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.

Not looked into Tau focus too much, but if one unit buffs another, would you not make your army with cheap spotter units to buff expensive units? Not like you are wasting half your army spotting.

Voss wrote:
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.

I think you make a lot of sense. I shelved 9th ed Tau after playing a practice tournament game and being utterly drained after doing the second turn's shooting phase. I also really dislike Dark Pact for 10th ed CSM. But, I kind of like FTGG for 10th ed Tau, as it feels less draining and specifically fits with how I think I might play them. I think it will be quite a straight forward logic chain for me, but we'll have to wait and see.

 Trickstick wrote:
Not looked into Tau focus too much, but if one unit buffs another, would you not make your army with cheap spotter units to buff expensive units? Not like you are wasting half your army spotting.

Yea I would do something like:

Coldstar ( presumed lone operative )
2x Commander for Crisis
Stormsurge
Skyray
Hammerhead
2x4 Crisis

Pathfinders
2x Breachers
2x Devilfish
2x Strike
2x Shaper & Kroot

That gives me 5 units I really want to guide and 10 to 11 buddies possibly with points to spare.

Voss wrote:

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.

You are making a mountain out of some dirt on the ground. I would be surprised if someone in the actual situation takes longer than 15 seconds to figure out the very logical order to shoot. What this requires instead is correct planning in deployment, in the movement phase and predicting the position of enemy units. You know, what they call playing the game. It is a very simple rule which brings a lot of tactical decisions. I like it.

Spoletta wrote:

Voss wrote:

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.

You are making a mountain out of some dirt on the ground. I would be surprised if someone in the actual situation takes longer than 15 seconds to figure out the very logical order to shoot. What this requires instead is correct planning in deployment, in the movement phase and predicting the position of enemy units. You know, what they call playing the game. It is a very simple rule which brings a lot of tactical decisions. I like it.

I've played games against people who need a calculator to add two two-digit numbers, and 10 minutes and a buddy to resolve a charge in Warmachine (with free strikes, solos spawned from free strikes and healing mid-stride, admittedly). I think you're being excessively optimistic.

I think your experience is somewhat out of the norm, but I don't have a lot of data to truly state otherwise.

 Kanluwen wrote:
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.

Tenets, not tenants.

And I agree, the changes to the Skitarii seem weird so far.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 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.

Of course 4+ would make points go up.

Premature to say they are too weak atm.

Looking at it as a neutral "doesn't like and doesn't hate" AdMech player, I do think T3 5+ 6++ is too little difference compared to a T3 5+ guardsman. I do think the Cadian stat line is right though. Of the two out of T3 4+ 6++ or T4 5+ 6++, I think the T3 4+ 6++ option is better for the Skitarii. But, it then makes them too similar to Tau/Eldar (6++ only difference) and Sisters (1 pip of Armour only difference).

I do like in general what they are trying to do with having a greater diversity of W, T, Sv and Inv on units. Otherwise it makes it too easy to find a gun that is good into everything.

I have to admit I have a similar feeling about the OC stat. I get the idea behind it, but I'm still not sure how narratively 3 Guardsmen take an objective off 5 Terminators while they are all in such close proximity to each other.

I find it odd that they wrote rules that would address drones in units but chose to ignore them.

Ie they could have made drones attached units and had attacks only hit them first.

 Hellebore wrote:
I find it odd that they wrote rules that would address drones in units but chose to ignore them.

Ie they could have made drones attached units and had attacks only hit them first.

That might have been a conscious choice to limit the staying power of large battlesuit units with shield drones - by having the drones give additional wounds to models, that effectively means that you kill a suit and its drones, than go on to the next suit and so on, instead of having to kill all the drones first. That seems like it was intentional.

You know, they could bring back the old bionics rule, aka, a 6++fnp. Wouldn’t be much but if it applied to basically every admech unit (since they’re all bionic) it could start to count. Heck, give a higher one on more purely mechanical units.

How swingy do we think Orks will be?

I'm expecting sustained fire on most of their weapons. How much depends on how swingy they make them.

Ie shoota A2 5+ s4 ap0 D1 sustained 1

Or swingy

A1 5+ s4 ap0 D1 sustained 2

Voss wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Voss wrote:

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.

You are making a mountain out of some dirt on the ground. I would be surprised if someone in the actual situation takes longer than 15 seconds to figure out the very logical order to shoot. What this requires instead is correct planning in deployment, in the movement phase and predicting the position of enemy units. You know, what they call playing the game. It is a very simple rule which brings a lot of tactical decisions. I like it.

I've played games against people who need a calculator to add two two-digit numbers, and 10 minutes and a buddy to resolve a charge in Warmachine (with free strikes, solos spawned from free strikes and healing mid-stride, admittedly). I think you're being excessively optimistic.

If it's an issue with some sort of neurodivergence or learning disability, it sucks that it's more difficult for them to process the information, but 40k was already rough for people with those kinds of issues. This is nowhere near the worst example of things that strain people with information processing disorders in 40k.

Everyone else; If you're too stupid to play your army, I have very little sympathy.

Are the skitarii really that much tougher than guard? Bionics aside they wear shoulder pads, long coats and puffy pants. In all the BL fiction I've read - admittedly, not a tremendous amount featuring them, so by no means anything more than an anecdote rather than evidence - they get shot up pretty easily. Gaunt's Ghosts got trapped in a facility with a bunch of them and still managed to curb stomp them, for example.

 Shakalooloo wrote:
Are the skitarii really that much tougher than guard? Bionics aside they wear shoulder pads, long coats and puffy pants. In all the BL fiction I've read - admittedly, not a tremendous amount featuring them, so by no means anything more than an anecdote rather than evidence - they get shot up pretty easily. Gaunt's Ghosts got trapped in a facility with a bunch of them and still managed to curb stomp them, for example.

I don't know where this idea of Skitarii being some kind of durable, elite force comes from. (Other than maybe some amusingly overtuned rules at certain points in the game)

Even since their very first fluff material they've always be portrayed as expendable foot soldiers sacrificed by the millions and replaced just as quickly. Any modifications aren't made to help them survive contact with the enemy, but rather to ensure obedience, optimise coordination, and sometimes to protect from hostile environments. They're just better organised guardsmen.

Who are these once-men, these warrior automatons who have sacrificed their humanity on an altar of uncaring iron? Do they expect to prevail simply by walking into the teeth of the enemy guns? The answers are slow to dawn, and terrifying. The Cult Mechanicus cares not if a million Skitarii are blasted apart, for in killing them, the enemy yield their secrets to hungry eyes. One cohort dies only for another to take its place, and fight on all the harder. The calculations are complete, the simulations run; whatever the enemy may field, the Skitarii have already deployed the countermeasures and more besides. Surrender falls on deaf ears, for it is worth nothing to the dark scientists of the Cult Mechanicus. So the death toll spirals ever higher.

Skitarii vary hugely depending on the Magos - sadly, like Guard, the vast variety they are in lore has not been much epxlored in recent editions of the game in favour of dozens of slightly different marine loadouts and colours.

There should be options for 4+ armour Skitarri (as there shoud be for Guard), higher toughness, etc but GW does not support the actual lore in this on the table top sadly

 Shakalooloo wrote:
Are the skitarii really that much tougher than guard? Bionics aside they wear shoulder pads, long coats and puffy pants. In all the BL fiction I've read - admittedly, not a tremendous amount featuring them, so by no means anything more than an anecdote rather than evidence - they get shot up pretty easily. Gaunt's Ghosts got trapped in a facility with a bunch of them and still managed to curb stomp them, for example.

Some are like this - some are heavily cybernetic, some are bioengineered, some Titan legions use specialist close combat versions to prevent Titans being swarmed...

What don;t Gaunts Ghosts stomp?

 Hellebore wrote:
I find it odd that they wrote rules that would address drones in units but chose to ignore them.

Ie they could have made drones attached units and had attacks only hit them first.

Drones create a problem where the durability can be hugely affected by wound breakpoints and other issues.

This makes crisis suits a lot easier to balance since you can more easily know what people are selecting and they can't be influenced by drones on the table.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:
How swingy do we think Orks will be?

I'm expecting sustained fire on most of their weapons. How much depends on how swingy they make them.

Ie shoota A2 5+ s4 ap0 D1 sustained 1

Or swingy

A1 5+ s4 ap0 D1 sustained 2

Speaking of orks. How mad are people going to be when they get a 5+?

Their gun will probably be A1 RF2.

Yeah, particularly after the rapid-fire battlecannon and its [RFd6+3], I expect ork weapons to ditch dakka and just be X shots [rapid fire Y] . Its a simple, reasonable solution. With [assault] or [heavy] depending on the weapon and the particular unit. Lootas or Flash gitz are pretty good candidates for heavy, and there's a lot of in-your-face guns that could get assault.

I kind of fear [rapid fire d3] or something similar. A random roll is passable on a single big gun, but really annoying in units.)

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Their gun will probably be A1 RF2.

Probably Rapid Fire AND Sustained Hits. Becuz Orkz.

 Shakalooloo wrote:
Gaunt's Ghosts got trapped in a facility with a bunch of them and still managed to curb stomp them, for example.

The Ghosts faced a handful of Men of Iron, not Skitarii. And the STC was just ramping up, they had to melta bomb the entire chamber to beat them.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Their gun will probably be A1 RF2.

Probably Rapid Fire AND Sustained Hits. Becuz Orkz.

Eh. GW really values effects that proc on a 6. It would push their points higher than they need to be.

I could see the Sustained hits for certain weapons like Big Shootas, not regular guns like shootas though.

It seemed like a pretty Orky thing for them to either miss, or hit with lots of shots.

Hence sustained hits.

I could see big shootas at sustained hits 2.

But I could see shootas with sustained fire 1.

So they either miss or hit with multiple shots as they get carried away with the dakka.

Rapid fire works, but it seems less orky

Voss wrote:
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.

Now you have two units, one is better and one is the same as it always was. The only way your argument makes sense is if you contend that right now both units are bad and/or without this rule both units would be considered bad.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Now you have two units, one is better and one is the same as it always was.

Which was true in 9th already if one had Experimental tech and the other didn't, which kind of undermines Voss' argument.

 Shakalooloo wrote:
Are the skitarii really that much tougher than guard? Bionics aside they wear shoulder pads, long coats and puffy pants. In all the BL fiction I've read - admittedly, not a tremendous amount featuring them, so by no means anything more than an anecdote rather than evidence - they get shot up pretty easily. Gaunt's Ghosts got trapped in a facility with a bunch of them and still managed to curb stomp them, for example.

Once upon a time there was a Low Gothic name for the Skitarii: Tech-Guard. They're just the AdMech equivalent of the Imperial Guard, with fancier and more esoteric technology.

They're not meant to be an army of near Storm Trooper/Sisters elites. They're expendable hordes of less-fleshy humans.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Voss wrote:
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.

Now you have two units, one is better and one is the same as it always was. The only way your argument makes sense is if you contend that right now both units are bad and/or without this rule both units would be considered bad.

No. 'Always was' is nonsense. Things change from edition to edition. Now in the same edition, units you equip the same and pay the same points to vary from 2+ to hit to 4+ to hit. 5+ if the player is really dumb about it. That's an insane variance for things that are the same, cost the same, and aren't being affected by leaders, strats, special equipment or anything beyond the basic faction rules.

That you need to, in every shooting phase, on the fly, create ordered sets and track your entire army to do it correctly is just bizarre.

*shrugs*

I used to have a firing pattern to my Guard back in the day, using the least amount of force for the most amount of results until I had moved through every weapon type.

The idea of a Tau army having to work together, to have synergies between spotters/shooters, and position/manoeuvre units to better bring firepower down on the enemy seems really thematic to me.

And it certainly doesn't make any units worse. All it does is make half the units better.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
*shrugs*

I used to have a firing pattern to my Guard back in the day, using the least amount of force for the most amount of results until I had moved through every weapon type.

The idea of a Tau army having to work together, to have synergies between spotters/shooters, and position/manoeuvre units to better bring firepower down on the enemy seems really thematic to me.

But they don't. That's the thing. There's no real working together, strategy, tactics, costs, or anything. If you have a 100 fire warriors on the table, (assuming they have the same size units), at the same range and the same target, 50 of them just shoot better than the other 50. They all shoot. All you need to do is make the declarations in the right order. That's the player not screwing up the ordered sets (if observer, can't be guided or observe again (unless pathfinder), if already shot, can't be observer), not the units working together.

Now, an enemy might move so you can't get all your pairs, especially not on the targets you prefer, but that's the limit on maneuver and position. That's affected as much or more by how terrain was set up and if you put enough fast things in your list to get LOS anyway.

And it certainly doesn't make any units worse. All it does is make half the units better.

Sigh. That's equivalent. If half the units are better, the other half is worse than them.
That's what makes it a comparison. You can't compare something to nothing or claim that the comparison degrades the other thing, you compare the state of the two (or more) things. One is better than the other.