Tau Empire Codex 2013 | Army Builder Program
Dark Angels Codex 2013
Chaos Daemons Codex 2013
Chaos Space Marines Codex 2012

Warhammer 40k Forum Tau Online

 

Warhammer 40K Forum

Still no response on CIBs?
Closed Thread
Old 26 May 2006, 05:46   #71 (permalink)
Shas'Ui
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 646
Default Re: Still no response on CIBs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farseer Tanis

In regards to other army weapons lets see.

1) Force Weapon- 40 pts-Only works in CC as long as psyker does not use a psyker power earlier in the turn. Psyker must wound the model. Only works on multi-wound models. Requires a psychic test to work. Uses wielders strength so can't hurt a Wraithlord or anything T8

2) Agonizer-20 pts- Only works in CC

3) Divine Guidance-only makes 6's AP1 does not affect strength of weapon

4) Arco-flagellant-35 pts- A CC creature, no ranged attack that gives it AP 1 and can only affect up to T7 creatures

5) Eversor-95 pts- A CC attack, no ranged ability to auto wound a model it could not normally hurt

6) Mind War-60 pts (Farseer)- Requires a psychic test, compares leadership values of target to determine wounds. But is not a multi-effect power, 1 shot only for 15 pts

7) Warscythe-20 pts (i think)- A CC weapon. No ranged ability

8) Demonic Talons-Demon upgrade- Still limited by the str of the of the model. Str 3 cannot wound T7 or 8. Also only works in CC

So as you see there are many wargear items that wound on 4+ or make things AP1 or deny armor or invulnerable saves however other then the mind war they are all CC attacks. There is a big difference between a piece of kit that only works in HtH and something that can shoot at you for 3 or more turns before you reach it that can wound anything regardless of toughness and is also AP 1
Wow. So close combat automatically makes things balanced? I guess the Tau will just have to suck. Since shooting has to be toned down since you can do it from outside of combat, and the Tau are just plain horrible at combat, we just won't be able to do anything. Those poor 'Fexes just need to be allowed to reach our battle lines easily.

There is a rending gun. This gun is, in every way, shape, and form, more reliable and effective than the CIB. This gun can be taken on multiple units. This gun can down vehicles with ease, something our CIB simply cannot do (even if it auto wounds on 6s, it still doesn't hurt AV 10). This gun can almost bring down a pimped 'Fex by itself, and does so more reliably, from farther away, than the CIB.

Your argument seems to be that if you pay over 100 points for something, other people should have to spend a lot of points to obtain the possibility to bring it down. I, once again, bring out the Fusion Blaster! My 12 point gun can down a 250 point Land Raider, in one turn, far more reliably than a CIB will down the weakest 'Fex in two turns. Expensive models may be tough, but that does not give them a right to be nigh-impervious.

Quote:
I am curious, has anyone even emailed/phoned GW about this? That would have solved the issue pretty quickly. I think I will drop them a quick call and email.
As far as I understand, yes. As far as I understand, we have gotten answers that support both sides. GW is really bad at being consistant or reliable. Or intelligent, in some cases. Which is sad, 'cause they have great ideas, but poor execution.
__________________
[center]Till shade is gone,
Till water is gone,
Into the Shadow with teeth bared,
Screaming defiance with the last breath,
To spit in Sightblinder's eye on the Last Day.

"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain"

Learn to shorten your reach! If your foe can come close enough to negate your striking power, all stratagem is lost, and when all stratagem is lost, the battle is lost.

Tell me now, is there a man among you here, is there no one who will stand up and try to fight? Tell me man, is there not one in all your ranks, is there no one who values courage over life?
Deus is offline  
Old 26 May 2006, 08:10   #72 (permalink)
Shas'Vre
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,401
Default Re: Still no response on CIBs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farseer Tanis

In regards to other army weapons lets see.

1) Force Weapon- 40 pts-Only works in CC as long as psyker does not use a psyker power earlier in the turn. Psyker must wound the model. Only works on multi-wound models. Requires a psychic test to work. Uses wielders strength so can't hurt a Wraithlord or anything T8

2) Agonizer-20 pts- Only works in CC

3) Divine Guidance-only makes 6's AP1 does not affect strength of weapon

4) Arco-flagellant-35 pts- A CC creature, no ranged attack that gives it AP 1 and can only affect up to T7 creatures

5) Eversor-95 pts- A CC attack, no ranged ability to auto wound a model it could not normally hurt

6) Mind War-60 pts (Farseer)- Requires a psychic test, compares leadership values of target to determine wounds. But is not a multi-effect power, 1 shot only for 15 pts

7) Warscythe-20 pts (i think)- A CC weapon. No ranged ability

8) Demonic Talons-Demon upgrade- Still limited by the str of the of the model. Str 3 cannot wound T7 or 8. Also only works in CC

So as you see there are many wargear items that wound on 4+ or make things AP1 or deny armor or invulnerable saves however other then the mind war they are all CC attacks. There is a big difference between a piece of kit that only works in HtH and something that can shoot at you for 3 or more turns before you reach it that can wound anything regardless of toughness and is also AP 1
Wow. So close combat automatically makes things balanced? I guess the Tau will just have to suck. Since shooting has to be toned down since you can do it from outside of combat, and the Tau are just plain horrible at combat, we just won't be able to do anything. Those poor 'Fexes just need to be allowed to reach our battle lines easily.

There is a rending gun. This gun is, in every way, shape, and form, more reliable and effective than the CIB. This gun can be taken on multiple units. This gun can down vehicles with ease, something our CIB simply cannot do (even if it auto wounds on 6s, it still doesn't hurt AV 10). This gun can almost bring down a pimped 'Fex by itself, and does so more reliably, from farther away, than the CIB.

Your argument seems to be that if you pay over 100 points for something, other people should have to spend a lot of points to obtain the possibility to bring it down. I, once again, bring out the Fusion Blaster! My 12 point gun can down a 250 point Land Raider, in one turn, far more reliably than a CIB will down the weakest 'Fex in two turns. Expensive models may be tough, but that does not give them a right to be nigh-impervious.

Quote:
I am curious, has anyone even emailed/phoned GW about this? That would have solved the issue pretty quickly. I think I will drop them a quick call and email.
As far as I understand, yes. As far as I understand, we have gotten answers that support both sides. GW is really bad at being consistant or reliable. Or intelligent, in some cases. Which is sad, 'cause they have great ideas, but poor execution.
Dude, there is one debate, 2 sides. It isn't personal but obviously the sides are apart in beliefs

One side are the people that think those 3 little words in the wargear entry "regardless of toughness" means that the Str 3 weapon can hurt anything regardless of toughness and rules lawyer it. Which you seem to be a member of whose argument is basically 1) Its a 1 only weapon 2) A squad of fire warriors can kill a Fex to 3) look at other armies who have "similar-although they don't" weapons 4) and the 3 little words imply you can although it counters the basic rules of wounding in the 40k universe

And the other side of the coin are people who think that this was a typo and until there is an official ruling then the Basic/Fundamental rules of 40k should be use which are that Str 3 weapons can't hurt T7+ creatures. To back up our thoughts we have pointed out the written fluff of the weapon, the fundamental rules of 40k do not support the other sides theory that a Str 3 weapon can hurt a T 7+ model and the cost of said item which could inflict 5 wounds with no armor saves on a lucky roll would cost 15 pts.

As I pointed out the Imperial Guard codex rules for Surveyor mention nothing about requiring Line of Sight to shoot or follows normal shooting rules. All the other codex's have this specifically stated. As a guard player is it reasonable for me to say that because my codex may contain an ommission or typo that it specifically doesn't say that I follow "normal shooting rules" when using my Auspex that I should be allowed to shoot every squad led by an auspex at something I couldn't shoot once the game started.

That was the debate, and the only reason I brought up the Fex thing was to point out that and ask people to show me another weapon in the 40k universe that a) is a ranged weapon b) Multiple-shots c) Can wound any model on a roll of a 6 regardless of Toughness d) Is AP 1 e) has no drawbacks to shooting (gets hot etc) f) Can do 5 wounds a turn and finally f) Costs 15 pts or less. I can't think of one, and no one who supports the CIB side has named one yet either.

Anyways, it has been beaten around the bush but I wanted it clear that I wasn't trashing the CIB. I just didn't agree that those "3 little words" mean you can wound anything regardless of T and da da da da heres why....
Go Guard Or Go Home is offline  
Old 26 May 2006, 12:58   #73 (permalink)
Shas'Ui
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 646
Default Re: Still no response on CIBs?

Quote:
One side are the people that think those 3 little words in the wargear entry "regardless of toughness" means that the Str 3 weapon can hurt anything regardless of toughness and rules lawyer it. Which you seem to be a member of whose argument is basically 1) Its a 1 only weapon 2) A squad of fire warriors can kill a Fex to 3) look at other armies who have "similar-although they don't" weapons 4) and the 3 little words imply you can although it counters the basic rules of wounding in the 40k universe
Number one, if you had actually bothered to properly read my earlier posts, you would know that I do not support the interpretation that it automatically wounds on 6s. I am now less inclined to take you seriously, because you do not properly read your opponents' points.

Also, the whole point of a Codex is that it gives rules which defy the Universal Rules of Warhammer 40k. If they didn't, we'd all be playing the same army, and that's no fun.

Quote:
And the other side of the coin are people who think that this was a typo and until there is an official ruling then the Basic/Fundamental rules of 40k should be use which are that Str 3 weapons can't hurt T7+ creatures. To back up our thoughts we have pointed out the written fluff of the weapon, the fundamental rules of 40k do not support the other sides theory that a Str 3 weapon can hurt a T 7+ model and the cost of said item which could inflict 5 wounds with no armor saves on a lucky roll would cost 15 pts.
Striking Scorpion Exarch taking a Biting Blade for Eldar could kill a pimped 'Fex, and it only costs 5 points... If 'Fexs came in squads, it could kill a whole squad of them. It defies the fundamental rules of 40k (Wounds that you don't have to hit to roll for? In close combat? For 5 points?). There are precedents of powerful weapons coming cheaply.

Quote:
As I pointed out the Imperial Guard codex rules for Surveyor mention nothing about requiring Line of Sight to shoot or follows normal shooting rules. All the other codex's have this specifically stated. As a guard player is it reasonable for me to say that because my codex may contain an om mission or typo that it specifically doesn't say that I follow "normal shooting rules" when using my Auspex that I should be allowed to shoot every squad led by an auspex at something I couldn't shoot once the game started.
Which doesn't actually change anything regarding this argument. It proves nothing either way, only that GW needs someone to babysit them, badly.

Quote:
That was the debate, and the only reason I brought up the Fex thing was to point out that and ask people to show me another weapon in the 40k universe that a) is a ranged weapon b) Multiple-shots c) Can wound any model on a roll of a 6 regardless of Toughness d) Is AP 1 e) has no drawbacks to shooting (gets hot etc) f) Can do 5 wounds a turn and finally f) Costs 15 pts or less. I can't think of one, and no one who supports the CIB side has named one yet either.
That would make it special. Are we not allowed to have special weapons, because they'd be good? This seems to be your argument: it'd good, you can't have it that way, 'cause no one else has anything like it. Being unique is not an excuse to dismiss it. There are plenty of unique weapons in the game. They are generally powerful because they are unique.
__________________
[center]Till shade is gone,
Till water is gone,
Into the Shadow with teeth bared,
Screaming defiance with the last breath,
To spit in Sightblinder's eye on the Last Day.

"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain"

Learn to shorten your reach! If your foe can come close enough to negate your striking power, all stratagem is lost, and when all stratagem is lost, the battle is lost.

Tell me now, is there a man among you here, is there no one who will stand up and try to fight? Tell me man, is there not one in all your ranks, is there no one who values courage over life?
Deus is offline  
Old 26 May 2006, 16:59   #74 (permalink)
Shas'Vre
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New York city
Posts: 1,646
Send a message via AIM to DireStrike Send a message via MSN to DireStrike
Default Re: Still no response on CIBs?

Quote:
As for the straw man routine, the rules lawyering is an accurate reflection of what is going on. Because of set of words people are arguing that they can ignore the universal rules of 40k and do something that contradicts the universal rules on ambiguity wording. Once again I point out that the IG codex for Surveyors does not say anything about normal shooting rules being a requirement to shoot at enemy infiltrators, therefore one could say that because the Dex doesn't say normal shooting rules apply then the universal rules for shooting don't apply to Imperial Guard players. Truly this isn't what GW meant, it is an oversight and being taken advantage of by people looking to gain any advantage.
Quote:
Dude, there is one debate, 2 sides. It isn't personal but obviously the sides are apart in beliefs

One side are the people that think those 3 little words in the wargear entry "regardless of toughness" means that the Str 3 weapon can hurt anything regardless of toughness and rules lawyer it. Which you seem to be a member of whose argument is basically 1) Its a 1 only weapon 2) A squad of fire warriors can kill a Fex to 3) look at other armies who have "similar-although they don't" weapons 4) and the 3 little words imply you can although it counters the basic rules of wounding in the 40k universe

And the other side of the coin are people who think that this was a typo and until there is an official ruling then the Basic/Fundamental rules of 40k should be use which are that Str 3 weapons can't hurt T7+ creatures. To back up our thoughts we have pointed out the written fluff of the weapon, the fundamental rules of 40k do not support the other sides theory that a Str 3 weapon can hurt a T 7+ model and the cost of said item which could inflict 5 wounds with no armor saves on a lucky roll would cost 15 pts.

As I pointed out the Imperial Guard codex rules for Surveyor mention nothing about requiring Line of Sight to shoot or follows normal shooting rules. All the other codex's have this specifically stated. As a guard player is it reasonable for me to say that because my codex may contain an ommission or typo that it specifically doesn't say that I follow "normal shooting rules" when using my Auspex that I should be allowed to shoot every squad led by an auspex at something I couldn't shoot once the game started.
Wow. I dunno how many times we've restated this so you can understand, but you still don't get it. Last try: THE RULE AS WRITTEN IMPLIES NOTHING AND NOBODY IS SAYING THAT IT DOES. All we are saying is that *it is possible* GW intended to write something else and left this fragment of a rule instead. Could be poor editing, could be poor rules writing, could be a practical joke. NOBODY is saying that the CIB is this way, should be this way, or should be played this way. We are discussing possibility. If you call that rules lawyering... you're really rules lawyering the definition of "rules lawyering".

Anyway the CIB is already a "decent" gun. It is not utter crap, but it really isn't special, as most other armies' special gear is. I don't think I'd take it because it's statistically about equal with alternatives, considering slight range advantages and such, and also because it'd be tough to put in a magnet strong enough to hold the gun in place. Further, it does something that the rest of the army covers perhaps better than any other army in the game anyway - light infantry killing. It provides no real advantage over other configurations in power or versatility.

Why would you allow a S3 weapon to hurt any infantry? Perhaps they just wanted a rending gun that did nothing to vehicles. The assault cannon already exists and is far better. All those examples I listed are far more likely to kill a high toughness or multi wound creature than rolling 5 hits then 5 6s on a CIB, even considering that you have to get them into combat. If a force weapon did what it does once out of 3000 games, nobody would take it, the same for the rest on that list.

You also frequently point out that the CIB is 15 points, yet its cheapest possible mount is a total of 57 points. At that level half of the shots will likely miss anyway, further lowering the probability that it will do your magic fex killing trick. You're coming down way too hard on this hypothetical weapon and I don't understand why.
DireStrike is offline  
Old 26 May 2006, 18:18   #75 (permalink)
Shas'La
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tau Run'al
Posts: 328
Send a message via MSN to Devin
Default Re: Still no response on CIBs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DireStrike
You also frequently point out that the CIB is 15 points, yet its cheapest possible mount is a total of 57 points. At that level half of the shots will likely miss anyway, further lowering the probability that it will do your magic fex killing trick. You're coming down way too hard on this hypothetical weapon and I don't understand why.
That's what I don't get, there are some many ridiculous weapons and we MIGHT (just MIGHT) have a decent one and people are railing against it for what looks like no good reason.

Nice argument everyone, it really enforeced the legality of the CIB wounding anythign ona 6 for me. It makes it a decent weapon and totally fits in with the 40K universe/rules set IMO.
__________________
Devin is offline  
Old 26 May 2006, 18:25   #76 (permalink)
Shas'La
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 297
Default Re: Still no response on CIBs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farseer Tanis


*This isn't a flame (hence not quoting anyone)..but I hear it no matter where I go. In store, out of store etc*

Gosh I wish Tau players would stop comparing themselves to other armies like marines. The marines have their assault cannon but the Tau have many other things the Marines don't have. Our standard gun is str 5 AP 5 has a 30" range...gee seems better then the standard bolter. All our tanks are skimmers means a lot harder to kill then those marine tanks. Our anti-tank is 1.5x the range of the lascannon..gee another tick mark in our chart. We have ways to improve our BS to 5, marines don't, we have weapons that don't require LOS, marines only have the whirlwind. Our plasma doesn't overheat, marines do. We have stealth fields that inhibit shooting, marines don't.

We are without a doubt better then marines and I personally don't want to see the CIB be a Tau version of the Marine assault cannon. There is a reason it is str 3, to sit there and think we should be entitled to wound any Toughness model beause the marines can do it with an assault cannon is lame.
Dude...that was the most idiotic thing I've heard on these forums yet. I had to stop reading just to respond to this. Marines not better than tau? Lets see...

1. Yeah, our gun is better. But how much do we actually use that 30" range? Without tons of long ranged weapons to back it up, we get murdered by enemy long ranged weapons which are much more numerous. I'll also like to point out 10 bolter shots kill, for example, 4.44 orks to a pulse guns 3.33. We have a better gun, but crappier BS, and no troop mounted heavy weapons to make static troop fire pack enough punch to compete. Just because something SEEMs better doesnt mean it is. When tau first came out literally everyone said they would be virtually unbeatable with pulse rifles, how many people complain about tau cheese now who have any intelligence in this game?

2. Yeah our tanks are harder to kill. Whats your point? Yes, the hammerhead is a great asset, its better than any rine tank. Since when are rine tanks all that great though? A predator is pretty bad by any standards, landraiders are overcosted. Whirlwinds are highly effective though, they are very cheap for what they do. Lets look at a landspeeder too. Not open topped, able to carry longer ranged harder hitting firepower for less points than the piranha...still think tau are so much superior than rines in armor? We have the hammerhead, so sure put 1 point to the tau, for 1 point for marines.

3. How many times does that 1.5x long range come into effect on the official 4x6 board? Lets also take into consideration that unless you buy broadsides, which can be killed fairly easily if the opponent wants them dead, we can only take railguns on hammerheads. So while a marine army can fit in 6 lascannons with nothing but troop choices, we can take a total of 3-9 railguns (9 is pushing it, would you really want to spend that many points on broadsides?)

4. Their plasma overheads...uh...oh no? The chance of a plasma overheat at long range killing a marine is 1/18, not very high, at short range its 1/9, again fairly low. Now lets take into consideration marines can again take plasma guns on their basic troops, while we have to stick them on expensice low wound battle suits. A marine squad with cleanse and purify can have 2 meltas/plasmas, or meltas. And with the assault cannon and lascannon, plasma isnt nearly as important to them as us.

5. So you dont think our special peice of wargear, which is only available to take 0-1 in an entire army (not even per detatchment, per army), on a 100+ point HQ, with an 18" range and S3, shouldn't be able to do the same thing as an assault cannon? Give me one good reason, because right now all of your reasons have been refuted. Also take into account that even if we could kill wraithlords, we'd STILL be worse off than assault cannons because we cant penetrate vehicle armor.

As for luck, yes it can happen. For those people who have outrageous stories, ok. Well when you can say those things happen on a regular enough basis as to be part of your average or even one in a while game, those do NOT qualify as a valid argument in terms of game balancing. You can kill a bloodthirster with 3 rapid firing bolters. It's happened somewhere sometime (back in 3rd I did it against a thirster with 3 wounds), but does that mean bolters should be nerfed somehow to prevent such horrendous game inbalance? No, because the odds of that happening are so small, it is pure luck, and if this game was balanced with being getting extremely lucky in mind, it would be absolutely horrible.

Do I think the CIB can wound T8? No, I actually don't. But farseer tanaris, you haven't really given any argument with merit in it to prove why it shouldn't.
Daggoth is offline  
Old 26 May 2006, 18:44   #77 (permalink)
Shas'Vre
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,401
Default Re: Still no response on CIBs?

Guys there are ways to debae things without calling people idiots.

Marines aren't the be all and end all. In fact I haven't lost a game to MEQ since I started playing 40k so in my mind Tau are far better then them. The worst outcome I had with them was a draw and that guy had a really beardy but legal force.

Tau Quantity has a quality all of its own. Force your opponent roll more dice then you and the odds are you will win the game. Deny your opponent shots at you and chances are you will win the game. Keep alive near the end to capture objectives and chances are you win the game. If you just march your army down the field into the MEQs of course they hurt you. Marines are designed to take the center and punch through.

At no time did I ever say the CIB should be nerfed. All I said was that until GW has an official ruling the standard 40k rules should apply.

My personal opinion, key word personal. Is that I think 15 pts is a little cheap for the weapon if it has the ability to wound anything and deny armor saves. Just my personal thoughts and to support my views as I said the arguement for it being able to wound is based on 3 words. The IG auspecx has differentl wording then the other dexes. Would you allow your IG opponent to shoot all your infiltrators with their guns even if they didn't have LOS just because their codex lacks the words 'normal shooting rules apply'. I wouldn't and I don't play it that way.

I am not anti-CIB I just don't take those three words literally. Anyways, Dues sorry about the misquote. When I read your first post you start out like you support it and then at the end you stated your personal thoughts. A lot to skim in 5 pages.

I can admit my mistakes and I can be wrong without getting upset and I am the first to apologise when I do make a mistake. But I don't think the CIB was designed to be what some people have interpreted.

One last thing, I have nothing personal against any of you. You all have your own experiences which is great because it gives the forum more depth and ideas. I have learned something from everyone on this forum regarding how to play, things to choose and 40k in general. Just because on some topics we don't see eye to eye doesn't mean we don't see eye to eye on other things. Lets keep it civil and respectful and not generalize people




Go Guard Or Go Home is offline  
Old 26 May 2006, 19:54   #78 (permalink)
Ethereal
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 18,087
Default Re: Still no response on CIBs?

I am locking this for the time being. Threads comparing armies in terms of better or worse tend to lead to little more than hurt feelings. Since both Marines and Tau are out of the codex cycle for a few years, at least, this is the status quo we will be living with between the two of them.


As to the original question, I think we we will need to see if GW rewords it in future printings, or if they address it in the FAQ. For now, I would suggest an absolute literal translation. If you roll a 6, it counts as AP 1, end of story. Whether or not it wounds it a different story altogether.
khanaris is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
In response to the DoW debate. Akaiyou Imperial Guard 5 23 Dec 2008 04:55
Response Dump Gatler Enclave Talk 3 26 Jul 2007 20:01
Official Response calmsword Tau 13 21 Nov 2006 10:40
In response to poll mormonmobsta Forces of Chaos 3 26 Mar 2006 05:48
My response from GW about Marker lights Kesalin Tau 1 19 Mar 2005 10:06