Upcoming T'au Codex

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 437

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#847 » Nov 30 2017 12:23

Folklore wrote:Taking our temperature as a community. We all have a lot of hopes for the coming codex but after chapter approved im feeling less and less optimistic. Im asking some questions and posting my thoughts so I don't go crazy.

1. Do you think our index is internally imbalanced?
I feel there are many units, upgrades and weapons that are at best redundant and at worst are just objectively bad choices to make. I love my riptides and I hate that when I put them on the table I know ive made a poor decision. We all know a T'au army can win but 9 times out of 10 the list feels WAAC.

2. 8th edition is a faster game, with more wounding. Range, weapon strength and AP seem to be less exacting than it was in 7th. Do you agree?
I think this further undermines the choices we can make and some traditionally strong suits for the T'au. Why would you ever take plasma over fusion? That use to be an important choice.

3. Do you think our army synergies and force multipliers are weak/don't feel effective?
I feel most other armies have special rules, stratagems or just plain better stats that make our markerlights and auras a joke. savior protocols are really neat but I find drones way to easy to kill before I get to take advantage and i would happily give them up to get JSJ back. and a JSJ stratagem is not a solution.

4. Do you think there is an alpha strike problem in 8th edition?
I think there is and I think its to blame for most of our struggles. The designers are trying to adjust for this alpha strike issue but that leaves T'au in limbo. Making us "more effective" at the one thing we do (shooting) puts more strain on the alpha strike issue. it feels like they are padding us with more redundancy, rather than fixing issues.


1. God no. the internal and external balance is just plain bad. Look at the Airbursting frag projector. WHY would you ever take it?? Every platform falls short of the commander. Yes he should be good but there's no good reason why something like a riptide or ghostkeel is EVER outclassed and shown up by our commanders. Commanders should offer better buffs with less firepower and our MAINSTAY of deepstriking weapons platforms should be our crisis. Period.

2. I've noticed that there are a LOT more dice in 8th which allow for average dice rolling to be more prevalent rather than rolling and rerolling 10 or so dice and all of them always hitting and wounding. I've also noticed certain types of games are taking a lot longer because we are counting SOOO many dice to roll. I played against AM conscript spam and I had massive drone spam with a fireblade. We both were counting 90+ dice. Range still very much matters, and weapon strength just didn't get the same tweak and buff as everyone's toughness did. I personally like the AP changes to make the middle AP values useful against strong armored people. It was dumb that something like a rocket didn't force a harder save on termies and the like. I also like the fact that we can still make saves against most things that used to kill us outright even if we were in cover.

3. Yes, our synergies are currently very weak. It seems that for now we have to work a LOT harder to get weaker buffs than many other armies get very easily/cheaply. I hate that we lost JSJ and our mobility. We used to be fairly decent about moving around the board and now it's not so great. Definitely have noticed that has taken a big hit.

4. Yes, it seems to be fairly common in 8th to win if you go first which was not the case as much in previous editions because of fast mobile objective holders (looking at you eldar jetbikes) snagging last second objectives with the final turn.

User avatar
Haechi
Shas'Saal
Posts: 148

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#848 » Nov 30 2017 01:47

Folklore wrote:I think this further undermines the choices we can make and some traditionally strong suits for the T'au. Why would you ever take plasma over fusion? That use to be an important choice.


The cost ^^.

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 368
Contact:

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#849 » Nov 30 2017 02:21

Haechi wrote:
Folklore wrote:I think this further undermines the choices we can make and some traditionally strong suits for the T'au. Why would you ever take plasma over fusion? That use to be an important choice.


The cost ^^.


Plasma is much better than fusion vs single wound high save models
A QFC shooting at MEQ (is obviously shooting at the wrong target)
But causes 2.75 wound on average (58pts/wound)
A quad plasma Commander is 4.5 wound instead 26 pts/ wound

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 437

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#850 » Nov 30 2017 02:30

Nymphomanius wrote:
Haechi wrote:
Folklore wrote:I think this further undermines the choices we can make and some traditionally strong suits for the T'au. Why would you ever take plasma over fusion? That use to be an important choice.


The cost ^^.


Plasma is much better than fusion vs single wound high save models
A QFC shooting at MEQ (is obviously shooting at the wrong target)
But causes 2.75 wound on average (58pts/wound)
A quad plasma Commander is 4.5 wound instead 26 pts/ wound


Yes, it is. But the BIGGEST problem with plasma is it's lack of versatility. So it punishes high save single wound models, IE marines. Big deal. It doesn't do much against multi wound models or down big pieces of armor because it's rate of fire is not very good paired with the fact that str6 is no mans land for doing anything useful. 2+ to wound t3 models is laughable. It's 4's on light vehicles and is 5's on dreads and other types of large vehicles. It's just flat out very very bad even for it's points. It would see much more play if it did 2 damage instead of 1 and I would pay an extra 5 points or so for it. THEN we could maybe make an argument for taking it over CIB but even then it may not be enough. I think giving it an extra damage but NOT allowing our plasma to overcharge and stay significantly lower str than imperial plasma would be a fair trade off.

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 368
Contact:

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#851 » Nov 30 2017 03:15

Yojimbob wrote:
Nymphomanius wrote:
Haechi wrote:
The cost ^^.


Plasma is much better than fusion vs single wound high save models
A QFC shooting at MEQ (is obviously shooting at the wrong target)
But causes 2.75 wound on average (58pts/wound)
A quad plasma Commander is 4.5 wound instead 26 pts/ wound


Yes, it is. But the BIGGEST problem with plasma is it's lack of versatility. So it punishes high save single wound models, IE marines. Big deal. It doesn't do much against multi wound models or down big pieces of armor because it's rate of fire is not very good paired with the fact that str6 is no mans land for doing anything useful. 2+ to wound t3 models is laughable. It's 4's on light vehicles and is 5's on dreads and other types of large vehicles. It's just flat out very very bad even for it's points. It would see much more play if it did 2 damage instead of 1 and I would pay an extra 5 points or so for it. THEN we could maybe make an argument for taking it over CIB but even then it may not be enough. I think giving it an extra damage but NOT allowing our plasma to overcharge and stay significantly lower str than imperial plasma would be a fair trade off.


I agree with you but the issue at hand is versatility, a quad plasma Commander should be wrecking infantry and does a better job than quad CIB again 4.5 wound vs 3.9 the CIB would cause vs MEQ but now you're comparing a shovel to a pitchfork :D

I use R'ymr and his twin plasma gun and yes it ain't great (but I have the model and he's really cool looking :D) And he does ok, hopefully as you say our plasma guns with get a boost in the codex (and being honest I'm hoping for some badass relic plasma gun str8 Ap-4 D3 :evil:)

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 437

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#852 » Nov 30 2017 03:30

Nymphomanius wrote:
Yojimbob wrote:
Nymphomanius wrote:
Plasma is much better than fusion vs single wound high save models
A QFC shooting at MEQ (is obviously shooting at the wrong target)
But causes 2.75 wound on average (58pts/wound)
A quad plasma Commander is 4.5 wound instead 26 pts/ wound


Yes, it is. But the BIGGEST problem with plasma is it's lack of versatility. So it punishes high save single wound models, IE marines. Big deal. It doesn't do much against multi wound models or down big pieces of armor because it's rate of fire is not very good paired with the fact that str6 is no mans land for doing anything useful. 2+ to wound t3 models is laughable. It's 4's on light vehicles and is 5's on dreads and other types of large vehicles. It's just flat out very very bad even for it's points. It would see much more play if it did 2 damage instead of 1 and I would pay an extra 5 points or so for it. THEN we could maybe make an argument for taking it over CIB but even then it may not be enough. I think giving it an extra damage but NOT allowing our plasma to overcharge and stay significantly lower str than imperial plasma would be a fair trade off.


I agree with you but the issue at hand is versatility, a quad plasma Commander should be wrecking infantry and does a better job than quad CIB again 4.5 wound vs 3.9 the CIB would cause vs MEQ but now you're comparing a shovel to a pitchfork :D

I use R'ymr and his twin plasma gun and yes it ain't great (but I have the model and he's really cool looking :D) And he does ok, hopefully as you say our plasma guns with get a boost in the codex (and being honest I'm hoping for some badass relic plasma gun str8 Ap-4 D3 :evil:)


Yeah, hopefully something like that is put on Farsight so that he can really almost be an option to take.

Duckumentary
Shas
Posts: 14

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#853 » Nov 30 2017 03:30

It would see much more play if it did 2 damage instead of 1 and I would pay an extra 5 points or so for it. THEN we could maybe make an argument for taking it over CIB but even then it may not be enough. I think giving it an extra damage but NOT allowing our plasma to overcharge and stay significantly lower str than imperial plasma would be a fair trade off.


I have actually been considering this for sometime but wasn't sure when the correct time to mention it would be. I think that would absolutely be the best way to balance the weapon system while also being true to fluff.
Last edited by Duckumentary on Nov 30 2017 04:38, edited 1 time in total.

Folklore
Shas
Posts: 22

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#854 » Nov 30 2017 04:30

That is literally a wish list. Reading between the lines you do agree that things need to change but... Lets try to focus on what needs fixing and the problems inherent in making those changes, as opposed to how you would like them to fix it.

1. internal balance
2. many of the rules changes in 8th have subtle negative impact on the T'au
3. weak synergies and force multiplyers
4. all we do is shoot, if you make us too good at shooting it ruins things for everyone else (See alpha strike)

User avatar
nic
Kroot'La
Kroot'La
Posts: 807

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#855 » Nov 30 2017 04:56

Folklore wrote:Taking our temperature as a community. We all have a lot of hopes for the coming codex but after chapter approved im feeling less and less optimistic. Im asking some questions and posting my thoughts so I don't go crazy.

1. Do you think our index is internally imbalanced?
I feel there are many units, upgrades and weapons that are at best redundant and at worst are just objectively bad choices to make. I love my riptides and I hate that when I put them on the table I know ive made a poor decision. We all know a T'au army can win but 9 times out of 10 the list feels WAAC.

2. 8th edition is a faster game, with more wounding. Range, weapon strength and AP seem to be less exacting than it was in 7th. Do you agree?
I think this further undermines the choices we can make and some traditionally strong suits for the T'au. Why would you ever take plasma over fusion? That use to be an important choice.

3. Do you think our army synergies and force multipliers are weak/don't feel effective?
I feel most other armies have special rules, stratagems or just plain better stats that make our markerlights and auras a joke. savior protocols are really neat but I find drones way to easy to kill before I get to take advantage and i would happily give them up to get JSJ back. and a JSJ stratagem is not a solution.

4. Do you think there is an alpha strike problem in 8th edition?
I think there is and I think its to blame for most of our struggles. The designers are trying to adjust for this alpha strike issue but that leaves T'au in limbo. Making us "more effective" at the one thing we do (shooting) puts more strain on the alpha strike issue. it feels like they are padding us with more redundancy, rather than fixing issues.


1. Pretty sketchy in places but really I only feel there are a couple of outstanding units and a couple of stinkers. Most of what is in the middle is balanced well enough against each other that you feel like you are making a genuine choice between options.

2. I think there are quite a few tweaks to the rules and a general simplification that all adds up to smoother games. Not *always* faster e.g. when playing against AM but hordes never played fast and without movement trays they never will.

3. The main synergies we all looked for when we opened the Index were with our HQ options and with markerlights. Until we get Signature Systems back our HQ synergies are really not what they were. Markerlights have issues that relegate a lot of the middle ground of our index to the land of mediocrity.

4. Not really for Tau. We always have the option of reserving key units to protect them. Where the playing field really leveled is that both assault and shooting armies can build for a turn 1 strike if they really want to. I think it is one-dimensional list design but some players clearly like it and some tournament formats encourage it. I am really not sure it is more extreme than some of those Skyhammer lists in 7th if we are talking about one-dimensional alpha-strike lists.

AleksandrGRC
Shas'Saal
Posts: 75

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#856 » Dec 01 2017 12:26

Two damage plasma rifle would be nice
But that would hurt the pulse submunitions rifles feelings
Or the rail rifles

I just feel many suggestions kinda hurt yet more bad options.
Like the hammerhead firing twice idea already exists.a gunrig.

User avatar
Beerson
Shas'Saal
Posts: 106

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#857 » Dec 01 2017 02:51

I was hoping we woulg get taste of new tau codex in CA so that we could provide feedback as a community rather then leaving it to GW testers where I feel we don't have proper representation.

Right now there is no telling what we get in codex, so there is little to give feedback on, but if we have one thing to give feedback on it's the fact that we don't have much variety in building tournament lists (which should really be the focus, as with open matches pretty much anything goes)
what I am looking for in such games is being able to build competitive lists "your way" rather then having to use cheesy builds to stay competitive.

My hope is that we get many decent units that can be made competitive by synergysing your army rather then basing it on the good units solely

also I thing we really should get some way of defense against psykers, idealy armywide -1 to enemy throws during psychic phase, reflecting us being resistant to warp.

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 437

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#858 » Dec 01 2017 03:12

Beerson wrote:also I thing we really should get some way of defense against psykers, idealy armywide -1 to enemy throws during psychic phase, reflecting us being resistant to warp.


I suspect we'll see a relic IE Talisman of Arthas Molock come back in a similar form. Maybe 12 or 18" bubble instead of army wide.

Temennigru
Shas'Saal
Posts: 32

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#859 » Dec 01 2017 05:44

Yojimbob wrote:
Nymphomanius wrote:
Yojimbob wrote:
Yes, it is. But the BIGGEST problem with plasma is it's lack of versatility. So it punishes high save single wound models, IE marines. Big deal. It doesn't do much against multi wound models or down big pieces of armor because it's rate of fire is not very good paired with the fact that str6 is no mans land for doing anything useful. 2+ to wound t3 models is laughable. It's 4's on light vehicles and is 5's on dreads and other types of large vehicles. It's just flat out very very bad even for it's points. It would see much more play if it did 2 damage instead of 1 and I would pay an extra 5 points or so for it. THEN we could maybe make an argument for taking it over CIB but even then it may not be enough. I think giving it an extra damage but NOT allowing our plasma to overcharge and stay significantly lower str than imperial plasma would be a fair trade off.


I agree with you but the issue at hand is versatility, a quad plasma Commander should be wrecking infantry and does a better job than quad CIB again 4.5 wound vs 3.9 the CIB would cause vs MEQ but now you're comparing a shovel to a pitchfork :D

I use R'ymr and his twin plasma gun and yes it ain't great (but I have the model and he's really cool looking :D) And he does ok, hopefully as you say our plasma guns with get a boost in the codex (and being honest I'm hoping for some badass relic plasma gun str8 Ap-4 D3 :evil:)


Yeah, hopefully something like that is put on Farsight so that he can really almost be an option to take.

I would rather have a sword that deserves to be a relic, and not the "slightly better force sword" that he currently has.

Ricordis
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 340

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#860 » Dec 01 2017 05:59

The markerlight stratagem tells me the current table and overall mechanics will stay. I don't await them write such a rule just to invalidate it 3-5 months later.
And if they'd plannes to do so then CA could have offered more changes for T'au.

Btw, I love the german title for Chapter Approved:
In Nomine Imperatoris.

User avatar
Lord Mayhem
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 270

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#861 » Dec 01 2017 08:11

Ricordis wrote:The markerlight stratagem tells me the current table and overall mechanics will stay. I don't await them write such a rule just to invalidate it 3-5 months later.
And if they'd plannes to do so then CA could have offered more changes for T'au.

Btw, I love the german title for Chapter Approved:
In Nomine Imperatoris.


Sorry, but I can't follow your reasoning. The stratagem tells us that marker lights will continue to be a part of the Tau, as they have been for 17 years, and that more is better, but there is no reason that the current table has to stay, or even that there has to be a table; in 7th there were formations that gave similar marker light hits bonuses, but we had no table, just markerlight expenditure ( and what they could do varied from codex to codex)
The stratagem could work just as well with a revised table, with the old burn a markerlight system, or potential an entirely new mechanic

For a new codex, a few thoughts on the main problem that need addressing; Tactical flexability- with 8th, our main tactical strength has gone. Tau have never been a fast army like the eldar, a tough army like Marines, or an ablative horde army, like Orks. In fact we've never really been a shooty army; eldar and SM have always been able to out shoot us. Our strengths have rested on reliable wounding (we're not as accurate, but our hits hurt more often) and tactical flexability; we can focus our fire where needed through markerlight buffs, long range infantry, and the JSJ mechanism (making up for the relatively shorter ranges of most of our crisis special weapons).
Now, with the generally faster speeds of many units the extra 6" range of our rifles is not as big an advantage as it used to be. It does still allow our troops to concentrate fires while dispersed, but no longer gives a reliable extra turn shooting over 24" guns, and with the new wound mechanics, our performance vs S4 guns is less pronounced; we have lost ground against T3, remained the same against T4 ,5, and 6, and gained vs T7. However, S4 is the same(as with the old damage system) against T3,4, and 5, and better against 6 and 7. So now we are worse against hordes, and no better than S4 guns against most tanks. Since there are a lot of S3 armies out there, our basic infantry are objectively worse than before. Thus the reliable wounding part of the flexability is degraded, as is the long range infantry
The markerlight issue has already been highlighted, repeatedly, and so we come to the loss of JSJ and why it has such an effect on Tau.
Tau battle suit weapons, against popular perception, are not "Tau heavy weapon", but Tau special weapons their profiles tend to correlate to IG/SM special weapons (plasma gun, melta, flamer etc) more than their heavy weapons. As such their ranges tend to be short, so JSJ was crucial for repositioning them from target to target (move shoot, reposition towards where they will next be needed). The increased movement helps a little but not enough to recover that lost maneuvering. JSJ further enhanced the survivability of suits by allowing them to remain out of charge range, even with short range weapons, or to escape into cover if needed.
The most important aspect, to me of JSJ, however was it gave us a third phase in which we could influence the battle. This was a huge ability; now we only can influence 2 phases of the turn, while being irrelevant in the other 2(lumping charge and fight together for practical purposes) then we could shape our positions after we'd seen the effects of our shooting in a 3rd phase; psychologically we're 50% more active in our turns which makes us feel more like agents of our own fate.

Some of the problems are structural to 8th; the wounding and greater speeds, and are harder to "fix" with unit changes. Some could be fixed with minor unit tweaks, points rebalancing, or maybe a new gun or two. The JSJ is a big issue, and unless they give us the mechanic back, in some form other than a stratagem, it will need some serious rebalancing of Tau functions. Ideally we need something to give us a 3rd phase of the turn, allowing us to be participants, not spectators, in a way that is consistent with Tau fluff

A quick aside on Railguns: rather than double shooting, like numerous other platforms, as a possibility, I'd rather see double damage under the same circumstances(divert energy from thrust to charging the capacitors); two shots is "eh it can shoot twice, so can others". 2d6 damage is "It can one shot my tank!" Fits the old fluff better for the reputation of Railguns, and makes them more fearsome, while not making them inherently better...

AleksandrGRC
Shas'Saal
Posts: 75

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#862 » Dec 02 2017 12:19

You made a lot of good points but i would like to say, we do have jsj and its on the riptide :sad:

Also with the faster movement in the game jump shoot jump will be less effective anyways. There are certainly a lot of senarios where it would still be invaluable but even with it, unless its a straight 6-8 “ it will have been nerfed.

And i like that railgun suggestion.
I get volume of shots is king but with double double the damage potential it feels more railgunish.
What about the other large rail platforms?

User avatar
Studioworks
Shas'Saal
Posts: 135

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#863 » Dec 02 2017 05:11

Beerson wrote:I was hoping we woulg get taste of new tau codex in CA so that we could provide feedback as a community rather then leaving it to GW testers where I feel we don't have proper representation.


I think we have a clear taste of what can we expect from our new Codex. In CA we got a boost for Markerlights, grabbing CP and maneuverability and I suppose this will be the focus in our Codex. That's why I expect some really great stratagems and something about the Jet Pack keyword that will give us even more versatility about the movement.

Temennigru
Shas'Saal
Posts: 32

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#864 » Dec 02 2017 10:08

AleksandrGRC wrote:You made a lot of good points but i would like to say, we do have jsj and its on the riptide :sad:

Also with the faster movement in the game jump shoot jump will be less effective anyways. There are certainly a lot of senarios where it would still be invaluable but even with it, unless its a straight 6-8 “ it will have been nerfed.

And i like that railgun suggestion.
I get volume of shots is king but with double double the damage potential it feels more railgunish.
What about the other large rail platforms?

Just remember that the manta's heavy rail cannon deals on average 6 damage, while the y'vahra's flamer deals on average 27 damage, considering they hit everything.

Railguns need a significant buff. Maybe make their shots be mortal wounds, like seeker and destroyer missiles, and double or triple the damage output for them.

That should get them back in the "one-shot tank killers" category.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests