Tau Previews

Calyptra wrote:

That's sort of the opposite of the people and groups who say only negative things, while being equally helpful/informative.

That is some quality (and fair) shade throwing.

That said, there does seem to be a degree of cheerleading from those given advance access, which wasn't entirely reflected in performance with the Index, and has led to some cynicism. Right now, my initial lowish expectations are improved with the vote of confidence from the Splintermind guys.

It seems likely that it will be possible to create a strong list with an Aeldari soup army. Hopefully, it will also be practical with a core of Drukhari in that soup list.

Calyptra wrote:

That's sort of the opposite of the people and groups who say only negative things, while being equally helpful/informative.

Hmm, well for my own part I was extremely positive about our army's performance at the beginning of 8th. Even before the Index released I'd already come up with a bird list, a version of which ended up being one of the most powerful armies at last year's ATC. I wasn't even receiving any special treatment by GW, nor am I now attempting to goad people into spending money on their products. I may be a negative nancy but you always get what it says on the tin.

I mostly recall you being enthusiastic about the idea that your bird army would possibly become a crapstorm proving to the world that GW doesn't know how to balance a game.

Mppqlmd wrote:

I mostly recall you being enthusiastic about the idea that your bird army would possibly become a crapstorm proving to the world that GW doesn't know how to balance a game.

And ironically wound up being a good demonstration of GW being considerably more eager to rebalance things in this edition. The Razorwing Flock nerf happened, what, a month after 8th launched?

Burnage wrote:

Mppqlmd wrote:

I mostly recall you being enthusiastic about the idea that your bird army would possibly become a crapstorm proving to the world that GW doesn't know how to balance a game.

And ironically wound up being a good demonstration of GW being considerably more eager to rebalance things in this edition. The Razorwing Flock nerf happened, what, a month after 8th launched?

Yes, yes, but Pete Foley told me personally that decision was made specifically because people were using "these little toys" for the models and he had to "drop the hammer on them."

So +1 for attempting balance, -4 for vindictive business practices.

edit: And while it was functional there was no argument that it was indeed a crapstorm of monumental proportions. Nick Nanavati was upset he was going to have to buy 120 birds.

Kantalla wrote:

Calyptra wrote:

That's sort of the opposite of the people and groups who say only negative things, while being equally helpful/informative.

That is some quality (and fair) shade throwing.

hmm, I didn't take that as 'shade throwing' if they meant to be throwing shade. Otherwise, fair observation, with the caveat that the only people pumping the sunshine are consistently those who have early access.

Do people disagree with the concept that if "everything is great!" then nothing is? Unless everything is held fair and balanced - which would be the first time ever in the history of GW - then every new rule, model, army, etc...put out is going to upset a balance. Some armies just have a tendency to generally be good always and some, not so good.

Anyone remember the last time the GW fanbase collectively thought, "Gee those Space Marines suck this edition!"? I don't either.

For better or worse GW has discovered that if you distill the actual gameplay down to a very solid set of core rules and just give virtually everyone access to the same bonuses, then the game becomes balanced. It goes from StarCraft with drastically different and unique factions to Age of Empires II where everyone is a variation on a theme. The downside is this tends to produce extremely same-y factions. How many factions now have access to deep striking infantry via command points? How many HQs hand out reroll auras?

As Nick pointed out after the LVO, the real winning strategy is, after mastery of mechanical aspects of the game, turn multiplication. That is, being able to use abilities out of phase, ignore rules, and take extra turns. Ynnari in spite of all their nerfs still do this the best and thus are the best faction in the game right now hands down. Dark Eldar work into that faction, at least 75% of them do, and thus when the codex drops any useful units will be absorbed into Ynnari lists. I have no doubt we will see Dark Eldar on the table after some points adjustments, but they're not going to be Dark Eldar unless we can begin to ignore rules, use extra phases, or take extra turns on our own.

I hope GW realise this as well and decide on a way to balance them.

The only real way is to release a Ynnari codex with their own points values so they can be taxed on their special rules. Or now that they need those HQ's, to tax the hell out of them.

Ynnari also seem to get more out of a single unit, E.G Dark reapers, being able to get them to shoot twice is only so strong because reapers are already op. With proper balancing of the units, the gains from taking a single unit spamming and giving them extra turns should be reduced (if not fully gone)

What I'm really expecting as a big strength of our codex will be Splinter synergy. If it doesn't have that, i might switch back to playing more Orkz until the 9th edition

I want Splinter racks giving twinlinked (doubling the shots, not rerolls). I want a Doom ability on the Archon. I want a poison aura for the Lhaemean.
I want my gunboats to fire 48 poisoned shots with rerolls. I want to know that, once i get into rapid fire range, the target will be overkilled.

Quote :

Ynnari also seem to get more out of a single unit, E.G Dark reapers, being able to get them to shoot twice is only so strong because reapers are already op. With proper balancing of the units, the gains from taking a single unit spamming and giving them extra turns should be reduced (if not fully gone)

Even if the units are balanced, being able to act twice makes the faction doubly effective. There is no real replacement for taking twice the number of turns as your opponent.

TeenageAngst wrote:

For better or worse GW has discovered that if you distill the actual gameplay down to a very solid set of core rules and just give virtually everyone access to the same bonuses, then the game becomes balanced. It goes from StarCraft with drastically different and unique factions to Age of Empires II where everyone is a variation on a theme. The downside is this tends to produce extremely same-y factions. How many factions now have access to deep striking infantry via command points? How many HQs hand out reroll auras?

I don't think there is anything wrong with some overlap. I've always imagined 40K being based on a statistical matrix similar to a hexagon stat matrix. If you're maxed out in one category, you should be lacking completely in another, but there is a balance struck. That's what Blizzard does with StarCraft and WarCraft.

GW seems to be willing to hold an army liable for their limitations, but not willing to provide an added bonus elsewhere to compensate. Which begs the question: how are these factions still alive? Tau and Dark Eldar fall into this category.

Your best bet is to play with an army that isn't limited by its lore, best I can tell.

SushiBoy013 wrote:

TeenageAngst wrote:

For better or worse GW has discovered that if you distill the actual gameplay down to a very solid set of core rules and just give virtually everyone access to the same bonuses, then the game becomes balanced. It goes from StarCraft with drastically different and unique factions to Age of Empires II where everyone is a variation on a theme. The downside is this tends to produce extremely same-y factions. How many factions now have access to deep striking infantry via command points? How many HQs hand out reroll auras?

I don't think there is anything wrong with some overlap. I've always imagined 40K being based on a statistical matrix similar to a hexagon stat matrix. If you're maxed out in one category, you should be lacking completely in another, but there is a balance struck. That's what Blizzard does with StarCraft and WarCraft.

GW seems to be willing to hold an army liable for their limitations, but not willing to provide an added bonus elsewhere to compensate. Which begs the question: how are these factions still alive? Tau and Dark Eldar fall into this category.

Your best bet is to play with an army that isn't limited by its lore, best I can tell.

Your point is well made and you're not wrong.

Personally, I love the Dark Eldar lore, limitations and all, and I would find less enjoyment in the game and hobby without it.

I don't use Craftworld allies on account of the ancient
and noble tradition of Commorites shooting Craftworlders on sight, and I don't want psykers. Psykers are for the weak.

Calyptra wrote:

Psykers are for the weak.

...so... where are our psykers?

TeenageAngst wrote:

Even if the units are balanced, being able to act twice makes the faction doubly effective. There is no real replacement for taking twice the number of turns as your opponent.

That's still a little overly simplistic. Acting twice for a phase for a unit or two is not the same as the whole army acting twice for a turn.

A couple of units could end up being similarly powerful to say extra resilience for the whole army that over the course of a game could give you the same amount of extra actions. Right now that isn't really the case, but if the faction attributes and so on are got right to the same level as Ynnari then things can be balanced with an 'extra turn' mechanic.

Kantalla wrote:

TeenageAngst wrote:

Even if the units are balanced, being able to act twice makes the faction doubly effective. There is no real replacement for taking twice the number of turns as your opponent.

That's still a little overly simplistic. Acting twice for a phase for a unit or two is not the same as the whole army acting twice for a turn.

A couple of units could end up being similarly powerful to say extra resilience for the whole army that over the course of a game could give you the same amount of extra actions. Right now that isn't really the case, but if the faction attributes and so on are got right to the same level as Ynnari then things can be balanced with an 'extra turn' mechanic.

Idk I didn't win the LVO or rank #1 in the ITC so I can't really question Nick's insight.

I also like adhering to our lore...the issue is simply that GW does a piss-poor job of compensating your army in other phases based on having 0 interaction with a whole phase. So you're better off having a narrative that works in everything.

My issue is also that I won't touch CWE with a ten foot pole...also because of our lore.

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Il-Kaithe

...these symbols share the same jagged edges and bladed lines as the icons borne by the Dark Eldar, for in their quest for vengeance this Craftworld has formed close ties with their Commorrite kin.

...opposing the Great Enemy at every turn, no matter the cost -- Il-Kaithe will readily ally with their dark kin from Commorragh and even with Mankind...

Scrz wrote:

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Il-Kaithe

...these symbols share the same jagged edges and bladed lines as the icons borne by the Dark Eldar, for in their quest for vengeance this Craftworld has formed close ties with their Commorrite kin.

...opposing the Great Enemy at every turn, no matter the cost -- Il-Kaithe will readily ally with their dark kin from Commorragh and even with Mankind...

Alright welp here is the trump card then: GW packaged Dark Eldar as a stand-alone army. I should be able to play them as a stand alone army and still be competitive.

Agree with Sushi boy. I hate the idea of soup. I won't soup my ad mech, and I won't soup my dark eldar. I started collecting the armies I wanted to collect. I don't want to have to add in armies I don't want to make my army function properly.
That said, I also don't mind not being top table cut throat. Those styles of lists don't appeal to me either. I'd rather be up against it with a fun balanced DE list than a spam or soup list. But everyone plays the game differently. Whichever way you look at it, no faction should have to rely on allies to balance them.

How you choose to play with your toys is your own business.
I thought you might want to use a factually accurate justification for your choice.
Just trying to help.

Sorry buddy not having a dig at you and my post wasn't directed at you as such. Nothing wrong with soup if that's how you want to go, and that's a perfectly good fluff justification that you've provided. I just hope that dark eldar don't NEED to soup to round out the army.

Heh, no worries. I was really replying to Sushibwai.
https://youtu.be/F848KPj5Rww

Being allowed to soup is fine. Being forced to soup to stand a chance in a competitive mindset isn't

Mppqlmd wrote:

Being allowed to soup is fine. Being forced to soup to stand a chance in a competitive mindset isn't

I don't see how they can coexist without soup being the dominant option. Unless one of the ingredients for the soup is clearly far superior than the others then soup will always come out on top, unless a penalty for running combined lists is implemented.

Well, yeah. Soup should be authorized, but having a mono-faction army should give you advantages.

For example, instead of giving you 3 CP when you are battle-forged, you could say :

- If you have models coming from different factions, you must be battleforged
- If you are battleforged and all your models are from the same faction, you gain 3 CP.