Chapter Approved Leaks Discussion

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
User avatar
Maxwell
Shas'Saal
Posts: 84

Re: Chapter Approved Leaks Discussion

Post#37 » Nov 25 2017 08:48

I don’t own a Ta’unar, but (presuming this is true) in what world is this acceptable for the consumer? They’re invalidating a $300+ investment for everyone who purchased one. I would be so ticked if I spent the money and hours on end assembling and painting it for this to happen. It’s the functional equivalent of removing it from the index.

szeszej
Shas
Posts: 46

Re: Chapter Approved Leaks Discussion

Post#38 » Nov 25 2017 08:51

Arka0415 wrote:
Imperial Armor Index: Xenos
TX7 Heavy Bombardment Hammerhead Gunship: -44 points
TX7 Fire Support Hammerhead Gunship: -54 points


So this changes only FW models, normal Hammerheads are still priced the same?

User avatar
Gragagrogog
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 400

Re: Chapter Approved Leaks Discussion

Post#39 » Nov 25 2017 09:08

szeszej wrote:
Arka0415 wrote:
Imperial Armor Index: Xenos
TX7 Heavy Bombardment Hammerhead Gunship: -44 points
TX7 Fire Support Hammerhead Gunship: -54 points


So this changes only FW models, normal Hammerheads are still priced the same?


This changes NOTHING, the change already happened in the latest FW FAQ.

pilky
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 263

Re: Chapter Approved Leaks Discussion

Post#40 » Nov 25 2017 10:34

Maxwell wrote:I don’t own a Ta’unar, but (presuming this is true) in what world is this acceptable for the consumer? They’re invalidating a $300+ investment for everyone who purchased one. I would be so ticked if I spent the money and hours on end assembling and painting it for this to happen. It’s the functional equivalent of removing it from the index.


It doesn’t invalidate anything. You still had the enjoyment of building it and painting it. It's just now it's only really any use in apocalypse games (which is where something of that power really should be)

User avatar
boomwolf
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 1769

Re: Chapter Approved Leaks Discussion

Post#41 » Nov 25 2017 10:42

Ok, the relic and trait 2 are both slightly more impressive than expected.
I'd like to note Ralai (FW) also enjoys the trait very much, though he sets up some marker support so he might get along without it.


In any case, CA is a bit of a disappointment.

It would not have taken them much to add a single <> pick for each codex.
On spet, one necron dynasty, etc.

Even if they are coming out soon.
ESPECIALLY when they are coming out not too far away, and they probably have 1 set known.


As it stands though, without the army-wide detachment buffs, some armies just don't get the help they need to match codcies. a relic, stratagen and a trait are nice, but its the <> that you focus on most of the time, as it comes up the most and has the biggest effect. without THAT, you can't even the playing ground. (or if you can, it means the playing ground will get thrown off wack once the army does get them)

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

Re: Chapter Approved Leaks Discussion

Post#42 » Nov 25 2017 11:15

boomwolf wrote:Ok, the relic and trait 2 are both slightly more impressive than expected.
I'd like to note Ralai (FW) also enjoys the trait very much, though he sets up some marker support so he might get along without it.


In any case, CA is a bit of a disappointment.

It would not have taken them much to add a single <> pick for each codex.
On spet, one necron dynasty, etc.

Even if they are coming out soon.
ESPECIALLY when they are coming out not too far away, and they probably have 1 set known.


As it stands though, without the army-wide detachment buffs, some armies just don't get the help they need to match codcies. a relic, stratagen and a trait are nice, but its the <> that you focus on most of the time, as it comes up the most and has the biggest effect. without THAT, you can't even the playing ground. (or if you can, it means the playing ground will get thrown off wack once the army does get them)


I tend to agree but it is a pretty small disappointment in the grand scheme of things and I'm certainly not going to embarrass myself by getting into a nerd-rage over it. On balance I will probably still buy the book for all the narrative and campaign stuff which looks really interesting and there are a few players around me that I might persuade away from the Dark Side of only-matched-play-exists for the odd game :D

As a preview of what we are likely to get in the codex I am quite encouraged. The warlord traits are a bit mixed but the relic and the stratagem are both looking good.

User avatar
SinisterSamurai
Kor'La
Kor'La
Posts: 417

Re: Chapter Approved Leaks Discussion

Post#43 » Nov 25 2017 12:18

nic wrote:The updated rumour

Just in case anyone is still holding on to that shadow of doubt, even about the wording, here's this screengrab I assembled before the vid was taken down. I worked extra hard to doublecheck the wording of the Markerlight strat, and posted it above, although the screengrab was taken with an obstruction to prevent as much fuzzy resolution as possible.
http://i.4cdn.org/tg/1511628365202.png
(Vid is back up now, but it's audio only, and the timestamps may have changed.)

Also, I still see some people across the internet saying that Exemplar of Mont'ka is just a 5 point support system, and I feel it's important that people recognize the difference in wording between it and Target Lock.

User avatar
leo1925
Shas
Posts: 83

Re: Chapter Approved Leaks Discussion

Post#44 » Nov 25 2017 12:45

SinisterSamurai wrote:
nic wrote:The updated rumour


Also, I still see some people across the internet saying that Exemplar of Mont'ka is just a 5 point support system, and I feel it's important that people recognize the difference in wording between it and Target Lock.


No, examplar of Montka is a little better than target lock because it allows you to advance and fire heavy weapons and advance and fire rapid fire weapons, in addition it (probably) can be combined with the montka ability.

Exemplar of kauyon on the other hand is worth 2 points (as much as multi tracker) because on the commanders and fireblades it only allows re-rolls of 1s, for the ethereals it does absolutely nothing, for Lingstrike it's a little better (it allows for re-rolls of more than 1, when he is damaged) and it's quite good for shapers and firesight marksmen (two units that almost never are warlord).

User avatar
SinisterSamurai
Kor'La
Kor'La
Posts: 417

Re: Chapter Approved Leaks Discussion

Post#45 » Nov 25 2017 12:58

leo1925 wrote:Exemplar of kauyon on the other hand is worth 2 points (as much as multi tracker) because on the commanders and fireblades it only allows re-rolls of 1s, for the ethereals it does absolutely nothing, for Lingstrike it's a little better (it allows for re-rolls of more than 1, when he is damaged) and it's quite good for shapers and firesight marksmen (two units that almost never are warlord).

The note about Kauyon is that it works in combat, as well. Not saying that it makes melee builds viable, nor that it's better than any of the other warlord traits, but if you wanted a stationary melee warlord, this might make them more a little choppier.

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

Re: Chapter Approved Leaks Discussion

Post#46 » Nov 25 2017 01:05

leo1925 wrote:
No, examplar of Montka is a little better than target lock because it allows you to advance and fire heavy weapons and advance and fire rapid fire weapons, in addition it (probably) can be combined with the montka ability.

Exemplar of kauyon on the other hand is worth 2 points (as much as multi tracker) because on the commanders and fireblades it only allows re-rolls of 1s, for the ethereals it does absolutely nothing, for Lingstrike it's a little better (it allows for re-rolls of more than 1, when he is damaged) and it's quite good for shapers and firesight marksmen (two units that almost never are warlord).


This is a fair guide to the relative values of the traits but it undervalues them on the likely warlords because they would either have to rely on others to provide the benefit some other way (e.g. Longstrike) or would have to give up the chance of another support or weapon system to take the upgrade (Commanders).

One of the great benefits of the 6+ FNP warlord trait is that it does not take up a slot on your commander like Stims would. The same can be said of these. I generally make a Coldstar Commander my Warlord for her ability to evade assault armies - Examplar of Mont'ka looks to open up a slightly better build for her than any of the BRB warlord traits.

User avatar
shasocastris
Shas'Vre
Shas'Vre
Posts: 992
Contact:

Re: Chapter Approved Leaks Discussion

Post#47 » Nov 25 2017 04:32

As a reply to both of you, enough. This forum is not the place to gripe about individuals in various gaming circuits. Nor is it the place to have a go at each other. This thread and the forum as a whole is a place to discuss the various aspects of our Tau armies.

If you want to keep having a go at each other, do it on your own time. Further flaming and/or baiting of each other will result in moderator action.

-shasocastris

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

Re: Chapter Approved Leaks Discussion

Post#48 » Nov 25 2017 05:36

nic wrote:One of the great benefits of the 6+ FNP warlord trait is that it does not take up a slot on your commander like Stims would. The same can be said of these. I generally make a Coldstar Commander my Warlord for her ability to evade assault armies - Examplar of Mont'ka looks to open up a slightly better build for her than any of the BRB warlord traits.

Totally. Exemplar of Mont'ka and the 6+ FNP one give benefits that are similar/equal to existing Support Systems. Taking the Trait means there's no need for the System, and you can take a different upgrade without worrying about opportunity cost!

User avatar
Beerson
Shas'Saal
Posts: 107

Re: Chapter Approved Leaks Discussion

Post#49 » Nov 25 2017 05:42

For me this is a huge disappointment, I didn't expect much, but after all the talk about bringing non-codex armies in line, I expected at least points drops on crisis and broadside to give us a little bit of variety in army building then just commanders drones and pathfinders.

The relic is not really worth taking once you get proper relic of any kind (one reroll per game is a joke and getting CP off your opponent on 6 is rarely going to help you in my mind)

Stratagem is one good thing about this, but without points rebalance does very little to make our army at least bit viable

tl:dr didn't expect much, still disappointed sadly

User avatar
Gragagrogog
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 400

Re: Chapter Approved Leaks Discussion

Post#50 » Nov 25 2017 05:45

Alright, it seems the CA is more than anything just a dose of few missions and terrain rules, bringing a bit of new spice to the game, not the gigantic point adjustment/rebalancing of everything we wanted. I'm curious if they release some of the CA content in FAQs, if you'd ignore the missions&terrain rules, for a single army, I don't think the changes would be longer than a single A4 page...

Also, they just made commander manta strikes more powerful when playing with some LoS blocking terrain, if you can put the 2 drones closer to the enemy, yet out of LoS, the enemy can't shoot at them... Prepare to ignore some "Tau cheeze" remarks and facial expressions. :roll:

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

Re: Chapter Approved Leaks Discussion

Post#51 » Nov 25 2017 07:28

Yeah I'm disappointed by the big goose egg on points we got. If GW were to mention hey the next set of codexes will be X,Y,Z which is why we didn't include them then okay but imo they need to say it. Otherwise a cursory glance through the codex could have allowed you to modestly adjust points for very over costed units and just given them a modest points decrease. I'll personally be passing on buying it. Voting with my wallet as it were.
All empires fall you just have to know where to push

PeeJ
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 102

Re: Chapter Approved Leaks Discussion

Post#52 » Nov 25 2017 08:47

pilky wrote:
Maxwell wrote:I don’t own a Ta’unar, but (presuming this is true) in what world is this acceptable for the consumer? They’re invalidating a $300+ investment for everyone who purchased one. I would be so ticked if I spent the money and hours on end assembling and painting it for this to happen. It’s the functional equivalent of removing it from the index.


It doesn’t invalidate anything. You still had the enjoyment of building it and painting it. It's just now it's only really any use in apocalypse games (which is where something of that power really should be)


Except that it really does.

The model wasn't overpowered for its points, now it has doubled in points. So why would you ever take it in an apoc game over say, tiger sharks and storm surges, which are more points efficient by far?

User avatar
Gragagrogog
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 400

Re: Chapter Approved Leaks Discussion

Post#53 » Nov 25 2017 09:08

PeeJ wrote:
pilky wrote:
Maxwell wrote:I don’t own a Ta’unar, but (presuming this is true) in what world is this acceptable for the consumer? They’re invalidating a $300+ investment for everyone who purchased one. I would be so ticked if I spent the money and hours on end assembling and painting it for this to happen. It’s the functional equivalent of removing it from the index.


It doesn’t invalidate anything. You still had the enjoyment of building it and painting it. It's just now it's only really any use in apocalypse games (which is where something of that power really should be)


Except that it really does.

The model wasn't overpowered for its points, now it has doubled in points. So why would you ever take it in an apoc game over say, tiger sharks and storm surges, which are more points efficient by far?


Yea... unless the new apocalypse rules also include something to justify the point increase...

Right now It looks like some1 from GW got high on meth.

User avatar
Emberkahn
Shas'Saal
Posts: 116

Re: Chapter Approved Leaks Discussion

Post#54 » Nov 25 2017 09:16

Maxwell wrote:I don’t own a Ta’unar, but (presuming this is true) in what world is this acceptable for the consumer? They’re invalidating a $300+ investment for everyone who purchased one. I would be so ticked if I spent the money and hours on end assembling and painting it for this to happen. It’s the functional equivalent of removing it from the index.


1) If you are buying a model only to pay to win, don't have a lot of sympathy. Balance changes always happen, and you should expect them, especially when we don't even have a codex.

2) It's not functionally equivalent. It is still fantastic, and easily the toughest titan around thanks to drones. The problem was that before anyone bringing a large titan to a normal game would win by default.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests