Upcoming T'au Codex

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
User avatar
leo1925
Shas
Posts: 111

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1549 » Jan 23 2018 09:34

Interesting that you mention the assault bolters, when i compare an inceptor squad to a XV8 squad i almost weep.
An inceptor squad armed with assault bolters costs 135 points while an XV8 squad with 2 burst cannons and ATS each (so that we get comparable weapons) costs 210 points, while the inceptor squad hits more often (the XV8 squad needs one markerlight to hit with the same accuracy, which means more points), has greater movement and has the infantry keyword (i am not even mentioning the better WS and one worse S since both units will most likely fall back and shoot) AND the XV8 unit has going for them is one more wound per model (3 on the whole min unit).
So having 1 extra wound on the model (3 on the whole min squad) is worth losing 1BS, 2" of movement and the infantry keyword AND paying 75 points more for the min unit, sure the XV8 is a more versatile unit than the inceptor because he can take a wider range of weapons that are either overpriced or suck or both (looking at you AFB) or take support systems (there are a few good ones but their inclusion takes away from the firepower). The only good extra thing that the XV8 unit has over the inceptor unit is the ability to deepstrike alongside with gundrones (our answer to everything, that and "more commanders") and the savior protocols, which is an ability we pay points for (the cost of the drone) and only in the gun drone (again one of our two answers to everything) we are underpaying for it.

So while i agree with you that the burst can be compared to the assault bolter, the models that are actually carrying the burst cannons are worse than those carrying the assault bolter while costing more.

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 532
Contact:

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1550 » Jan 23 2018 09:37

People saying that 33pts base for a crisis is too low remember they used to be 22pts each and my best comparison is kataphron breachers at 30pts same BS S T W and save better in melee but not bothered comes with a 6+ inv and can advance and fire heavy weapons and can get a main and support weapon.

Compared to that 3 pts more for less durability but slightly faster and FLY is fair game.

Also you can't judge us vs SM weapons as they're BS3+ AM are much better candidate. Even tyranids if you're looking at durable mobile firepower the dakkafexes are ridiculous at 115pts with T7 8 wounds and put out 24 Str 6 assault shots at 18" with BS3+ and are -1 to hit from shooting!

So to me 45 pts is more than fair for trips BC crisis, plasma should be 14pts but Str7 D2 all the time imho,
Fusion and missile should both be 15pts
Because of our ease of delivery flamers and CIB are fine.

Commanders should be like 110 base but I would much rather see a permanent AoE buff and at the start of each game you have to declare mont'ka or Kau'yon and all your commanders give a buff depending on the choice. Also limit them to 3 weapons but give them 1 equipment slot and 1 command slot for some cool and unique hardwired Commander equipment.

And on justifying the 4pts burst cannons remember storm bolter is just 2 pts and performance is very similar in the <12" range being identical vs T3,6,+7
And the devourers with brainleech worms is 7pts for 18" 6 str6 Ap-0 shots. Burst cannon should be in the middle somewhere
Last edited by Nymphomanius on Jan 23 2018 11:10, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 576

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1551 » Jan 23 2018 10:33

JancoBCN wrote:One shot less for AP-1 seems like a fair deal to me, so an accurate comparison to a Burst Cannon IMO.


One shot more is statistically worse than ap-1 so no, it's not the same and not worth it. BC should be around 7 or 8 points to bring it in line with what other armies are paying on BS4+ platforms. What I suspect is that each individual weapon of ours will get cheaper but the cost of ATS will go up. Like double.

Folklore
Shas
Posts: 25

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1552 » Jan 23 2018 11:41

Is anyone else worried that they are going to keep everything essentially the same and try to fix all of the blatantly poor design with stratagems? I have this pit in my stomach that we will get access to everything we want (JSJ, BS3+, better markerlight solutions) but it will all be stratagems. List building will turn into this horrid meta game where you are trying to squeeze every last CP out of your points limit.

User avatar
JancoBCN
Shas'Saal
Posts: 109

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1553 » Jan 23 2018 11:44

leo1925 wrote:Interesting that you mention the assault bolters, when i compare an inceptor squad to a XV8 squad i almost weep.

I know, that was not the point of my argument, given that I agree on that, and you forgot to mention that they have the keyword "infantry", which is a huge bonus IMO. Those guys though, are way weaker than ours, I play vs them all the time and it is a miracle if they survive the turn they arrive. Our drones and the possibility of dropping 2+ squads together to benefit from all the drones, offer a lot of resiliency. I think we have some points to drop, but not 1/2 of our current one.

leo1925 wrote:Interesting that you mention the assault bolters, when i compare an inceptor squad to a XV8 squad i almost weep.
The only good extra thing that the XV8 unit has over the inceptor unit is the ability to deepstrike alongside with gundrones (our answer to everything, that and "more commanders") and the savior protocols, which is an ability we pay points for (the cost of the drone) and only in the gun drone (again one of our two answers to everything) we are underpaying for it.

So while i agree with you that the burst can be compared to the assault bolter, the models that are actually carrying the burst cannons are worse than those carrying the assault bolter while costing more.


Yeah, but we actually are paying for all those things you've said. Although again, we do pay too much for them.

Nymphomanius wrote:People saying that 33pts base for a crisis is too low remember they used to be 22pts


8th edition has nothing to do with prior ones, comparison of current pricing with old ones is not fair at all. Wounding has changed, damage, Fly, split fire, shot all guns, and so on. I cannot buy that argument.

Nymphomanius wrote:my best comparison is kataphron breachers at 30pts same BS S T W and save better in melee but not bothered comes with a 6+ inv and can advance and fire heavy weapons and can get a main and support weapon.


I cannot continue buying your arguments when you put things in a "questionable" way only to prove your point:
1- Kataphron breachers have no similarity whatsoever with our suits. They are an expensive, resilitent troop that has 2 weapon otions, both anti-vehicle btw, and mid to long range. No fly, no Deepstrike, no drones, nothing.
2- 6++ irrelevant
3- It CANNOT advance and fire its heavy weapons. It can move and shoot them w/o penalty, and it only can advance D3".
4- It cannot get any support weapon, only its main one and a melee one.

Nymphomanius wrote:Compared to that 3 pts more for less durability but slightly faster and FLY is fair game.


1- Less durability? You are just playing with words. 6++ won't even matter the 99% of the times, and when it does, it is still a 6+!
2- "slightly faster"? I think you are forgetting Deepstriking. This is huge!
3- Fly itself on a shooting platform is worth A LOT. Ask some AM guys what would they pay for FLY keyword on their tanks. Only for that is already 10-15 points.
4- You are forgetting all the other things Crisis have for themselves, but as I have already mentioned them, I'm not gona repeat myself.

Nymphomanius wrote:Compared to that 3 pts more for less durability but slightly faster and FLY is fair game.

Also you can't judge us vs SM weapons as they're BS3+ AM are much better candidate. Even tyranids if you're looking at durable mobile firepower the dakkafexes are ridiculous at 115pts with T7 8 wounds and put out 24 Str 6 assault shots at 18" with BS3+ and are -1 to hit from shooting!


So, less than half the price for a comparable weapon for being BS4+ instead of BS4+ is fair, right? I don't think so.

Nymphomanius wrote:So to me 45 pts is more than fair for trips BC crisis, plasma should be 14pts but Str7 D2 all the time imho,
Fusion and missile should both be 15pts
Because of our ease of delivery flamers and CIB are fine.


So, 45 points, which is what a Terminator costs, or a Hellblaster, or a Inceptor. I cannot understand this vision, I 'm sorry.

Plasma needs a complete change, I agree. I don't know about the pricing though.
Fusion Blasters have 18"... I look like a sniper when I deploy some QFC sometimes, and my imperial/aeldari friends look at me with envy... AM and SM Meltaguns cost 17p for BS3+ models... with only 12", only one per model, usually 1 for squad (SM) or a really weak bearer (AM). It has to cost more than that. At least 19p.

Missile pods I think they are that expensive to avoid really big shield drone bubble with Missile Pod Spam. If you only look at the output they are prohibitive expensive, but when you get that Crisis suits are meant to drop close to the enemy, to at least have the melee "weakness", you understand that you have to pay a lot for your long range weapon. Also, they won't be that badly costed, when the top T'au lists uses them all around.

Nymphomanius wrote:Commanders should be like 110 base but I would much rather see a permanent AoE buff and at the start of each game you have to declare mont'ka or Kau'yon and all your commanders give a buff depending on the choice. Also limit them to 3 weapons but give them 1 equipment slot and 1 command slot for some cool and unique hardwired Commander equipment.


I agree on a points increment on commanders, but most of all those auras to make their use more tactical and less spammy. I would like to see them only with 2 weapon slots and 2 support system ones, and I definitely buy your idea of a "command slot", I like that!

Nymphomanius wrote:And on justifying the 4pts burst cannons remember storm bolter is just 2 pts and performance is very similar in the <12" range being identical vs T3,6,+7
And the devourers with brainleech worms is 7pts for 18" 6 str6 Ap-4 shots. Burst cannon should be in the middle somewhere


Again, Devourer with brainleech worms are AP0, not AP-4. Aso, they are held by a Big, "slow" monster, that would love to have Deep strike, or longer range to engage its targets Turn 1. Not comparable IMO.

Regarding Storm bolters, they are confusing, as at 12" are indeed close to a Burst Cannon. But hey, you cannot advance and shoot rapid fire weapons, you cannot drop your Termis at 18" from the enemy and still shoot at them full power, you cannot put 3 storm bolters on them, and... those units fulfill way different roles.

Yojimbob wrote:
JancoBCN wrote:One shot less for AP-1 seems like a fair deal to me, so an accurate comparison to a Burst Cannon IMO.


One shot more is statistically worse than ap-1


That, my friend, has no sense for me. You just cannot tell me "One shot more is statistically worse than ap-1" and not give me an explanation of your assumtion. You know that the AP modifiers change their efficiency depending on your target's Sv Characteristic? And also it is way different depending on the number of shots you were shooting. In our case, 4 shots vs 3, against Sv4+ both are the same, vs MEQ is actually better to have 3 shots AP-1 than 4 shots AP0, and vs TEQ is even better. only when you are shooting at GEQ or worse you have that "statistically worse" with 3 shots AP-1.

Yojimbob wrote:it's not the same


I know.

Yojimbob wrote:BC should be around 7 or 8 points to bring it in line with what other armies are paying on BS4+ platforms. What I suspect is that each individual weapon of ours will get cheaper but the cost of ATS will go up. Like double.


That I like. I think 8 points per BC would be the lowest I imagine having them at.


____________________________________________________________________________


Sorry for the long post and the deep discussion in a single topic. I won't keep talking about that topic. As final notes:

I don't like T'au as they are now, but I have played around 40-50 games in 8th, and I have won like 19 of the last 20 games I've played. We are competitive and we can win (actually, there is a post here in ATT called "Tau Win Percentage Log" that shows that we are actually wining more than the 60% of our games!).
What I miss is the long range viability and our diversity (can you imagine a list without Gun Drones, Y'vahras and Commanders? I can't). But what i DON'T want is people too upset here once the codex is released, complaining about things that we already had at a fair spot, or fixed things that are not enoughly fixed for them.

I think we have a great Army, with a lot of possibilities, and if we get some points adjustments (some greater than others), we get back our identity (long range, JSJ or at least its flavour, tough and deadly Hammerheads, deecent markerlight table, among others) some good stratgems (with 4-5 good ones is enough), WLT and Relics, I will be very happy with what we will be able to offer!! :biggrin:

User avatar
JancoBCN
Shas'Saal
Posts: 109

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1554 » Jan 23 2018 11:48

Folklore wrote:Is anyone else worried that they are going to keep everything essentially the same and try to fix all of the blatantly poor design with stratagems? I have this pit in my stomach that we will get access to everything we want (JSJ, BS3+, better markerlight solutions) but it will all be stratagems. List building will turn into this horrid meta game where you are trying to squeeze every last CP out of your points limit.


Oh boy, I hope not.
To be fair, my approach here is to aim for a minimum (points ajustments, commander redesign, weapon changes) from GW, because if I aim for the worst, although I will be happy with the outcome once it is released, I will be really upset meanwhile...

They will forget something, and do something differently than we would, but my impression is that we are gonna be alright after codex! :P

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 576

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1555 » Jan 23 2018 12:05

JancoBCN wrote:[

Yojimbob wrote:
JancoBCN wrote:One shot less for AP-1 seems like a fair deal to me, so an accurate comparison to a Burst Cannon IMO.


One shot more is statistically worse than ap-1


That, my friend, has no sense for me. You just cannot tell me "One shot more is statistically worse than ap-1" and not give me an explanation of your assumtion. You know that the AP modifiers change their efficiency depending on your target's Sv Characteristic? And also it is way different depending on the number of shots you were shooting. In our case, 4 shots vs 3, against Sv4+ both are the same, vs MEQ is actually better to have 3 shots AP-1 than 4 shots AP0, and vs TEQ is even better. only when you are shooting at GEQ or worse you have that "statistically worse" with 3 shots AP-1.


My statement implies the topic we were discussing, 4 shots ap0 vs 3 shots ap-1 and clearly you didn't need an explanation since you did the math same as me to get the same conclusion. Against everything but GEQ I'd gladly take the extra ap everyone else seems to be sporting over an extra shot all day every day because the difference against GEQ is negligible. Forcing a harder throw for your opponent will almost always be the better choice in most aspects of this game. Unless we are truly drowning our opponents in lead. =P

User avatar
Temennigru
Shas'Saal
Posts: 444

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1556 » Jan 23 2018 12:17

JancoBCN wrote:
Yojimbob wrote:
One shot more is statistically worse than ap-1


That, my friend, has no sense for me. You just cannot tell me "One shot more is statistically worse than ap-1" and not give me an explanation of your assumtion. You know that the AP modifiers change their efficiency depending on your target's Sv Characteristic? And also it is way different depending on the number of shots you were shooting. In our case, 4 shots vs 3, against Sv4+ both are the same, vs MEQ is actually better to have 3 shots AP-1 than 4 shots AP0, and vs TEQ is even better. only when you are shooting at GEQ or worse you have that "statistically worse" with 3 shots AP-1.

You are forgetting that:
1- Space marines have BS 3+
2- 90% of games you will play against space marines

pilky
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 342

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1557 » Jan 23 2018 12:33

From https://www.warhammer-community.com/201 ... uary-2018/

Still want to know more? At the Las Vegas Open this weekend, we’re holding a Warhammer Community and Studio Preview – which means there might be an exciting reveal or two.
(emphasis mine).

Sounds like this weekend is when we'll find what the next 2-3 codexes are going to be (which tracks with previous GW behaviour). So we'll hopefully know pretty soon if Tau are next.

User avatar
Torch
Shas'Saal
Posts: 83

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1558 » Jan 23 2018 12:48

Temennigru wrote:
JancoBCN wrote:
Yojimbob wrote:
One shot more is statistically worse than ap-1


That, my friend, has no sense for me. You just cannot tell me "One shot more is statistically worse than ap-1" and not give me an explanation of your assumtion. You know that the AP modifiers change their efficiency depending on your target's Sv Characteristic? And also it is way different depending on the number of shots you were shooting. In our case, 4 shots vs 3, against Sv4+ both are the same, vs MEQ is actually better to have 3 shots AP-1 than 4 shots AP0, and vs TEQ is even better. only when you are shooting at GEQ or worse you have that "statistically worse" with 3 shots AP-1.

You are forgetting that:
1- Space marines have BS 3+
2- 90% of games you will play against space marines


To add on to that: An assault heavy bolter with 3 shots on a marine hits 2 times. A crisis suit with burst cannon hits 2 times. But the marine gets AP -1, so yes it's worse. Also, Guard have 2 different points cost for plasma and melta depending on the BS. BS 4+ plasma is 7 points, while BS 3+ is 13. Melta goes from 12 to 17. So a 5-6 point burst cannon is still reasonable. (Please note that our S6 plasma is more expensive than their S7 plasma)

Regardless of outside comparisons, burst cannons are still terrible suit weapons because gun drones do the same thing but cheaper. A tri-BC suit gets the same amount of hits as 5 gun drones. They'd have to be free weapons if we want to compare to gun drones (42 point suit versus 40 points of gun drones for similar output). Burst cannons need something to make them different from other pulse weapons: like AP -1 (stackable with ATS) or 6-8 shots per, or just a radical redesign where they are S4 but get 10 shots each.

Shas'o Shortsight
Shas
Posts: 32

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1559 » Jan 23 2018 01:36

1. Of course you are able to compare burst canon to assault heavy bolter. But that's just showing us burst canons are equal to another bad weapon.

2. Having the option to take different weapons isn't a reason to make them more expensive. If you buy a burst canon, there is no advantage that you could have bought a fusionsblaster instead. Also most units are able to choose from several different weapons.

3. There is a lot of talk about burst canons and crisis. But there are more units with BC. That's a big problem with our tanks.

4. If crisis shall not stay at a distance, that's okay. But making missile pods bad to stop it from being taken, that's just poor design. Especially since other units have them too.

5. Crisis are very durable thanks to drones. But that's true for most units in our army. Also, drones aren't free (even if gun drones are to cheap). Making crisis more expensive because you may spend even more points on them isn't good design.
Actually, I would argue drones are the only reason crisis are near to okayish.

User avatar
Temennigru
Shas'Saal
Posts: 444

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1560 » Jan 23 2018 01:36

Torch wrote:
Temennigru wrote:
JancoBCN wrote:

That, my friend, has no sense for me. You just cannot tell me "One shot more is statistically worse than ap-1" and not give me an explanation of your assumtion. You know that the AP modifiers change their efficiency depending on your target's Sv Characteristic? And also it is way different depending on the number of shots you were shooting. In our case, 4 shots vs 3, against Sv4+ both are the same, vs MEQ is actually better to have 3 shots AP-1 than 4 shots AP0, and vs TEQ is even better. only when you are shooting at GEQ or worse you have that "statistically worse" with 3 shots AP-1.

You are forgetting that:
1- Space marines have BS 3+
2- 90% of games you will play against space marines


To add on to that: An assault heavy bolter with 3 shots on a marine hits 2 times. A crisis suit with burst cannon hits 2 times. But the marine gets AP -1, so yes it's worse. Also, Guard have 2 different points cost for plasma and melta depending on the BS. BS 4+ plasma is 7 points, while BS 3+ is 13. Melta goes from 12 to 17. So a 5-6 point burst cannon is still reasonable. (Please note that our S6 plasma is more expensive than their S7 plasma)

Regardless of outside comparisons, burst cannons are still terrible suit weapons because gun drones do the same thing but cheaper. A tri-BC suit gets the same amount of hits as 5 gun drones. They'd have to be free weapons if we want to compare to gun drones (42 point suit versus 40 points of gun drones for similar output). Burst cannons need something to make them different from other pulse weapons: like AP -1 (stackable with ATS) or 6-8 shots per, or just a radical redesign where they are S4 but get 10 shots each.

I'd actually like to see something other than shoot and kill with burst cannons. Something tactical like "if you don't move double the number of shots".

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 576

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1561 » Jan 23 2018 01:40

Temennigru wrote:
JancoBCN wrote:
Yojimbob wrote:
One shot more is statistically worse than ap-1


That, my friend, has no sense for me. You just cannot tell me "One shot more is statistically worse than ap-1" and not give me an explanation of your assumtion. You know that the AP modifiers change their efficiency depending on your target's Sv Characteristic? And also it is way different depending on the number of shots you were shooting. In our case, 4 shots vs 3, against Sv4+ both are the same, vs MEQ is actually better to have 3 shots AP-1 than 4 shots AP0, and vs TEQ is even better. only when you are shooting at GEQ or worse you have that "statistically worse" with 3 shots AP-1.

You are forgetting that:
1- Space marines have BS 3+
2- 90% of games you will play against space marines


BS is irrelevant to the calculation since it will be the same in all equations. The window of percentages gets smaller or larger but nothing will change places because of it.

User avatar
Torch
Shas'Saal
Posts: 83

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1562 » Jan 23 2018 01:44

I don't think I understand what you mean. A better BS will result in more hits and thereby make a weapon more effective. Which is why Guard have different costs for plasma and melta based on BS.

User avatar
Temennigru
Shas'Saal
Posts: 444

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1563 » Jan 23 2018 01:59

Yojimbob wrote:BS is irrelevant to the calculation since it will be the same in all equations. The window of percentages gets smaller or larger but nothing will change places because of it.

BS is the reason tau are supposed to have better weapons.
If we don't have better weapons, we need better BS.
A weapon's effectiveness is also measured by who can use it.
An ion accelerator is good till you put it in a riptide.
Last edited by Temennigru on Jan 23 2018 02:00, edited 1 time in total.

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 532
Contact:

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1564 » Jan 23 2018 01:59

Torch wrote:I don't think I understand what you mean. A better BS will result in more hits and thereby make a weapon more effective. Which is why Guard have different costs for plasma and melta based on BS.


He means that comparing a heavy bolter to a burst cannon or any other 2 weapons gives the same overall results at BS3+ as BS4+

Example HB vs MEQ
BS3+ 0.65 wounds
BS4+ 0.495 wounds

BC vs MEQ
BS3+ 0.57 wounds
BS4+ 0.43 wounds

Whichever way you look at it the heavy bolter is the better weapon the BS donates the effectiveness of the model not the weapons

Also from this you can conclude a BS3+ model with HB is 50% more efficient than a BS4+ with BC and a BS4+ with HB is 20% more efficient so the relative cost of a burst cannon should be 6pts for a BS4+ model.

User avatar
Temennigru
Shas'Saal
Posts: 444

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1565 » Jan 23 2018 02:08

Nymphomanius wrote:
Torch wrote:I don't think I understand what you mean. A better BS will result in more hits and thereby make a weapon more effective. Which is why Guard have different costs for plasma and melta based on BS.


He means that comparing a heavy bolter to a burst cannon or any other 2 weapons gives the same overall results at BS3+ as BS4+

Example HB vs MEQ
BS3+ 0.65 wounds
BS4+ 0.495 wounds

BC vs MEQ
BS3+ 0.57 wounds
BS4+ 0.43 wounds

Whichever way you look at it the heavy bolter is the better weapon the BS donates the effectiveness of the model not the weapons

Also from this you can conclude a BS3+ model with HB is 50% more efficient than a BS4+ with BC and a BS4+ with HB is 20% more efficient so the relative cost of a burst cannon should be 6pts for a BS4+ model.

But a heavy bolter is used by a model with a 3+ BS. It is never used by a model with 4+ BS.
99% os models that use burst cannons are BS4+. The main reason why commanders are so popular is they make weapons more points efficient.

User avatar
Torch
Shas'Saal
Posts: 83

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#1566 » Jan 23 2018 02:12

Ok, so even at BS 4+ a heavy bolter is still better? If so that explains why no one likes BC. Though, if we further compare the whole model then the difference is even greater. And it's not like heavy bolters are that good. They're mediocre. And Guard heavy bolters (at BS 4+) are only 8 pts.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: fraction64 and 7 guests