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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
" What if " at this point.

It'd make sense, but GW isn't big into doing things that make sense, so for all we know the range is a misprint and the missiles are now a melee attack.

Drive closer so I can hit them with my...missiles?!

Isn't as funny, since the new ork squighog riders are doing exactly that.

After all, it’s rare to find an Ork who wouldn’t appreciate how you can make a humble spear louder and killier by adding rocket boosters to it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't mind the WW. A lot of people bring a judiciar, but why not suppression fire that turns off OW and makes them fight last without needing to be w/i 3" while also laying out hurt on their backfield?

Might not be as point efficient, but it at least seems to have utility.

Units that aren't points efficient have no place in lists.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Cynista wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's the opposite of good game design LMAO. So should the durable infantry unit for Eldar, Wraithguard, be not durable at all because of the supposed glass cannon trope? Should Skull Cannons just be straight garbage because Daemons don't shoot?

You are being ridiculous and arguing in bad faith. Nobody has claimed Wraithguard should "not be durable at all" or that Kroot should be bad. You know this, so stop erecting weird strawman arguments. I'm not here for it

And I doubt you know the first thing about game design.

Well I clearly know more than you since you're blabbering that Kroot being better than Fire Warriors in melee actually means anything.

That makes the third time in successive replies that you have claimed I said something I haven't. You should probably stop doing that, it's not a good look

Cynista wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Cynista wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's the opposite of good game design LMAO. So should the durable infantry unit for Eldar, Wraithguard, be not durable at all because of the supposed glass cannon trope? Should Skull Cannons just be straight garbage because Daemons don't shoot?

You are being ridiculous and arguing in bad faith. Nobody has claimed Wraithguard should "not be durable at all" or that Kroot should be bad. You know this, so stop erecting weird strawman arguments. I'm not here for it

And I doubt you know the first thing about game design.

Well I clearly know more than you since you're blabbering that Kroot being better than Fire Warriors in melee actually means anything.

That makes the third time in successive replies that you have claimed I said something I haven't. You should probably stop doing that, it's not a good look

That's how you're defending the design. Either Kroot should be okay at melee or they shouldn't because Tau aren't a melee army. This isn't rocket science, this is how some of you are defending the "army identity" garbage.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Units that aren't points efficient have no place in lists.

I think that's a loose guidance that isn't always true.

Inefficient units can't be the backbone of a list, that much is true, but they absolutely have a place in lists if they do something critical nothing else in your army can do that can turn a loss into a win. It doesn't matter whether you win by 1 point or 10, so if you can transform some 1 point losses to 1 point wins by taking an inefficient unit it's worth it, even if it turns your average game from a 10 point win to only an 7 point win.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't mind the WW. A lot of people bring a judiciar, but why not suppression fire that turns off OW and makes them fight last without needing to be w/i 3" while also laying out hurt on their backfield?

Might not be as point efficient, but it at least seems to have utility.

Units that aren't points efficient have no place in lists.

Sure they do. My criteria for deciding if such a unit has a place in my forces is:
1) is it performing a function I need done?
2) I just like the model.

You know, I might pic up the Ad Mech codex for this edition.

I’m still love/hate their look, but with the various new units added since their last Codex, they’re definitely looking an interesting army.

For the love/hate thing? I love their outright wackiness. They certainly feel like an army of crazed tech-zealots. But they’re still not quite what I always thought they’d look like.

ccs wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't mind the WW. A lot of people bring a judiciar, but why not suppression fire that turns off OW and makes them fight last without needing to be w/i 3" while also laying out hurt on their backfield?

Might not be as point efficient, but it at least seems to have utility.

Units that aren't points efficient have no place in lists.

Sure they do. My criteria for deciding if such a unit has a place in my forces is:
1) is it performing a function I need done?
2) I just like the model.

Irrelevant if
1.) Another unit fills that function better. Or another function works much better.
2.) Liking the model is irrelevant in competitive discussion. Perfectly valid point otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You know, I might pic up the Ad Mech codex for this edition.

I’m still love/hate their look, but with the various new units added since their last Codex, they’re definitely looking an interesting army.

For the love/hate thing? I love their outright wackiness. They certainly feel like an army of crazed tech-zealots. But they’re still not quite what I always thought they’d look like.

They are imperial Necrons. Without reanimation protocols....and instead get 6++ saves. Ehhh...

Ad mech has dog raiders and bombers, both of which are far and away the best version of their unit in the game. Ironically it's the core of the army itself that is rather underwhelming in a meta with lots of 1+ or even 0+ save bodies.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't mind the WW. A lot of people bring a judiciar, but why not suppression fire that turns off OW and makes them fight last without needing to be w/i 3" while also laying out hurt on their backfield?

Might not be as point efficient, but it at least seems to have utility.

Units that aren't points efficient have no place in lists.

And posters who bring nothing useful to a discussion have no place on forums, Mr. Squigbuggy.

The Suppressive Fire strat certainly gives a WW a role - especially as you only need to hit to trigger it - but whether 125 points and 1CP/strat is worth it for something you'll get to use three times a game (at a guess) is worth it is another matter entirely.

 Dysartes wrote:
The Suppressive Fire strat certainly gives a WW a role - especially as you only need to hit to trigger it - but whether 125 points and 1CP/strat is worth it for something you'll get to use three times a game (at a guess) is worth it is another matter entirely.

I would think people don't mind making ASF wyches go later without having to put a Judiciar in range of a Succubus or taking Set Defend off DA TH/SS termies. And when it doesn't then just hurt stuff on backfield objectives. Or just a TFC to tremor shell fast melee. There's lots to explore and people tend to look only at models killed rather than an intangible advantgage.

 Xenomancers wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't mind the WW. A lot of people bring a judiciar, but why not suppression fire that turns off OW and makes them fight last without needing to be w/i 3" while also laying out hurt on their backfield?

Might not be as point efficient, but it at least seems to have utility.

Units that aren't points efficient have no place in lists.

Sure they do. My criteria for deciding if such a unit has a place in my forces is:
1) is it performing a function I need done?
2) I just like the model.

Irrelevant if
1.) Another unit fills that function better. Or another function works much better.
2.) Liking the model is irrelevant in competitive discussion. Perfectly valid point otherwise.

1) Then will come the consideration of what slot/how many pts that "better" unit is. Will using that better unit mean sacrificing something else I want slot-wise? Will it cost me more pts? Just because _____ might not be the most efficient unit doesn't mean it's not still an affordable choice. Also it not being the most efficient =/= inefficient.

2) Very valid to me. Be it competitive or casual, I don't buy/play with models I don't like.

ccs wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't mind the WW. A lot of people bring a judiciar, but why not suppression fire that turns off OW and makes them fight last without needing to be w/i 3" while also laying out hurt on their backfield?

Might not be as point efficient, but it at least seems to have utility.

Units that aren't points efficient have no place in lists.

Sure they do. My criteria for deciding if such a unit has a place in my forces is:
1) is it performing a function I need done?
2) I just like the model.

Well lets talk Kroot again then. Their function is two fold: either infiltration or anti-infantry melee. The army can already be fast if it wants to (though an unpopular play style), so the former use is kinda covered. Now if we look at the melee, if they're really not much more capable than Fire Warriors to begin with, why is this role trying to be used? We can say we NEED that element until it's time to actually use it, in which case you were better off with just more Tau units.

BACK ON TOPIC PLEASE.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
" What if " at this point.

It'd make sense, but GW isn't big into doing things that make sense, so for all we know the range is a misprint and the missiles are now a melee attack.

Drive closer so I can hit them with my...missiles?!

They'd never do it, I'd like a missile fist and we all know they won't try and make me smile. ( Aside from Orks, I don't play Orks but sister missile fists, they'd never do. )


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't mind the WW. A lot of people bring a judiciar, but why not suppression fire that turns off OW and makes them fight last without needing to be w/i 3" while also laying out hurt on their backfield?

Might not be as point efficient, but it at least seems to have utility.

Units that aren't points efficient have no place in lists.

Which is why everyone should play DA inner circle terminators, mmmm points effectiveness, my body is ready.


Edit : On topic here, we have no reason to assume the leaks are fake nor do we have a real reason to assume the exorcist is becoming ignore line of sight outside of a " Maybe..." and even if it does, it isn't the reason why the WW is sub par, it's been so for many editions but when it first came out it did a role no other unit in the army did, outside line of sight bombardment. Right now, we don't even know if the exorcist is gaining that so lets wait to cry about the poor hated WW until we know if thats even true, I'm sure we'll see a thread or two on how it gaining that makes some other book suck more, somehow, then.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Ad mech has dog raiders and bombers, both of which are far and away the best version of their unit in the game. Ironically it's the core of the army itself that is rather underwhelming in a meta with lots of 1+ or even 0+ save bodies.

I’m not terribly bothered about whether the base infantry of a given army are particularly killy, as I’m a weirdo.

But certainly their original release line up lacked anti-tank punch, which always bothered me, as I’d always pictured Ad-Mech as the bane of enemy vehicles, affronts as they are to the Omnissiah.

In the few games I played, I did enjoy hosing my opponent down with Radium Carbines, but I always struggled against his tanks.

Certainly feels like that’s been addressed. If only I liked the look of the Onager!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Ad mech has dog raiders and bombers, both of which are far and away the best version of their unit in the game. Ironically it's the core of the army itself that is rather underwhelming in a meta with lots of 1+ or even 0+ save bodies.

I’m not terribly bothered about whether the base infantry of a given army are particularly killy, as I’m a weirdo.

But certainly their original release line up lacked anti-tank punch, which always bothered me, as I’d always pictured Ad-Mech as the bane of enemy vehicles, affronts as they are to the Omnissiah.

In the few games I played, I did enjoy hosing my opponent down with Radium Carbines, but I always struggled against his tanks.

Certainly feels like that’s been addressed. If only I liked the look of the Onager!

Mainly because they butchered arc weaponry and removed all haywire attacks from our hqs

More instruction manual stat blocks plezzzz n thank you

Ad-mech does fine against tanks right now, because again, in a huge irony, tanks are much less, well, tanky than heavy infantry in this game.

Terminator with storm shield in cover - 0+ save. You need AP-3 to even take them off a 2+.

Leman Russ - 3+ save, can't get cover.

AP1 and 2 weapons are useless against terminators, but will shred tanks.

Cynista wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's the opposite of good game design LMAO. So should the durable infantry unit for Eldar, Wraithguard, be not durable at all because of the supposed glass cannon trope? Should Skull Cannons just be straight garbage because Daemons don't shoot?

You are being ridiculous and arguing in bad faith. Nobody has claimed Wraithguard should "not be durable at all" or that Kroot should be bad. You know this, so stop erecting weird strawman arguments. I'm not here for it

And I doubt you know the first thing about game design.

You literally did say, twice, that they should be worse FOR THE POINTS.

That's bad game design - I'm sorry. If you want to make a particular style of play an army's strong suit, all you need to do is not provide particular tools, or provide limited tools, that perform a different playstyle.

making them purposefully worse for the points than other armies' tools who do have that identity is a fundamentally stupid move, because you're simply ensuring those units never see the tabletop. Guard remain fundamentally a shooting-focused army even when Bullgryns are effective for their points, because most of the datasheets, abilities, stratagems, auras, etc within the army focus on shooting rather than melee. Similarly, they can be 'not the best psyker faction' simply by limiting guard psykers to a fairly basic-tier psyker mastery level compared to factions like Thousand Sons and Eldar. there's no NEED for primaris psykers to be purposefully overcosted to discourage their use - they're simply limited in what they can do, and that can hold true for kroot.

If the biggest thing Tau can bring to the table for a melee unit is the equivalent of a spawn or clawed fiend in the Krootox, then Tau will remain a shooting army because there aren't melee options present to fulfil the roles necessary to make a functioning army.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Ad-mech does fine against tanks right now, because again, in a huge irony, tanks are much less, well, tanky than heavy infantry in this game.

Terminator with storm shield in cover - 0+ save. You need AP-3 to even take them off a 2+.

Leman Russ - 3+ save, can't get cover.

AP1 and 2 weapons are useless against terminators, but will shred tanks.

I know people talk a lot about wounds, but that has lots of other difficult implications. What about just giving some heavier vehicles ( not knights ) a 0+ ( or 1+ with some special +1 to saves rule ) or 1+ save? 0+ would at least give a landraider a 4+ against melta.

the_scotsman wrote:

Cynista wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's the opposite of good game design LMAO. So should the durable infantry unit for Eldar, Wraithguard, be not durable at all because of the supposed glass cannon trope? Should Skull Cannons just be straight garbage because Daemons don't shoot?

You are being ridiculous and arguing in bad faith. Nobody has claimed Wraithguard should "not be durable at all" or that Kroot should be bad. You know this, so stop erecting weird strawman arguments. I'm not here for it

And I doubt you know the first thing about game design.

You literally did say, twice, that they should be worse FOR THE POINTS.

That's bad game design - I'm sorry.

And you should be, because nothing you said after this does anything whatsoever to prove the point you're trying to make.

Bullgryn are worse FOR THE POINTS than the dedicated, durable heavy infantry of melee orientated factions. Yet they do see the tabletop, as do many other units in many other armies that are not as point efficient as say, Death Guard Terminators. Because amazingly enough, they do serve a purpose even though they aren't as good. Kroot may indeed need to get better than they currently are, that was not the debate.

You and others can call it bad game design if you like, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't share it, nor do I care to hear any big brain reductive theories as to why you think you're right.

Cool? Cool.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Leman Russ - 3+ save, can't get cover.

Cover interactions with vehicles are an absolute travesty in modern 40K. They need to sort that gak out pronto.

Cynista wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Cynista wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's the opposite of good game design LMAO. So should the durable infantry unit for Eldar, Wraithguard, be not durable at all because of the supposed glass cannon trope? Should Skull Cannons just be straight garbage because Daemons don't shoot?

You are being ridiculous and arguing in bad faith. Nobody has claimed Wraithguard should "not be durable at all" or that Kroot should be bad. You know this, so stop erecting weird strawman arguments. I'm not here for it

And I doubt you know the first thing about game design.

You literally did say, twice, that they should be worse FOR THE POINTS.

That's bad game design - I'm sorry.

And you should be, because nothing you said after this does anything whatsoever to prove the point you're trying to make.

Bullgryn are worse FOR THE POINTS than the dedicated, durable heavy infantry of melee orientated factions. Yet they do see the tabletop, as do many other units in many other armies that are not as point efficient as say, Death Guard Terminators. Because amazingly enough, they do serve a purpose even though they aren't as good. Kroot may indeed need to get better than they currently are, that was not the debate.

You and others can call it bad game design if you like, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't share it, nor do I care to hear any big brain reductive theories as to why you think you're right.

Cool? Cool.

You'd have a point, except that they don't. Bullgryns saw the tabletop back when they actually could be viewed as reasonably equivalent to durable heavy infantry from other factions back in early 8th. They do not currently, and guard as a whole is one of the three bottom armies overall.

When GW actually does pursue this kind of design philosophy, what the players do is just skew their lists because it's more effective than including the intentionally overcosted units, because they are intentionally overcosted.

Kroot do not see play. Skullcannons and Soul Grinders do not see play. Ogryns and Rough Riders do not see play.

Cynista wrote:

And you should be, because nothing you said after this does anything whatsoever to prove the point you're trying to make.

Bullgryn are worse FOR THE POINTS than the dedicated, durable heavy infantry of melee orientated factions. Yet they do see the tabletop, as do many other units in many other armies that are not as point efficient as say, Death Guard Terminators. Because amazingly enough, they do serve a purpose even though they aren't as good. Kroot may indeed need to get better than they currently are, that was not the debate.

You and others can call it bad game design if you like, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't share it, nor do I care to hear any big brain reductive theories as to why you think you're right.

Cool? Cool.

I share the sentiment that similar units do not need to be similarly costed across different armies.

Kroot just don't offer anything interesting to the army, which I think is the bigger problem.

the_scotsman wrote:
Rough Riders do not see play.

They are just one of the best units in the game and spammed at competitive level.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Leman Russ - 3+ save, can't get cover.

Cover interactions with vehicles are an absolute travesty in modern 40K. They need to sort that gak out pronto.

Yes, very very much this.

The whole cap on +/- to hit shouldn't apply to cover. There needs to be actual interaction with the terrain and benefits/negatives for each type of terrain.

What can/can't shoot thru something
What shooting thru that terrain means for both shooter and shootee

Lack of actual dangerous terrain, i.e. like if I go thru this crater/ruin I need to be wary of any toppling or falling debris as I cross it.

Destructible terrain traits

Etc

Spoletta wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Rough Riders do not see play.

They are just one of the best units in the game and spammed at competitive level.

Are you talking about Death Riders maybe? you know, the unit that they gave a good, comparable statline to melee units from other codeces and...voila, suddenly you saw them in guard lists?

I'm talking about Rough Riders, the now legends unit that was the worst unit in the game like 5 editions running.

Sort of feel on paper Kroot shouldn't be that bad.

I mean for your points you have okay shooting and okay assault. The initial starter move is good for getting across the table and standing on objectives (or getting out of dodge). Okay they fall over if you look at them funny - but they are also so cheap is that really a problem? Morale might be an issue - but then a Tau Ethereal pushes them to LD9, probably throwing up a 6+++ too - which for 6 points a model is a reasonable save.

But there's probably some Tau nerds on TTS who've proved me wrong.