The run to 8th edition

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Posts: 1185

Re: The run to 8th edition

Post#631 » May 18 2017 11:06

What Ricordis said.
Sure they could have the bulky keyword but it wouldn't be a special rule that lets them count for 2-3 like in 7th but rather it would be noted on the Devilfish datasheet that he can't carry bulky units etc.
However at that point it would be the same as simply using the battlesuit keyword instead so they are most likely just gonna use that instead.

User avatar
Unicornsilovethem
Shas'Saal
Posts: 278

Re: The run to 8th edition

Post#632 » May 19 2017 01:58

Vector Strike wrote:GW just finished a Q&A about the new edition. This link has an unofficial summary:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/p ... ge#9370854

Confirms that Drop pods, and their content, must also deploy 9" away. Not looking good for our fusion. Although I guess to be fair, being out of melta range seems to be a much smaller penalty in 8th than in 7th, so maybe there's no cause for concern. Too lazy to do the math but googling says that "2d6 take higher" is 4.47 in expectation, which is just below the expected value of 1+D6. So honestly, melta rule should probably be changed.

User avatar
Gragagrogog
Shas'La
Posts: 52

Re: The run to 8th edition

Post#633 » May 19 2017 03:14

Unicornsilovethem wrote: Too lazy to do the math but googling says that "2d6 take higher" is 4.47 in expectation, which is just below the expected value of 1+D6. So honestly, melta rule should probably be changed.


That's correct. Though the advantage is not much in the average, but in the probability distribution, it really gets the tails of low results down compared to a hypothetical D6+1 which has the same average, at the cost of lower maximum value ofc, which is likely to overkill anyway:
Image
*

Ricordis
Shas'La
Posts: 180

Re: The run to 8th edition

Post#634 » May 19 2017 04:32

I favor lower Damage I can count on instead of possible high damage values which also can horribly fail.

User avatar
Unicornsilovethem
Shas'Saal
Posts: 278

Re: The run to 8th edition

Post#635 » May 19 2017 05:05

Gragagrogog wrote:
Unicornsilovethem wrote: Too lazy to do the math but googling says that "2d6 take higher" is 4.47 in expectation, which is just below the expected value of 1+D6. So honestly, melta rule should probably be changed.


That's correct. Though the advantage is not much in the average, but in the probability distribution, it really gets the tails of low results down compared to a hypothetical D6+1 which has the same average, at the cost of lower maximum value ofc, which is likely to overkill anyway:
Image


But the more individual guns you shoot, the more likely it is that their sum tends to the expectation. And it's going to be pretty unlikely that you're firing just one melta shot, especially when it comes our suits that now carry 3 guns. We should realistically expect to shoot 4, 6 or even more meltas at the same target, which really diminishes the benefit of being within half range.

User avatar
Jefffar
Shas'Vre
Posts: 965

Re: The run to 8th edition

Post#636 » May 19 2017 05:43

We are also thinking in old paradigms here.

It used to be that getting a fusion blaster within 9 inches, beating the target's AV and then rolling a 5+ on the damage chart was our best way to kill high AV vehicles.

In 8th Ed, high toughness, high wounds models are the targets of the fusion blaster. These targets will not be destroyed by a single lucky hit, but instead will go down to the weight of repeated hits depleting their wound pool. So the roll twice and pick higher result, while a nice boost, isn't essential to the working of the fusion blaster as being able to roll 2D6 for penetration was.

Also, the Fusion Blaster isn't going to be the only way to reliably injure those high end models any more. Heavy Rail Rifles (baring some unexpected special rule or nerf) are going to be just as likely to successfully wound targets as fusion blasters. Against most former vehicles Ion Cannons and Ion Accelerators are probably going to be as deadly as Fusion Blasters (if not more due to the way the blast rule now works). The HYMP and Missile Pod are also likely to be no slouch at putting a lot of wounds on things they couldn't even hurt under the AV system.

So the sky isn't falling. Instead we're seeing something we haven't seen from T'au for years. Anti-vehicle capability distributed across our army, instead of clustered in suicide crisis suits.

Honestly, I think the go to Crisis Suit weapons this edition will be Burst Cannon, Plasma Rifle and Cyclic Ion Blaster.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Posts: 1185

Re: The run to 8th edition

Post#637 » May 19 2017 06:02

Missile Pods look very promising as well with their d3 damage.

Ricordis
Shas'La
Posts: 180

Re: The run to 8th edition

Post#638 » May 19 2017 06:03

With split fire on any unit (and I hope our multitrackers will alow us to fire different weapons at different targets) we have faaar less rock-paper-scissor situations.

"Oh, there is a unit of Anti Vehicle suits. I charge them with my UnitA because I don't have to fear them."
"Hahaaa! If have another unit of Anti-UnitA here!"
"Good I brought some Anti-Anti-UnitAs over there."

*snore*...boring.

I'd like to see very mobile suits which fry lefthanded some close enemies with flamers (Anti charge due autohitting).
While shooting their right-wrist-mounted Plasma Rifle at another target.
A shoulder mounted MissilePod or Burst Cannon might give some hits to another unit which would otherwise be wasted. (Reminds me of Iron Patriot)
While the other factions are mostly bound to a specific role for their units we might mix and match and create deadly danger zones for anyone.

It would be funny to see other players sticking to their old behaviour and losing one game after another because the can't adapt to the new rules.

User avatar
Unicornsilovethem
Shas'Saal
Posts: 278

Re: The run to 8th edition

Post#639 » May 19 2017 06:39

Panzer wrote:Missile Pods look very promising as well with their d3 damage.

That's a good point, and I did some calculations. A Leman Russ has T8 and 3+ save. We know Missile Pods have Ap-1 and D3 damage - we don't know their S value, but assuming it's within 5-7 they will wound on 5+. We also don't know how many shots they have; I'm assuming 2 like current edition. Furthermore I'm assuming perfect accuracy on all guns, since it's just the same "To Hit" modifier on all weapon effects so I might as well ignore it.

A Missile Pod will then do 2 (shots) * 1/3 (to wound) * 1/2 (3+, Ap-1) * 2 (D3 wounds) = 0.67 expected wounds. A fusion blaster out of range will do 1 * 1/2 * 1 * 3.5 = 1.75 wounds, and in range it does 2.24. MPs, with their much greater range and viability against blobs, might indeed be a viable alternative when you don't know you're up against high T models. Just taking a melta is a greater upgrade than bringing it in close range.

Giving meltas +1 to wound in half range would drastically improve them and give a reason to get close: they wound T5-7 on 2+, T8 on 3+, T9-T15 on 4+ and anything above on 5+.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Posts: 1185

Re: The run to 8th edition

Post#640 » May 19 2017 07:35

Ricordis wrote:With split fire on any unit (and I hope our multitrackers will alow us to fire different weapons at different targets) we have faaar less rock-paper-scissor situations.

"Oh, there is a unit of Anti Vehicle suits. I charge them with my UnitA because I don't have to fear them."
"Hahaaa! If have another unit of Anti-UnitA here!"
"Good I brought some Anti-Anti-UnitAs over there."

*snore*...boring.

I'd like to see very mobile suits which fry lefthanded some close enemies with flamers (Anti charge due autohitting).
While shooting their right-wrist-mounted Plasma Rifle at another target.
A shoulder mounted MissilePod or Burst Cannon might give some hits to another unit which would otherwise be wasted. (Reminds me of Iron Patriot)
While the other factions are mostly bound to a specific role for their units we might mix and match and create deadly danger zones for anyone.

It would be funny to see other players sticking to their old behaviour and losing one game after another because the can't adapt to the new rules.

That's nothing new though. We could do that the whole time thanks to Target Locks. It's just not as efficient as dedicating a unit to one task.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests