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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Tau really should be able to field three commanders, with the named ones excluded from count, just like tank commanders or daemon princes.

That would require GW to actually balance their points though! Plus we all know how amazing of a fix Rule of Three is for the same situation of undercosted units!

You haven been ignoring that units can be fine in low numbers and broken in large numbers for dozens of threads, so just go back to read one of those if feel like you need that discussion in your life once more.

Rule of 3 is good for the game, commanders should have a proper rule of 3 implemented just like everyone else. The one-per-detachment limit just forces weird HQ choices on them, and is only in place because it was implemented before the rule of 3 existed.

Broken units are broken, no matter how many you're allowed to bring. That's just straight fact.

Some units aren't too bad on their own, but when taken in bulk are a problem.

Let's take a T8 unit-it renders S4 and less basically useless. If you can only take three T8 units, and they're about 250 points each, you field a maximum of 750 (or 3/8ths of a 2k list) T8 points, meaning S4 can do good work against 1,250 points.

If you can take nothing BUT T8 units, then anything S4 or worse is basically pointless.

Edit: Which is not to say the Rule of Three was handled WELL, but in theory it's good.

The issue is, the rule of three is a slapped on fix for a issue of GW's own making.
It also hits alot more units that would be no issue aswell and treats them equally as "well" as it does the big things.

That said it is better to have it then not.

Not Online!!! wrote:
The issue is, the rule of three is a slapped on fix for a issue of GW's own making.
It also hits alot more units that would be no issue aswell and treats them equally as "well" as it does the big things.

That said it is better to have it then not.

That I agree with. It'd be much better to address the actually problematic units and give them their own restrictions (like Commanders, but better applied) than to have a blanket "NO MORE THAN THREE UNITS EVER IN A 2K GAME!"

I mean, you want to bring 8 Plagueburst Crawlers? That can be an issue.
6 Veteran Squads with a mix of Flamers and Meltas? Not an issue.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
The issue is, the rule of three is a slapped on fix for a issue of GW's own making.
It also hits alot more units that would be no issue aswell and treats them equally as "well" as it does the big things.

That said it is better to have it then not.

That I agree with. It'd be much better to address the actually problematic units and give them their own restrictions (like Commanders, but better applied) than to have a blanket "NO MORE THAN THREE UNITS EVER IN A 2K GAME!"

I mean, you want to bring 8 Plagueburst Crawlers? That can be an issue.
6 Veteran Squads with a mix of Flamers and Meltas? Not an issue.

Yep, i mean nobody would care if someone brought 4 squads of terminators, or possesed, or or or.
But bringing an army of invul +t8 is fine by GW 's metric.
It is basically an answer to size creep and overly efficient models and also there to fix the bad codex internal balance due to traits varrying from useless to Auto pick.
But alas...

 vict0988 wrote:
Can't meltas just be good against all the vehicles without an invul save?

But there tend to be invulnerable save on too many vehicles.

 vict0988 wrote:
The problem is that Knights as a solo army become more painful to play against the fewer counters they have, whether they have effective counters is less important than whether you have anything at all that can hurt them at least a little bit.

The problem with knights as an army is that it automatically becomes an extremely skewed list. It doesn't and cannot have horde, it doesn't and cannot have heavy infantry, it always is just basically the same chassis over and over again.
You could make the same argument about a fully mechanized IG or marine force: once the anti-tank is dealt with, it's hard to do any damage.
You could make the same argument about an Ork or IG horde list: once only the anti-tank remains, it's very hard to do any damage.

 vict0988 wrote:
A TAC list should be fun to play against a Knight list and changing 3+/5++ 24W to 2+/7++ 24 W or 3+/7++ 30W makes TAC lists worse against Knights. It devolves the game into being decided to a huge degree by match-making or list-tailoring.

Well, I'd say that the TAC list did include some anti-tank, so the switch from 3+/5++ 24W to 3+/7++ 30W doesn't change much. The lack of invul will allow the anti-tank to deal ~6 extra wound (or more, really, because even a single melta shot not being stopped by an invul can easily be 5/6 extra wounds) before being toast, and then for the rest of the army it's going to be the same as before. (The 2+ armor save is different because even if there are less HP left, the armor save makes remove more HP harder…)
I mean, sure, it means that the AT is more important to try to protect and deploy correctly. But that's strategy and there should be strategy.

X078 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

X078 wrote:
Tau Commander limit for matched play.
Not only do you need 3 detachments to even field 3 commanders since it's only 1 per detachment and maximum of 3 total. You also cannot take 3 crisis commanders plus any of the character commanders...

Would you prefer Crisis Commanders were actually fairly priced?

I would prefer to be able to field 3 commanders as per rule of three + any character commanders. Best would ofc be to only limit per Commander type so 3 xv85 commanders + 3x XV8 commanders + etc. And yeah i think they are priced quite ok. I we get back JSJ (which never should have gone away) then yeah maybe adding a few more points can be ok, but i digress.

The new meta. 9 commanders and drones. *shudders*

Commanders pay BS4 prices for their weapons while having BS2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
The issue is, the rule of three is a slapped on fix for a issue of GW's own making.
It also hits alot more units that would be no issue aswell and treats them equally as "well" as it does the big things.

That said it is better to have it then not.

I don't think its a situation that's easily fixed. Sometimes you need a unit to be cheaper than it's worth, because otherwise it won't get used in armies. Rule of 3 allows for that without having to stress about an over correction.

Tau Commanders nerf was a loophole with the faulty design of crisis suits. Simply put the math is that commanders are better at ALL weapon options except flamers.

The main reason for this is BS, an the fact that Tau guns cost way too much.

Well the CA2018 pts is good for BS2, not for the normal suits. Simply put they need to make these weapons cheaper for normal suits. Simular to how Imperial Guard Special weapons points change if they are on vets (BS3) vs redshirts (BS4).

However the whole mechanic is moot as even if they did this Tau have better options in other areas. So this is more of a MakeCrisisSuitsGreatAgain meme....

My personal view is Rule of 3 is a joke outside of some instances. It's a suggestion not a core rule. The joke as it is more of GW admitting yeah if some units are copy and pasted to large degrees the game Math can break down.

The most "offensive." instance of this is something like 2x mortar teams in a 2k list. What literally will kill anything the opponent has regardless what it is due to weight of dice and nos los / range.

Commander spam should never been nerfed it's not even that good any more anyway because the game meta has shifted to a very anti-character meta. With the whole various ways new sm rekt characters.

What's funny is genestealer cults is even worse than tau.

peoples views on the rule of 3 comes from the type of player you are.
Type a) does not care what is used, the player must adapt to the game.
Type b) wants the game to adapt to THEM.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The new meta. 9 commanders and drones. *shudders*

Commanders pay BS4 prices for their weapons while having BS2.

Why not fix both? High BS/WS units paying more for weapons has been done quite a few times now.

It still think it should be three commanders total plus special characters, not three of each kind. Daemon princes work the same way.

Not Online!!! wrote:
The issue is, the rule of three is a slapped on fix for a issue of GW's own making.
It also hits alot more units that would be no issue aswell and treats them equally as "well" as it does the big things.

That said it is better to have it then not.

I don't think its a situation that's easily fixed. Sometimes you need a unit to be cheaper than it's worth, because otherwise it won't get used in armies. Rule of 3 allows for that without having to stress about an over correction.

I think the rule of three is what protects us from things like a bloat-drone meta or SAG spam. Deciding to not enforce the rule of 3 has all but destroyed the tournament scene at one of the stores near me. They are lucky to have four people show up for their events, as people got sick of facing 7-8 drones or 9 SAGs every other game.

Rubbish LoS/terrain rules.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

X078 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

X078 wrote:
Tau Commander limit for matched play.
Not only do you need 3 detachments to even field 3 commanders since it's only 1 per detachment and maximum of 3 total. You also cannot take 3 crisis commanders plus any of the character commanders...

Would you prefer Crisis Commanders were actually fairly priced?

I would prefer to be able to field 3 commanders as per rule of three + any character commanders. Best would ofc be to only limit per Commander type so 3 xv85 commanders + 3x XV8 commanders + etc. And yeah i think they are priced quite ok. I we get back JSJ (which never should have gone away) then yeah maybe adding a few more points can be ok, but i digress.

The new meta. 9 commanders and drones. *shudders*

Commanders pay BS4 prices for their weapons while having BS2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
The issue is, the rule of three is a slapped on fix for a issue of GW's own making.
It also hits alot more units that would be no issue aswell and treats them equally as "well" as it does the big things.

That said it is better to have it then not.

I don't think its a situation that's easily fixed. Sometimes you need a unit to be cheaper than it's worth, because otherwise it won't get used in armies. Rule of 3 allows for that without having to stress about an over correction.

Incorrect. Regular Crisis Suits are super overpriced.

If you suddenly removed Commanders, Crisis Suits aren't going to suddenly get use.

Personal peeve is multi shot weapons replacing template ones.

I get why they did it, but they now are massively over efficient at low model count units. A simple fix would be to limit the number of hits relative to the number of models in the unit.

I mean I despise the entire edition in general but the entire of psychology (particularly how routing works) and vehicle damage in particular.

IGOUGO.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Can't meltas just be good against all the vehicles without an invul save?

But there tend to be invulnerable save on too many vehicles.

Others have said that one invuln is too many. I'm saying the current paradigm is fine, there are lots of vehicles without invulns and some appropriate vehicles with it. Like Daemons that don't obey the laws of reality or physics or units with special advanced shielding technology that reduces the penetrative effect of lascannons more than heavy bolters. If you also believe that one is too many it's disingenuous to say that there's too just too many when AFAIK all the vehicles that currently have it have a fluff justification for having it. In the specific case of Knights it also serves as a gameplay modifier that makes Knights better against anti-tank that would otherwise determine the outcome of every match including Knights.

The problem is that Knights as a solo army become more painful to play against the fewer counters they have, whether they have effective counters is less important than whether you have anything at all that can hurt them at least a little bit.

The problem with knights as an army is that it automatically becomes an extremely skewed list. It doesn't and cannot have horde, it doesn't and cannot have heavy infantry, it always is just basically the same chassis over and over again.
You could make the same argument about a fully mechanized IG or marine force: once the anti-tank is dealt with, it's hard to do any damage.
You could make the same argument about an Ork or IG horde list: once only the anti-tank remains, it's very hard to do any damage.

Am as far of an expert on tournament play as can be, but just because a crucial option for a codex gets nerfed, does not mean other options from the codex automaticly replace it. Sometimes the army just stops being played. If after a potential commander nerf, the tau codex won't have units in similar points range that can replace the lost fire power, tau will just not be played.

I care it doesn't even matter whether a spam list is the most OP thing to me, it's just one of the most boring things to see on the table. I played a game against CSM bike spam before they were buffed, my opponent spammed them because he just loved bikes, that didn't make the army super fun to play against or see on the table. Even if you limit yourself to just 3 big squads of bikes, that's still a bike list, you really don't need 4+ squads to get a theme going. I'd like to see a variety of GW's great sculpts on the table, especially when one of the bad sculpts happens to be powerful and so is spammed more than others (Dreadknight). I don't think I ever appreciate it when someone spams a unit, good or bad.

So you would have an issue with my 31. due to all being disciples? because the army was laid out in 7th where R&H veterans with grenadier upgrade were a troop slot and now aren't and consistent with my own picture of the army aswell as modelling?

That's bollocks man, i think most players would rather play against a bunch of bikers then a "varied" list of knights.

 vict0988 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If you suddenly removed Commanders, Crisis Suits aren't going to suddenly get use.

I'm pretty sure they'd see more use, they've already topped 3 GTs this year, Commander trio have topped 40 GTs AFAIK assuming every top Tau list includes 3 Commanders.

Prague Open February 16, 2019 - 68 Players - Bernhard Lang #3

Mork's Maritime Open April 13, 2019 - 32 Players - Logan Marks #4

Stay in Your Lane GT June 22, 2019 - 43 Players - Brian Pullen #1

Of course, GW could decrease the price of Crisis so low that they become as good or better than Commanders, but given the frequency with which Tau top events I don't see how that would be a wise decision. A nerf to Commanders would make more sense. I'd also welcome a change that made unique and variant versions of a character all count toward the same rule of 3 counter, of course, there's nothing stopping a tournament organizer or a playgroup to change the rule of 3 to this since it is just a suggestion.

They would not. Crisis suits will never be used with their current cost and requirement to take 3 suits minimum. A unit of crisis suits costs more than the commander, is squishier thanks to character rules, is competing with Riptides for the slot and is only BS4 and so relies on markerlights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Am as far of an expert on tournament play as can be, but just because a crucial option for a codex gets nerfed, does not mean other options from the codex automaticly replace it. Sometimes the army just stops being played. If after a potential commander nerf, the tau codex won't have units in similar points range that can replace the lost fire power, tau will just not be played.

This. Currently tournament Tau lists are usually some combination of the following: Commanders, Ethereal, Riptides, Drones, Pathfinders and Fire Warriors. Maybe missile pod Broadsides.

The #1 list for the SoCal 2019 open was 2 XV85 commanders, 1 Coldstar Commander, 3 Riptides, 3 minimum sized Fire Warrior squads, 3 units of 11 drones, 1 minimum unit of pathfinders and an ethereal.

Here are the units not in that list: Crisis teams, Stealth teams, Kroot of any kind, Vespid, Piranha, Hammerhead, Skyray, Devilfish, Razorshark, Sunshark, Broadsides, Farsight, Shadowsun, Aun'Va, Aun'Shi, Darkstrider, Sniper Drones, Breachers. Maybe some more, don't have the codex in front of me.

Not Online!!! wrote:

I care it doesn't even matter whether a spam list is the most OP thing to me, it's just one of the most boring things to see on the table. I played a game against CSM bike spam before they were buffed, my opponent spammed them because he just loved bikes, that didn't make the army super fun to play against or see on the table. Even if you limit yourself to just 3 big squads of bikes, that's still a bike list, you really don't need 4+ squads to get a theme going. I'd like to see a variety of GW's great sculpts on the table, especially when one of the bad sculpts happens to be powerful and so is spammed more than others (Dreadknight). I don't think I ever appreciate it when someone spams a unit, good or bad.

So you would have an issue with my 31. due to all being disciples? because the army was laid out in 7th where R&H veterans with grenadier upgrade were a troop slot and now aren't and consistent with my own picture of the army aswell as modelling?

That's bollocks man, i think most players would rather play against a bunch of bikers then a "varied" list of knights.

I actually love playing 40k most of the time unlike a lot of people (not talking about Not Online!!!), I'd rather play a game than not against almost anything. Just like I played a number of games July-December 2018 against Knights with Necrons which was a very unfair matchup, I'd happily play your all Disciple list, but I'd prefer if you brought something more diverse. If I was the grand ruler of tournaments I'd count all Knights with a Wounds characteristic of 20+ as the same datasheet so you can bring any combination of up to 3 Knights but no more. I don't care whether all-Knights lists are worse than soupy Knights, they're not as nice to look at or as interesting to play against. If I was TO I would not allow your list.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If you suddenly removed Commanders, Crisis Suits aren't going to suddenly get use.

I'm pretty sure they'd see more use, they've already topped 3 GTs this year, Commander trio have topped 40 GTs AFAIK assuming every top Tau list includes 3 Commanders.

Prague Open February 16, 2019 - 68 Players - Bernhard Lang #3

Mork's Maritime Open April 13, 2019 - 32 Players - Logan Marks #4

Stay in Your Lane GT June 22, 2019 - 43 Players - Brian Pullen #1

Of course, GW could decrease the price of Crisis so low that they become as good or better than Commanders, but given the frequency with which Tau top events I don't see how that would be a wise decision. A nerf to Commanders would make more sense. I'd also welcome a change that made unique and variant versions of a character all count toward the same rule of 3 counter, of course, there's nothing stopping a tournament organizer or a playgroup to change the rule of 3 to this since it is just a suggestion.

They would not. Crisis suits will never be used with their current cost and requirement to take 3 suits minimum. A unit of crisis suits costs more than the commander, is squishier thanks to character rules, is competing with Riptides for the slot and is only BS4 and so relies on markerlights.

Did you read my post? They are already being used in tournaments. They have made top 4 three seperate times, I agree they are far from the best unit in the Tau Codex, I think they're a little bad actually, but Commanders are insanely good and I think that's colouring your view of how good Crisis need to be.

Currently tournament Tau lists are usually some combination of the following: Commanders, Ethereal, Riptides, Drones, Pathfinders and Fire Warriors. Maybe missile pod Broadsides.

The #1 list for the SoCal 2019 open was 2 XV85 commanders, 1 Coldstar Commander, 3 Riptides, 3 minimum sized Fire Warrior squads, 3 units of 11 drones, 1 minimum unit of pathfinders and an ethereal.

Here are the units not in that list: Crisis teams, Stealth teams, Kroot of any kind, Vespid, Piranha, Hammerhead, Skyray, Devilfish, Razorshark, Sunshark, Broadsides, Farsight, Shadowsun, Aun'Va, Aun'Shi, Darkstrider, Sniper Drones, Breachers. Maybe some more, don't have the codex in front of me.

I'm going to say another bad rule is detachments. Not because they are a bad idea, but because of how they let you spam/cheese stuff in 40k and get bonuses for it. They really should have done a system like the Rites of War in 30k:

You have the "normal" Force Org from before, and you can pick certain Rites of War (even themed per army) which have benefits and drawbacks. For example, you may be able to take Terminators as Troops, but everything has to be in a transport. Legit drawbacks rather than letting you take all elite choices and get a (smaller, granted) benefit for doing it. Does anyone remember when in the leadup to 8th edition GW said that detachments would be there to encourage people to bring armies that fit the background of the faction? Yet it turned out to do the opposite.

I also think they should have brought the Compulsory Troop rule from 30k, and things like Drones, Cultists, etc. your automaton/irregular units should not count as Compulsory, meaning they don't fill the required slot. This would help put a stop to the silly spam lists that ignore taking most of the staple of the army for whatever is cheapest to have more bodies. Also a 25% Lord of War limit would be nice, but not sure how to handle all Knights then (which should never have been a full faction anyway, only a supporting choice)

I think the only reason for detachments was forcing people to bring more troops and HQ to the tables and thus making the game more infantry-heavy, while leaving options open so people could still field whatever they wanted at the cost of having a less optimal army.