New Codexes announced

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
User avatar
Sykes
Shas
Posts: 7

Re: New Codexes announced

Post#37 » Jul 06 2017 10:46

I agree that this thread should not devolve into wish listing.

But at the same time, I think most players can agree that some of the Tau changes are not positive for the faction. If GW is true to their word about listening to player feedback then this may be the best opportunity to correct those changes, before the codex is released. And rather than stifling the creative energy of this community, we should be trying to focus it in a concise way for GW.

One way we could do this is to create a survey using something like Survey Monkey and try to get some statistics for how many players want change, and what that change should be.

An example page in this survey might look something like this:

Q1: Do you think the current marker light table should change?
A1: Yes
A2: No

Q2: If you answered yes, what do you think the benefit at each tier should be?

Q2a: 1 Markerlight (pick one)
A1: No movement penalty
A2: Re roll 1'a
A3: +1 BS
A4: Ignore cover

Q2b: 2 Markerlights (pick one)
A1: No movement penalty
...

And so on. The results could be given to GW and would provide interesting reading for the community.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 1225

Re: New Codexes announced

Post#38 » Jul 06 2017 11:30

Sykes wrote:I agree that this thread should not devolve into wish listing.

But at the same time, I think most players can agree that some of the Tau changes are not positive for the faction. If GW is true to their word about listening to player feedback then this may be the best opportunity to correct those changes, before the codex is released. And rather than stifling the creative energy of this community, we should be trying to focus it in a concise way for GW.

One way we could do this is to create a survey using something like Survey Monkey and try to get some statistics for how many players want change, and what that change should be.

An example page in this survey might look something like this:

Q1: Do you think the current marker light table should change?
A1: Yes
A2: No

Q2: If you answered yes, what do you think the benefit at each tier should be?

Q2a: 1 Markerlight (pick one)
A1: No movement penalty
A2: Re roll 1'a
A3: +1 BS
A4: Ignore cover

Q2b: 2 Markerlights (pick one)
A1: No movement penalty
...

And so on. The results could be given to GW and would provide interesting reading for the community.


If you're interested in submitting a petition to GW, I wouldn't give survey results about what you want. Everyone wants their army to be better. Rather, talk about game experience and say WHY a certain game mechanic doesn't work out. A short, simple, well-reasoned argument might get a response.

User avatar
Lechai Skull
Shas'Saal
Posts: 365

Re: New Codexes announced

Post#39 » Jul 07 2017 12:38

I agree that wish-listing isn't particularly helpful here:

However i think we have some universal agreements when it comes to issues with Tau in 8th

Maybe a poll on the following topics we could submit to GW?

RULES/UNITS
Points re-balance for certain units (esp riptide/broadsides/ghostkeels)
Markerlight table rebuild, too many redundancies (let us choose)
Lack of any psychic defense at all.
Nothing to do in the assault, charge and psychic phases (thats half the games phases)
JSJ
Saviour protocol overhaul
Underpowered vehicles (non longstrike) especially skyray
signature systems / vehicle systems
plasma rifle update/upgrade
1 Monat / army
sniper drone /firesight buff (fix) to bring in line with every other sniper rule
Pulse carbine secondary ability/rule
pulse weapon (rend) equivalent (they are supposed to be good vs armour)
Kroot shaper buff to be useful
nova reactor
Tidewall overhaul
rail weaponry buff


MODELS
New vespid models
Cyclic Ion Blasters. (we shouldn't have to outsource/proxy/kitbash)
Kroot variants
Cheap specialized drone transport/repair unit.
Kroot Hounds in 12 model boxes
Drones in 12 model boxes
Non-markerlight support suit

SEPTS
Insert SEPT variant units


Not everything here is my opinion, just listing common things i hear regularly.
For instance falling back out of combat instead of JSJ im ok with, but its brought up a lot.

This is not the list, just some examples

User avatar
Shas'Bro
Shas'Saal
Posts: 57

Re: New Codexes announced

Post#40 » Jul 07 2017 01:37

I was just thinking...why are railguns stuck at s10? I guess it's much easier to damage AV14 (T8) now but we still wound AV12/13 (T7) on a 3+. For the railguns to be the awe inspiring tank penetrator...shouldn't it be S14? Wounds T7 on 2+s but space marines still have their precious LRs wounded on 3+s.

It's not like we have to worry about instant death anymore.
*As your Rules Laywer, I advise you against that action

User avatar
Lechai Skull
Shas'Saal
Posts: 365

Re: New Codexes announced

Post#41 » Jul 07 2017 03:40

the strength of the railgun isn't the issue.
Its the pitiful D6 damage. (getting a 6 on the wound role is so rare i don't even bother including it in its stats)

hammerheads hit on a 3+, wound on a 3+ then does d6 damage assuming they don't get an invun save.

On AVERAGE a hammerhead will do HALF a d6 damage per turn. yep, thats 1.5 wounds a turn to enemy tanks.
And its supposed to be our PREMIER tank hunting unit. Looks like were going to be relegated to commander spam until this gets fixed.

SIDE by SIDE comparison to 2 similar units

Hammerhead
1 shot (3+ to hit, 3+ to wound) chance of mortal D3
Average damage per round = 1.9 (1.5 + 0.3) wounds / round

Predator
Predator gets 4 x lascannons (same hit and wound chance vs ALL vehicle types)
Average damage per round = 6.2 wounds / round

Dune crawler
same profile as railgun, but D3 shots and damage rolls of 1 and 2's are considered 3's
Average damage per round = 3.5 wounds / round

PPW
Hammerhead (195) = 103 PPW
Predator (202) = 32 PPW
Dunecrawler (143) = 40 PPW

This is what makes me furious... the hammerhead which was famous for 1 shotting heavy tanks is now the laughing stock of Heavy tanks. No support systems, no special rules that allow it to move and shoot. And being 3 times WORSE than equivalent enemy heavy (anti-tank) tanks.

FIX:

Change damage to a flat 6
average damage raises to 2.6 and PPW drops to a still un-competitive 65

Change damage to 2d6 OR shots to Heavy 2
average damage raises to 3.5 and PPW drops to a still un-competitive 56

i don't know... its bad, and even theory-crafting I can fix it without making longstrike stupid OP

Thoughts?

PeeJ
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 48

Re: New Codexes announced

Post#42 » Jul 07 2017 04:21

I'm beginning to suspect that GW essentially thought out 1 or 2 armies well, then did a kind of copy/paste of rules and weapon abilities with little tweaks that weren't entirely thought through for following races (i.e. non-IOM/Chaos).

Other armies Plasma weapons look very close to our Ion weapons now for example.

Hopefully there will be quite a few tweaks in each codex as they will be books dedicated to the armies properly.

There is also the possibility of an army bias during the play-testing phase (more people playing IOM and thus more feedback geared towards IOM for example as opposed to any malicious bias).

User avatar
Atzilla
Shas'Saal
Posts: 86

Re: New Codexes announced

Post#43 » Jul 07 2017 04:41

Do not forget the SMS/Gun Drones which add about 0.7 - 1 Wound.
So PPW for a Hammerhead is about 60-70 vs tanks.
It is also slightly more robust than a predator.

Still, the pred is superior, flat 6 damage would be a nice and easy fix.

Balance is still terrible in general, for laughs compare Kroot Hounds and Fenresian Wolves.

Jorthax
Shas
Posts: 15

Re: New Codexes announced

Post#44 » Jul 07 2017 07:56

Atzilla wrote:Do not forget the SMS/Gun Drones which add about 0.7 - 1 Wound.
So PPW for a Hammerhead is about 60-70 vs tanks.
It is also slightly more robust than a predator.


Wouldn't a well positioned Hammerhead be out of range to use it's drones in 99% of cases? I think the original comparison is fairer.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 1225

Re: New Codexes announced

Post#45 » Jul 07 2017 08:28

Atzilla wrote:Do not forget the SMS/Gun Drones which add about 0.7 - 1 Wound.


I think this is a little too optimistic :P

User avatar
nix0n
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 89

Re: New Codexes announced

Post#46 » Jul 07 2017 08:53

After reading your discussion it feels like it's not just "a few tweaks" that we need in our codex/rules buth a whole overhaul and adaptation for the 8th (and not just a rushed translation from 7th to 8th edition)! :(
I would be really disappointed if even in the next year our codex will be released and the balancing won't be adressed compared to other armies that have already been playing (testing and trying out their own combos and strategies) with their codexes for almost a year...

Is this possible to be avoided? Maybe by contacting The New GW? Would that be any help/point?

Just saying/asking
Cheers!
Nix

User avatar
Quorgyle
Shas'Saal
Posts: 54

Re: New Codexes announced

Post#47 » Jul 07 2017 08:57

Atzilla wrote:Do not forget the SMS/Gun Drones which add about 0.7 - 1 Wound.
So PPW for a Hammerhead is about 60-70 vs tanks.
It is also slightly more robust than a predator.


Wait, how can you use a SMS as ablative wound if you don't have the drone anymore. I know that on the Hammerhead model a drone is carrying the SMS, but the rules say: "Instead of being accompanied by two MV1 Gun Drones, this model may take two burst cannons or two smart missile systems."
No where does it state that the MV1 Gun Drone becomes a SMS Drone.

User avatar
Unusualsuspect
Kroot'Ui
Kroot'Ui
Posts: 596

Re: New Codexes announced

Post#48 » Jul 07 2017 09:00

Quorgyle wrote:
Atzilla wrote:Do not forget the SMS/Gun Drones which add about 0.7 - 1 Wound.
So PPW for a Hammerhead is about 60-70 vs tanks.
It is also slightly more robust than a predator.


Wait, how can you use a SMS as ablative wound if you don't have the drone anymore. I know that on the Hammerhead model a drone is carrying the SMS, but the rules say: "Instead of being accompanied by two MV1 Gun Drones, this model may take two burst cannons or two smart missile systems."
No where does it state that the MV1 Gun Drone becomes a SMS Drone.


The context is adding wounds to the Hammerhead's effective OUTPUT, not its defensive qualities (particularly since Drones can't act as ablative wounds for vehicles anyway.

User avatar
Quorgyle
Shas'Saal
Posts: 54

Re: New Codexes announced

Post#49 » Jul 07 2017 09:03

Oh alright then, think I didn't read it very careful. Even the part about drones taking wounds for infantry and suits only. My bad. :sad:

User avatar
Bloodknife92
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 504

Re: New Codexes announced

Post#50 » Jul 07 2017 09:19

That DuneCrawler is stupidly good. I really, really hate how good the Skitarii are... i know they're meant to be like an elite addition to an army, but when they're taken as a stand alone army, they are simply insanely good, especially when compared to T'au. They do everything we do but better than us, and they're good in melee combat, which means that they not only out shoot us, but they also get a second good phase against most armies. I've resisted the doom and gloom very strongly I like to think, but the T'au really really need some more benefits.

I gain confidence in knowing that GW confirmed that they're certainly changing things.

Games Workshop wrote:Are the rules changing?
Yes, many units’ rules in their codexes will alter from those in the indexes. Sometimes this is to better represent the miniatures and the background, sometimes to balance the game, and sometimes to better fit with the army’s new special rules in the codex itself. In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.


I also feel like some more T'au oriented stratagems and warlord traits will help us a LOT, since one of the three base strats is melee oriented iirc, and the same goes for the traits.

And I'll just leave this here.
Games Workshop wrote:Are the points changing?
Yes, some units’ points for matched play games will change. This sometimes represents feedback from you guys playing games out there in the world, more playtesting, or sometimes because the unit now has new abilities or synergizes differently with new units and abilities in the codex.
The days of goodly English is went

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 292

Re: New Codexes announced

Post#51 » Jul 07 2017 07:36

Lechai Skull wrote:I agree that wish-listing isn't particularly helpful here:

However i think we have some universal agreements when it comes to issues with Tau in 8th

Maybe a poll on the following topics we could submit to GW?

RULES/UNITS
Points re-balance for certain units (esp riptide/broadsides/ghostkeels)
Markerlight table rebuild, too many redundancies (let us choose)
Lack of any psychic defense at all.
Nothing to do in the assault, charge and psychic phases (thats half the games phases)
JSJ
Saviour protocol overhaul
Underpowered vehicles (non longstrike) especially skyray
signature systems / vehicle systems
plasma rifle update/upgrade
1 Monat / army
sniper drone /firesight buff (fix) to bring in line with every other sniper rule
Pulse carbine secondary ability/rule
pulse weapon (rend) equivalent (they are supposed to be good vs armour)
Kroot shaper buff to be useful
nova reactor
Tidewall overhaul
rail weaponry buff


MODELS
New vespid models
Cyclic Ion Blasters. (we shouldn't have to outsource/proxy/kitbash)
Kroot variants
Cheap specialized drone transport/repair unit.
Kroot Hounds in 12 model boxes
Drones in 12 model boxes
Non-markerlight support suit

SEPTS
Insert SEPT variant units


Not everything here is my opinion, just listing common things i hear regularly.
For instance falling back out of combat instead of JSJ im ok with, but its brought up a lot.

This is not the list, just some examples


So much yes to this post which I agree with basically 100%. Our JSJ is now leaving combat basically which limits our mobility but increases our ability to get killy. Our vehicles need to get WAY more killy to be viable since SM vehicles are pretty much the gold standard now. I like our S5 weapons everywhere but having zero options besides S5 on fish is pretty weak and having 1 or d3 shots on our premiere tank is really very low ROF per point. Great that they all last forever but they REALLY need some love outside of Longstrike.

User avatar
Lechai Skull
Shas'Saal
Posts: 365

Re: New Codexes announced

Post#52 » Jul 07 2017 07:41

I agree that there are heaps of issues with our Index, and we can mathematically and easily point them out.

But i feel that we are yelling at a brick wall here.
Is there any way for ATT as a community to compile some feedback for GW prior to our codex release.

They seem to indicate that balance changes are based on community feedback. We need to include ourselves in this feedback process without solely existing in our little pocket of the internet. (wow that sentence is terrible)

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 1225

Re: New Codexes announced

Post#53 » Jul 07 2017 08:36

Lechai Skull wrote:I agree that there are heaps of issues with our Index, and we can mathematically and easily point them out.

But i feel that we are yelling at a brick wall here.
Is there any way for ATT as a community to compile some feedback for GW prior to our codex release.

They seem to indicate that balance changes are based on community feedback. We need to include ourselves in this feedback process without solely existing in our little pocket of the internet. (wow that sentence is terrible)


This a really good point. People who've contacted GW, and gotten a response about FAQ questions and such, how did you do it? As a community, I bet we could apply some pressure where it's needed.

User avatar
Sykes
Shas
Posts: 7

Re: New Codexes announced

Post#54 » Jul 09 2017 03:33

Arka0415 wrote: If you're interested in submitting a petition to GW, I wouldn't give survey results about what you want. Everyone wants their army to be better. Rather, talk about game experience and say WHY a certain game mechanic doesn't work out. A short, simple, well-reasoned argument might get a response.


Yes, unfortunately I realize how naive such a survey could be. My worry is that GW simply isn't able to read all the individual emails they'll surely receive, let alone reply to them. We need a more concise way to communicate the concerns of the Tau community. Perhaps a survey or something like it could simply ask people what they think needs to change, without asking them what it should change to.

Lechai Skull wrote: I agree that there are heaps of issues with our Index, and we can mathematically and easily point them out. But i feel that we are yelling at a brick wall here. Is there any way for ATT as a community to compile some feedback for GW prior to our codex release.


My thoughts exactly, and this is why I feel like we need a survey or some other form of statistics not just to point out the communities concerns, but also to show how widely these concerns are being shared. Especially on some topics such as JSJ where virtually no-one (apart from the testers at FLG unfortunately) thinks Tau should have lost it.

In the last two political years we've seen that if a large portion of the voting population stays silent, we get often get the worst result. My biggest fear is that if the Tau community doesn't speak up now, we will get a codex that is largely unchanged from the index. And I for one don't believe the testers at FLG have a positive or informed attitude towards Tau, so it is up to the community to point out the very real shortcomings of the our faction.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests