Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
oakreef
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 57

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

Post#19 » Oct 30 2017 11:20

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
Watcher on the wall wrote:
AnonAmbientLight wrote:I can't think of any examples right now, but weird things could probably happen if you label it a character.

Crisis Bodyguard Teams throwing themselves in front of Drones to save them :P

User avatar
AnonAmbientLight
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 864

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

Post#20 » Oct 30 2017 04:39

Well case in point, the Tyranid leaks highlighted a unit that has an interesting ability. The Deathleaper unit can set up within 6in of a character as long as the Deathleaper is 1in away from other enemy units.

There is a Chaos Space Marine character, item, or stratagem (or something) that spawns a demon if you kill a character in combat. So maybe making drones a character is a bad choice ha. :P
Sky IS Falling, T'au WILL Suck, Sell Me Your Models

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2155

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

Post#21 » Oct 31 2017 06:49

Thinking about the intent of this thread though- how should we argue to make Markerlights, Seekers and Railguns better? Should we compare them to other things? Talk just about their intrinsic strength? Or make suggestions as to how to improve them?

User avatar
Haechi
Shas'Saal
Posts: 147

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

Post#22 » Oct 31 2017 07:17

I'm with you with the Missiles, and I don't think we need to ask anything about the Hammerheads, they're likely to be changed. For the Markerlight, I don't know. I want a change, but I'm not sure I agree with your proposal, but I don't have something better to suggest.

And overall, I think we should wait for the codex before petitioning the devs. We know lot of things will change.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

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

Post#23 » Oct 31 2017 07:26

Arka0415 wrote:Thinking about the intent of this thread though- how should we argue to make Markerlights, Seekers and Railguns better? Should we compare them to other things? Talk just about their intrinsic strength? Or make suggestions as to how to improve them?

Markerlights is rather easy. Make them not being affected by negative to-hit modifier (really, there are too many in the game by now. If they have to, give them a rule that the unit has to be stationary to use them. It's still better than having to hit on 5+ and worse).
And of course a reworked Markerlight table. We had plenty suggestions for that one already and I think they know they have to work on it. ^^

Seeker Missiles either not one-use only, or 1d3 damage. Really nothing else you can do about those. Not needing LoS and not being affected by negative to-hit modifier would be nice as well considering it used to be like that before and 4 out of the 7 units who can carry Seeker Missiles want to keep moving or even have to move (Devilfish, Piranha, Sunshark and Razorshark).

Railguns....that's really a tough one. I feel like since the Hammerhead is a chassis designed with only one really powerful gun in mind instead of having a double-gun as main weapon plus sponsons, there is little we can do to make the Railgun good the conventional way. Maybe the Railgun will need a complete re-work. I still wish they would give it an ability that represents how it can punch through whole units (like the Beam psychic powers and rare weapons in 7th) but that wouldn't be a real fix either I fear.

PeeJ
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 97

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

Post#24 » Nov 01 2017 05:47

Panzer wrote:
Arka0415 wrote: I still wish they would give it an ability that represents how it can punch through whole units (like the Beam psychic powers and rare weapons in 7th) but that wouldn't be a real fix either I fear.


I would love that;

"Draw line from tank to board edge, every unit under the line suffers a hit until you reach one that makes a successful armour save. AP of the hit drops by 1 for each unit it passes through"

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 428

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

Post#25 » Nov 01 2017 09:07

Arka0415 wrote:Thinking about the intent of this thread though- how should we argue to make Markerlights, Seekers and Railguns better? Should we compare them to other things? Talk just about their intrinsic strength? Or make suggestions as to how to improve them?


Definitely compare them to other things since that's our basis of knowing how underpowered they are. I know GW puts a LOT of emphasis of points on our units that fly, which they should, but they have gone overboard and they will tone it back down to put us in line with everyone else when the dust settles.

Railguns will likely be str 14 or str 16 to help us wound armor better, and if they do this there will also likely be no change to damage if they buff the strength sadly.

I really don't have a good solution to markerlights that wouldn't be straight up OP. I'd be fine with a lot of our units current point costs if they were able to get bs2+ like before but I can already taste the tears of my opponents on that one.

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 364
Contact:

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

Post#26 » Nov 01 2017 10:15

I think a big thing we all know we drastically need is a reduced price for our weapons.

Take the devildog vs our ghostkeel
Both BS4+
Any other abilities should be reflected in the cost of the model not the weapons surely?
Melta cannon is 24" assault D3 Str 8 Ap-4 D6 damage melta
Fusion collider is 18" HEAVY D3 str8 Ap-4 D6 damage melta
You would expect the Fusion collider to be a few points cheaper as less range and Heavy not assault?
Infact the melta cannon is 24pts cheaper, less than half the cost but better in 2 different ways.

And that's 1 example of basically every weapon in our codex but the 3 other big candidates are SMS, missile pod and plasma guns

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2155

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

Post#27 » Nov 01 2017 10:18

Yojimbob wrote:
Arka0415 wrote:Thinking about the intent of this thread though- how should we argue to make Markerlights, Seekers and Railguns better? Should we compare them to other things? Talk just about their intrinsic strength? Or make suggestions as to how to improve them?


Definitely compare them to other things since that's our basis of knowing how underpowered they are. I know GW puts a LOT of emphasis of points on our units that fly, which they should, but they have gone overboard and they will tone it back down to put us in line with everyone else when the dust settles.

This is where we seem to be divided! I like comparisons, you like comparisons, but not everyone else does...

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

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

Post#28 » Nov 01 2017 10:20

Nymphomanius wrote:And that's 1 example of basically every weapon in our codex but the 3 other big candidates are SMS, missile pod and plasma guns

There are many many more. However I don't think we really need to mention point adjustments. That's something GW has done for every Codex they released so far. Quite extensively for the Craftworld Codex even.

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

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

Post#29 » Nov 01 2017 12:42

Seekers are the second thing on the markerlight table and I think that it will need to keep it's position so it is reliable to use them. I think something else should be at slot two as well in addition however my main point is that the seeker missile is a core part of our defining special rule now and I think it will and should stay that way. Therefore a way to fix seeker missiles would be to make them more available with better functionality rather than punch harder so that they would be more ubiquitous and applicable to more builds. If seeker missiles were 0-2 points each, one use only and did 1 mortal wounds they would be almost auto includes on an vehicle which helps justify it's prime location in the markerlight table and makes them point efficient.

Now to deal with utility. Make the range infinite like it was in past editions and not fired at the user's BS but always hit on 3's or 2's irrespective of modifiers or movement. Allow the seekers to break the firing sequence and let them fire independently of the model. In past editions this was because they weren't actively fired by the model itself but called in and remotely fired. So if you drop a land raider to one or two wounds and your cyclic ion blasters are waiting to shred the gooey insides? Fire some seeker missiles off a model that is on the other side of the board already shot and plink the last bit off reliably. Not being affected by modifiers would help cut through the -1 modifiers for flyers and all them fancy abilities. Plus it would help you optimize your damage on your other guns.

The skyray's issues cannot be ignored when talking about seeker missiles and is the biggest loser when seeker missiles do not get multiple mortal wounds. So the skyray should get a couple things besides a point adjustment. +1 to hit vs flyers would give you more reliable markerlights vs flyers. This would help the skyray get it's missiles off and then afterwards be a more reliable marker light platform against flyers or jumpers. Importantly the skyray should get an ability that causes the seeker missiles to deal an additional mortal wound (or D3 wounds instead). Meaning with 2 marker lights on a flyer you can unload everything for big damage reliably.

It may be too complicated a solution though with firing out of turn order and adding damage to a weapon profile on the sly ray. Even if you did fire it in order you could hold off on shooting with your devilfish and fire a missile off of him. Infinite range, one time use, 1 mortal wound, a fixed BS, one time use and dirt cheap or free is where I would like to see them. D3 mortal wounds I think would make them too good anti elite infantry killers as the mortal wounds spill over. I'd be more okay with the sky ray being the only one who could do the multiple damage as it would be a reason to take them over a hammerhead.
All empires fall you just have to know where to push

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

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

Post#30 » Nov 01 2017 12:55

Draaen wrote:Seekers are the second thing on the markerlight table and I think that it will need to keep it's position so it is reliable to use them. I think something else should be at slot two as well in addition however my main point is that the seeker missile is a core part of our defining special rule now and I think it will and should stay that way. Therefore a way to fix seeker missiles would be to make them more available with better functionality rather than punch harder so that they would be more ubiquitous and applicable to more builds. If seeker missiles were 0-2 points each, one use only and did 1 mortal wounds they would be almost auto includes on an vehicle which helps justify it's prime location in the markerlight table and makes them point efficient.

Now to deal with utility. Make the range infinite like it was in past editions and not fired at the user's BS but always hit on 3's or 2's irrespective of modifiers or movement. Allow the seekers to break the firing sequence and let them fire independently of the model. In past editions this was because they weren't actively fired by the model itself but called in and remotely fired. So if you drop a land raider to one or two wounds and your cyclic ion blasters are waiting to shred the gooey insides? Fire some seeker missiles off a model that is on the other side of the board already shot and plink the last bit off reliably. Not being affected by modifiers would help cut through the -1 modifiers for flyers and all them fancy abilities. Plus it would help you optimize your damage on your other guns.

The skyray's issues cannot be ignored when talking about seeker missiles and is the biggest loser when seeker missiles do not get multiple mortal wounds. So the skyray should get a couple things besides a point adjustment. +1 to hit vs flyers would give you more reliable markerlights vs flyers. This would help the skyray get it's missiles off and then afterwards be a more reliable marker light platform against flyers or jumpers. Importantly the skyray should get an ability that causes the seeker missiles to deal an additional mortal wound (or D3 wounds instead). Meaning with 2 marker lights on a flyer you can unload everything for big damage reliably.

It may be too complicated a solution though with firing out of turn order and adding damage to a weapon profile on the sly ray. Even if you did fire it in order you could hold off on shooting with your devilfish and fire a missile off of him. Infinite range, one time use, 1 mortal wound, a fixed BS, one time use and dirt cheap or free is where I would like to see them. D3 mortal wounds I think would make them too good anti elite infantry killers as the mortal wounds spill over. I'd be more okay with the sky ray being the only one who could do the multiple damage as it would be a reason to take them over a hammerhead.

This would change literally nothing. Seeker are already good value for 5p.
Making Seeker Missiles cheaper wouldn't make us take more in lists since the units that can take them and get used in lists already do take them usually. Maybe with the exception of the Devilfish since you usually want to move with it and it has only BS4+ so Seekers would only hit on 5+ there most of the time.
So the problem is either:
1. Seeker Missiles have too little impact for being spread on such expensive units.
or
2. Seeker Missiles are too difficult to include in lists for having such little impact.
Reducing their points wouldn't change those things since they are already basically for free compared to what the unit you have to take to get them costs.

Shooting Seeker indipendently and on a fix to-hit value would be nice though.

Skyrays are a special case since shooting Seeker Missiles is the only thing it can do. I don't see the Skyray becoming viable as long as its Seekers remain one-use only. However with the ability to shoot Seeker Missiles each round, I'd say it's already a viable pick as is. With 1d3 damage even on par with things like QuadLasPreds and Lascannon Devastators in terms of anti-tank shooting. That would be kinda bad news for the Hammerhead in its current form though.

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 364
Contact:

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

Post#31 » Nov 01 2017 01:46

Panzer wrote:
Skyrays are a special case since shooting Seeker Missiles is the only thing it can do. I don't see the Skyray becoming viable as long as its Seekers remain one-use only. However with the ability to shoot Seeker Missiles each round, I'd say it's already a viable pick as is. With 1d3 damage even on par with things like QuadLasPreds and Lascannon Devastators in terms of anti-tank shooting. That would be kinda bad news for the Hammerhead in its current form though.


Only until we get Str16 railgun that does 2D6 damage on double tap hammerhead #inourdreams :D

Even if we didn't get 2+ Seeker missile a hit on fixed 3+ with 2 markerlights would be nice and add a bit of utility to piranha and devilfish mounted missiles

I have been thinking though and D3 wounds would need to be 10pts a missile atleast if fixed 3+ also
"fires 2 seekers at 5 Devastators from piranha hits twice and rolls 5 damage killing the whole squad"
:D :D :D

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

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

Post#32 » Nov 01 2017 01:58

Panzer wrote:This would change literally nothing. Seeker are already good value for 5p.
Making Seeker Missiles cheaper wouldn't make us take more in lists since the units that can take them and get used in lists already do take them usually. Maybe with the exception of the Devilfish since you usually want to move with it and it has only BS4+ so Seekers would only hit on 5+ there most of the time.
So the problem is either:
1. Seeker Missiles have too little impact for being spread on such expensive units.
or
2. Seeker Missiles are too difficult to include in lists for having such little impact.
Reducing their points wouldn't change those things since they are already basically for free compared to what the unit you have to take to get them costs.


Correct changing seekers in and of themselves won't auto-correct that the models that carry them are too expensive or don't fulfill their role well enough. That to me is an issue with the individual units not being worth taking because they cost too much. Let's look at what units can take them.

Piranha - 2 Seeker Missiles
Devilfish - 2 Seeker Missiles
Razor Shark - 2 Seeker Missiles
Sun Shark - 2 Seeker Missiles
Sky Ray - 6 Seeker Missiles
Longstrike/Hammerheads - 2 Seeker Missiles
Broadside - 1 Seeker Missile

How many of those are competitive today and you think will not be reduced in points or increased in effectiveness in another way like the fire main gun twice if moving half speed or under, or a return of disruption pods? I expect to see more of some of those models post codex release. If seeker missiles were free you reduce the cost of most of these units by 10 for the most part and increase their punching power for a turn. A Piranha for 71 points vs 81 points with 2 marker lights is a big deal. Piranhas may not be the best today but ideally any unit in the army should be playable after our codex is released.

Besides with D3 mortal wounds hitting on a 4+ you get one wound per missile. If you hit on 2+ and re-roll 1s with 1 wound you get the same result less rolling and less eye rolling from your opponent when your 2 lucky piranhas take out his hammernator squad.

Shooting Seeker independently and on a fix to-hit value would be nice though.


Yep helps eliminate the many ifs after you've spent your time to get your marker lights onto the target. To me the marker lights if they could do this would be either an initial volley or a remove that last difficult wound.

Skyrays are a special case since shooting Seeker Missiles is the only thing it can do. I don't see the Skyray becoming viable as long as its Seekers remain one-use only. However with the ability to shoot Seeker Missiles each round, I'd say it's already a viable pick as is. With 1d3 damage even on par with things like QuadLasPreds and Lascannon Devastators in terms of anti-tank shooting. That would be kinda bad news for the Hammerhead in its current form though.


The thing to me though is that if the skyray is able to put out the same mortal wounds as a predator does damage you may be the same vs a vehicle but you are now the king of anti-horde as well. The predator can put out 5.19 damage to it's intended target. If we match that at 5 mortal wounds on average it's great. Except Magnus has a stupid good invulnerable save against that kind of shooting and storm shields say nope a lot of times to lascannons but seeker missiles would just laugh at that. Even if a quad las pred is super lucky and hits the high end of the bell curve it only kills 4 models not a full squad of hammernators. If seekers do D3 mortal wounds there is a 18 potential mortal wounds. With that you are capable of deleting/crippling almost anything in the game from orc boys, 10 man hammernator squad, any vehicle or Magnus. For 200ish points

If anything I think the skyray needs something to do after it fires it's missiles. Maybe it can double fire like the Eldar Tanks and you have 4 marker lights on a tough accurate markerlight platform. Or it provides an aura buff to allies so it stays relevant. But for it to put out a ton of mortal wounds all day long makes it way too versatile for internal balance IMO.
All empires fall you just have to know where to push

User avatar
jens
Shas'Saal
Posts: 35

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

Post#33 » Nov 02 2017 10:45

Here is my ideas.

1. Let the Sky Ray be a Seeker( 2 ) / Destroyer( 6 ) missile platform with a heavy 2 ML.

2. Be able add more types of drones to the sponsors of the vehicles. ( I like the idea of modular and flexible drone use. )
Like a Piranha that normally goes close or behind enemy lines, could be given a different annoying "fast attack" role benefitting and delivering drones up front, fast. ( Shield, Grav or Pulse )
Or Hammerhead / Sky Ray with Sniper drones. ( if the model fits )

3. I like the idea of Higher strength (14-16) on the Railgun, don't know what else would be fitting.

4. ML table:
In the current table, most go for option one or five, why not try and make it worthwhile going for the rest.. maybe something like :
1. ) Re-roll 1s, Seeker missile ( 4+ ), Destroyer missile ( 5+ )
2. ) Ignore moving with HW., Seeker missile ( 3+ ), Destroyer missile ( 4+ )
3. ) Ignore Cover, Destroyer missile ( 3+ )
4. ) BS +1
5. ) BS +2

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

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

Post#34 » Nov 02 2017 10:53

jens wrote:2. Be able add more types of drones to the sponsors of the vehicles. ( I like the idea of modular and flexible drone use. )
Like a Piranha that normally goes close or behind enemy lines, could be given a different annoying "fast attack" role benefitting and delivering drones up front, fast. ( Shield, Grav or Pulse )
Or Hammerhead / Sky Ray with Sniper drones. ( if the model fits )

4. ML table:
In the current table, most go for option one or five, why not try and make it worthwhile going for the rest.. maybe something like :
1. ) Re-roll 1s, Seeker missile ( 4+ ), Destroyer missile ( 5+ )
2. ) Ignore moving with HW., Seeker missile ( 3+ ), Destroyer missile ( 4+ )
3. ) Ignore Cover, Destroyer missile ( 3+ )
4. ) BS +1
5. ) BS +2

I'd switch 3 and 4 on the table (and re-word 5 to BS+1 since the benefits are additionally and with 5 hits you'd get BS +3 this way :D ).

I like the idea of Piranha and Devilfish carrying support Drones. It's not really a problem that needs to be fixed but it would be extremely cool to have.

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 364
Contact:

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

Post#35 » Nov 02 2017 11:06

Panzer wrote:
jens wrote:2. Be able add more types of drones to the sponsors of the vehicles. ( I like the idea of modular and flexible drone use. )
Like a Piranha that normally goes close or behind enemy lines, could be given a different annoying "fast attack" role benefitting and delivering drones up front, fast. ( Shield, Grav or Pulse )
Or Hammerhead / Sky Ray with Sniper drones. ( if the model fits )

4. ML table:
In the current table, most go for option one or five, why not try and make it worthwhile going for the rest.. maybe something like :
1. ) Re-roll 1s, Seeker missile ( 4+ ), Destroyer missile ( 5+ )
2. ) Ignore moving with HW., Seeker missile ( 3+ ), Destroyer missile ( 4+ )
3. ) Ignore Cover, Destroyer missile ( 3+ )
4. ) BS +1
5. ) BS +2

I'd switch 3 and 4 on the table (and re-word 5 to BS+1 since the benefits are additionally and with 5 hits you'd get BS +3 this way :D ).

I like the idea of Piranha and Devilfish carrying support Drones. It's not really a problem that needs to be fixed but it would be extremely cool to have.


Well you can kind of make a recon drone stick to the top of a devilfish because it doesn't count as embarked for capacity and gives it's ignore cover rule to the transport, I just wish you could
1. Mount a recon drone on other T'au vehicles (I'm looking at you hammerhead)
2. Give the recon drones effect to units besides pathfinders (I'm thinking about 10 Breachers, darkstrider and a recon drone :evil:)

User avatar
jens
Shas'Saal
Posts: 35

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

Post#36 » Nov 02 2017 11:06

Panzer wrote:I'd switch 3 and 4 on the table (and re-word 5 to BS+1 since the benefits are additionally and with 5 hits you'd get BS +3 this way :D ).

Well I get your 3 and 4 switcheroo, but I think GW will deem that too powerfull - at least the BS increase is what ML used to be hated for, so I don't think they want us to getting that too "easy"
And yes you are right .. (BS +1) x2 :)

Panzer wrote:I like the idea of Piranha and Devilfish carrying support Drones. It's not really a problem that needs to be fixed but it would be extremely cool to have.


Not a problem no, but when I think of this modular, high tech race. It seems weird to me, that it is not more modular, I get why an open table is instant OP. But they could open the range for certain vehicles.
Last edited by jens on Nov 02 2017 11:09, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests