Upcoming T'au Codex

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
User avatar
Rayscarnage
Shas'Saal
Posts: 14

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1333 » Jan 09 2018 11:15

Then try to convince new players or old players to try it out! The only thing stoping you is yourself and your attitude. Before all the negativity people should wait. There is a reason for the lack of point change and GW definitely doesn't want to throw all xenos away. Why would they talk about the 4th and 5th sphere of expansion if they have no plans or ideas for that? If by july ( a year since release) our codex is not out then maybe it is time to whine. I get that matched play is a huge part of most community but that is often because people don't want to get out of their comfort zone.

My wish list for the codex is a Better weapon on our sniper drones.... because right now they are discusting and it is a shame they don't dish out mortal wounds. A stratagem that would give a JSJ style movement for something other than our riptide. Also, Make the broadside and riptide usable either by maiking the weapon stronger on the riptide or point adjustment on the broadside. I also find that our Caracters are laking in buff effects. I suppose that the markerlights are there to compensate for that but it really makes them feel like weaklings compared to others.

User avatar
steelmanf
Shas'Saal
Posts: 12

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1334 » Jan 09 2018 12:33

Speaking to Markerlights, is there a scenario where one level of ML support could remove the negative to hit modifiers of some enemy units (Eldar, Supersonic flyers, etc.)? Some rules allow their units to get up to -2 to hit, so maybe removing that whole buff is a bit too strong, but we could negate at least part of it, bringing them back down to -1 to hit. The trade-off is the risk of firing MLs at the hard-to-hit units in the first place, making it not a sure thing, but a gamble that might be worth taking, especially if the whole army or scenario gives that army -1 past 12".

I might even suggest that this ML level could take the place of the Seeker Missile perk at level 2, or re-order it somehow so that Seekers require maybe only 1 hit or not reliant on ML at all to fire at bearer's BS, thereby potentially "fixing" seekers/destroyers like some have suggested they need.

Even without this change to the seekers/destroyers, I could definitely see negating hit modifiers as a ML table perk. Even that -1 at our 4+ BS makes it awfully hard to hit anything.

Side note, I can't see our suits getting a bump to BS 3+ as all. Throw 5 ML hits on a target and all our stuff suddenly starts hitting on 2+ and re-rolling 1s for that target? Not going to happen, as much as we might all want it to. :P

User avatar
Temennigru
Shas'Saal
Posts: 122

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1335 » Jan 09 2018 01:07

steelmanf wrote:Speaking to Markerlights, is there a scenario where one level of ML support could remove the negative to hit modifiers of some enemy units (Eldar, Supersonic flyers, etc.)? Some rules allow their units to get up to -2 to hit, so maybe removing that whole buff is a bit too strong, but we could negate at least part of it, bringing them back down to -1 to hit. The trade-off is the risk of firing MLs at the hard-to-hit units in the first place, making it not a sure thing, but a gamble that might be worth taking, especially if the whole army or scenario gives that army -1 past 12".

I might even suggest that this ML level could take the place of the Seeker Missile perk at level 2, or re-order it somehow so that Seekers require maybe only 1 hit or not reliant on ML at all to fire at bearer's BS, thereby potentially "fixing" seekers/destroyers like some have suggested they need.

Even without this change to the seekers/destroyers, I could definitely see negating hit modifiers as a ML table perk. Even that -1 at our 4+ BS makes it awfully hard to hit anything.

Side note, I can't see our suits getting a bump to BS 3+ as all. Throw 5 ML hits on a target and all our stuff suddenly starts hitting on 2+ and re-rolling 1s for that target? Not going to happen, as much as we might all want it to. :P

I suggest the opposite. 1 markerlight table entry giving them -1 to hit because you are blinding them with lasers :P
And 5 markerlights isn't exactly easy to pull off. You need 10 pathfinders to shoot at a target BEFORE everything else shoots at it. That's a lot of firepower wasted on a single target.

Wes
Shas
Posts: 5

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1336 » Jan 09 2018 01:11

Temennigru wrote:
steelmanf wrote:Speaking to Markerlights, is there a scenario where one level of ML support could remove the negative to hit modifiers of some enemy units (Eldar, Supersonic flyers, etc.)? Some rules allow their units to get up to -2 to hit, so maybe removing that whole buff is a bit too strong, but we could negate at least part of it, bringing them back down to -1 to hit. The trade-off is the risk of firing MLs at the hard-to-hit units in the first place, making it not a sure thing, but a gamble that might be worth taking, especially if the whole army or scenario gives that army -1 past 12".

I might even suggest that this ML level could take the place of the Seeker Missile perk at level 2, or re-order it somehow so that Seekers require maybe only 1 hit or not reliant on ML at all to fire at bearer's BS, thereby potentially "fixing" seekers/destroyers like some have suggested they need.

Even without this change to the seekers/destroyers, I could definitely see negating hit modifiers as a ML table perk. Even that -1 at our 4+ BS makes it awfully hard to hit anything.

Side note, I can't see our suits getting a bump to BS 3+ as all. Throw 5 ML hits on a target and all our stuff suddenly starts hitting on 2+ and re-rolling 1s for that target? Not going to happen, as much as we might all want it to. :P

I suggest the opposite. 1 markerlight table entry giving them -1 to hit because you are blinding them with lasers :P


Tau units get to overwatch with markerlights whenever targeted by shooting. Each markerlight hit is -1 to the opponent's hit rolls. :P

pilky
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 276

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1337 » Jan 09 2018 02:13

steelmanf wrote:Speaking to Markerlights, is there a scenario where one level of ML support could remove the negative to hit modifiers of some enemy units (Eldar, Supersonic flyers, etc.)? Some rules allow their units to get up to -2 to hit, so maybe removing that whole buff is a bit too strong, but we could negate at least part of it, bringing them back down to -1 to hit. The trade-off is the risk of firing MLs at the hard-to-hit units in the first place, making it not a sure thing, but a gamble that might be worth taking, especially if the whole army or scenario gives that army -1 past 12".

I might even suggest that this ML level could take the place of the Seeker Missile perk at level 2, or re-order it somehow so that Seekers require maybe only 1 hit or not reliant on ML at all to fire at bearer's BS, thereby potentially "fixing" seekers/destroyers like some have suggested they need.

Even without this change to the seekers/destroyers, I could definitely see negating hit modifiers as a ML table perk. Even that -1 at our 4+ BS makes it awfully hard to hit anything.

Side note, I can't see our suits getting a bump to BS 3+ as all. Throw 5 ML hits on a target and all our stuff suddenly starts hitting on 2+ and re-rolling 1s for that target? Not going to happen, as much as we might all want it to. :P


I'd prefer them to scrap the table completely and treat them a bit like Command points. So you fire MLs and get a pool of ML points to spend (a bit like our old codex). So you get something like:
Re-roll 1s: 1ML point
Fire seekers: 1ML point
Ignore cover: 2ML points
+1 BS: 3ML points (repeatable)

It ensures we can always make every ML hit useful in all circumstances, and makes +1BS more attainable, which IMO fixed the two main issues with Markerlights in 8th

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 414
Contact:

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1338 » Jan 09 2018 02:25

pilky wrote:
steelmanf wrote:Speaking to Markerlights, is there a scenario where one level of ML support could remove the negative to hit modifiers of some enemy units (Eldar, Supersonic flyers, etc.)? Some rules allow their units to get up to -2 to hit, so maybe removing that whole buff is a bit too strong, but we could negate at least part of it, bringing them back down to -1 to hit. The trade-off is the risk of firing MLs at the hard-to-hit units in the first place, making it not a sure thing, but a gamble that might be worth taking, especially if the whole army or scenario gives that army -1 past 12".

I might even suggest that this ML level could take the place of the Seeker Missile perk at level 2, or re-order it somehow so that Seekers require maybe only 1 hit or not reliant on ML at all to fire at bearer's BS, thereby potentially "fixing" seekers/destroyers like some have suggested they need.

Even without this change to the seekers/destroyers, I could definitely see negating hit modifiers as a ML table perk. Even that -1 at our 4+ BS makes it awfully hard to hit anything.

Side note, I can't see our suits getting a bump to BS 3+ as all. Throw 5 ML hits on a target and all our stuff suddenly starts hitting on 2+ and re-rolling 1s for that target? Not going to happen, as much as we might all want it to. :P


I'd prefer them to scrap the table completely and treat them a bit like Command points. So you fire MLs and get a pool of ML points to spend (a bit like our old codex). So you get something like:
Re-roll 1s: 1ML point
Fire seekers: 1ML point
Ignore cover: 2ML points
+1 BS: 3ML points (repeatable)

It ensures we can always make every ML hit useful in all circumstances, and makes +1BS more attainable, which IMO fixed the two main issues with Markerlights in 8th


Did you ever play 7th? Our old markerlight system was that exactly but didn't cost 3 for +1 to hit just 1 because it only affects 1 unit at a time, that's the point of the table and I'll admit it's fluffier.

Also with your rules you'd need 6 tokens for 1 unit to hit on 3 ignore cover and RR1's something our whole army does atm for 5

All I want is a revised table with 2 +1 to hits (maybe 2+4 or even 3+6 make it attainable but not too easy)

And seekers to hit on a fixed value again so after 2 ML hits all seekers hit on a 4+ instead of 6+ and on 5 they hit on 2+ and always ignore modifiers to hit.

Also if they keep RR1's in the ML table make ethereal ability either RR all to hit if target is lit up or go back to old +1 shot

pilky
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 276

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1339 » Jan 09 2018 02:49

Sure, it's similar, but the main point is that it allows more flexibility in our current codex. You have the choice of +1BS or re-roll 1s. You could add additional benefits we never had. For example 3ML to make seekers 1d3 and destroyer missiles 1d6, or 3ML to give +1 to wound for rail weapons, things that simulate even more accurate targeting causing greater damage. And yes, it would nerf 5 MLs but it would buff 2-4MLs and 6+MLs and potentially give us a lot more tactical flexibility.

User avatar
Temennigru
Shas'Saal
Posts: 122

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1340 » Jan 09 2018 03:07

Actually,
One thing I had in mind when index came out is a hybrid markerlight table.

You place X markerlights and each unit firing can chose what to do with X.

3 for +1 BS
1 for reroll 1s
2 for seeker missile at 2+
etc.

So for 3 markerlights you could either take +1 BS or reroll 1a and seeker missiles hit on 2+
And then each unit shooting gets to chose again. Markerlights don't get spent (because honestly, spending laser lights sounds ridiculous)

User avatar
Lord Mayhem
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 275

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1341 » Jan 09 2018 03:57

The two cases could be combined; a table with universal benefits, but you can also burn hits (reducing the table benefits) to give a single unit boost

User avatar
AnonAmbientLight
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 892

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1342 » Jan 09 2018 04:01

Arka0415 wrote:
AnonAmbientLight wrote:You seriously have to look at each codex as their own thing, because overlapping them into soups doesn't work as you lose all of the benefits within the codex the moment you mix units in the same detachment.

There aren't any competitive armies with internally-mixed detachments of course, but "soup" armies, comprised of detachments from different codexes, are some of the strongest armies in the game.


http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2017/09/ ... gust-2017/

The vast majority of armies that win tournaments are single codex armies. Armies that do not add detachments from other armies. Therefore having more Imperial codex doesn't help them. Because each codex is essentially its own thing. It only really helps the army it is made for.

Does that make sense? So when an Imperial codex is released, people say, "But what about the Xenos races!!1". That's not how these things are factored. The codex is designed for the army it is used for. They are not designed to be build-a-bear workshops with other factions in mind, and more importantly, players do not use them to the extent that it would matter (see my link above).

It's a moot point.
Sky IS Falling, T'au WILL Suck, Sell Me Your Models

User avatar
Temennigru
Shas'Saal
Posts: 122

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1343 » Jan 09 2018 04:10

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
Arka0415 wrote:
AnonAmbientLight wrote:You seriously have to look at each codex as their own thing, because overlapping them into soups doesn't work as you lose all of the benefits within the codex the moment you mix units in the same detachment.

There aren't any competitive armies with internally-mixed detachments of course, but "soup" armies, comprised of detachments from different codexes, are some of the strongest armies in the game.


http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2017/09/ ... gust-2017/

The vast majority of armies that win tournaments are single codex armies. Armies that do not add detachments from other armies. Therefore having more Imperial codex doesn't help them. Because each codex is essentially its own thing. It only really helps the army it is made for.

Does that make sense? So when an Imperial codex is released, people say, "But what about the Xenos races!!1". That's not how these things are factored. The codex is designed for the army it is used for. They are not designed to be build-a-bear workshops with other factions in mind, and more importantly, players do not use them to the extent that it would matter (see my link above).

It's a moot point.

But it’s still not fun for you to not be able to combine your army with any other. I made a couple tau imperial knights that I can’t legally use in a game and it pisses me off. If any army could be combined with any other, with penalties for divergence, it would not only be great for us, since we would have more freedom for list building and army themes, it would also drive up GW’s sales, as it would stimulate secondary armies.

User avatar
QimRas
Shas'Saal
Posts: 351

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1344 » Jan 09 2018 04:30

Temennigru wrote:But it’s still not fun for you to not be able to combine your army with any other. I made a couple tau imperial knights that I can’t legally use in a game and it pisses me off. If any army could be combined with any other, with penalties for divergence, it would not only be great for us, since we would have more freedom for list building and army themes, it would also drive up GW’s sales, as it would stimulate secondary armies.


Uh... You can do that though. You don't HAVE to run a battleforged army. You only have to do that if you want to use CP. So that would be the penalty for divergence.

User avatar
Temennigru
Shas'Saal
Posts: 122

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1345 » Jan 09 2018 05:15

QimRas wrote:
Temennigru wrote:But it’s still not fun for you to not be able to combine your army with any other. I made a couple tau imperial knights that I can’t legally use in a game and it pisses me off. If any army could be combined with any other, with penalties for divergence, it would not only be great for us, since we would have more freedom for list building and army themes, it would also drive up GW’s sales, as it would stimulate secondary armies.


Uh... You can do that though. You don't HAVE to run a battleforged army. You only have to do that if you want to use CP. So that would be the penalty for divergence.

My friends only play matched play. They are more competitive than I would like.

User avatar
Rayscarnage
Shas'Saal
Posts: 14

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1346 » Jan 09 2018 05:31

Temennigru wrote:
QimRas wrote:
Temennigru wrote:But it’s still not fun for you to not be able to combine your army with any other. I made a couple tau imperial knights that I can’t legally use in a game and it pisses me off. If any army could be combined with any other, with penalties for divergence, it would not only be great for us, since we would have more freedom for list building and army themes, it would also drive up GW’s sales, as it would stimulate secondary armies.


Uh... You can do that though. You don't HAVE to run a battleforged army. You only have to do that if you want to use CP. So that would be the penalty for divergence.

My friends only play matched play. They are more competitive than I would like.


Then it is not a GW thing to fix but your meta....

User avatar
QimRas
Shas'Saal
Posts: 351

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1347 » Jan 09 2018 05:59

Rayscarnage wrote:
Temennigru wrote:
QimRas wrote:
Uh... You can do that though. You don't HAVE to run a battleforged army. You only have to do that if you want to use CP. So that would be the penalty for divergence.

My friends only play matched play. They are more competitive than I would like.


Then it is not a GW thing to fix but your meta....


I gotta agree with Ray. It sounds like you want to play Open Play. Bring it up, it might be easier to talk your friends into it than you would think. Or spring the $20 bucks for Open War cards and suggest to try them. If your FLGS has a facebook or other social media site, go ahead and post up there that you are looking to play an Open Play game. Try Tabletop Simulator, where there is a pretty active community of 40k players.

User avatar
QimRas
Shas'Saal
Posts: 351

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1348 » Jan 09 2018 06:09

In fact, I am going to shamelessly plug a thread I have been working on that details the differences between Matched and Open/Narrative Play.
viewtopic.php?f=52&t=26937

Open and Narrative play missions are picked BEFORE anything else with the game. Pick a mission you like and challenge one of your friends or someone at your FLGS. The Open War cards are the most balanced, so you may want to start with those. Draw the first three and challenge a friend.

User avatar
Temennigru
Shas'Saal
Posts: 122

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1349 » Jan 09 2018 06:39

Rayscarnage wrote:Then it is not a GW thing to fix but your meta....

They argue that PL is good for some armies and horrible for others. Specifically the ones with few upgrade options like orks.
And I don't like open play either. I like narrative play. I would still like to have an option to use illegal units in my battleforged army though, because it is fluffy.

User avatar
QimRas
Shas'Saal
Posts: 351

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1350 » Jan 09 2018 07:02

Temennigru wrote:
Rayscarnage wrote:Then it is not a GW thing to fix but your meta....

They argue that PL is good for some armies and horrible for others. Specifically the ones with few upgrade options like orks.
And I don't like open play either. I like narrative play. I would still like to have an option to use illegal units in my battleforged army though, because it is fluffy.


Great! Pick a narrative mission and go to town. If your friends are arguing PL, they probably have not played it and are assuming how it is calculated. But to address their issue, play a mission where there is an assumed PL imbalance, like Planetstrike, giving them the side with the higher PL. I broke down the T'au in a lot of the Narrative missions in the above linked thread, so you may want to check it out.

Incidentally, Battleforgedness in Open and Narrative play only requires that each unit in a detachment share a keyword, and not that the entire Army has to share a Faction keyword. That's a Matched Play thing. So you can have your cake (allies) and eat it too (CP and Stratagems) as long as you form them into legal Detachments.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests