Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
User avatar
Beerson
Shas'Saal
Posts: 106

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

Post#73 » Nov 07 2017 01:45

personally, I would see JSJ having "as long as unit moves away from closest enemy unit"

DancinHobo
Shas
Posts: 88

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

Post#74 » Nov 07 2017 06:00

Did AM have orders in their Index?

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 368
Contact:

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

Post#75 » Nov 07 2017 06:08

DancinHobo wrote:Did AM have orders in their Index?


Yes they had some extra regiment specific for the codex but they had the basic orders from day 1

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2188

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

Post#76 » Nov 07 2017 07:01

Okay, here's the current idea as it is!

We're contacting you again from the forum Advanced Tau Tactica, where we've recently been talking about how the Tau Index is balanced. We have noticed that three things that we feel make the current Tau ruleset considerably weaker than those of other armies:

1. Tau Markerlights do little to increase Tau accuracy, and can even be made more inaccurate. Tau need Markerlights to overcome the -1 to-hit penalties that are so common in 8th Edition, but when Markerlights themselves get -1 to hit, Tau accuracy drops considerably. In addition, Tau need 10-15 firing Markerlights just to achieve +1 BS, making that benefit situational at best. Markerlights must either be made more useful to compensate for their inaccuracy (such as the player choosing the benefit), or improved in their accuracy (such as ignoring -1 to-hit penalties or hitting on a fixed value).

2. Seeker Missiles, the Tau source of mortal wounds, have very low game impact. Many armies have access to mortal wound-causing abilities such as Smite. Seeker Missiles have only a 50% chance to hit normally, require at least two Markerlight hits, and are single-use. Since currently they have such a low game impact, Seeker Missiles must have their accuracy improved (such as hitting on a fixed value), or be re-usable, or do considerably more damage (such as 2 or D3 damage).

3. The Hammerhead Gunship, with only one single-shot gun, does very low damage against tanks. A 181-point Hammerhead Gunship deals an per-turn average of 1.89 damage (Railgun ability included) per shooting phase against a target such as a Leman Russ. It would take more than 6 turns of shooting to destroy a Leman Russ. We recommend at least that the Railgun's strength be increased to 16 (to wound vehicles on 2+) and that it be able to fire two shots (like the Leman Russ or Fire Prism). This would increase the Hammerhead's per-turn damage to 4.22; still much less powerful than a Space Marine Predator, but better than it was before.


Thoughts?

User avatar
MNGamer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 99

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

Post#77 » Nov 07 2017 09:03

I would change “Tau” to T’au. Just because that’s what GW uses.
Even when broken, a sword may still cut~Aun'ko'vash

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2188

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

Post#78 » Nov 07 2017 11:05

MNGamer wrote:I would change “Tau” to T’au. Just because that’s what GW uses.

Noticing the little things! :P

User avatar
MNGamer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 99

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

Post#79 » Nov 08 2017 12:15

Arka0415 wrote:Okay, here's the current idea as it is!

We're contacting you again from the forum Advanced Tau Tactica, where we've recently been talking about how the T’au Index is balanced. We noticed three things that we feel make the current T’au ruleset considerably weaker than those of other armies:

1. T’au Markerlights do little to increase accuracy and can be negatively affected by the -1 to hit penalty common in many armies. T’au need Markerlights to overcome the -1 to-hit penalties, but when Markerlights themselves get -1 to hit T’au accuracy drops considerably. In addition, a T,au army need 10-15 models firing Markerlights just to achieve +1 BS, making that benefit situational at best. Markerlights must either be made more useful to compensate for their inaccuracy (such as the player choosing the benefit), or improved in their accuracy (such as ignoring -1 to-hit penalties or hitting on a fixed value).

2. Seeker Missiles, the only reliable T’au source of mortal wounds have very low game impact. Many armies have access to reusable mortal wound-causing abilities such as Smite. Seeker Missiles have only a 50% chance to hit normally with at least two Markerlight hits and are single-use. Since they have such a low game impact Seeker Missiles must have their accuracy improved (such as hitting on a fixed value), be re-usable, or do considerably more damage (such as 2 or D3 damage).

3. The Hammerhead Gunship, with only one single-shot gun, does very low damage against tanks. A 181-point Hammerhead Gunship deals an per-turn average of 1.89 damage (Railgun ability included) per shooting phase against a target such as a Leman Russ. It would take more than 6 turns of shooting to destroy a Leman Russ. We recommend that the Railgun's strength be increased to 16 (to wound vehicles on 2+) and that it be able to fire two shots (like the Leman Russ or Fire Prism). This would increase the Hammerhead's per-turn damage to 4.22; still much less powerful than a Space Marine Predator, but better than it was before.


Thoughts?

Edited slightly.
Even when broken, a sword may still cut~Aun'ko'vash

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

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

Post#80 » Nov 08 2017 02:27

Some small things:
1. extending the first option to "(such as the player choosing the benefit or a more favorable markerlight table)"

2. maybe mentioning that the points for value for Seeker isn't bad per se but that all the units that can take them are really expensive and rarely worth taking compared to other units, or simply not fit for heavy one-use only weapons since they want/have to keep moving with low base BS (Devilfish, Piranha, Sunshark, Razorshark).

3. I don't think comparing it to the Predator is all that helpful since we can expect point increases for those things with the Chapter Approved. Maybe just mentioning in general how easy and cheap it is for other factions to spam Lascannons instead.
However mentioning how the Hammerhead Railguns are supposed to kill enemy armor with ease according to fluff could move GW to re-evaluate the effectivity of the current Railgun.


Also I dislike using "must" all the time. Better would be "should" imo.
Last edited by Panzer on Nov 08 2017 03:11, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2188

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

Post#81 » Nov 08 2017 03:08

I like your ideas Panzer. Sure, the word "must" is a little harsh! :D I'll add your changes.

We're contacting you again from the forum Advanced Tau Tactica. We have noticed three things that we feel make the current T’au ruleset considerably weaker than those of other armies:

1. T’au Markerlights do little to increase accuracy and can be negatively affected by the -1 to hit penalty common in many armies. T’au need Markerlights to overcome the -1 to-hit penalties, but when Markerlights themselves get -1 to hit T’au accuracy drops considerably. T'au armies need 10-15 models (or more) firing Markerlights just to achieve +1 BS, making that benefit situational at best. Markerlights should either be made more useful to compensate for their inaccuracy (such as the player choosing the benefit, or a more favorable Markerlight table), or improved in their accuracy (such as ignoring -1 to-hit penalties or hitting on a fixed, higher value).

2. Seeker Missiles, the only reliable T’au source of mortal wounds have very low game impact. Many armies have access to reusable mortal wound-causing abilities such as Smite. Seeker Missiles have only a 50% chance to hit normally with at least two Markerlight hits and are single-use. While Seeker Missiles cost few points, they can only be mounted on expensive vehicles, meaning Tau armies can only take a few. Since they have such a low game impact Seeker Missiles should have their accuracy improved (such as hitting on a fixed value), be re-usable, or do considerably more damage (such as 2 or D3 damage).

3. The Hammerhead Gunship, with only one single-shot weapon, does very low damage against tanks. A 181-point Hammerhead Gunship deals an per-turn average of 1.89 damage (Railgun ability included) per shooting phase against a target such as a Leman Russ. It would take more than 6 turns of shooting to destroy a Leman Russ. We recommend that the Railgun's strength be increased to 16 (to wound vehicles on 2+) and that it be able to fire two shots (like the Leman Russ or Fire Prism). This would increase the Hammerhead's per-turn average damage to 4.22; this would be effective but still certainly not "one of the best tank killers in the game."


Still, this seems like a lot of text though.

AleksandrGRC
Shas'Saal
Posts: 75

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

Post#82 » Nov 08 2017 05:52

Allowing the hammerhead to fire twice is all well and nice
How does that ballance internally with Railsides and gunforts though?

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

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

Post#83 » Nov 08 2017 06:13

AleksandrGRC wrote:Allowing the hammerhead to fire twice is all well and nice
How does that ballance internally with Railsides and gunforts though?

Good point. With same cost ratio it would definitely outclass the HRR Broadside (I mean, it already does anyway).

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 368
Contact:

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

Post#84 » Nov 08 2017 07:08

Panzer wrote:
AleksandrGRC wrote:Allowing the hammerhead to fire twice is all well and nice
How does that ballance internally with Railsides and gunforts though?

Good point. With same cost ratio it would definitely outclass the HRR Broadside (I mean, it already does anyway).


Hopefully the cost of the HRR will see a slight decrease and the cost of the suit a huge one, statistically speaking the difference between the broadsides and Armoured sentinels is broadsides have +1 attack(useless) +1 Sv (useful) -1 Ws (also useless tbh) amd the Fly keyword (only barely useful if your broadsides are in combat you're in trouble) -3" Mv (again makes a small difference for a heavy weapons platform)

Otherwise both have 1 main gun, both can be taken in squads of 1-3 both can take a missile (Seeker or Hk)
Though the broadsides are forced to take a second weapon (if I could field them without SMS I would)

But not counting weapons broadsides are exactly double the cost!

So I definitely think that the broadsides will get a points reduction to compensate. Let's be fair the Russ got a 10pt drop and grinding advance

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

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

Post#85 » Nov 08 2017 07:19

Nymphomanius wrote:
Panzer wrote:
AleksandrGRC wrote:Allowing the hammerhead to fire twice is all well and nice
How does that ballance internally with Railsides and gunforts though?

Good point. With same cost ratio it would definitely outclass the HRR Broadside (I mean, it already does anyway).


Hopefully the cost of the HRR will see a slight decrease and the cost of the suit a huge one, statistically speaking the difference between the broadsides and Armoured sentinels is broadsides have +1 attack(useless) +1 Sv (useful) -1 Ws (also useless tbh) amd the Fly keyword (only barely useful if your broadsides are in combat you're in trouble) -3" Mv (again makes a small difference for a heavy weapons platform)

Otherwise both have 1 main gun, both can be taken in squads of 1-3 both can take a missile (Seeker or Hk)
Though the broadsides are forced to take a second weapon (if I could field them without SMS I would)

But not counting weapons broadsides are exactly double the cost!

So I definitely think that the broadsides will get a points reduction to compensate. Let's be fair the Russ got a 10pt drop and grinding advance

Broadsides don't have the FLY keyword and how useful a wound is always depends on the save that model has (so in case of the Broadside it would be very good).
But yeah overall you're right. Double the cost is definitely overcosted as we already know since the Index got released. I'm honestly afraid to hope for fair treatment for our Battlesuits since I'm kinda sure I'll get disappointed...the reduction in costs all across the codex would have to be huge!

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 368
Contact:

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

Post#86 » Nov 08 2017 08:11

Panzer wrote:
Nymphomanius wrote:
Panzer wrote:Good point. With same cost ratio it would definitely outclass the HRR Broadside (I mean, it already does anyway).


Hopefully the cost of the HRR will see a slight decrease and the cost of the suit a huge one, statistically speaking the difference between the broadsides and Armoured sentinels is broadsides have +1 attack(useless) +1 Sv (useful) -1 Ws (also useless tbh) amd the Fly keyword (only barely useful if your broadsides are in combat you're in trouble) -3" Mv (again makes a small difference for a heavy weapons platform)

Otherwise both have 1 main gun, both can be taken in squads of 1-3 both can take a missile (Seeker or Hk)
Though the broadsides are forced to take a second weapon (if I could field them without SMS I would)

But not counting weapons broadsides are exactly double the cost!

So I definitely think that the broadsides will get a points reduction to compensate. Let's be fair the Russ got a 10pt drop and grinding advance

Broadsides don't have the FLY keyword and how useful a wound is always depends on the save that model has (so in case of the Broadside it would be very good).
But yeah overall you're right. Double the cost is definitely overcosted as we already know since the Index got released. I'm honestly afraid to hope for fair treatment for our Battlesuits since I'm kinda sure I'll get disappointed...the reduction in costs all across the codex would have to be huge!


Oh yeah I'm not expecting half price broadsides that would be insane :D

But honestly a 25% reduction for the suit a 20% reduction for HRR and the SMS should be 50% cheaper

Which would put Broadside w HRR and 2xSMS at 132pts a big drop? But a much needed one I think that sort of cost would bring them back to usable, certainly more useful than atm

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2188

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

Post#87 » Nov 08 2017 08:26

Nymphomanius wrote:Which would put Broadside w HRR and 2xSMS at 132pts a big drop? But a much needed one I think that sort of cost would bring them back to usable, certainly more useful than atm

A 132-point Broadside would be wonderful. Base cost a bit higher than an XV8, weapon systems a bit more expensive. I think 115-135 would be a good range. Basically, a little more than half the cost of a properly-equipped Hammerhead. But at any rate, if we could see ~20 points shaved off all of our suits that would make many units much more viable.

However, I am worried that historically mid-tier units like Piranhas, Kroot, and Ethereals will still be left by the wayside. That's a discussion for another thread though.

Definitely looking forward to seeing the points changes next month.

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 368
Contact:

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

Post#88 » Nov 08 2017 09:19

If when the chapter approved comes out and HRR + SMS broadsides are 132pts I want a medal :D

PeeJ
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 99

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

Post#89 » Nov 08 2017 09:26

What were the % reductions for the big units in the Eldar codex? That may be a good guideline to use.

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

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

Post#90 » Nov 08 2017 09:53

1. T’au Markerlights do little to increase accuracy and can be negatively affected by the -1 to hit penalty common in many armies. T’au need Markerlights to overcome the -1 to-hit penalties, but when Markerlights themselves get -1 to hit T’au accuracy drops considerably. T'au armies need 10-15 models (or more) firing Markerlights just to achieve +1 BS against a single enemy unit, making that benefit situational at best. Markerlights should either be made more useful to compensate for their inaccuracy (such as the player choosing the benefit, or a more favorable Markerlight table), or improved in their accuracy (such as ignoring -1 to-hit penalties or hitting on a fixed, higher value).


I like your comments Arka. I just added that the heavy markerlight investment only affects a single unit. Sometimes I get the feeling that people that are unfamiliar with the army think oh hey you got your 5 markerlight hits now you are shooting at 3+ across your army. While the rules writers won't be unfamiliar with Tau they probably have multiple projects and Tau are just one of many so I think it is worth pointing it out.
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 3 guests