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.

Silver144 wrote:
We have really different levels of taste on what is good. To me most of it variate from "ok", "situational" to "too situational to be actually used", "overcosted" and "bad".

That might be because you don't understand them well...

Silver144 wrote:
My point is that this strategems do not add you good game expirience, they just fix the broken rules (markerlight), or give you some reaction options (-1 to hit on one enemy in their shooting phase, 6+ mortal wounds after you was charged). Nothing to add to actual tactic. It's just boring to play.

A how are markerlight's broken?
B how do these improve markerligths? They just give you more.
C if your complaint is that these stratagems are the only way to reliably get markerlights, you flat out haven't read the codex.
D wall of mirrors, Breach and Clear!, Stimulant Injector, Neuroweb System Jammer, Orbital Ion Beam, Positional Relay, Command and Control Node and all the sept strategems add actual tactics, they give you options. And others, like the uplinked markerlights, are just good.

Silver144 wrote:
And the one with commander: first - no way you will pick commander without weapons(and if you give him weapons, shoot it, do not waste entire turn) and spend 5+CP just to give some unit reroll to-wounds. And no way you are going to put 3 broadsides in one unit, its around 450 point! And you need 3 heavy support to fill that brigade detach, so anyone will take them separately to fill the required slots.

A perhaps nothing is in range or is worth shooting, maybe your three FBs have killed the nearby tanks, and it's actually worth more to reroll wounds on the 18 HBC shots of the nearby riptide.
B the three broadsides was just an example, although, if one were running battalions rather than a brigade, there is no reason to spread them out. There are many situations where it would be better to use the C&CN rather than the commander's own guns. It's like you haven't read the codex, only the index and then been shown the stratagems. Not everything is overcosted gak except the commander anymore.

You keep insulting me and ignoring the point I made. I see no reason to keep this discussion with you, farewell.

Silver144 wrote:
You keep insulting me and ignoring the point I made. I see no reason to keep this discussion with you, farewell.

My dude, he has been responding to your points literally bit by bit, what more did you freakin' want from a tabletop gaming forum? We aren't english majors or debate teams, we are opinionated nerds

 vaklor4 wrote:

Silver144 wrote:
You keep insulting me and ignoring the point I made. I see no reason to keep this discussion with you, farewell.

My dude, he has been responding to your points literally bit by bit, what more did you freakin' want from a tabletop gaming forum? We aren't english majors or debate teams, we are opinionated nerds

At very least I prefer to not read direct insults. And ignoring point is that new codex (and the index as well) made the tau boring army to play with and against. Every army in 8ed become one-dimensional, but the tau at the extreme. Just read the facebook tau wine (but they delete comments pretty fast). Regular tau players disappointed and there are lots of reasons for it. Also, it is officially revealed by GW, that main tau game designer don't even know the rules he made, let alone the way this army should be played.

Silver144 wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:

Silver144 wrote:
You keep insulting me and ignoring the point I made. I see no reason to keep this discussion with you, farewell.

My dude, he has been responding to your points literally bit by bit, what more did you freakin' want from a tabletop gaming forum? We aren't english majors or debate teams, we are opinionated nerds

At very least I prefer to not read direct insults. And ignoring point is that new codex (and the index as well) made the tau boring army to play with and against. Every army in 8ed become one-dimensional, but the tau at the extreme. Just read the facebook tau wine (but they delete comments pretty fast). Regular tau players disappointed and there are lots of reasons for it. Also, it is officially revealed by GW, that main tau game designer don't even know the rules he made, let alone the way this army should be played.

Id say MOST armies are pretty one dimensional. As a World Eaters player I can confirm that having a one dimensional army aint the end of the world

A how are markerlight's broken?

A few points on why I think 8th markerlights are broken (or rather, way less enjoyable to use):
1. They don't work without the stratagem.
2. They are too random and out of player control.
3. The reward is too small for the amount of effort the player has to put in to use them and for how random they are.

This is all to be looked at from a game design perspective rather than from an army balance etc. perspective. Because a lot of players just assume that T'au are whining because they can't riptide spam for wins.

Expanding on the points:
1. To use markerlights reliably you have to use Uplinked Markerlight basically every turn. This is bad game design, there isn't really any "choice" of using the stratagem.
2. Markerlights are affected by modifiers (wasn't the case before) and you also need to stack 5 of them for significant reward (more dice rolls), both of these things are outside of player control and prevent them from being used tactically, you can't rely on having the markerlight set up when trying to coordinate fire. This was attempted to be patched by the markerlight stratagem which made it an autouse not a tactical choice.
3. Previously a generic use case for markerlights was maneuvering 1 - 2 units so that they can attack the target, marking the target with a less volatile marker shot (basically always 4+) for 1 - 3 marker hits which drastically improved how reliable shooting was for the 1 - 2 units that got the buff. Relatively simple and with a tangible reward, the target unit received big damage. Now the markerlights are more complex to use and have a larger component of randomness with a less tangible reward. You have to deal with rolling more dice to get the bonus, coordinate as many units as possible because it's not worth it at all if you only manage to shoot 1 unit at the target (with more choices comes more complexity). Also comes with penalties (if you maneuver your heavy weapons and fail to get enough markers, now they shoot at a -1 because you tried to coordinate). And now with the codex release, additional resource management in the form of CP. With all this, you still have a pretty good likelyhood of your coordinated strike failing due to bad hit rolls either with markerlights or from regular shooting. Removing control from the player and introducing complexity and randomness without increasing the reward is in general bad game design and makes for an unfun mechanic.

24 w T8 3+ 389 point minimum (per battlescribe, so salt) for an IK. Tau Sept strike teams with the combined fire strat will wound that bad boy on 4+, so how many troopers will it take to statistically OTK a knight with 23 wounds (has to have an unsaved wound first)?
23*(3/2 from armor)*2 (4+ to wound)*2 (4+ bs)= 138 troopers outside of rapid fire, 69 rapid fire, 46 with fireblade buff, 35 with fireblade and etheral.
7 pts per FW 966 points to 245 (plus 42+45) 332 points to otk an IK with a unit not designed to thanks 1 expensive sept stratagem. Yeah, i think the codex helped

 pumaman1 wrote:
24 w T8 3+ 389 point minimum (per battlescribe, so salt) for an IK. Tau Sept strike teams with the combined fire strat will wound that bad boy on 4+, so how many troopers will it take to statistically OTK a knight with 23 wounds (has to have an unsaved wound first)?
23*(3/2 from armor)*2 (4+ to wound)*2 (4+ bs)= 138 troopers outside of rapid fire, 69 rapid fire, 46 with fireblade buff, 35 with fireblade and etheral.
7 pts per FW 966 points to 245 (plus 42+45) 332 points to otk an IK with a unit not designed to thanks 1 expensive sept stratagem. Yeah, i think the codex helped

I think you made a calculation error. Outside of rapid fire it is 276 inside it is 138, with a fireblade it is 92 and 78 with fireblade and etheral. Which makes in like1932-633 points. So not really that amazing considering that someone else had to wound that thing first, which should be included in the effective points.

Also most players will not have that many striker teams in the TAU sept as there are better SEPT for them and better tools to kill a IK with.

Leaving silver aside, I hop you don't mind if I reorganise your post so it can be addressed bit by bit.

liverscrew wrote:
1. They don't work without the stratagem.
To use markerlights reliably you have to use Uplinked Markerlight basically every turn. This is bad game design, there isn't really any "choice" of using the stratagem.

I completely disagree. There are tons of cheap options with which to flood the board with markerlights, pathfinders, marker drones, marksmen, taking them in strike teams, fireblades, etc. These should all be prominent in tau lists. If you're having to use the stratagem as a crutch each turn, it's a problem with your list, not the codex. Indeed, if you really want to have enough markerlights, you can't rely on the strat at all as it only affects one unit.

liverscrew wrote:
2. They are too random and out of player control.
Markerlights are affected by modifiers (wasn't the case before) and you also need to stack 5 of them for significant reward (more dice rolls), both of these things are outside of player control and prevent them from being used tactically, you can't rely on having the markerlight set up when trying to coordinate fire. This was attempted to be patched by the markerlight stratagem which made it an autouse not a tactical choice.

Whist I personally much preffered the 7th system of spending them per unit rather than stacking buffs for all units, it is what it is. As for modifiers, I assume you mean minuses to hit and moving with a heavy weapon, which they have always been subject to. Also Whilst the 5 is the best, the reroll ones is also good, so there is plenty of tactics in whether you sprea dor concentrate markerlights, and on what.

liverscrew wrote:
3. The reward is too small for the amount of effort the player has to put in to use them and for how random they are.
Previously a generic use case for markerlights was maneuvering 1 - 2 units so that they can attack the target, marking the target with a less volatile marker shot (basically always 4+) for 1 - 3 marker hits which drastically improved how reliable shooting was for the 1 - 2 units that got the buff.
Relatively simple and with a tangible reward, the target unit received big damage. Now the markerlights are more complex to use and have a larger component of randomness with a less tangible reward. You have to deal with rolling more dice to get the bonus, coordinate as many units as possible because it's not worth it at all if you only manage to shoot 1 unit at the target (with more choices comes more complexity). Also comes with penalties (if you maneuver your heavy weapons and fail to get enough markers, now they shoot at a -1 because you tried to coordinate). And now with the codex release, additional resource management in the form of CP. With all this, you still have a pretty good likelyhood of your coordinated strike failing due to bad hit rolls either with markerlights or from regular shooting. Removing control from the player and introducing complexity and randomness without increasing the reward is in general bad game design and makes for an unfun mechanic.

They were always heavy, meaning previously it was a 6+ if you moved, not a 5+ like it is now.
As for rolling more dice, so what? Markerlights have changed, their use is more for concentrated fire if you want all the benefits.
However, you can also, as I mentioned, spread them out for the plus one to reroll. Complexity does not equal bad game design, and if anything they are far less random than before.

tarrox wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:
24 w T8 3+ 389 point minimum (per battlescribe, so salt) for an IK. Tau Sept strike teams with the combined fire strat will wound that bad boy on 4+, so how many troopers will it take to statistically OTK a knight with 23 wounds (has to have an unsaved wound first)?
23*(3/2 from armor)*2 (4+ to wound)*2 (4+ bs)= 138 troopers outside of rapid fire, 69 rapid fire, 46 with fireblade buff, 35 with fireblade and etheral.
7 pts per FW 966 points to 245 (plus 42+45) 332 points to otk an IK with a unit not designed to thanks 1 expensive sept stratagem. Yeah, i think the codex helped

I think you made a calculation error. Outside of rapid fire it is 276 inside it is 138, with a fireblade it is 92 and 78 with fireblade and etheral. Which makes in like1932-633 points. So not really that amazing considering that someone else had to wound that thing first, which should be included in the effective points.

Also most players will not have that many striker teams in the TAU sept as there are better SEPT for them and better tools to kill a IK with.

23 wounds, 2/3 saved by armor, 4+ to wound t8, and 1/2 miss by base BS.. 23*1.5*2*2 is 138 "shots" or 138 dudes out of rapid fire range.. where are you getting the extra x2?... i am discounting the first wound as its caveat to using that stratagem, but you also likely have SOMETHING in your army than can do 1 wound.

 pumaman1 wrote:

tarrox wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:
24 w T8 3+ 389 point minimum (per battlescribe, so salt) for an IK. Tau Sept strike teams with the combined fire strat will wound that bad boy on 4+, so how many troopers will it take to statistically OTK a knight with 23 wounds (has to have an unsaved wound first)?
23*(3/2 from armor)*2 (4+ to wound)*2 (4+ bs)= 138 troopers outside of rapid fire, 69 rapid fire, 46 with fireblade buff, 35 with fireblade and etheral.
7 pts per FW 966 points to 245 (plus 42+45) 332 points to otk an IK with a unit not designed to thanks 1 expensive sept stratagem. Yeah, i think the codex helped

I think you made a calculation error. Outside of rapid fire it is 276 inside it is 138, with a fireblade it is 92 and 78 with fireblade and etheral. Which makes in like1932-633 points. So not really that amazing considering that someone else had to wound that thing first, which should be included in the effective points.

Also most players will not have that many striker teams in the TAU sept as there are better SEPT for them and better tools to kill a IK with.

23 wounds, 2/3 saved by armor, 4+ to wound t8, and 1/2 miss by base BS.. 23*1.5*2*2 is 138 "shots" or 138 dudes out of rapid fire range.. where are you getting the extra x2?... i am discounting the first wound as its caveat to using that stratagem, but you also likely have SOMETHING in your army than can do 1 wound.

276*0.5*0.5*1/3 is 23 or the way i calculated it every shot does (0.5*0.5*1/3)=1/12 wounds and you need 23/(1/12)=276 wounds. Your error is given only (*2) for the save it is actually an (*3) as IK has an 3+ save not 4+.

tarrox wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:

tarrox wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:
24 w T8 3+ 389 point minimum (per battlescribe, so salt) for an IK. Tau Sept strike teams with the combined fire strat will wound that bad boy on 4+, so how many troopers will it take to statistically OTK a knight with 23 wounds (has to have an unsaved wound first)?
23*(3/2 from armor)*2 (4+ to wound)*2 (4+ bs)= 138 troopers outside of rapid fire, 69 rapid fire, 46 with fireblade buff, 35 with fireblade and etheral.
7 pts per FW 966 points to 245 (plus 42+45) 332 points to otk an IK with a unit not designed to thanks 1 expensive sept stratagem. Yeah, i think the codex helped

I think you made a calculation error. Outside of rapid fire it is 276 inside it is 138, with a fireblade it is 92 and 78 with fireblade and etheral. Which makes in like1932-633 points. So not really that amazing considering that someone else had to wound that thing first, which should be included in the effective points.

Also most players will not have that many striker teams in the TAU sept as there are better SEPT for them and better tools to kill a IK with.

23 wounds, 2/3 saved by armor, 4+ to wound t8, and 1/2 miss by base BS.. 23*1.5*2*2 is 138 "shots" or 138 dudes out of rapid fire range.. where are you getting the extra x2?... i am discounting the first wound as its caveat to using that stratagem, but you also likely have SOMETHING in your army than can do 1 wound.

276*0.5*0.5*1/3 is 23 or the way i calculated it every shot does (0.5*0.5*1/3)=1/12 wounds and you need 23/(1/12)=276 wounds. Your error is given only (*2) for the save it is actually an (*3) as IK has an 3+ save not 4+.

yeah.. i was inverting the save, it saves 2/3 ap0 hits, so that meant 3/2 or 1.5 went through. WHICH is wrong, so i definitely did it poorly. and it was meant to demonstrate how using essentially the worst possible tool for the job is suddenly possible in a not-rediculous list. very tennable to have 350 poitns in troops, or 50 mans. in addition to riptides, 5 weapon coldstars until faq'd etc

sorry for late edit

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Leaving silver aside, I hop you don't mind if I reorganise your post so it can be addressed bit by bit.

liverscrew wrote:
1. They don't work without the stratagem.
To use markerlights reliably you have to use Uplinked Markerlight basically every turn. This is bad game design, there isn't really any "choice" of using the stratagem.

I completely disagree. There are tons of cheap options with which to flood the board with markerlights, pathfinders, marker drones, marksmen, taking them in strike teams, fireblades, etc. These should all be prominent in tau lists. If you're having to use the stratagem as a crutch each turn, it's a problem with your list, not the codex. Indeed, if you really want to have enough markerlights, you can't rely on the strat at all as it only affects one unit.

liverscrew wrote:
2. They are too random and out of player control.
Markerlights are affected by modifiers (wasn't the case before) and you also need to stack 5 of them for significant reward (more dice rolls), both of these things are outside of player control and prevent them from being used tactically, you can't rely on having the markerlight set up when trying to coordinate fire. This was attempted to be patched by the markerlight stratagem which made it an autouse not a tactical choice.

Whist I personally much preffered the 7th system of spending them per unit rather than stacking buffs for all units, it is what it is. As for modifiers, I assume you mean minuses to hit and moving with a heavy weapon, which they have always been subject to. Also Whilst the 5 is the best, the reroll ones is also good, so there is plenty of tactics in whether you sprea dor concentrate markerlights, and on what.

liverscrew wrote:
3. The reward is too small for the amount of effort the player has to put in to use them and for how random they are.
Previously a generic use case for markerlights was maneuvering 1 - 2 units so that they can attack the target, marking the target with a less volatile marker shot (basically always 4+) for 1 - 3 marker hits which drastically improved how reliable shooting was for the 1 - 2 units that got the buff.
Relatively simple and with a tangible reward, the target unit received big damage. Now the markerlights are more complex to use and have a larger component of randomness with a less tangible reward. You have to deal with rolling more dice to get the bonus, coordinate as many units as possible because it's not worth it at all if you only manage to shoot 1 unit at the target (with more choices comes more complexity). Also comes with penalties (if you maneuver your heavy weapons and fail to get enough markers, now they shoot at a -1 because you tried to coordinate). And now with the codex release, additional resource management in the form of CP. With all this, you still have a pretty good likelyhood of your coordinated strike failing due to bad hit rolls either with markerlights or from regular shooting. Removing control from the player and introducing complexity and randomness without increasing the reward is in general bad game design and makes for an unfun mechanic.

They were always heavy, meaning previously it was a 6+ if you moved, not a 5+ like it is now.
As for rolling more dice, so what? Markerlights have changed, their use is more for concentrated fire if you want all the benefits.
However, you can also, as I mentioned, spread them out for the plus one to reroll. Complexity does not equal bad game design, and if anything they are far less random than before.

I completely disagree. There are tons of cheap options with which to flood the board with markerlights, pathfinders, marker drones, marksmen, taking them in strike teams, fireblades, etc. These should all be prominent in tau lists. If you're having to use the stratagem as a crutch each turn, it's a problem with your list, not the codex. Indeed, if you really want to have enough markerlights, you can't rely on the strat at all as it only affects one unit.

As I've said before, I'm not trying to make this about balancing or army list advice, just a pure game mechanics discussion. I am well aware and have used the markerlight sources available in the index/codex have also used the markers in the spread out fashion for the +1 and etc. It doesn't really change my point of how bad some of the aspects of markerlights are this edition.

But I see you missed a few of the points I was trying to make.

By saying modifiers and dice rolls in point #2 I meant that there are more things now that affect the markerlight to hit roll, that are not controlled by the player who is using the markerlights e.g. the opponent's army -1 traits (other player controls) or more dice rolls to get a decent bonus (Tzeentch controls). The heavy weapon movement penalties are under your control as a player because you decide whether you want to move a unit or not (markerlight using player controls). Taking control away from the player is ill advised if you want the player to have fun, as an example would be stunlocking in World of Warcraft, or various crowd control effects in competitive games it is not fun when things don't work and you can't do anything about it, so the companies usually balance these things very carefully.

What I meant about penalties in #3, is that your heavy weapons like a broadside or hammerhead get penalized if you try to maneuver them to synergize with markers by taking advantage of the movement penalty removal (moving your units with the intent to take advantage of the bonus, something you would not do if the bonus didn't exist), this happens due to the fact that you move before you shoot your markers which is IMO, another case of bad design. A player should not be punished for trying to use a complex game mechanic, it should be encouraged.

I also never said that complexity is bad. Well rewarded complexity is good, it's actually what all games should strive for, but when a game mechanic is pretty complex and also has a lot of random factor for a kinda meh feeling reward (keyword feeling, example: quake 3 rocket launcher that gibs your opponent into bits vs same thing that makes him just fall down, which one is cooler/more rewarding?). The markerlights just fade out into the background and feel like "thank god I got good rolls" rather than "whoop, got marker hits, your rhino gonna get his gak kicked out of him".

As for rolling more dice, so what? Markerlights have changed, their use is more for concentrated fire if you want all the benefits.

Well the "so, what?" part would be:

You asked the question:

A how are markerlight's broken?

I answered:

1. More randomness/less control over outcome. (I made this brilliant set up, but failed the marker rolls... I hit 5 markers, I hope the hit rolls don't fail because I still have middling shooting.. Alaitoc list full of flyers, my markers are basically useless...)
2. More complexity, more critical decisions. (Should I focus, or should I spread?.. Do I move my broadside, maybe I get the bonus, but if not?.. 5 markers would be nice, but I really need that CP to JsJ my commander out of there... I have 5 markers, now which units can I dedicate? I don't want to overkill, but I really need to kill it...)
3. Less reward. (5 markers, now I shoot like a marine, if I focus 4 units I can maybe delete that incoming waveserpent, assuming the hit rolls go through... +1 if I get 5? Meh, not worth it, I'll just spread reroll 1s and use commanders instead)

Which sums up to:
Overall bad design decisions. (army wide markerlights which are hard to balance, unit statlines designed around 7th ed markerlights with no easy and reliable way to boost BS, additional patching of said bad markerlights with auto use stratagems)

The bad design decisions ended us up with:
Bland and kinda disappointing gameplay. (commander and drone spam, because it is too hard to boost other unit's shooting and even then it doesn't feel impacting... reroll 1s will be fine... hard caps on units, because stop using commanders you gakker, use these markerlights we want you to use even if playing them feels like gak... and auto use stratagems).

Which partially enforces and maybe more clearly expresses the point silver was trying to make.

liverscrew wrote:

Spoiler:

I completely disagree. There are tons of cheap options with which to flood the board with markerlights, pathfinders, marker drones, marksmen, taking them in strike teams, fireblades, etc. These should all be prominent in tau lists. If you're having to use the stratagem as a crutch each turn, it's a problem with your list, not the codex. Indeed, if you really want to have enough markerlights, you can't rely on the strat at all as it only affects one unit.

As I've said before, I'm not trying to make this about balancing or army list advice, just a pure game mechanics discussion. I am well aware and have used the markerlight sources available in the index/codex have also used the markers in the spread out fashion for the +1 and etc. It doesn't really change my point of how bad some of the aspects of markerlights are this edition.

Your complaint was a fundamental flaw of markerlights is the need to use the stratagem because you don’t think there’s enough options avaliable. Don’t backtrack once you’ve been shown that this is not the case.

liverscrew wrote:
By saying modifiers and dice rolls in point #2 I meant that there are more things now that affect the markerlight to hit roll, that are not controlled by the player who is using the markerlights e.g. the opponent's army -1 traits (other player controls) or more dice rolls to get a decent bonus (Tzeentch controls). The heavy weapon movement penalties are under your control as a player because you decide whether you want to move a unit or not (markerlight using player controls). Taking control away from the player is ill advised if you want the player to have fun, as an example would be stunlocking in World of Warcraft, or various crowd control effects in competitive games it is not fun when things don't work and you can't do anything about it, so the companies usually balance these things very carefully.

A) So are you claiming markerlights should be exempt from the -1 modifiers certain units have, which is frankly ridiculous, or are you complaining about the fact some models are more difficult to hit, which is not bad game design at all. It does not ‘take control out of the player’s hands’ (and in a game such as this, a roll of a one is always a fail, and that’s out of your hands) It is a form of interaction between the units, not an aspect of control, like strength vs thoughness. It’s pitting your units’ skill at shooting against the stealth and camouflage of other units.

liverscrew wrote:
What I meant about penalties in #3, is that your heavy weapons like a broadside or hammerhead get penalized if you try to maneuver them to synergize with markers by taking advantage of the movement penalty removal (moving your units with the intent to take advantage of the bonus, something you would not do if the bonus didn't exist), this happens due to the fact that you move before you shoot your markers which is IMO, another case of bad design. A player should not be punished for trying to use a complex game mechanic, it should be encouraged.

There is no discouragement at all. Either you could hit the unit, and thus don’t have to move the broadside or hammerhead. Or it’s out of LOS, in which case you have to move the hammerhead or broadside anyway. As for moving to take advantage of the bonus… the table is 72” long. With a 60” weapon, you can basically hit everything even when camping the very edge of the table, let alone any sensible positions. Also, if you get 3 markerlights (not hard at all) there is no punishment whatsoever for moving and firing heavy weapons, or if you’re so desperate to run your broadsides around (which you don’t need to do anyway, as already shown) you can just take a target lock. So there is no discouragement, at all.
Additionally, are you suggesting that markerligths, a shooting attack, be made in the movement phase? This is pretty silly.

liverscrew wrote:
I also never said that complexity is bad. Well rewarded complexity is good, it's actually what all games should strive for, but when a game mechanic is pretty complex and also has a lot of random factor for a kinda meh feeling reward (keyword feeling, example: quake 3 rocket launcher that gibs your opponent into bits vs same thing that makes him just fall down, which one is cooler/more rewarding?). The markerlights just fade out into the background and feel like "thank god I got good rolls" rather than "whoop, got marker hits, your rhino gonna get his gak kicked out of him".

Everything in this game aside from ranges, command points and movement has a random factor, as all things are decided by dice. As I already said, a one is always a failed hit roll. It’s not complex, you line up your pathfinders or fireblade, or both, you shoot markerlights, (rolling to hit, the horror) you get a bonus against that unit for subsequent shooting, you shoot your broadsides or whatever at the enemy unit. Simple. And they still give a big boost. Rerolling ones is a big boost, it may not be as powerful as just spending to increase bs, but oh well. Markerligths haven’t failed just because they aren’t as powerful any more, and they are still a big swing.

liverscrew wrote:

As for rolling more dice, so what? Markerlights have changed, their use is more for concentrated fire if you want all the benefits.

Well the "so, what?" part would be:
You asked the question:

A how are markerlight's broken?

I answered.

No, the so what applies to, ‘markerlights involve more rolling of dice’, so what, not my original question. You answering my question is separate to my question of so what you have to use more markelrights. My so what is asking, so what that you need to plan ahead to bring more units with markerligths? It’s a change, but just change doesn’t mean it’s bad, which is one of the things you asserted.

liverscrew wrote:
1. More randomness/less control over outcome. (I made this brilliant set up, but failed the marker rolls... I hit 5 markers, I hope the hit rolls don't fail because I still have middling shooting.. Alaitoc list full of flyers, my markers are basically useless...)

Not at all. You still have to get hits off. So there’s no more or less randomness there. And before, it gave a buff to bs, so still rolling, still always failing on a one, still random, still flunking your ‘brilliant setup’ (your broadsides should be in range anyway and if they’re blocked LOS you have to move). Yes, now the buffs are different, and they stack rather than being spent, (which means they’re very predictable, not random at all, you know exactly what you’re getting for your markerlights once they hit) but the shooting isn’t middling. It was overcosted, now it’s not, the actual stats (which were fine) haven’t changed, the costs have. And if you’re worried about flyers, velocity trackers are 2 points.

liverscrew wrote:
2. More complexity, more critical decisions. (Should I focus, or should I spread?.. Do I move my broadside, maybe I get the bonus, but if not?.. 5 markers would be nice, but I really need that CP to JsJ my commander out of there... I have 5 markers, now which units can I dedicate? I don't want to overkill, but I really need to kill it...)

You’ve just gone through how complexity is not an inherent flaw. The player has to account for multiple things, and make a tactical decision on how to shoot your markerlights and at what. How awful, that a player should have to put some thought into their target selection. Also still don’t get the obsession with moving broadsides. Also you shouldn’t need all 5 to kill things in a one shot, focus fire from multiple units if you really want it dead.

liverscrew wrote:
3. Less reward. (5 markers, now I shoot like a marine, if I focus 4 units I can maybe delete that incoming waveserpent, assuming the hit rolls go through... +1 if I get 5? Meh, not worth it, I'll just spread reroll 1s and use commanders instead)

Focus fire, rerolls are powerful, there’s plenty of decent shooting anyway, maybe there should be distinction between a superhuman warrior of 100 years and a 20 year old alien, maybe you shouldn’t be able to delete units in one, maybe having choices is a good thing in a more flavourless edition, maybe markerlights shouldn’t be a powerful as in previous editions, serving as a crutch.

liverscrew wrote:
Which sums up to:
Overall bad design decisions. (army wide markerlights which are hard to balance, unit statlines designed around 7th ed markerlights with no easy and reliable way to boost BS, additional patching of said bad markerlights with auto use stratagems)

I’m not sure where the balance issues come in here…
Maybe, shock horror, you shouldn’t be able to shoot your super powerful guns at additional bs all the time, and this is actually more balanced, so you aren’t just deleting units in one shot.
The stratagems do not patch the basic function of the markerlights in any way. The stratagems have zero effect on what they do. They just give you more ways of getting them. So you cannot claim they are a patch to the markerlight system.

liverscrew wrote:
The bad design decisions ended us up with:
Bland and kinda disappointing gameplay. (commander and drone spam, because it is too hard to boost other unit's shooting and even then it doesn't feel impacting... reroll 1s will be fine... hard caps on units, because stop using commanders you gakker, use these markerlights we want you to use even if playing them feels like gak... and auto use stratagems).

What, did you not read the codex? There’s a whole range of viable builds now, and the markerlights haven’t changed, they aren’t pushing them, they just gave one stratagem and one sept specific stratagem that gives more. The way markerlights interact with the army has not fundamentally changed at all. What has changed is the cost of the units. Things weren’t worth taking over commanders because they were overcosted. Your assertion hat the issue was a lack of boosts to shooting shows you don’t understand the issue. The issue was points cost. Now the points cost has drastically gone down, units are useful once again, and the boosts have remained the same, and no, markerlights shouldn’t be so powerful they make unusable units usable.
As for ‘playing them feels like gak’. That’s on you. You prefer spending them to having stacking buffs. That’s not bad design, that’s your own personal preference, which is fine, but don’t claim your preferences = good game design.

liverscrew wrote:
Which partially enforces and maybe more clearly expresses the point silver was trying to make

Silver’s point was more about stratagems, the markerlights were tacked on.

Witnessed a Tau vs Tyranids match today. The HBC Riptide is really worth its points with stratagems backing it up. Also, a Ghostkeel with the now cheap shield generator is quite persistent.

The 2 Coldstar Commander with 4 fusion blasters didn't do much (killed a bunch of Hive Guards), because a Malanthrope was nearby and hitting on 4+ is bad. I think those guys will really like the Sept with no penalty on running.

In fact, Tau now will work better if you give units their best-in-case Sept. Coldstars? Vior'la. Y'vahra? Bork'an. Crisis/Commanders + Stealth Suits Homing Beacon? Farsight.
Meta full of ranged armies? Bork'an. Meta full of melee armies? T'au. And the list goes on.

Oh, and going first is very important. The Tau player killed the Exocrine in one turn, as it was the most dangerous thing on the table.

My main complaint is instead of fixing the units, rules, and marker lights, they just tried to throw in faux fixes via stratagems, thus forcing Tau to the High CP formations like Brigades/battalions. I don't want to use fire warriors. I want to make my Tau squad be full suits. I can no longer do that and have any hope of winning.

notredameguy10 wrote:
My main complaint is instead of fixing the units, rules, and marker lights, they just tried to throw in faux fixes via stratagems, thus forcing Tau to the High CP formations like Brigades/battalions. I don't want to use fire warriors. I want to make my Tau squad be full suits. I can no longer do that and have any hope of winning.

I think most people think that encouraging list variety is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Suits were always intended to be support units, really.

 Vector Strike wrote:
Witnessed a Tau vs Tyranids match today. The HBC Riptide is really worth its points with stratagems backing it up. Also, a Ghostkeel with the now cheap shield generator is quite persistent.

The 2 Coldstar Commander with 4 fusion blasters didn't do much (killed a bunch of Hive Guards), because a Malanthrope was nearby and hitting on 4+ is bad. I think those guys will really like the Sept with no penalty on running.

In fact, Tau now will work better if you give units their best-in-case Sept. Coldstars? Vior'la. Y'vahra? Bork'an. Crisis/Commanders + Stealth Suits Homing Beacon? Farsight.
Meta full of ranged armies? Bork'an. Meta full of melee armies? T'au. And the list goes on.

Oh, and going first is very important. The Tau player killed the Exocrine in one turn, as it was the most dangerous thing on the table.

Coldstar with 3 Fusion Blasters and a target lock if not Vior’la, or 3 Fusion Blasters and maybe a shield generator if Vior’la - can advance 40” and shoot on 2+’s

notredameguy10 wrote:
My main complaint is instead of fixing the units, rules, and marker lights, they just tried to throw in faux fixes via stratagems, thus forcing Tau to the High CP formations like Brigades/battalions. I don't want to use fire warriors. I want to make my Tau squad be full suits. I can no longer do that and have any hope of winning.

So you wanna play a single model spammed over and over instead of covering your weaknesses? This isnt Gundam my dude, infantry and tanks are kind of needed in an army

 vaklor4 wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
My main complaint is instead of fixing the units, rules, and marker lights, they just tried to throw in faux fixes via stratagems, thus forcing Tau to the High CP formations like Brigades/battalions. I don't want to use fire warriors. I want to make my Tau squad be full suits. I can no longer do that and have any hope of winning.

So you wanna play a single model spammed over and over instead of covering your weaknesses? This isnt Gundam my dude, infantry and tanks are kind of needed in an army

FSE was specifically made to be all suits. And its not spamming the same model. IT would be Crisis, commanders, broadsides, ghost keels, riptides, storm surges, stealth suits, and all the different drones. Thats a heck of a lot of different units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alcibiades wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
My main complaint is instead of fixing the units, rules, and marker lights, they just tried to throw in faux fixes via stratagems, thus forcing Tau to the High CP formations like Brigades/battalions. I don't want to use fire warriors. I want to make my Tau squad be full suits. I can no longer do that and have any hope of winning.

I think most people think that encouraging list variety is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Suits were always intended to be support units, really.

What you are saying is the EXACT OPPOSITE. By forcing us to take battalions/brigades all thats gonna do is make people be required to take strike squads.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
My main complaint is instead of fixing the units, rules, and marker lights, they just tried to throw in faux fixes via stratagems, thus forcing Tau to the High CP formations like Brigades/battalions. I don't want to use fire warriors. I want to make my Tau squad be full suits. I can no longer do that and have any hope of winning.

So you wanna play a single model spammed over and over instead of covering your weaknesses? This isnt Gundam my dude, infantry and tanks are kind of needed in an army

FSE was specifically made to be all suits. And its not spamming the same model. IT would be Crisis, commanders, broadsides, ghost keels, riptides, storm surges, stealth suits, and all the different drones. Thats a heck of a lot of different units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alcibiades wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
My main complaint is instead of fixing the units, rules, and marker lights, they just tried to throw in faux fixes via stratagems, thus forcing Tau to the High CP formations like Brigades/battalions. I don't want to use fire warriors. I want to make my Tau squad be full suits. I can no longer do that and have any hope of winning.

I think most people think that encouraging list variety is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Suits were always intended to be support units, really.

What you are saying is the EXACT OPPOSITE. By forcing us to take battalions/brigades all thats gonna do is make people be required to take strike squads.

Crisis suits are the only bad ones. All the other suits are cash atm. And as far as I can tell, suits arent your only thing. You can still get batallions out of drones.

notredameguy10 wrote:
My main complaint is instead of fixing the units, rules, and marker lights, they just tried to throw in faux fixes via stratagems, thus forcing Tau to the High CP formations like Brigades/battalions. I don't want to use fire warriors. I want to make my Tau squad be full suits. I can no longer do that and have any hope of winning.

For now what you can do is to send e-mails and posting on the 40k FB page, motivate the Tau fanbase to do the same (boing careful to not overdo both) and wait for Chapter Approved 2018. Until there, your best bet is playing Narrative.

 vaklor4 wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
My main complaint is instead of fixing the units, rules, and marker lights, they just tried to throw in faux fixes via stratagems, thus forcing Tau to the High CP formations like Brigades/battalions. I don't want to use fire warriors. I want to make my Tau squad be full suits. I can no longer do that and have any hope of winning.

So you wanna play a single model spammed over and over instead of covering your weaknesses? This isnt Gundam my dude, infantry and tanks are kind of needed in an army

>see Adepticon lists
>7 Hive Tyrants, 8 Dark Talons

yeah, yeah, spamming something is ugly, isn't it?

 vaklor4 wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
My main complaint is instead of fixing the units, rules, and marker lights, they just tried to throw in faux fixes via stratagems, thus forcing Tau to the High CP formations like Brigades/battalions. I don't want to use fire warriors. I want to make my Tau squad be full suits. I can no longer do that and have any hope of winning.

So you wanna play a single model spammed over and over instead of covering your weaknesses? This isnt Gundam my dude, infantry and tanks are kind of needed in an army

FSE was specifically made to be all suits. And its not spamming the same model. IT would be Crisis, commanders, broadsides, ghost keels, riptides, storm surges, stealth suits, and all the different drones. Thats a heck of a lot of different units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alcibiades wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
My main complaint is instead of fixing the units, rules, and marker lights, they just tried to throw in faux fixes via stratagems, thus forcing Tau to the High CP formations like Brigades/battalions. I don't want to use fire warriors. I want to make my Tau squad be full suits. I can no longer do that and have any hope of winning.

I think most people think that encouraging list variety is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Suits were always intended to be support units, really.

What you are saying is the EXACT OPPOSITE. By forcing us to take battalions/brigades all thats gonna do is make people be required to take strike squads.

Crisis suits are the only bad ones. All the other suits are cash atm. And as far as I can tell, suits arent your only thing. You can still get batallions out of drones.

No... Drones do not count as troops. So the only way to have a suit army is to have like 5 CP, which, as people have previous,y stated does not work as stratagems are needed for Tau now unfortunately.

FSE wasn't all suits in the original tau fluff so, no they weren't made to be an all suit option. That was a much later retcon.

Oh noes, we have to spend 105 points on strike teams if we want some command points.

fe40k wrote:
The codex DIDN'T help Tau.

It didn't address the core issues (suits, commanders, playstyle//army theme, the fact that they shoot like orks against -1 to hit (but have zero melee in exchange), the markerlight table sucking (and "you need to hit the unit in the first place, to get a bonus to hit (aka good luck getting markerlights off against -1 to hit armies))); it just cheapened a few things here or there [infantry], gave some mostly pointless stratagems/septs, and that's really about it.

At this point, they're just Xenos Astra Militarum - and they'd be better off just playing AM for that instead.

Well, today I went up against Alpha Legion and happened to roll the night fighting mission of maelstrom of war... As I was playing FSE I was like "feth it, CHAAAAARGE!!". In turn 2 I killed both his Dark Apostle and Chaos Lord with a point blank overcharged Cyclic Ion Raker from my Ghostkeel and a triple Fusion Blaster barrage from my Coldstar respectively His sorcerer blew himself up with a snake-eyes Perils in the preceding Psychic phase. After that the game was won. Granted, this was a very casual game but still, it worked wonders. Wouldn't be able to get the Ghostkeel in the Dark Apostles' face without the Stimulant Injector stratagem and the Coldstar being able to carry every weapon except CIBs is wonderful as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alcibiades wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
My main complaint is instead of fixing the units, rules, and marker lights, they just tried to throw in faux fixes via stratagems, thus forcing Tau to the High CP formations like Brigades/battalions. I don't want to use fire warriors. I want to make my Tau squad be full suits. I can no longer do that and have any hope of winning.

I think most people think that encouraging list variety is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Suits were always intended to be support units, really.

More specifically, the hammer to the anvil that are infantry and stuff like Hammerheads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Silver144 wrote:
We have really different levels of taste on what is good. To me most of it variate from "ok", "situational" to "too situational to be actually used", "overcosted" and "bad".

My point is that this strategems do not add you good game expirience, they just fix the broken rules (markerlight), or give you some reaction options (-1 to hit on one enemy in their shooting phase, 6+ mortal wounds after you was charged). Nothing to add to actual tactic. It's just boring to play.

And the one with commander: first - no way you will pick commander without weapons(and if you give him weapons, shoot it, do not waste entire turn) and spend 5+CP just to give some unit reroll to-wounds. And no way you are going to put 3 broadsides in one unit, its around 450 point! And you need 3 heavy support to fill that brigade detach, so anyone will take them separately to fill the required slots.

Use Farsight for that stratagem and you lose only 2 plasma shots. Great on a bunch of Crisis suits that he can Manta Strike with, also serves as a nice charge deterrent.

Silver144 wrote:
The problem with current tau is that there is no fun in playing this army the way GW force. Firewarriors are most boring infantry unit in the game, just stand still and throw the dice.
Especially when most bonuses works only if you stand still in movement phase. Those who recommend play firewarrior spam probably never play with 60-80 fw, I tried, this is awfully boring. The codex have couple good strategems, but they are sept-specific, so usually you have just one, and you army is massive stand and shoot horde. Boring to play against, boring to play with, poor codex.

I played with 60 FWs the other day, it was a lot of fun. Nothing says FWs should stand still unless you're Sa'cea or something. I ran them as Vior'la and advanced them into close range. With a Fireblade and the Vior'la stratagem a 70 point FW squad puts out 60 shots at 15". FWs are only a static force if you play them that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For people complaining about the codex encouraging fire warriors, I don't see why that's such a problem. They're not really a tax, a 5 man unit is 35 points.

They're a solid troops choice. 7 points for a pulse rifle and 4+ armor. Most of the Sept abilities give them some kind of benefit. They're cheap enough to use as screening while still putting out a lot of anti infantry shots. Crisis suits are the iconic Tau unit, but FWs are meant to be the core of any army, like guardsmen for IG.

Crisis suits aren't that terrible in regular games. I wouldn't run them in anything really competitive but in semi-comp they aren't awful. Around 90ish points for 9 S8 shots isn't bad.

Also, someone said that FSE was meant to be all suits. That's not true, FSE was meant to have more suits than normal, with the option of taking all suits if you really want. They still have lots of FWs. What they lack are tanks. In the old codex you could only take 1 of each of the tanks.

It feels like people tend to forget it, so I will restate this truism: GW sells models, not rules. The last time that I did an inventory, I had 17 crisis suits, and 3 firewarriors with pulse rifles. Since 8th, I have been rectifying that.

Hot stuff changes. If the suits stayed the same, there would be little reason to diversify my collection. The changes to firewarriors means that I am acquiring more.