News:

For the most up to date reports about what is going on with the forum, and the latest topics of interest, throw us a like on Facebook, and if you're wanting some light banter with the seasoned and spiced members, join the Second Sphere Members Group.

Main Menu

[Tau Empire] Seeker Missile Fired at Fliers rules clarification

Started by Unusual Suspect, September 10, 2012, 02:25:34 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Charistoph

Quote from: Enderwiggin on September 14, 2012, 10:51:23 PM
I'm not going to argue the finer points, but I do believe that considering 5/7 of the 4th edition codices as "4.5" is a bit short-sighted to the changes GW gradually brought around. Especially given the amount of rules changes that the design team cited as issues from 3rd solved in 4th, which were ignored going back to 5th in some ways.   ::)

Your idea on what constitutes 4.5 codices would essentially leave just Black Templars as the only "true"/originally designed 4th edition codex in the entirety of 4th edition since the Tau 4th is merely a slightly updated 3rd edition codex.  ;)

*shrug*  As I said, it can mean whatever you want.  If you want it to indicate the codices that were developed in the last days of the next Edition's development, you can.  I just like to use it to reference the huge alteration of codex layout and design paradigm because of how notable a change it was.

And wasn't there are 4th Edition Space Marine and Tyranid codex, too (or were you referencing current codices)?
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?

Quote from: Megavolt-They called me crazy.  They called me insane!  THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right."

Enderwiggin

I only use what is considered the standard measurement in any game I play. In this case, I merely use the ".5" terms when discussing those old codices with players anyway, so a standard accepted opinion is just easier to work within. Even if said discussion is horridly out of date now that you guys are into 6th.  :o
Though Tau are a special case in that they never got a true 4th codex vs. a 3.0++/just some extras and clarification.

I did forget about SM's getting theirs first (I really shouldn't have given the understandable trend for GW to push them), but Tyranids I remember as coming after Eldar. Mistakenly, anyways, since a quick google does show them getting a 4th edition pretty early as well, but even with those two it would still put the Eldar and later codices at a humongous count (6 including the Eldar vs. 4) to claim as 4.5er's so I don't think you could convince the larger portion of players with your view.

GW was not in a position conducive to designing that many codices in advance. Three big reasons why.

One, their most successful expansion to date, Apocalypse, was being planned and released. Simplified rules were more likely meant to make those mass lists easier and then when it was useful they took the best of the codices as a prototype example to improve upon, since that was towards the early latter portion of 4th.

Two, they were in a financial crisis at the time of later-mid 4th edition. At the time they were announcing huge amounts of stores closing, essentially stopping SG support, and went through upper management changes. All of this led to lower numbers which Apoc thankfully saved for the stockholders. The stocks shot back up when Apoc pulled GW out of the fire.
And then they raised prices again, removed box sets, and went back to normal. XD

Three, GW has never (openly) indicated that they have the sort of foresight your list would suggest. Sad but true.  :derp:


Everything Explodes, Everything.

Character, is what you are in the dark.

Seventh Sa

Charistoph

Quote from: Enderwiggin on September 16, 2012, 05:38:45 PM
GW was not in a position conducive to designing that many codices in advance. Three big reasons why.

I never said they designed them in advance any more than any other codex in history.  Only that the design scheme (that of eliminating the pick and choose armoury was a part) and paradigm (less is more, minimizing army design choices outside of the army list) occurred after Codex: Tau Empire beginning with Codex: Eldar.  Other codices were being developed during this time, but not all between Tau and Space Marines, but rather 2-3 depending on which point of time you're looking at.

Right now, we're looking at several design schemes in play:

1) Post-3rd:  Expansions of the slap-dash affair that 3rd Edition "Band-Aid" codices left armies with.  This includes Codex: Black Templar and Codex: Tau Empire.

2) 4.5: Restructuring of the codices to make it easier for armies to be built and not bounce all over for pricing, gear options, etc.  This started with Codex: Eldar, and continues to this day with minor modifications with each subsequent one (page numbers for unit descriptions, for example).

We have even more design paradigms in play:

1) Post-3rd.  Pretty much same as above.

2) 4.5: These codices were to calm down "over-powering" builds and bring other armies up to date.  Most were hit with a serious nerf-bat.  This comprises from Codex: Eldar through Codex: Chaos Daemons (though, this last is really hard to tell).

3) 5th: These codices fall under 2 groups: 1) Let the story determine the unit's rules, and 2) Let's make the units with new kits better so people buy more of them.  Often, in the same codex.  This comprises Codex: Space Marines up to Necrons (and probably Chaos Space Marines next, we'll see).

4) Band-Aid: These codices were updated in White Dwarf exclusive articles introduced when no one really wants to (or is allowed to) make the effort to design a full book, but the designer wants to do SOMETHING.  This comprises of Sisters of Battle and part of Chaos Daemons.  The first of this we saw was Blood Angels.

Quote from: Enderwiggin on September 16, 2012, 05:38:45 PM
Three, GW has never (openly) indicated that they have the sort of foresight your list would suggest. Sad but true.  :derp:

What foresight are you talking about?
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?

Quote from: Megavolt-They called me crazy.  They called me insane!  THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right."

Enderwiggin

Quote from: Charistoph on September 16, 2012, 10:50:31 PM
Quote from: Enderwiggin on September 16, 2012, 05:38:45 PM
GW was not in a position conducive to designing that many codices in advance. Three big reasons why.

I never said they designed them in advance any more than any other codex in history.  Only that the design scheme (that of eliminating the pick and choose armoury was a part) and paradigm (less is more, minimizing army design choices outside of the army list) occurred after Codex: Tau Empire beginning with Codex: Eldar.  Other codices were being developed during this time, but not all between Tau and Space Marines, but rather 2-3 depending on which point of time you're looking at.

Quote from: Charistoph on September 16, 2012, 10:50:31 PM
What foresight are you talking about?

What you alluded to with your following comment was what I have been talking about. If you paint that many as being 4.5 indicative then it implies GW was planning it in advance for Fifth vs. just being a 4th edition change that was further refined in 5th.

Quote from: Charistoph on September 14, 2012, 08:31:00 PM
For me, it started with the first codex after Tau Empire that consilidated army list design and got rid of the ad hoc armoury, and when the codecies started being simplified with 'Less Is More'.

Those changes, according to your original comments' broad 4.5 brush stroke hits six codices including Eldar. Comprising 60% of the total codex output for the entirety of 4th (ten codices).

A number of what you consider phases are just normal edition changes though so I'm not following some of those arguments to the same end as you.


I think it is best to examine time frame for this sort of edition talk given GW's past examples. Orks and Daemons are undoubtedly 4.5 codices aka designed for the current game with the next edition in mind. I remember the threads all crying about prices and abilities... Heh.
Anyway, I don't agree that Eldar were designed for 4th but made with 5th in mind and that belief is reflected in multiple other venues of the game's discussion online. Believing otherwise, if I read your post properly, is like arguing the 3rd edition Experimental CC rules, that became the basis for 4th/5th's CC and continued changing up until 6th edition today's incarnation are all just late 3rd edition ideas. However each edition has made CC different from that original version, so therefore I look each permutation merely like that it's edition, even if it shares blood in the future.


Everything Explodes, Everything.

Character, is what you are in the dark.

Seventh Sa

Charistoph

Quote from: Enderwiggin on September 17, 2012, 02:00:44 AM
Quote from: Charistoph on September 16, 2012, 10:50:31 PM
Quote from: Enderwiggin on September 16, 2012, 05:38:45 PM
GW was not in a position conducive to designing that many codices in advance. Three big reasons why.

I never said they designed them in advance any more than any other codex in history.  Only that the design scheme (that of eliminating the pick and choose armoury was a part) and paradigm (less is more, minimizing army design choices outside of the army list) occurred after Codex: Tau Empire beginning with Codex: Eldar.  Other codices were being developed during this time, but not all between Tau and Space Marines, but rather 2-3 depending on which point of time you're looking at.

Quote from: Charistoph on September 16, 2012, 10:50:31 PM
What foresight are you talking about?

What you alluded to with your following comment was what I have been talking about. If you paint that many as being 4.5 indicative then it implies GW was planning it in advance for Fifth vs. just being a 4th edition change that was further refined in 5th.

Quote from: Charistoph on September 14, 2012, 08:31:00 PM
For me, it started with the first codex after Tau Empire that consilidated army list design and got rid of the ad hoc armoury, and when the codecies started being simplified with 'Less Is More'.

Those changes, according to your original comments' broad 4.5 brush stroke hits six codices including Eldar. Comprising 60% of the total codex output for the entirety of 4th (ten codices).

A number of what you consider phases are just normal edition changes though so I'm not following some of those arguments to the same end as you.


I think it is best to examine time frame for this sort of edition talk given GW's past examples. Orks and Daemons are undoubtedly 4.5 codices aka designed for the current game with the next edition in mind. I remember the threads all crying about prices and abilities... Heh.
Anyway, I don't agree that Eldar were designed for 4th but made with 5th in mind and that belief is reflected in multiple other venues of the game's discussion online. Believing otherwise, if I read your post properly, is like arguing the 3rd edition Experimental CC rules, that became the basis for 4th/5th's CC and continued changing up until 6th edition today's incarnation are all just late 3rd edition ideas. However each edition has made CC different from that original version, so therefore I look each permutation merely like that it's edition, even if it shares blood in the future.

So let's get this straight, you're overlaying your interpretation on to my interpretation and that's why I'm wrong?

I'm simply referencing 4.5 as a complete change of codex design that happened to be in the middle of 4th Edition.  Full Stop.

I am not saying, one way or the other, that these were simply test codices for 5th Edition, you are.  I would welcome the thought that Daemons, Orks, and Space Marines were 4.9, since they were designed in the last phases of 5th Edition's development, and showed a marked improvement in design paradigm over Eldar, Dark Angels, and Chaos Marines.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?

Quote from: Megavolt-They called me crazy.  They called me insane!  THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right."

Enderwiggin

No, you are wrong because your timeline is based on incorrect beliefs stemming from the baseline definition and timing.

The common standard for saying 3.5/4.5/5.5 (I'm sure, though I've not been around enough for the last one) is as I said before. A codex made in the edition, but designed with the rules in mind for the next edition.

You are free to believe what you want, but you do not get to label what is common as your own definition simply to work with your own views. You are working backwards from a 5th edition mindset here and looking for commonality brought around in earlier codices,which you claimed to have started with the Eldar codex, not me. The only mistake I have made so far has been forgetting two earlier codices, which I did not blame on your part at all. Past that I have merely responded to your posts.

There is no such thing as a 4.9 edition codex, you won't find that term being commonly understood or recognized. What you are seeing in codex layout etc. are purely design changes that were brought to a further form in a new edition based off of the older rules that preceded. Like my example with CC through 3rd shows as ongoing changes, which may share common roots but does not turn it into some overcomplicated number.

Ask some of the old-timers on here who predate me (like Wargamer or Rez), I doubt you will have found any term for a codex outside a whole number or half fraction.


Everything Explodes, Everything.

Character, is what you are in the dark.

Seventh Sa

Charistoph

Quote from: Enderwiggin on September 18, 2012, 01:57:38 AM
No, you are wrong because your timeline is based on incorrect beliefs stemming from the baseline definition and timing.

The common standard for saying 3.5/4.5/5.5 (I'm sure, though I've not been around enough for the last one) is as I said before. A codex made in the edition, but designed with the rules in mind for the next edition.

You are free to believe what you want, but you do not get to label what is common as your own definition simply to work with your own views. You are working backwards from a 5th edition mindset here and looking for commonality brought around in earlier codices,which you claimed to have started with the Eldar codex, not me. The only mistake I have made so far has been forgetting two earlier codices, which I did not blame on your part at all. Past that I have merely responded to your posts.

There is no such thing as a 4.9 edition codex, you won't find that term being commonly understood or recognized. What you are seeing in codex layout etc. are purely design changes that were brought to a further form in a new edition based off of the older rules that preceded. Like my example with CC through 3rd shows as ongoing changes, which may share common roots but does not turn it into some overcomplicated number.

Ask some of the old-timers on here who predate me (like Wargamer or Rez), I doubt you will have found any term for a codex outside a whole number or half fraction.

Considering this is the first time I heard of this concept, that the X.5 Edition codices were the last of the Edition (which makes little sense, since it's not halfway, but at the end), is why I do not agree with you.  You are the only person who has told me that.  That's out of the thousands of correcters on WhineSeer, here, Bolter & Chainsword, and my LGS.

The only time before now (from someone else) that I have heard a X.5 Edition codex was the second Chaos Marine codex to come out in 3rd Edition.  That was more to do with it being the second codex more than it being near the tail end of the edition.

Which is why I detailed it as a personal thing.  Considering that it's not in any lexicanum, codex, BRB, or site FAQ, there is nothing official and it's entirely up to the person in question to interpret.

If it will make you happy, I will refer them as 4.2 codices from now on.  From a software version identification, that's probably a bit more accurate, at which point, there would be no 4.5 codices due to the fact that there were only 2 types of codices in that edition. 

Alternatively, each codex produces a new version number, making Codex: Eldar 4.6, Dark Angels 4.7, Chaos Marines 4.8, Orks 4.9, and Daemons as 4.10, and Space Marines 4.1 & 5.1.

It all goes by your perspective, and you're trying to force your interpretation of my earlier statements in to your paradigm, accusing me of saying GW has considerable foresight (which is a laugh).  This is why I explain the paradigm, to reduce confusion.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?

Quote from: Megavolt-They called me crazy.  They called me insane!  THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right."

Enderwiggin

I would recommend looking about online a bit more then if you wanted to know more about it. While it's true that it is merely player terminology, it's not a new concept. I'm not sure of the current 2S ToS, but I can go find some other sites using it if you'd like.

Anyway, partial codex number like a software update system would indeed make much more sense, but gamers are a slang-slinging lot for the most part.
The point five was likely adopted for it's ease of use since going into detailed breakdowns is likely going to be imperfect since, as you noted there is some measure of personal opinion to it. That's why the most hybrid (though I loathe to use the word here) codex designs are what prompt the half descriptions. It's also not uncommon that these are usually the later ones, since they fit into neither edition perfectly.

Going back to Eldar for a moment, I think they were priced extremely fairly and designed well for 4th's intentions. Nothing incredibly under/overcosted (both of those opinions obviously), though some of the vehicles had protective upgrades that were quite advantageous in the edition. 5th brought many times more changes than just their layout and I do think Eldar influenced a bit of it in the testing days since the army was (iirc) one of the more popular ones in 4th.


Everything Explodes, Everything.

Character, is what you are in the dark.

Seventh Sa

Stewie Griffin

#38
Extremely useful thread guys :) - was just about to post a new thread asking how seekers were fired.


Can I ask a few questions though?

1) Where are you getting it from that seekers are fired at BS5?

2) Do they always fire at BS5 no matter what? (which would make sense if the target has been designated by a markerlight) at fliers, infantry, ground vehicles etc?

EDIT: It seems reading a few more posts that you guys are saying that they're fired at BS5 only at fiers. What BS then, are they fired at for ground targets? And again, where can I find both of these bits of info?

Thanks again.

3) If the way we determine which side of a vehicle has been hit is to draw a straight line from the firer to the target, but the missile doesn't need LoS - then what happens if there is a building in the way of the missile? Do we assume the missile goes in an ark over the top of the building, comes down, and proceeds in a straight line?

Thanks a bunch!

InsaneTD

1) It's in the codex, under markerlight entry from memory.
2) Yep, always BS5 even against ground targets. The discussion was focusing on Flyers, otherwise you can't snap fire a Seeker missile.
3) Pretty much, just draw a straight line and ignore any terrain for that.

Hope I've helped clear it up for you.

Stewie Griffin

Quote from: Tybalt Defet on October 06, 2012, 04:55:23 PM
1) It's in the codex, under markerlight entry from memory.
2) Yep, always BS5 even against ground targets. The discussion was focusing on Flyers, otherwise you can't snap fire a Seeker missile.
3) Pretty much, just draw a straight line and ignore any terrain for that.

Hope I've helped clear it up for you.

Thanks :) - all sorted!

Grunt90

Ok so I think this is already in concensus, but I just want to see if I undersand this correctly. Here is the conclusion I drew on my own from scouring the internet.

So I've been trying to find the answer to a question about the tau codex, and I want your opinions on this. I say yes, they can and Jared believes they cannot but is unsure. I'll try an lay out all the evidence and see what you guys think.

Can seeker missiles be fired at flyers at BS 5? All signs point to yes(in my opinion) and heres why:

So first off I know that the pathfinder unit has to originally hit the flyer with a markerlight. we're assuming here that out of the 4 or 6 marker lights being fired at it, at least 1 got a lucky 6. So now our target is lit up.

We'll go to the marker light entry in the tau codex next. The marker light entry says "To allow a vehicle to fire a single seeker missile at the marked unit. This shooting is resolved normally in all regards at an assumed ballistic skill of 5." Direct from the book.

Now, according to the hard to hit flyers rule, the unit shooting at the flyer will have to snap shoot if targetting it, therefore making it BS of 1. Onto the Tau FAQ.

Q: If a vehicle is reduced to Ballistic Skill 1 (because it is Shaken, Stunned, for example) do its seeker missiles fire at Ballistic Skill 1 or Ballistic Skill 5? (P29)

A: Ballistic Skill 5.

Direcly from the FAQ. Notice how the Stunned, shaken, is not exclusive, it is only an example, saying for any reason if it is reduced to BS of 1, which would include Snapfire.

So, we have the Ballistic skill of the unit being reduced to 1 due to hard to hit, so the Missile will then be resolved at BS of 5 at the Flyer. That is my reasoning to believe that it is a BS 5 shot at the flyer (albeit having to hit with the marker light first)

The only counter argument to this I can find is in the General WH40k rule book FAQ, which says

Q: Can the BS1 of a snap shot ever be modified by special rules that modify the BS of a model's shooting attack (such as Tau markerlights, Space marine Signums, or Sergeants Telion's Voice of Experience)?(P13)
A: No.

But, my counter argument to this is that the marker light can up a units Ballistic skill by 1 for each marker light expended. For example, my crisis suit team fires at a flyer and would need 6's, but if i used a marker light they'd be Bs2 instead needing 5's now. This cannot happen.

Also another argument I'd put against this is that the FAQ specifically says "Modified". The definition of a modifier in the big rule book for 40k is defined very early on as something that adds +1, -1, or doubles. Those are modifiers. The Tau FAQ does not "modify" the BS, it just sets it for BS 5 for a seeker missile whenever the unit has to snapfire.

Arguleon-veq

I think your own evidence for it being BS5 just shows that you need 6's to hit. I think they FAQ's are pretty clear. Unless you have Skyfire you can only snap shot them. It means my Wolves can't hit them with Njals storm effects, despite autohits. It means Tau can't hit them with their seekers on a 2+. I think its just clutching at straws and no big tournament will be ruling them as hitting on anything other than a 6.

Tau have a nice answer for flyers anyway, just take more broadsides.
X-Wing Tournaments;
1st - 38
11th - 33

Grunt90

From what you're saying it sounds like the order you put it in is that it starts out at BS 5, and then because it snap shots it's BS1, which isn't the case.

It goes from having no profile, no BS to then being fired at a snap shot because it's coming from the vehicle, and then because it's snap shot it's FAQ'd to being BS5.

Charistoph

Quote from: Grunt90 on October 12, 2012, 01:31:45 PM
Q: If a vehicle is reduced to Ballistic Skill 1 (because it is Shaken, Stunned, for example) do its seeker missiles fire at Ballistic Skill 1 or Ballistic Skill 5? (P29)

A: Ballistic Skill 5.

Direcly from the FAQ. Notice how the Stunned, shaken, is not exclusive, it is only an example, saying for any reason if it is reduced to BS of 1, which would include Snapfire.

And I still say that this entry is pointless for this question because the Seekers have  always ignored the status of the Firing Vehicle (except for Wrecked, of course).  It's not the vehicle, usually, that is doing the actual firing of the weapon as it doesn't happen in it's turn of Shooting, so something that changes it's BS of 3 or 3(4) has no bearing on a Seeker hitting a Flyer, leaving any such rulings on it pointless.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?

Quote from: Megavolt-They called me crazy.  They called me insane!  THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right."