting in effort. You can nitpick the technicality but it will just be a case of "you're not wrong you're just a Blueblood" and will end the discussion with you "winning".
And I never said anything about 10BS stacking I just said that markerlights in the 8th are more complex, take away control of the outcome from the player and offer less reward, while offering my reasoning why I think so. If you wanted to use the 7th markerlights efficiently you had to just buff 1 unit that had the appropriate weapons to shoot the target and all you needed was to land 1 or 2 markers to get a superb effect which was maybe op but it was rewarding and not super annoying to pull off, in 8th you have to decide which unit to mark because he is the one for this turn, position multiple units so that they can take advantage of the marks, land 5 markers and/or use a stratagem, then shoot at an ok but not spectacular BS. All of this has a lot of failure points ranging from bad rolls while marking, to bad rolls while shooting because it's still 3+RR1 at best with the most of the army not including any negative mods, to maybe having your marker sources already be dead or being out of CP. Or you can make your life easier and just try to hit 1 marker on as many units as possible and not bother. Which was exactly what happened with the index, even the marker stratagem wasn't really that impacting because competitive players still spammed commanders who are strong, independent blubois and don't need no markers. IMO they still should have done a proper redesign with the codex, not try to patch the already broken system.
Was gonna pre-order the book and cards today, thinking I might hold off now. Not sure it's worth giving GW any more of my money when they clearly don't give a gak.
Doesn't sound like the codex is really that much of an upgrade anyway. Certainly not one worth paying full price for.
Desubot wrote: Why isnt Slut Wars: The Sexpocalypse a real game dammit.
"It's easier to change the rules than to get good at the game."
Sidstyler wrote: Was gonna pre-order the book and cards today, thinking I might hold off now. Not sure it's worth giving GW any more of my money when they clearly don't give a gak.
Doesn't sound like the codex is really that much of an upgrade anyway. Certainly not one worth paying full price for.
various points drops, stratagems, and septs alone making it a massive upgrade over the index. Maybe not eldar or IG tier, but that's ok. Can still be not worth your cash, that is an intensely personal choice that reflects all the values and goings on of your life. But i think "not really much of an upgrade" could be selling it short
pumaman1 wrote: various points drops, stratagems, and septs alone making it a massive upgrade over the index. Maybe not eldar or IG tier, but that's ok. Can still be not worth your cash, that is an intensely personal choice that reflects all the values and goings on of your life. But i think "not really much of an upgrade" could be selling it short
Careful sir, you are wandering into reasonable discourse, I will report you to the mods if this continues.
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."
Sidstyler wrote: Was gonna pre-order the book and cards today, thinking I might hold off now. Not sure it's worth giving GW any more of my money when they clearly don't give a gak.
Doesn't sound like the codex is really that much of an upgrade anyway. Certainly not one worth paying full price for.
various points drops, stratagems, and septs alone making it a massive upgrade over the index. Maybe not eldar or IG tier, but that's ok. Can still be not worth your cash, that is an intensely personal choice that reflects all the values and goings on of your life. But i think "not really much of an upgrade" could be selling it short
That is true, however there's more than one way to view it as an upgrade.
For example I don't view this as much of an upgrade when it comes to variety of list building options and play styles.
For competitive play it went from a single viable build to... pretty much just a different single viable build. Maybe two or three.
There's still no reason to use the better part of the book in any setting, the rules are still clunky and a lot of the special rules still redundant.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/14 16:43:09
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
There is no context to not knowing the rule. The way the mistake was worded is not simply misspeaking, it's blatantly not knowing the rules. His opinion on it's worth is irrelevant.
You're really extending yourself to defend him, not sure why.
xmbk wrote:There's nothing "damned if you do" about not knowing Seekers are and were #2 on the chart. It's straight up not knowing your gak.
You're missing the context as to the other parts of what was purportedly said. That's the reason I said "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Whether or not he was right or wrong about minutiae, he'd get lambasted for it.
There is no context to not knowing the rule. The way the mistake was worded is not simply misspeaking, it's blatantly not knowing the rules. His opinion on it's worth is irrelevant.
You're really extending yourself to defend him, not sure why.
Considering the poster I was replying to didn't even know that yes, a Skyray can benefit from its own Markerlights?
It should be obvious as to why I'm "extending myself to defend him".
