Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

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

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

Post#37 » Nov 02 2017 11:08

Nymphomanius wrote:1. Mount a recon drone on other T'au vehicles (I'm looking at you hammerhead)


Yes.. but where to place our Longstrike model then ..

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

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

Post#38 » Nov 02 2017 11:14

Nymphomanius wrote:
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:)

On that note, I wish the Devilfish could shoot with the Recon Drones Burst Cannon when it's embarked. It would give the Devilfish 12 BS4+ S5 cover ignoring shots which would be pretty sweet for a transport vehicle.


jens wrote:
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 :)

I honestly disagree with GW deeming positive to-hit modifier too powerful for T'au. Making us hit better is the whole purpose of Markerlights and the reason why we only have a base BS of 4+ as shooting heavy army.
Especially not considering the kind of re-roll auras and double shooting abilities other armies out there now have on top of being able to cast psychic powers and deal damage in melee.

User avatar
jens
Shas'Saal
Posts: 35

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

Post#39 » Nov 02 2017 11:25

Panzer wrote:On that note, I wish the could shoot with the Recon Drones Burst Cannon when it's embarked. It would give the Devilfish 12 BS4+ S5 cover ignoring shots which would be pretty sweet for a transport vehicle.

Wouldn't the gun be inside the model then?


Panzer wrote:I honestly disagree with GW deeming positive to-hit modifier too powerful for T'au. Making us hit better is the whole purpose of Markerlights and the reason why we only have a base BS of 4+ as shooting heavy army.
Especially not considering the kind of re-roll auras and double shooting abilities other armies out there now have on top of being able to cast psychic powers and deal damage in melee.
I agree but i think GW disagrees :D

crashed
Shas
Posts: 2

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

Post#40 » Nov 02 2017 11:26

One little thing I consider to be annoying with the way current markerlights work is tier 3 where you remove the moving penalties for shooting. I'm always tempted to try and set up a good coordinated strike against some target, but due to the fact that you mark after you move I often fall short of 3 ML hits and end up gimping my heavy hitters to hit at 5+. Especially frustrating where you try more risky plays like advancing with your suits to try and delete a key unit with concentrated suit + long range railgun/missile pod fire. Or needing emergency repositioning to try to fend off an incoming transport.

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 374
Contact:

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

Post#41 » Nov 02 2017 11:31

jens wrote:
Panzer wrote:On that note, I wish the could shoot with the Recon Drones Burst Cannon when it's embarked. It would give the Devilfish 12 BS4+ S5 cover ignoring shots which would be pretty sweet for a transport vehicle.

Wouldn't the gun be inside the model then?

Well it doesn't count as embarked so maybe it fixes to the hull somewhere?

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

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

Post#42 » Nov 02 2017 11:37

Nymphomanius wrote:
jens wrote:
Panzer wrote:On that note, I wish the could shoot with the Recon Drones Burst Cannon when it's embarked. It would give the Devilfish 12 BS4+ S5 cover ignoring shots which would be pretty sweet for a transport vehicle.

Wouldn't the gun be inside the model then?

Well it doesn't count as embarked so maybe it fixes to the hull somewhere?

It goes where the hatchet on the top is. ;)

And yes the Burst Cannon would be inside unless there's a mechanism that lets the Recon Drone hover up a bit whenever it shoots something. Shouldn't be too hard to build something like that for the Earth Caste it would be mainly inside of the vehicle so not even visible to us. :P

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

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

Post#43 » Nov 02 2017 11:42

crashed wrote:One little thing I consider to be annoying with the way current markerlights work is tier 3 where you remove the moving penalties for shooting. I'm always tempted to try and set up a good coordinated strike against some target, but due to the fact that you mark after you move I often fall short of 3 ML hits and end up gimping my heavy hitters to hit at 5+. Especially frustrating where you try more risky plays like advancing with your suits to try and delete a key unit with concentrated suit + long range railgun/missile pod fire. Or needing emergency repositioning to try to fend off an incoming transport.

Yeah that's the main problem of that bonus.
That and that it's basically just a very situational +1 to-hit modifier, hence my early suggestion to turn it into a +1 to-hit modifier so other units who didn't move with a heavy weapon can benefit from it as well (and so we have a +1 to-hit modifier more easily accessible than needing 5 hits).

User avatar
nic
Kroot'La
Kroot'La
Posts: 809

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

Post#44 » Nov 02 2017 01:44

Arka0415 wrote:This discussion is back again, and this time I'm thinking about three things: Markerlights, Seeker Missiles, and Railguns. Lots of us have been talking about -1 to hit penalties (especially Alaitoc) and Markerlights, and this brings up some issues withe design features of the Tau.

Would anyone be interested in submitting a short petition to Games Workshop to bring attention to some problems in our Index? Here's what I'm considering:

1. Tau Markerlights are the only reliable way Tau can increase their accuracy, yet they are innacurate. With the rise of -1 to hit penalties in so many armies, it becomes exponentially harder to increase our accuracy. I'd suggest making Markerlights hit on a fixed value (such as BS3+) or changing the Markerlight table.

2. Seeker Missiles, the Tau source of mortal wounds, are very weak. Smite has a 83% chance of succeeding due to its casting value of 5. It deals an average of 2 mortal wounds (or higher sometimes), giving it a per-cast average of 1.6 damage. Seeker Missiles, on the other hand, usually hit on 4+ if Markerlights are used, giving them a per-shot average of 0.5... and are single-use. Seeker Missiles should hit on a fixed value (such as BS2+), or be re-usable, or do considerably more damage.

3. With its single shot, a 181-point Hammerhead Gunship deals an average of 1.89 damage per shooting phase against a T8/Sv3+ target. A 220-point Space Marine Predator deals an average of 5.19 damage against a T8/Sv3+ target. The Predator costs 85% the points yet deals 36% the damage. To make the Hammerhead deal 85% the damage (in keeping with its lower points cost), it should have 2 shots and a strength characteristic of 16. This would give it a per-shot average of 4.22, or 81% the damage of the Predator.

Obviously these points need a lot of editing, but what do you think?


I have been staying out of these discussions for a while because I actually think the Tau Index is almost OK, points are too high but at this stage I'd say we can assume points drops on the obviously overcosted stuff. We are out of line with Codex armies - and with Chaos Soup because of a couple of mis-costed things there - but on the whole most Tau units feel like they perform on the table the way that they should.

What else is wrong can be largely fixed by Signature Systems, Warlord Traits and Stratagems.

1. Give a 1CP stratagem to ignore penalties to shooting with Pathfinder teams near a Recon Drone. Also probably have a Signature System that negates or reduces penalties to BS in a 6" radius around the Commander.

2. This really does need a Stratagem to re-arm seeker missiles. Combined with a drop in the cost of the Skyray chassis I would think that would be decent enough.

3. The Hammerhead needs the same Heavy Tank fix as AM and Eldar got. Beyond that it might need a slight points adjustment but the fundamental fix is to give it worthwhile volume of fire.

We also need a fix to our woeful sniper situation. Character spam is real and the only way a shooting army can cope with that is through sniper fire. Fix the sniper drones and give Commanders a warlord trait option for shooting characters. Also give Kroot their sniper rounds back.

User avatar
Studioworks
Shas'Saal
Posts: 135

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

Post#45 » Nov 02 2017 02:37

nic wrote:I have been staying out of these discussions for a while because I actually think the Tau Index is almost OK, points are too high but at this stage I'd say we can assume points drops on the obviously overcosted stuff. We are out of line with Codex armies - and with Chaos Soup because of a couple of mis-costed things there - but on the whole most Tau units feel like they perform on the table the way that they should.

Can't agree more on this. Finally someone on this forum that thinks like me. :smile: :smile:

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

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

Post#46 » Nov 02 2017 02:52

Apart from a few things I aswell think that it's actually only our units being overcosted. Have been saying that since the beginning but repeating the same thing over and over is no fun so maybe you missed it. :D

User avatar
jens
Shas'Saal
Posts: 35

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

Post#47 » Nov 02 2017 02:59

nic wrote:1. Give a 1CP stratagem to ignore penalties to shooting with Pathfinder teams near a Recon Drone.

Would be nice.

nic wrote:Also probably have a Signature System that negates or reduces penalties to BS in a 6" radius around the Commander.

Hmm maybe it would make more sense for the marksman. Flufwise I mean. Make that unit better.

nic wrote:2. This really does need a Stratagem to re-arm seeker missiles. Combined with a drop in the cost of the Skyray chassis I would think that would be decent enough.

Not a bad idea.

nic wrote:3. The Hammerhead needs the same Heavy Tank fix as AM and Eldar got. Beyond that it might need a slight points adjustment but the fundamental fix is to give it worthwhile volume of fire.

I'm sure we'll see a nice point reduction.

nic wrote:We also need a fix to our woeful sniper situation. Character spam is real and the only way a shooting army can cope with that is through sniper fire. Fix the sniper drones and give Commanders a warlord trait option for shooting characters. Also give Kroot their sniper rounds back.

This. Yes.
In fact I forgot about kroot. They need that "sure to come" boost.

Folklore
Shas
Posts: 22

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

Post#48 » Nov 02 2017 05:48

What dose the community think about markerlights getting the sniper special rule (i.e. being able to target characters) and adding a sniper special rule to the ML table? maybe with 5+ MLs in addition to the +1 BS. Is that OP/game breaking?

Additionally I think the suggestion of MLs always hitting on 3+, ignore negative modifiers is a brilliant fix. I would take it a step further and add that "ignore negative modifiers" benefit to the ML table as well.

(Edit)
I had another thought...
1. What if MLs lasted one round instead of a single turn?
2. What if, when a psycher with 5+ MLs on them cast a power you could fire a single unit at them after the power resolved?

User avatar
Bloodknife92
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 594

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

Post#49 » Nov 02 2017 08:46

I too agree that MLs on 3+, immune to negatives, is almost required. Aside from that, minor tweaks are all I can think of. I like the Broadsides, I like the Hammerhead, I like everything else. Maybe improve the Burst Cannon a bit to help it compete with the Ion weapons and Gun Drones. -1 AP would be nice. I'm buying a Barracuda so I haven't even turned to the pages with the T'au flyers on them haha.
The days of goodly English is went
Ziss old dog still has a few tricks!

User avatar
jens
Shas'Saal
Posts: 35

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

Post#50 » Nov 03 2017 01:50

Folklore wrote:What dose the community think about markerlights getting the sniper special rule (i.e. being able to target characters) and adding a sniper special rule to the ML table? maybe with 5+ MLs in addition to the +1 BS.

I like this, it would make sense that snipers would benefit from this.

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 374
Contact:

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

Post#51 » Nov 03 2017 02:19

jens wrote:
Folklore wrote:What dose the community think about markerlights getting the sniper special rule (i.e. being able to target characters) and adding a sniper special rule to the ML table? maybe with 5+ MLs in addition to the +1 BS.

I like this, it would make sense that snipers would benefit from this.


But be utter broken disgusting cheese everyone would take 30+ pathfinders and 9 railgun with that you would easily get any Commander on turn 1 even without railguns your whole army shouldn't be able to target a character

My 4xCIB Commander is going to shoot at your SM chapter master
8 shots hit on 2+ with RR, 8 hit
Wound on 2+ 7 wounds
4+Sv makes 4
3 D3 damage
DEAD

User avatar
jens
Shas'Saal
Posts: 35

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

Post#52 » Nov 03 2017 02:35

Nymphomanius wrote:
jens wrote:
Folklore wrote:What dose the community think about markerlights getting the sniper special rule (i.e. being able to target characters) and adding a sniper special rule to the ML table? maybe with 5+ MLs in addition to the +1 BS.

I like this, it would make sense that snipers would benefit from this.


But be utter broken disgusting cheese everyone would take 30+ pathfinders and 9 railgun with that you would easily get any Commander on turn 1 even without railguns your whole army shouldn't be able to target a character

My 4xCIB Commander is going to shoot at your SM chapter master
8 shots hit on 2+ with RR, 8 hit
Wound on 2+ 7 wounds
4+Sv makes 4
3 D3 damage
DEAD


Ah.. I read it as if a unit already had sniper rule, that their BS increased more easily, like BS +1 @ ML x2.
What you are describing is OP for sure.

User avatar
Juicy Fruit
Shas
Posts: 30

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

Post#53 » Nov 03 2017 01:00

What about a special rule for pathfinders like:

If 5 or more pathfinders fire their markerlights at the same target, add a markerlight token for every hit roll of 2+. If the unit has moved in the movement phase of the current turn, it cannot benefit from this effect.

Instead of 10-12 pathfinders to get your 5 lights you'd only need 5-6.


Something needs to be added to the table about removing the 'minus to hit' modifiers. Perhaps the 5th is +1BS OR ignore minus hit modifiers
Primum conatus pessimi

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 442

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

Post#54 » Nov 03 2017 01:12

Juicy Fruit wrote:What about a special rule for pathfinders like:

If 5 or more pathfinders fire their markerlights at the same target, add a markerlight token for every hit roll of 2+. If the unit has moved in the movement phase of the current turn, it cannot benefit from this effect.

Instead of 10-12 pathfinders to get your 5 lights you'd only need 5-6.


Something needs to be added to the table about removing the 'minus to hit' modifiers. Perhaps the 5th is +1BS OR ignore minus hit modifiers


As has been stated many times before, the problem isn't just the to hit modifiers AFTER you put lights on something but more the penalty BEFORE getting lights on them since we already need to dump too many points into lights. Having stacking negative to hit modifiers just makes it obscene for our shooting army.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests