Upcoming T'au Codex

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
Temennigru
Shas'Saal
Posts: 35

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#919 » Dec 07 2017 12:37

Nymphomanius wrote:
Temennigru wrote:The fact that they are overcosted means they are weak for their point values. Tau have always had better and more expensive weapons. I think they should be buffed, rather than have their cost cut.


But how would that work exactly?

Take burst cannons again for Xpts to be worth it would have to be better than the 3 pts cheaper devourers w BLW assault 6 str6 same range same Ap same dmg. So what make burst cannons assault 10? AP2?

To make HRR worth it make em str10 2D6 dmg?

Changing the stats of almost every weapon is a much bigger rework than a points adjustment I just don't see it, 1 or 2 weapons maybe but apart from a few almost all our weapons are overcosted

To be honest, if they gave AP -1 to all the base weapons and D2 or D3 instead of D1 to all the larger weapons (like the riptide's ion accelerator and burst cannon), we would be a lot better off. Remember that knights have avenger gattling canons that have WAY better stats than the riptide's burst cannon, even in nova charged mode. And knights hit on better dice and have 2 of that type of weapon, instead of 1.

Railguns, on the other hand, I feel like they need a major overhaul. They are single-shot and they take up a lot of space on very expensive platforms. They should at the very least deal double the damage on a 6.

User avatar
Draaen
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 105

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#920 » Dec 07 2017 12:47

I am firmly in the I want JSJ back camp and even wrote that in the survey and my complaint I wrote to GW customer service when they had not index point updates in chapter approved. I don't think we will get it back though. My games in 8th have seen my opponents enjoy it a lot more. Their units can get assaults in and I can fall back and shoot which I think is GW's design intent.

When I was heavily playing in 4th/5th/6th melee would happen turn 2/3 and when my fire warriors/broadsides were locked in combat would just die a slow death and deny me shooting at my opponent which also wasn't fun for me. Crisis suit loadouts are way better now. Try equipping your commander or crisis suits with a missile pod and plasma rifle and only able to target the same unit if you want an idea of how restrictive it used to be. In those editions JSJ was necessary. Now with fall back and shoot and on demand pinpoint deepstrike the mechanic is less needed.

Assuming we don't get JSJ back the thing I don't get why we don't have is a bit more speed on the suits. Not sure why we are only 8" when assault marines with jump packs get 12". I'd want to see it more around 10"-12" range as initially we moved 6" then jumped 6". We had the same movement we were just more agile. Going to 10" would help with mobility and getting into a better firing position while not being too quick we can fall back and not get assaulted.

I'm not sure how much they really have to rewrite rules if you assume the current Tau general play style is playing on the tabletop like GW intended. Good deep striking alpha/beta strike that can take a punch from natural toughness and ablative wounds that continue to move and shoot after getting engaged in melee. For the most part I think points cost adjustments could fix everything except the main battle tanks, kroot, Crisis suits Vs Commander and the marker light table.
All empires fall you just have to know where to push

User avatar
GND
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 127

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#921 » Dec 07 2017 01:17

Temennigru wrote:To be honest, you guys are forgetting that we are awful at shooting right now.


No, we are not. Not less than we were before any way. The relative power of our shooting in comparison to other factions has changed, but I find that in isolation we have the same killing power as before. I can remove/neutralize approximately the same number of threats per shooting phase as I did in 7th edition. We cannot get 2+ to hit on select units as easily as before the the overall math has changed. More shots, more damage per unsaved wound, spread out shooting buffs for more units are all improvements.

Our point values, especially when matched up against armies that received a codex and discounts are the ones causing problems. We can field less for the same points, effectively playing with and couple hundred point handicap. That will always be an uphill battle regardless if you shoot at BS 2+ or not.

Temennigru wrote:The fact that they are overcosted means they are weak for their point values. Tau have always had better and more expensive weapons. I think they should be buffed, rather than have their cost cut.


That's debatable. Our basic guns were (and still are) better, and railguns were outliers. But everything else has an imperial equivalent of similar power.

Also, you have a very special way of calculating average damage that completely ignores the strength and AP of weapons as well as toughness and save of your target. That doesn't tell us much. HYMP Broadsides will for example do 20 damage on average thanks to your math. Does that mean they are good? :P

EDIT:
Draaen wrote:Assuming we don't get JSJ back the thing I don't get why we don't have is a bit more speed on the suits.

Yeah I agree with that, an additional inch or two of movement would be great.

Draaen wrote:Not sure how much they really have to rewrite rules if you assume the current Tau general play style is playing on the tabletop like GW intended. Good deep striking alpha/beta strike that can take a punch from natural toughness and ablative wounds that continue to move and shoot after getting engaged in melee. For the most part I think points cost adjustments could fix everything except the main battle tanks, kroot, Crisis suits Vs Commander and the marker light table.


Not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but point adjustments can absolutely fix tanks, kroot and the Crisis Vs Commander problem. If you can have more of them for the same points, things are better :P

In any case, the Tyranid codex has set a precedence for changes in faction rules and stat line improvements of individual units, so maybe will get some too.

User avatar
Draaen
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 105

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#922 » Dec 07 2017 03:53

GND wrote:
Draaen wrote:Not sure how much they really have to rewrite rules if you assume the current Tau general play style is playing on the tabletop like GW intended. Good deep striking alpha/beta strike that can take a punch from natural toughness and ablative wounds that continue to move and shoot after getting engaged in melee. For the most part I think points cost adjustments could fix everything except the main battle tanks, kroot, Crisis suits Vs Commander and the marker light table.


Not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but point adjustments can absolutely fix tanks, kroot and the Crisis Vs Commander problem. If you can have more of them for the same points, things are better :P

In any case, the Tyranid codex has set a precedence for changes in faction rules and stat line improvements of individual units, so maybe will get some too.


Nope I am being 100% serious.

Main Battle Tank: I.E. Railgun Hammerheads
Assume the cost of the hammerhead is equal to a quad las predator and you will find the hammerhead does roughly 1/4 the damage and a comparable hull. Without changing rules you would need to reduce the cost of the hammerhead to 1/4 it's original cost to equal the damage of a quad las predator but you would get 4 times the hulls and heavy support slots. Now the math is rough and not entirely accurate but really useful to explain why I think the hammerhead needs a rules change up Just by reducing the points you either balance hulls and never get enough damage or balance damage and never get enough hulls. So I think the hammerhead needs something else added to it.

Kroot:
They are already really cheap and have a scout move. Making them cheaper by a point or two would certainly make them very playable if not too good. Points wise I think they would be fine if they could instead of a free move at the start of the game get the stealth suit style deployment or a cover bonus. It would help firmly define a vastly different role.

Crisis Suits vs. Commander
They both fill the same role. If the commander and the suits were balanced well vs each other you would take the commander every time for the HQ slot (More CPs) and character protections. If Crisis suits are more points efficient and a valid choice at BS4+ then you would take a lot of crisis suits with drones in deep strike and be super difficult to remove. Considering the commanders efficacy today I think you would need a fair few very cheap suits to match the power of a commander or a very expensive commander people won't want to run. Especially since a lot of crisis suit cost is sunk in their weapons and crisis need to take a lot more weapons to be as effective as the commander.
All empires fall you just have to know where to push

User avatar
leo1925
Shas
Posts: 83

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#923 » Dec 07 2017 04:38

Draaen wrote:Kroot:
They are already really cheap and have a scout move. Making them cheaper by a point or two would certainly make them very playable if not too good. Points wise I think they would be fine if they could instead of a free move at the start of the game get the stealth suit style deployment or a cover bonus. It would help firmly define a vastly different role.


Yes i agree, their cost is ok (maybe drop them to 5pts per model since they won't have sept bonus attributes) it's their support that isn't good, they can't be buffed by commanders nor cadre fireblade and the shaper support is a joke, they also can't be placed in a transport, they can't be affected by saviour protocols (not that you would want to) nor can they provide supporting fire since they don't have the for the greater good ability, the only support they recieve are the markerlights (which isn't very good as we all know) and the ethereal which is actually good on kroots.

The same goes for the vespids, their cost is ok (again, maybe drop them a point or two) but they don't get any real support.

A lot of your problems find their root in the makerlights table, if that is fixed then things will be a lot better.
Of course we have overcosting issues and internal balance issues. The former is quite easy to fix while the latter is a lot more difficult and simple point adjustments won't solve it, one way to solve that problem is via clever and good stratagems (but it's not the only solution).
Last edited by leo1925 on Dec 07 2017 04:47, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
GND
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 127

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#924 » Dec 07 2017 04:43

Tank:
The quad las-pred isn't the be all end all tank and we don't need to, and shouldn't compare our tank to it. It's from a different codex, has different synergies and has a very narrow load out. It is completely inefficient against hoards for example. The Railhead is a more generalist tank, both thanks to the main gun's alternate mode and the SMS. It will never be as good at hunting vehicles as a las-pred is and it shouldn't be. I know what the fluff says about railguns and vehicles, but it's not feasible to have that represented in the rules, while also having an anti-infantry gun, fly and not cost a ton of points. Removing these unreasonable expectations, giving a points drop to the main guns and SMS, and maybe having the AM and Eldar tank rule of firing twice if moving slowly, you can get a playable, rounded tank. (And then you can compare it to a las-pred with HB sponsons if you want to :) )

Kroot:
Well if you want to change their battlefield role, then yes that cannot be done via point adjustments. I personally think Kroot are fine. They are not top picks for competitive lists, but not everything has to be (and really cannot be).

Commanders:
Yes, finding the correct point values will be hard. The character rule and BS 2+ does give commanders a big edge, the but more wounds and the ability to bring a large cloud of drones anywhere on the table is an often overlooked ability for XV8s. I still think it's possible the cost both in a way that you would want to play both in the same list, supporting each other, rather than competing.

User avatar
leo1925
Shas
Posts: 83

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#925 » Dec 07 2017 04:51

GND wrote:Commanders:
Yes, finding the correct point values will be hard. The character rule and BS 2+ does give commanders a big edge, the but more wounds and the ability to bring a large cloud of drones anywhere on the table is an often overlooked ability for XV8s. I still think it's possible the cost both in a way that you would want to play both in the same list, supporting each other, rather than competing.


Then commanders need to get an aura ability or two, or maybe some other support abilities, our commanders are supposed to be the marine captain, or the eldar autarch or the AM company commander, yes all of the above units can be kitted out to be a killy unit (the AM company commander less so) but what you really want them to do is support the rest of your army.

Right now they have a support aura that they can be activated once per game and only once, no matter how many commanders you have on the board.

Coldstars are a different story since they bring something different to the table than XV8s bring so you they don't get compared and aren't in competition.

User avatar
Draaen
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 105

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#926 » Dec 08 2017 12:27

Tank:
The quad las-pred isn't the be all end all tank and we don't need to, and shouldn't compare our tank to it. It's from a different codex, has different synergies and has a very narrow load out. It is completely inefficient against hoards for example. The Railhead is a more generalist tank, both thanks to the main gun's alternate mode and the SMS. It will never be as good at hunting vehicles as a las-pred is and it shouldn't be. I know what the fluff says about railguns and vehicles, but it's not feasible to have that represented in the rules, while also having an anti-infantry gun, fly and not cost a ton of points. Removing these unreasonable expectations, giving a points drop to the main guns and SMS, and maybe having the AM and Eldar tank rule of firing twice if moving slowly, you can get a playable, rounded tank. (And then you can compare it to a las-pred with HB sponsons if you want to :) )


I still mainly look at the primary armament and ask myself how much is a single railgun shot worth because that fulfills the tanks main focus. Current rules as written all we get from the solid railgun is 1 shot. Then I ask how much is the body underneath the railgun worth. That balance leaves me with thinking I will either overpay for a single railgun shot or underpay for the bodies. I mean they could undervalue the body but then it may just become strictly better then say a broadside. The ability to shoot twice or getting some other type of benefit may fix that. Changing ignoring heavy weapon and moving penalties on the markerlight table to 2 could also affect that.

Kroot:
Well if you want to change their battlefield role, then yes that cannot be done via point adjustments. I personally think Kroot are fine. They are not top picks for competitive lists, but not everything has to be (and really cannot be).


Kroot have been good irregular infantry for me in the past (I have oodles of them and used them regularly since 3rd). They had move through cover, could end up on the flanks or forward positions off to the side and were extra durable in woods. So I want them to sort of get back some of the stuff they lost. I would argue the index changed their role on me first! Fire warriors and kroot provide bodies to clog up the field and medium range dakka and to me are in direct competition without extra differentiation. By changing the kroot special rules so they play more like they used to I think it gives better internal balance.

Commanders:
Yes, finding the correct point values will be hard. The character rule and BS 2+ does give commanders a big edge, the but more wounds and the ability to bring a large cloud of drones anywhere on the table is an often overlooked ability for XV8s. I still think it's possible the cost both in a way that you would want to play both in the same list, supporting each other, rather than competing.


The points are really hard. Just to be on par you need about 2 crisis suit weapons to each commander. So a quad weapon equipped commander is the equivalent on average to a 3 man team with one support weapon. Let's look at a spread of costs. Commander almost always hits with re-roll 1's suits still hit about 1/2 the time. Rough math to keep it simple.

20pt gun
80 pts for commander
160 pts for crisis
Crisis suits must be discounted 27 points off 1/3 the cost of the commander to be as effective as commander

15pt gun
60 pts for commander
120 pts for crisis
Crisis suits must be discounted 20 points off 1/3 the cost of the commander to be as effective as commander

10pt gun
40 pts for commander
80 pts for crisis
Crisis suits must be discounted 14 points off 1/3 the cost of the commander to be as effective as commander

So just in terms of weapons you could balance the crisis suits around a 20 point weapon and reduce the cost of the crisis suits by 27. Then the 10pt loadout exceeds the commanders capabilities as it only needs a 14 point discount... which would give them a reason the be taken... Let's say the commander gets nerfed to 100 points. That would mean that your crisis suits would need to cost around 33 points to be as effective - the discounted price. So for the 15 pt gun range you would have crisis suits cost 13 points per model. But the crisis suits at 13 points a body seem really cheap. Which is why I think the crisis suits could use a BS buff or something to help make them not so drastically worse or different weapon costs which I guess is a points fix. Although kind of a grey area as there aren't different tables in our index so it could be considered a rules change. So I'll reluctantly recant this one lol.
All empires fall you just have to know where to push

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2201

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#927 » Dec 08 2017 03:04

Draaen wrote:
GND wrote:Tank:
The quad las-pred isn't the be all end all tank and we don't need to, and shouldn't compare our tank to it. It's from a different codex, has different synergies and has a very narrow load out. It is completely inefficient against hoards for example. The Railhead is a more generalist tank, both thanks to the main gun's alternate mode and the SMS. It will never be as good at hunting vehicles as a las-pred is and it shouldn't be. I know what the fluff says about railguns and vehicles, but it's not feasible to have that represented in the rules, while also having an anti-infantry gun, fly and not cost a ton of points. Removing these unreasonable expectations, giving a points drop to the main guns and SMS, and maybe having the AM and Eldar tank rule of firing twice if moving slowly, you can get a playable, rounded tank. (And then you can compare it to a las-pred with HB sponsons if you want to :) )

I still mainly look at the primary armament and ask myself how much is a single railgun shot worth because that fulfills the tanks main focus. Current rules as written all we get from the solid railgun is 1 shot. Then I ask how much is the body underneath the railgun worth. That balance leaves me with thinking I will either overpay for a single railgun shot or underpay for the bodies. I mean they could undervalue the body but then it may just become strictly better then say a broadside. The ability to shoot twice or getting some other type of benefit may fix that. Changing ignoring heavy weapon and moving penalties on the markerlight table to 2 could also affect that.

The Hammerhead/Predator Annihilator question is the hill I'm willing to die on.

These two tanks, in past editions, have always had nearly-identical functions. Both tanks existed to unleash all of their firepower at a single vehicle target and remove that target from the board. With its S10AP1 gun, the Hammerhead was the ultimate tank sniper, with a decent chance to one-shot many of the most dangerous tanks in the game. The Predator, albeit weaker, compensated for its lower-strength weapons with a higher shot volume. Given how Space Marines worked though, the Predator wasn't too popular at the time, but that's neither here nor there.

Now, due to the fact that tanks can't be "one-shotted" anymore, the Hammerhead is essentially useless. It carries a powerful gun which has a <45% chance to deal D6 damage to a tank or monster, and a secondary fire mode which is, let's face it, useless.

In addition it carries a pair of tax guns (Burst Cannons or Gun Drones) which competitive players would be more than happy to remove if given the chance. Saying that two Gun Drones makes it "an anti-infantry tank" is like saying a Land Raider is "anti-infantry" because of its Storm Bolter.

The Hammerhead is a bad tank. Its main gun is bad, its secondary fire mode is bad, its anti-infantry options are bad, and it's too expensive.

For a Hammerhead to statistically kill a Leman Russ, you would need to shoot for 10 turns straight. Currently, with its single mediocre gun and general lack of weapon options, the Hammerhead has been relegated to a role similar to that of a cheap fire support tank (like a Razorback), yet costs as much as a main battle tank.

User avatar
GND
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 127

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#928 » Dec 08 2017 04:36

@Draaen
Costing units only by measure of points per damage is wrong. You are not taking into account durability nor utility. This isn't something that can be solved by a formula.

And even in your possible scenarios, it is completely OK that some weapons will be better on the Commander and some on Crisis Suits. Diverse optimal load outs for each mean they don't compete for the same role. It's like that even now, sort of. Flamers are better on XV8s. We just need some other weapons that are worth taking on Crisis.

@Arka0415
A couple of things:
a. I am painfully aware that the Hammerhead is a bad tank, hence the discussion about point drops to it.
b. I never said it is an anti-infatry tank. I said it can engage different targets and is equipped with anti-intantry weapons, which Gun Drones are.
c. I was talking about SMS anyway (and hoping it gets a point cut to be useful again)
d. I think GW made it clear they don't want single weapons one-shotting tanks anymore, so expecting that to return is pointless. Railguns chip away wounds from hard targets now or are finishers if something else doens't do it's job (like a QFC), while the secondary gun sprinkles some shots on nearby infantry. It is what it is, and it won't change until it gets a new kit with different options. Counting turns it needs to kill a Leman Russ is like judging a fish by it's ability the climb a tree.
e. Holding ground at the expense of your own life is very un-Tau like.

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 374
Contact:

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#929 » Dec 08 2017 05:08

Draaen wrote:Rough math to keep it simple.

20pt gun
80 pts for commander
160 pts for crisis
Crisis suits must be discounted 27 points off 1/3 the cost of the commander to be as effective as commander

15pt gun
60 pts for commander
120 pts for crisis
Crisis suits must be discounted 20 points off 1/3 the cost of the commander to be as effective as commander

10pt gun
40 pts for commander
80 pts for crisis
Crisis suits must be discounted 14 points off 1/3 the cost of the commander to be as effective as commander

So just in terms of weapons you could balance the crisis suits around a 20 point weapon and reduce the cost of the crisis suits by 27. Then the 10pt loadout exceeds the commanders capabilities as it only needs a 14 point discount... which would give them a reason the be taken... Let's say the commander gets nerfed to 100 points. That would mean that your crisis suits would need to cost around 33 points to be as effective - the discounted price. So for the 15 pt gun range you would have crisis suits cost 13 points per model. But the crisis suits at 13 points a body seem really cheap. Which is why I think the crisis suits could use a BS buff or something to help make them not so drastically worse or different weapon costs which I guess is a points fix. Although kind of a grey area as there aren't different tables in our index so it could be considered a rules change. So I'll reluctantly recant this one lol.


Simple is not the word, I like maths, I am pretty good with maths. I have absolutely no idea what these numbers mean or how they correlate in any way.

Just looking at the first example fries my brain let me just see if I'm on the right wavelength.

You are saying at 20pts per gun, 80pts per Commander and I'm assuming 160pts for 3 crisis? 53.3pts each?
Fully kitted out the Commander would be 160pts and assuming it's a single shot weapon that's 160pts for 4 hits a turn 97% of the time with ML support.
The crisis suits would be 340pts for 5.2 hits a turn with 1 ML. So far so simple.
It's the -27 from 1/3 cost that makes no sense as a sentence at all are you saying that the crisis should be 26.3pts each so 260pts fully kitted out for +1 hit a turn or the crisis should be 27 less amd the Commander 33% less, 33% more? Or the suits should be 33% of 27pts less.... So 9 pts each less.

Please I'm not trying to be annoying I genuinely would like to know what your numbers are supposed to mean?

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2201

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#930 » Dec 08 2017 07:59

GND, I think I understand your position! Within the context of the "how to improve the Hammerhead" discussion your points make sense, certainly. As a Hammerhead fan though I feel like this tank really got the short end of the stick in 8th Edition- we know that the days of "one-shotting" tanks are over, but the issue is that many factions retain that ability, spread across multiple shots.

GND wrote:A couple of things:
a. I am painfully aware that the Hammerhead is a bad tank, hence the discussion about point drops to it.
b. I never said it is an anti-infatry tank. I said it can engage different targets and is equipped with anti-intantry weapons, which Gun Drones are.
c. I was talking about SMS anyway (and hoping it gets a point cut to be useful again)


You mentioned that the Predator wasn't good against hordes, and that the Hammerhead was better at anti-infantry thanks to its submunition and anti-infantry weapons. It may be the case that, on paper, the Hammerhead is equipped with more anti-infantry style weapons but sadly that doesn't make it any good at anti-infantry. If we're shooting at Orks, the submunition should kill 1-2 Boyz while the Burst Cannons/Gun Drones should take out 2-3. The Predator, on the other hand, can just shoot its four Lascannons and Storm Bolter and get 3-4 kills. So even a Predator that's desperately firing its Lascannons into advancing infantry will still see comparable damage.

GND wrote:d. I think GW made it clear they don't want single weapons one-shotting tanks anymore, so expecting that to return is pointless. Railguns chip away wounds from hard targets now or are finishers if something else doens't do it's job (like a QFC), while the secondary gun sprinkles some shots on nearby infantry. It is what it is, and it won't change until it gets a new kit with different options. Counting turns it needs to kill a Leman Russ is like judging a fish by it's ability the climb a tree.

Single weapons definitely won't be one-shotting tanks, which is exactly the problem. In previous editions, many vehicles (like Dark Eldar Ravagers, Space Marine Predator Annihilators, Tau Hammerheads, etc.) all filled the "one-turn tank removal" role. With four Lascannons the Predator still fills that role, offering 2-3 wounding hits on armored targets and a solid (though not high) chance of removing vehicles in a single round of shooting. Predator Annihilators, Land Raiders, Dark Eldar Ravagers, AdMech Onager Dunecrawlers, and other vehicles retain the abiltiy to bring down armored targets in one turn. Meanwhile the Hammerhead has a seriously-powerful gun, but really suffers for its single shot.

Counting the turns it takes to kill a Leman Russ may seem silly, but the idea is that, in a normal game with normal rolling, a Hammerhead does not have the statistical capacity to kill a Leman Russ. In 6 turns it'll fire 6 shots, hit on 4, wound on ~3, and cause ~9 damage. A Predator Annihilator, on the other hand, in 6 turns will fire 24 shots, hit on 16, wound on ~11, 1-2 might get saved, and it'll cause ~31 damage. It's not just the Predator that can do this- most factions have tanks capable of this kind of heavy anti-armor damage.

User avatar
GND
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 127

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#931 » Dec 08 2017 08:45

Are you sure you are remembering previous editions correctly? Because in 7th, a single Railhead has ~7% chance to one shot a Leman Russ (considering frontal facing and no cover). That's pretty bad. It could kill AV10 vehicles way better, but still it mostly just crippled the enemy vehicle via the old vehicle damage chart. It was all about hull point removal, and the Railhead sucked at that. And even before that it was about spamming Broadsides with twinlinked railguns (because unlike Hammerheads, you could bring a squad of 3 in a single Heavy support slot).

This is partially why the comparison with quad las-pred irks me. Railheads haven't been as good at removing armour as the predator for at least 3 previous editions. And Predator themselves were pretty 'meh'. And yes, other factions have vehicles capable of killing tanks if they focus fire and roll well. But that isn't a requirement for every codex. After all we can put 4 Fusion Blasters on a single deepstriking suit.

I don't really want to continue this debate as it ultimately leads us no where. One shot expensive weapons have sucked, still suck and will continue sucking. I just want it to be cheaper, so I don't feel so bad when I miss. :)

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2201

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#932 » Dec 08 2017 09:40

GND wrote:Are you sure you are remembering previous editions correctly? Because in 7th, a single Railhead has ~7% chance to one shot a Leman Russ (considering frontal facing and no cover). That's pretty bad. It could kill AV10 vehicles way better, but still it mostly just crippled the enemy vehicle via the old vehicle damage chart.

All of my good Hammerhead experience was n 5th Edition, that was the gold standard for Hammerheads blasting things. Absolutely terrific chance to explode a vehicle given the huge AP1 buff it had. Yeah, Hammerheads really dropped off in subsequent editions and Broadsides took over, sadly.

GND wrote:This is partially why the comparison with quad las-pred irks me. Railheads haven't been as good at removing armour as the predator for at least 3 previous editions.

I guess the issue is that, we Tau lack good long-range anti-tank firepower. That used to be a defining part of our faction, and it vanished overnight.

-

To get back on topic, I think there's enough evidence (looking at the other Codexes) that we'll see a points drop (My guess is about 135 for the hull and railgun) and a double-firing gun. Anyway, if these did end up happening, we'd see a points-per-damage of about 38pt/d, which is decent but not amazing. Give the Hammerhead a full suite of Markerlight bonuses, though, and it becomes a terrifying 26pt/d, nearly equal to a Fusion Commander!

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 442

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#933 » Dec 08 2017 09:56

As far as the hammerhead goes it's pretty clear it will get a massive str bump on it's main gun as well as some form of "shoot main gun twice". Wether or not it gets a price reduction is up for grabs but I suspect Ion will get some points reduction making Longstrike and friends a very good option in the future. I don't worry about the future of the hammerhead in that regard but I do hate the continued use of only str5 as secondary weapons on all our vehicles. This jack of all trades master of none is really old especially when other armies can drop their secondary weapons for cheap platforms OR kit them with better guns OR keep anti infantry on them. Having no way to drop the extra guns and no way to really change what kind of gun is on them is super annoying. Drastic points reduction should be on the way.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2201

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#934 » Dec 08 2017 11:05

Yojimbob wrote:As far as the hammerhead goes it's pretty clear it will get a massive str bump on it's main gun as well as some form of "shoot main gun twice". Wether or not it gets a price reduction is up for grabs but I suspect Ion will get some points reduction making Longstrike and friends a very good option in the future.

What makes you think that the Hammerhead will get a Str buff? With the exception of Imperial plasma getting the new firing profile, it seems the old Str values of weapons are being kept (Assault Cannon, Heavy Bolter, Plasma Rifle, Railgun, etc.) regardless of whatever the original design reasons were.

Yojimbob wrote:Having no way to drop the extra guns and no way to really change what kind of gun is on them is super annoying. Drastic points reduction should be on the way.

Seeker Missiles could be the weapon you're looking for. I'm not going to try to balance them, but if they cost more points, did D3 mortal wounds each, and could be reloaded by a stratagem, that would give Hammerheads a lot more anti-tank bite.

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 442

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#935 » Dec 08 2017 11:51

Arka0415 wrote:
Yojimbob wrote:As far as the hammerhead goes it's pretty clear it will get a massive str bump on it's main gun as well as some form of "shoot main gun twice". Wether or not it gets a price reduction is up for grabs but I suspect Ion will get some points reduction making Longstrike and friends a very good option in the future.

What makes you think that the Hammerhead will get a Str buff? With the exception of Imperial plasma getting the new firing profile, it seems the old Str values of weapons are being kept (Assault Cannon, Heavy Bolter, Plasma Rifle, Railgun, etc.) regardless of whatever the original design reasons were.

Yojimbob wrote:Having no way to drop the extra guns and no way to really change what kind of gun is on them is super annoying. Drastic points reduction should be on the way.

Seeker Missiles could be the weapon you're looking for. I'm not going to try to balance them, but if they cost more points, did D3 mortal wounds each, and could be reloaded by a stratagem, that would give Hammerheads a lot more anti-tank bite.


Str buff is because str 10 is no mans land. I suspect they'll tune it so we can wound on 2's against light vehicles and maybe even mdiums. I've talked to a lot of competitive players and they all agree that it will be a minimum of str 14, if not str 16 if it remains a single shot gun. I personally think 14 is the more likely since it allows us to wound on 2's for everything but the biggest things being a 3. This still allows Longstrike to wound EVERYTHING on 2's with the railgun. We are all pretty much in agreement that the simple port over of the Tau index was done poorly and this would be a simple fix bringing our railgun back in line. I suspect the heavy rail rifle might see a bump to 10 as well. Not sure about the pathfinder rail rifle though. Could go to 8 which would be worth the points finally.

User avatar
Draaen
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 105

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#936 » Dec 08 2017 05:08

Nymphomanius wrote:Simple is not the word, I like maths, I am pretty good with maths. I have absolutely no idea what these numbers mean or how they correlate in any way.

Just looking at the first example fries my brain let me just see if I'm on the right wavelength.

You are saying at 20pts per gun, 80pts per Commander and I'm assuming 160pts for 3 crisis? 53.3pts each?
Fully kitted out the Commander would be 160pts and assuming it's a single shot weapon that's 160pts for 4 hits a turn 97% of the time with ML support.
The crisis suits would be 340pts for 5.2 hits a turn with 1 ML. So far so simple.
It's the -27 from 1/3 cost that makes no sense as a sentence at all are you saying that the crisis should be 26.3pts each so 260pts fully kitted out for +1 hit a turn or the crisis should be 27 less amd the Commander 33% less, 33% more? Or the suits should be 33% of 27pts less.... So 9 pts each less.

Please I'm not trying to be annoying I genuinely would like to know what your numbers are supposed to mean?


Well the math is simple I just got ahead of myself and didn't explain my method and simplifying assumptions enough lol.

So I want to find out what the cost of a single crisis suit would be based off of weapon cost and commander cost. I really just want to get a rough idea of what the points spread is so I plan on rounding up or down to get easier numbers as they won't affect the trend and will be close enough to illustrate how weapon cost negatively affects crisis suits more than commanders.

So the simplest and most popular commander loadout gets 4 weapons. The commander hits 5/6's of the time by himself of 35/36 with 1 markerlight. So we'll assume 100% hit rate meaning the crisis suits with a 50% hit rate need 4 hits. Markerlight re-rolls add an 8% chance to hit which is negligible for this analysis and I will go with a 50% hit rate. This means I need 2 crisis guns per commander gun. That's pretty close to a fully loaded min sized squad.

Now that the hits are balanced let's look at points. We have 1 commander and 4 guns equaling the shooting effectiveness of 3 crisis suits and 8 guns roughly. If they are equal in terms of points per hit the unit costs should be equal to each other. Now the easy math!

3*Crisis Suit Base Cost (Crisis) + 8* Weapon Cost (W.C) = Commander Base Cost (Comm) + 4*Weapon Cost
3*Crisis = Comm +4*W.C - 8*W.C
Crisis = (Comm - 4*W.C)/3

Then I made the assumption of 100 points for the commander and had a nice range of weapons. Here are the results after computing the equations (rounding up)

20 pt weapons - 7 Points base cost per Crisis Suit
15 pt weapons - 14 Point base cost for Crisis Suits
10 pt weapons - 20 Point base cost for Crisis Suits

it is evident to me that even taking the numbers with a grain of salt for error introduced by the simplifying assumptions a 13 point per model difference between the two extreme point totals is significant. It doesn't even include 24 points our most expensive weapon. This is the main takeaway for me. How do you balance that? It's a question I find difficult without a separate weapon table

On a lesser note you can see we get some low numbers that even if adjusted up by 5 points a full 25% of the most expensive suit total listed and we end up 25 point base cost suits which are very inexpensive when compared to the current cost. Even then the crisis suits would lose out in any configuration with a more expensive gun.

@GND
Yeah the utility of all those drones and bodies are great and I like to use it even now. But for better internal balance and not relegating Crisis Suits to the lower cost weapons I think they'd need a separate weapon cost or something else needs to change. That's not to say I want them to be as deadly as commanders just more parity and I think based off my equation above it's just not going to be reached via points alone.

@Arka
I think we are both on the same wavelength with the Railhead. It has a awesome anti-tank gun and needs to be good at the anti-tank role. With 1 shot per hull it just won't happen unless GW wants to let us spam tank hulls. I just don't see that happening I don't see that happening nor do I want that either. So it needs an offensive boost.
All empires fall you just have to know where to push

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests