Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
User avatar
Lostroninsoul
Shas'Saal
Posts: 225

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#91 » Nov 08 2017 09:59

I've come to the conclusion marker lights aren't the problem. If pathfinders were not fast attack and were regular troops, we would be way happier. My solution now is to not even look at brigade and patrol detachments. I am using only outrider detachments with 3 pathfinders with a supplement of vanguard/supreme command. Pathfinders just seem to be a more valuable firewarrior IMO.

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 436

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#92 » Nov 08 2017 10:09

Lostroninsoul wrote:I've come to the conclusion marker lights aren't the problem. If pathfinders were not fast attack and were regular troops, we would be way happier. My solution now is to not even look at brigade and patrol detachments. I am using only outrider detachments with 3 pathfinders with a supplement of vanguard/supreme command. Pathfinders just seem to be a more valuable firewarrior IMO.


For the same points as well. I'd love to see more than two troop options and ever since pathfinders no longer required a devilfish transport to be taken with them from back in 5th or 6th, I've felt they have been out of place as a "fast attack" option. They are essentially the same as scouts and should be troops.

User avatar
Lostroninsoul
Shas'Saal
Posts: 225

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#93 » Nov 08 2017 12:24

If pathfinders were made made to be regular troops. And firewarrior's came standard with a free ds8 trurret. That would be a good way to fix a ton of issues with our codex.

Markerlights would be more passive for us to obtain. Firewarriors would could still find niche jobs to preform because of a free turret. Kroot would be useful for bulk bubble wrap. Points modifications wouldn't be needed to be redone on the infantry to make them viable. Our vechiles would be able to benefit from the buffs from markerlight support because markerlights wouldn't be considered a "tax" to achieve and their shoot power would be less overshadowed.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#94 » Nov 08 2017 12:49

Yeah I'm mostly using Vanguard and Outrider detachments as well. The only troop unit that really interests me are Breacher which also require a Devilfish to work properly which costs a ton points to fill the required slots.
However I don't want to see Pathfinder as troops choice. Fast Attack is perfect for a scouting/supporting unit imo. The problem there clearly is with me because I don't want to play Strike Teams.
However maybe I'll take a few Kroot units next time. Not because they are so good. Just for thematic reasons.

PeeJ
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 99

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#95 » Nov 09 2017 07:28

Panzer wrote: The only troop unit that really interests me are Breacher which also require a Devilfish to work properly which costs a ton points to fill the required slots.



You are not the only one in that boat there.

Wes
Shas
Posts: 1

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#96 » Dec 12 2017 09:33

Sorry if either of these have been mentioned. I hope this isn't just a wishlist. I'm going to highlight an issue that GW should be considering, and then give my thoughts (wish?) for one way to resolve the issue.

(1) Support drones (recon, pulse accelerator, grav-inhibitor, guardian, stealth) are too fragile, meaning we don't get much utility out of them (at least not as much as we should). Make it so that if a support drone is within 3 inches of one or more T'au Empire units it can't be targeted by shooting or psykers. Perhaps caveat that with "unless it's the closest model compared to those units" (the one's it's within 3 inches of). This probably shouldn't apply to gun, shield, or marker drones (but maybe it could if the entire unit of drones was within 3 inches)

(2) Commanders are fulfilling the role Crisis Battlesuits should be filling. Perhaps the Commander's offensive power shouldn't be lessened if one chooses to outfit him that way, but one way to resolve the issue might be to give him the potential for better synergy with Crisis Battlesuits (or any units with the Battlesuit keyword). Rather than give his base hull a buff power, allow him to take up to two new Command Support System. This takes up a hardpoint, and buffs any Battlesuit units within 6 inches. (What could the buff be? Maybe -1 ATS, a 5+ invuln, adv and shoot, reroll ones... or any of our current support systems, or new buffs...). So one can essentially make him a "Warmander" or a "Buffmander" as needed.

Maybe I should just send that wish list to Santa, but even so, the role of Commanders vs. Crisis Battlesuits and utility of support drones should be looked at.

User avatar
CDR_Farsight
Shas'Saal
Posts: 124

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#97 » Dec 12 2017 10:19

One thing I've noticed when playing against a myriad of other armies is that we have waaaaaay less access to moderate strength, moderate rate of fire, AP-2/AP-3 weaponry. They are extremely prevalent in other armies which is compounded by the fact that most of them hit on a 3+ as well. If we want to get anything into the multi-shot -2/-3 sweet spot, we have to sacrifice firepower to add an ATS and even that is really only an option for suits.

And don't even argue that our rail weapons and fusion fill that role. I'm talking about more than single shot weapons, and we all know that HYMP are priced out of viability. Plasma theoretically should fill this role; however, the crisis suit base cost is too high to make a unit that has to be within 12" to do anything meaningful...well meaningful.

All of that being said, contacting GW won't do us any good at this point. They have already finished play testing Tau. If the codex comes out and we are still bottom tier, then we will have to wait for CA2 or vote with our wallets.
To secure victory, the wise must adapt ~ Puretide

User avatar
Shas'O R'Kai
Shas'Saal
Posts: 41

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#98 » Dec 12 2017 10:52

I'm of the strong opinion that we need to try have the issue of our internal balance fixed first and foremost. Having only 5 or so viable units out of our entire army is just no fun. Specifically I think we need to point out the clear mathematical disparity between the commander and the crisis suits, fire warriors and gun drones, and broadsides and hammerheads. In addition, point out that the kroot shaper, piranha and sniper drones offer our army very little/nothing that we cant get elsewhere for cheaper/better. People far more well versed in statistics than I, would you be able to draw come clear and unbiased comparisons to present?

As much as I want to offer suggestions to GW on how to balance the game, I highly doubt they will listen or implement any of these ideas. I think we might better achieve our objective by pointing out what needs to change rather than how to change it. In addition, comparing to other codices is quite valid in my opinion. Yes, in a vacuum you cant accurately draw an equivalence, but so many armies have very similar synergies to us. For example, the onager dunecrawler being buffed with re-roll 1's, vs a Hammerhead being buffed with 5 markerlights, is an example of similar units receiving similar points value in buffs. In this scenario the Onager averages 4.15 damage vs T7 3+sv targets, whereas the hammerhead averages about 2.3. From that comparison we can clearly see that the Dunecrawler does almost double the damage. It's a cheaper unit but this will be offset by the hammerheads slightly higher anti-infantry potential. Again, I'm no statistician so If someone more qualified can explain and present the same situation, I think this would help highlight that even with synergies taken into account, we're substantially overcosted for what we're able to do with similar units.

I don't know how useful sending this to GW will be, given that we're naturally weaker due to being an index army. It may be the equivalent of nagging the mechanic to change your tires while he/she's in the process of doing so. This was a bit of a ramble in a spare 15 mins I had at work so hopefully my point comes across ok!

R'Kai
Playing with a short reach since 2007 :crafty:

User avatar
Impulse
Shas'Saal
Posts: 78

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#99 » Dec 12 2017 03:34

I would love something - anything - to do in the Psychic phase. A relic that gives a flat 5 Deny the Witch roll? -1 to your opponent's roll? My feelings about the Melee phase are similiar, same with JSJ style gameplay. It puts me off to effectively skip so many phases in a turn.

Ricordis
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 340

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#100 » Dec 12 2017 06:28

Impulse wrote:I would love something - anything - to do in the Psychic phase. A relic that gives a flat 5 Deny the Witch roll? -1 to your opponent's roll? My feelings about the Melee phase are similiar, same with JSJ style gameplay. It puts me off to effectively skip so many phases in a turn.


Absolutely!
I know the phase's name is "Psychic Phase" but why can't non-psyker factions not get anything else there? Like active Ethereal's inspiration based on morale instead of choosing an active buff aura.
I am okay with having no psychic powers in my army. It is some kind of unique selling point for T'au. But it just feels wrong to not participate in these phases in any way.
Currently we have a movement phase, a shooting phase and a let's-hope-they-survive-this phase.

(Bonus: Librarian Dreadnought walking, then smiting and other stuff my units, watch it shooting my units (Yay! I maybe can roll some saves) and then assaulting something. It's like watching a cinematic in which you lose.)

User avatar
n1md4
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 184

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#101 » Dec 12 2017 08:32

Impulse wrote:I would love something - anything - to do in the Psychic phase. A relic that gives a flat 5 Deny the Witch roll? -1 to your opponent's roll? My feelings about the Melee phase are similiar, same with JSJ style gameplay. It puts me off to effectively skip so many phases in a turn.


Addressing the fight phase, it would be nice if Fire Warriors choosing the Pulse Carbine option also get a free pistol; make them a bit more Assulty :fear:
This is a sad day for the nobel profession of otter milking -- Knives
Onmyou's Motivation Service

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2184

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#102 » Dec 12 2017 09:01

Just checking in- do you guys think it's worthwhile to submit more comments like these to GW?

Ricordis
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 340

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#103 » Dec 12 2017 11:00

I don't think so.
Playtesting for the next T'au Codex should be done.
And most feedback would be taken from the playtesters and tournament players.

Too bad they often have an other perspective on things like these than casual players.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2184

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#104 » Dec 12 2017 11:03

Ricordis wrote:And most feedback would be taken from the playtesters and tournament players.

Too bad they often have an other perspective on things like these than casual players.

Well, I hope it's tournament players who are offering perspectives. Frankly "balancing" really only matters at the higher tiers of play. At any rate, let's hope their playtesters know what they're doing... :neutral:

R.D.
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 554

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#105 » Dec 13 2017 12:25

Ricordis wrote:I don't think so.
Playtesting for the next T'au Codex should be done.
And most feedback would be taken from the playtesters and tournament players.

Too bad they often have an other perspective on things like these than casual players.


I think they might take into account regular player feedback if there's like widespread and consistent complaints via Facebook or something, but yeah, at this point it's probably a moot point.

Still, there's many factors to think about, from the stratagem lists and Sept rules, so we'll see how it goes.

User avatar
Shas'O R'Kai
Shas'Saal
Posts: 41

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#106 » Dec 13 2017 04:36

Arka0415 wrote:Just checking in- do you guys think it's worthwhile to submit more comments like these to GW?


I think it's very unlikely to make a difference, but if we've got the constructive feedback already written up, I see no harm in sending it to them. We've all put a lot of thought into it so we may as well put it to use!

R'Kai
Playing with a short reach since 2007 :crafty:

User avatar
Torch
Shas
Posts: 5

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#107 » Dec 14 2017 12:28

For all those worried about internal balance, I really think that point adjustments will bring everything back into line (with just some exceptions).

For example, suit weapons seem to be costed for commanders and not crisis suits. In the Guard codex they got two point values for weapons based on the models BS. Plasma is 7 points for BS 4+ and 12 points for BS 3+. The problem we are having is that our suit weapons are appropriately costed for a BS 2+ model (for the most part) but then become horrendously expensive on crisis suits with BS 4+, or broadsides. So long as this issue is addressed, most of our difficulties should be alleviated.

Other issues, like commander buffs may need to be tweaked/redone to work. For example, if master of war affected every unit on the board then it would actually be worthwhile. Considering it represents the whole cadre working together I see no reason why not.

Hammerheads need help though. I had a game where it only did 2 damage to a leman russ over the course of 6 turns... I really just want to see a S16 railgun.

One last issue I noticed is that we have no ways of improving our wound rolls, but we have 6 ways of rerolling ones to hit...

User avatar
CDR_Farsight
Shas'Saal
Posts: 124

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#108 » Dec 14 2017 01:25

R.D. wrote:
Ricordis wrote:I don't think so.
Playtesting for the next T'au Codex should be done.
And most feedback would be taken from the playtesters and tournament players.

Too bad they often have an other perspective on things like these than casual players.


I think they might take into account regular player feedback if there's like widespread and consistent complaints via Facebook or something, but yeah, at this point it's probably a moot point.

Still, there's many factors to think about, from the stratagem lists and Sept rules, so we'll see how it goes.



At this point we can only wait and see, since playtesting for Tau is finished. If things do not improve, however, I highly suggest we let GW know with our wallets. Personally, I do not plan to buy a single GW model until the Tau codex is released, and if we don't get the feeling of being Tau back along with a reasonable chance to win standard games and some options for competitive play other than Commander spam, I will only be buy recasts for the rest of my time in the hobby and expanding my Valejo shelf, Tau or not.
To secure victory, the wise must adapt ~ Puretide

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Blinx, DancinHobo and 4 guests