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.

Boosykes wrote:
After seeing tau staying at a 4+ armor save are people still OK with metal men skitarii moving to a 5+? And Pathfinders moving from a 5+ to a 4+.

I will say I don't know that much about tau I need to learn more about them. In my opinion with the limited knowledge I currently posses about tau I thought the rules looked good.

Curious what peoples thoughts are on tau keeping a 4+ but mostly metal cyborgs moving to 5+ are.

Gess admech uses tin for most the bionics and armor

They’re just steampunk cosplay so probably made of foam

Boosykes wrote:
After seeing tau staying at a 4+ armor save are people still OK with metal men skitarii moving to a 5+? And Pathfinders moving from a 5+ to a 4+.

I will say I don't know that much about tau I need to learn more about them. In my opinion with the limited knowledge I currently posses about tau I thought the rules looked good.

Curious what peoples thoughts are on tau keeping a 4+ but mostly metal cyborgs moving to 5+ are.

Gess admech uses tin for most the bionics and armor

Indifference, personally. bionics aren't solid metal, they're intricate working parts, often exposed (or under just robes) on AdMech models.
That they're a defensive upgrade in 40k (especially for Iron Hands, which seems obviously inferior to transhuman flesh and, importantly, armor) has always rubbed me the wrong way.

---

The thing that gets me with there tau rules is they can swing from ork level shooting incompetence to marine level bullseyes. On similar units in the same turn.
It feels like an army for people who like buff stacking, but you're buff stacking to not be bad, rather than to be good.

Or to put it another way, they're at 4+/5+ BS because the Heavy and FtGG buffs exist.

Its another army (like CSM) where I'm sure it appeals to other people, but I'd absolutely hate juggling these rules. It just absolutely wouldn't be fun for me. Which is good to know, but GW seems to be going hard on 'This army is for this playstyle, and no other'

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
i thought saves can never be improved by more than +1 so how does the +2 work?

It's not technically a +2 in this case. The Protector imperative reduces incoming AP by 1, so if the unit is in cover it gets a 4+ save against AP1 or a 5+ save against AP2.

That's effectively the same result as getting +2 to the cover save, with the exception that the benefit doesn't work versus AP0.

Voss wrote:


Indifference, personally. bionics aren't solid metal, they're intricate working parts, often exposed (or under just robes) on AdMech models.
That they're a defensive upgrade in 40k (especially for Iron Hands, which seems obviously inferior to transhuman flesh) has always rubbed me the wrong way.

Are you complaining about the level of realism in the setting that brought us the quote "drive me closer so I can hit them with my sword" ?

 xttz wrote:

Voss wrote:


Indifference, personally. bionics aren't solid metal, they're intricate working parts, often exposed (or under just robes) on AdMech models.
That they're a defensive upgrade in 40k (especially for Iron Hands, which seems obviously inferior to transhuman flesh) has always rubbed me the wrong way.

Are you complaining about the level of realism in the setting that brought us the quote "drive me closer so I can hit them with my sword" ?

No. I'm saying the armor save of bionicals isn't important. If there's an argument to be had here, its a game balance one, and we don't know enough yet
lasers and demons versus bionics isn't a realism argument at any level.

Its just worth noting that bionics used to be a invulnerable save on par with force fields, so the level of armor provided isn't relevant at all.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The 'metal men' get an effective 3+ save when in cover against AP1 if they're using protectorate.

So do Tau, but then if Skitarii was a 4+ then they'd effectively become 2+.

Protector Imperative only applies if the unit being attacked by shooting is in the AdMech player's deployment zone.

No matter how you try to justify it with the math, Daedalus, it feels like a punishment. There was zero other buffs to the Vanguard profile we saw, just a straight nerf. It feels even more spiteful given the Pathfinders(a unit which specifically was put at 5+ to distinguish from the Fire Warriors and their 4+) buff today and Guardians being kept at a 4+ as well.

Pathfinder at 4+ feels like something changed during playtesting. They were supposed to be 5+ but they didn't work as a model so they moved it to 4+.

Probably the same for Admech. For whatever reason they were oppressive at 4+ so they had to be reduced at 5+.

Nah. Skitarii are just dumped on.

I'll miss the 4+ save Skitarii, but I hope it is in cause of making a distinction between a cheap horde of mortal based troops and lesser numbers of more heavily mechanized mechanical forces.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
I'll miss the 4+ save Skitarii, but I hope it is in cause of making a distinction between a cheap horde of mortal based troops and lesser numbers of more heavily mechanized mechanical forces.

They're only "cheap hordes" because the last book doubled the unit size for some inexplicable reason.

If anything, the sheer unwillingness to swap points of Electropriests and Skitarii showcased the design team being unsure of how to go.

Voss wrote:
Which is good to know, but GW seems to be going hard on 'This army is for this playstyle, and no other'

That's a limitation of a single detachment per army. We'll need the codexes to stretch our legs.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The 'metal men' get an effective 3+ save when in cover against AP1 if they're using protectorate.

So do Tau, but then if Skitarii was a 4+ then they'd effectively become 2+.

Protector Imperative only applies if the unit being attacked by shooting is in the AdMech player's deployment zone.

No matter how you try to justify it with the math, Daedalus, it feels like a punishment. There was zero other buffs to the Vanguard profile we saw, just a straight nerf. It feels even more spiteful given the Pathfinders(a unit which specifically was put at 5+ to distinguish from the Fire Warriors and their 4+) buff today and Guardians being kept at a 4+ as well.

I get that, but where are Tau going to be, in general?

What will be the net effect of Tau shooting Ion at Vanguard in their DZ under protectorate? And then what will be the outcome when the Vangaurd then pick up assault and run to get their radium carbines to AP1 against the Tau in their DZ?

And what benefit do Vanguard get when whatever character is allowed to join their unit does so? Could they get enhanced bionics for a 5++?

The picture isn't clear enough to worry about these low level items, I think.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:
Which is good to know, but GW seems to be going hard on 'This army is for this playstyle, and no other'

That's a limitation of a single detachment per army. We'll need the codexes to stretch our legs.

No, it isn't. I'm talking about the faction level abilities. FtGG here and Dark Pacts for CSM. We don't even know what the first detachment ability for chaos marines is.
CSM trading MW damage for buffs and Tau layering bonuses/trading which units can shoot effectively to overcome the mediocre BS simply doesn't appeal to me, and that's a real hard lock on those factions.

The picture isn't clear enough to worry about these low level items, I think.

Exact balance is TBD, but I wouldn't call concerns about the army's armor saves to be a 'low level' item.

Voss wrote:
No, it isn't. I'm talking about the faction level abilities. FtGG here and Dark Pacts for CSM. We don't even know what the first detachment ability for chaos marines is.
CSM trading MW damage for buffs and Tau layering bonuses/trading which units can shoot effectively to overcome the mediocre BS simply doesn't appeal to me, and that's a real hard lock on those factions.

Yea, but Kauyon changes how you approach the army. The markerlight shtick has always been Tau's thing. This version is at least more flexible. You could do a Kroot heavy army with whatever made-up detachment that benefit them in some way and the Kroot will lead the way and buddy with their backfield support.

Exact balance is TBD, but I wouldn't call concerns about the army's armor saves to be a 'low level' item.

I think it's a similar concern with Death Guard where it's quite likely a Plague Surgeon will provide a form of defensive buff. The same can apply here.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

Quick Note, the ability, while it only improves the shooting attacks, is not actually only restricted to shooting attacks, so you could improve a melee attack by +1BS and Ignores Cover for some reason.

The ability only triggers in the shooting phase and lasts until the end of the phase. So no benefits for melee attacks.

Us3Less wrote:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

Quick Note, the ability, while it only improves the shooting attacks, is not actually only restricted to shooting attacks, so you could improve a melee attack by +1BS and Ignores Cover for some reason.

The ability only triggers in the shooting phase and lasts until the end of the phase. So no benefits for melee attacks.

Ah, right. My bad.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Exact balance is TBD, but I wouldn't call concerns about the army's armor saves to be a 'low level' item.

I think it's a similar concern with Death Guard where it's quite likely a Plague Surgeon will provide a form of defensive buff. The same can apply here.

Is it really though?

Death Guard got something in the form of Toughness baked in. Skitarii didn't get that. They cut the armor save, they cut the Ballistic Skill. Yes there's an army rule--but do you really think that is equivalent?

Do you really think there is going to be that much room for HQs that will bolster Skitarii?

Because I don't.

I'm trying real hard to stay optimistic and bubbly over this, but it's extremely difficult when they're gutting core tenants of the lore established and it just feels bloody spiteful.

Why does it feel spiteful though? What makes you think they're taking a dig at Vanguard for no good reason?

The BL termies are really blah overall. I'm struggling to see a purpose for them atm even with the T6, but lots can change that. For now they're a pretty mediocre anti-infantry unit.

Important to note that AdMech is one of the early books and all of them are getting models, so new HQs to buff are plausible.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:
No, it isn't. I'm talking about the faction level abilities. FtGG here and Dark Pacts for CSM. We don't even know what the first detachment ability for chaos marines is.
CSM trading MW damage for buffs and Tau layering bonuses/trading which units can shoot effectively to overcome the mediocre BS simply doesn't appeal to me, and that's a real hard lock on those factions.

Yea, but Kauyon changes how you approach the army. The markerlight shtick has always been Tau's thing. This version is at least more flexible. You could do a Kroot heavy army with whatever made-up detachment that benefit them in some way and the Kroot will lead the way and buddy with their backfield support.

What? Kauyon changes nothing. Later in the game your shooting becomes marginally better. You still have to juggle which units get to be good at shooting that round. Thats what For the Greater Good does. That's what I don't like.

I'm not sure how many variations of this I need to repeat: its the faction ability that makes me not want to play this army. If you like it, that's fine. But its utterly unappealing to me. No amount of kroot or made up detachments change that one iota. I can't even vaguely grasp why they would.

I'm not even sure why you're bring markerlights into it. Yeah, if unit X has markerlights unit Y also ignores cover, but its needing unit X for unit Y to have good shooting at all that bugs me.

Exact balance is TBD, but I wouldn't call concerns about the army's armor saves to be a 'low level' item.

I think it's a similar concern with Death Guard where it's quite likely a Plague Surgeon will provide a form of defensive buff. The same can apply here.

Playing hypothetical 'maybe a character will have a buff that fixes everything (for one unit)' is completely meaningless.

Voss wrote:
I'm not sure how many variations of this I need to repeat: its the faction ability that makes me not want to play this army. If you like it, that's fine. But its utterly unappealing to me. No amount of kroot or made up detachments change that one iota. I can't even vaguely grasp why they would.

That's fair, but what is it that this doesn't offer than prior Tau rules did? I find other army rules more compelling, but I feel like this one might have some hidden legs.

Playing hypothetical 'maybe a character will have a buff that fixes everything (for one unit)' is completely meaningless.

Yea, I'm totally not trying to shutdown concerns. I guess I'm just expressing why I don't share the same level of concern currently.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:
I'm not sure how many variations of this I need to repeat: its the faction ability that makes me not want to play this army. If you like it, that's fine. But its utterly unappealing to me. No amount of kroot or made up detachments change that one iota. I can't even vaguely grasp why they would.

That's fair, but what is it that this doesn't offer than prior Tau rules did?

Battlesuit Unit A with plasma rifles was the equal to Battlesuit Unit B with plasma rifles. All the time.
Now, one of them is always inferior. With careful maneuvering by the enemy, both can be inferior. If you're really bad about it, you can reduce some of your Tau to Ork levels of incompetent shooting.

No other army we've seen gets half their army penalized, so that the other half can be dragged up to being able to do their one job (shooting) properly.

(though admittedly some seem severely reduced to mediocrity, but I'm not convinced they weren't overtuned in the first place)

I havent seen how they have been made worse, since the pathfinders we have seen didnt lose BS at all.

Voss wrote:
Battlesuit Unit A with plasma rifles was the equal to Battlesuit Unit B with plasma rifles. All the time.
Now, one of them is always inferior. With careful maneuvering by the enemy, both can be inferior.

I dunno. That sort of careful play makes me like it more.

Running out of buddies can get you in a bad spot and I suppose you could consider it a 'lose more' situation, but one that you could maybe avoid. A Devlifish and their ride can cover two units with a bit of added durability. A commander, if it's still BS2 can be one as well without suffering a consequence.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
I havent seen how they have been made worse, since the pathfinders we have seen didnt lose BS at all.

I didn't say "made worse." I said two of the same unit, one is inferior to the other. I'm talking about these rules now, not comparing editions.

Every single shooting phase, you're setting up multiple pairs of X+Y vs enemy Z so one unit can be buffed. Every unit in the army is looking at the enemy and shooting, but for some reason half the army is better about it. Because game mechanics.

I find it clunky, weird and inherently not very fun. The analysis paralysis for some players is going to be ridiculously high. Some are going to need all sorts of markers on the table to keep track of who has guided, who can guide and who has shot. Others are going to pack the army with the really good stuff and cheap garbage, completely reject the normal tau army composition (because frankly I suspect it isn't supported very well at all) and make no-brainer decisions.

Voss wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:
I'm not sure how many variations of this I need to repeat: its the faction ability that makes me not want to play this army. If you like it, that's fine. But its utterly unappealing to me. No amount of kroot or made up detachments change that one iota. I can't even vaguely grasp why they would.

That's fair, but what is it that this doesn't offer than prior Tau rules did?

Battlesuit Unit A with plasma rifles was the equal to Battlesuit Unit B with plasma rifles. All the time.
Now, one of them is always inferior. With careful maneuvering by the enemy, both can be inferior. If you're really bad about it, you can reduce some of your Tau to Ork levels of incompetent shooting.

No other army we've seen gets half their army penalized, so that the other half can be dragged up to being able to do their one job (shooting) properly.

(though admittedly some seem severely reduced to mediocrity, but I'm not convinced they weren't overtuned in the first place)

Sorry I'm not following.

RIght now the crisis suits hit on 4+. Period.

With this new system one of the 2 gets boosted to 3+.
So previously you had 2 inferior ones and now you have an inferior one and a good one.

Focusing resources on one unit has also been a very Tau thing for a while. Before 8th's edition markerlight (which the Tau community didn't like), the markerlights on the target were spent by the unit firing to obtain various bonuses. So battlesuit unit A and battlesuit Unit B being different because one of the two gets supported by another unit is a very Tau rule. 9th edition too was like that. Multiple units pooled their markerlights so that the rest of the army got a bonus. Unit A helping unit B has always been a trend of the faction. It is their defining feature.

Edit:

The biggest difference is that previously all of this was tied to a specific wargear, the markerlights. Tau players complained that they were forced to bring markerlights for the faction to work.

Now it is no longer necessary. While the markerlights improve this collaboration, they are by no means necessary. I see this as quite the step forward in the design of the faction.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Exact balance is TBD, but I wouldn't call concerns about the army's armor saves to be a 'low level' item.

I think it's a similar concern with Death Guard where it's quite likely a Plague Surgeon will provide a form of defensive buff. The same can apply here.

Is it really though?

Death Guard got something in the form of Toughness baked in. Skitarii didn't get that. They cut the armor save, they cut the Ballistic Skill. Yes there's an army rule--but do you really think that is equivalent?

Do you really think there is going to be that much room for HQs that will bolster Skitarii?

Because I don't.

I'm trying real hard to stay optimistic and bubbly over this, but it's extremely difficult when they're gutting core tenants of the lore established and it just feels bloody spiteful.

Why does it feel spiteful?
I don't like the change either-Skitarii should have a 4+ armor, in my opinion-but I find it entirely likely that it's just someone who doesn't know/care that much making the adjustments. It's not someone maniacally laughing about those nerfed Ad Mech players, it's just someone doing a job and not doing it especially well.

Please delete.

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
i thought saves can never be improved by more than +1 so how does the +2 work?

I know that Guard can get a +2 to their save. Cover adds +1 to the dice roll, take cover order adds +1 to the save characteristic. They can get the same thing with ballistic skill, as the order is +1 bs and heavy is +1 to the roll. You can't get more than +1 to the roll, but can get around it by altering the base stat.

(please someone point out if i have this wrong, doing it half from memory)

 Daedalus81 wrote:
but I feel like this one might have some hidden legs.

If I'm reading this rule correctly, I think the hidden legs is getting Heavy Weapons up to a 2+ to hit. FtGG would up the models BS to 3+, and then if they remained stationary, they'd be getting a +1 to hit. Since FtGG is a BS change and not a modifier to the hit roll, it's not limited by the "A hit roll can never be modified by more than -1 or +1"

Voss wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
I havent seen how they have been made worse, since the pathfinders we have seen didnt lose BS at all.

I didn't say "made worse." I said two of the same unit, one is inferior to the other. I'm talking about these rules now, not comparing editions.

Voss wrote:


No other army we've seen gets half their army penalized, so that the other half can be dragged up to being able to do their one job (shooting) properly.

There isnt a penalty though. Half get an improvement, half remain at the baseline. Unless you expected every unit to be buffed to 3+ BS, giving half of your units a buff to shooting is a plus.

Spoletta wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:
I'm not sure how many variations of this I need to repeat: its the faction ability that makes me not want to play this army. If you like it, that's fine. But its utterly unappealing to me. No amount of kroot or made up detachments change that one iota. I can't even vaguely grasp why they would.

That's fair, but what is it that this doesn't offer than prior Tau rules did?

Battlesuit Unit A with plasma rifles was the equal to Battlesuit Unit B with plasma rifles. All the time.
Now, one of them is always inferior. With careful maneuvering by the enemy, both can be inferior. If you're really bad about it, you can reduce some of your Tau to Ork levels of incompetent shooting.

No other army we've seen gets half their army penalized, so that the other half can be dragged up to being able to do their one job (shooting) properly.

(though admittedly some seem severely reduced to mediocrity, but I'm not convinced they weren't overtuned in the first place)

Sorry I'm not following.

RIght now the crisis suits hit on 4+. Period.

With this new system one of the 2 gets boosted to 3+.
So previously you had 2 inferior ones and now you have an inferior one and a good one.

No. Previously you had two identical units that were the same. Now you have two 'identical' units but one is a good one and the other is a bad one. And that's weird.
Though honestly you'll probably bring along cheap inferior units to explicitly be bad and buff the better ones, so this isn't too much a concern. But there will be situations where you can't get the guided bonus from anything but a unit you want to be buffed, especially in the late game.

Focusing resources on one unit has also been a very Tau thing for a while. Before 8th's edition markerlight (which the Tau community didn't like), the markerlights on the target were spent by the unit firing to obtain various bonuses. So battlesuit unit A and battlesuit Unit B being different because one of the two gets supported by another unit is a very Tau rule. 9th edition too was like that. Multiple units pooled their markerlights so that the rest of the army got a bonus. Unit A helping unit B has always been a trend of the faction. It is their defining feature.

Edit:

The biggest difference is that previously all of this was tied to a specific wargear, the markerlights. Tau players complained that they were forced to bring markerlights for the faction to work.

Now it is no longer necessary. While the markerlights improve this collaboration, they are by no means necessary. I see this as quite the step forward in the design of the faction.

Right. Now you aren't focusing resources. It isn't a resource question at all anymore. Now this is just a word puzzle you have to figure out every shooting phase.

Example: you have 12 units on the table and the enemy has 9. Each of your units can only draw LOS to a random 5 out of the 9 enemy units. Now, pair everything off so you're maximizing your guided bonuses (at least 50% of your army, given that pathfinders can guide twice). Don't forget that units already designated as Observers don't qualify later, and if you already shot, you aren't an eligible unit and don't qualify, so you have to set this up in the exact order they shoot. Don't forget to optimize so you're shooting good AT weapons at tanks and other assorted weapons at appropriate targets!

Are we having fun yet? I'm not. And there's four more turns of this to go (though they will, mercifully, get shorter).

As I said, this might tickle someone's pickle. But not mine. I don't even really want to be on the other side of it, while someone hems and haws through the logic chain.

Spoletta wrote:
Pathfinder at 4+ feels like something changed during playtesting. They were supposed to be 5+ but they didn't work as a model so they moved it to 4+.

Probably the same for Admech. For whatever reason they were oppressive at 4+ so they had to be reduced at 5+.

That would be my guess as well. I assume they had decided on faction rules, found it was too powerful for AdMech infantry and then reduced the Armor Save as a result, rather than adjust the faction rule.