Librarium Online Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Topic of the Week: Markerlights

2K views 32 replies 12 participants last post by  Skarsgard 
#1 ·
This week we're discussing Markerlights and their role in the Tau army. From delivery methods (Pathfinders, Skyrays, Fire Warriors, Stealth Squads, Marker Drones - what do you use?) to strategies, everything Markerlight related can go here! Share some experiences, brainstorm some new tactics and discuss the old ones.

How important are Markerlights in 5th edition? Are they better/worse off than in 4th? How many do you use in your army list?

Discuss!



 
#2 ·
In my experiences, Markerlights don't have much of a place in my army lists, though I'm trying to give them more and more of a chance. Commanders, Deathrains, Railheads, Skyrays and Broadsides can all be at least Bs4, and often twin-linked. The only units in my lists that have a mediocre hit rate are: Fire Warriors, Kroot, and Stealth teams. One way that I've begun including Markerlights into my list is by giving my Fire Warrior Shas'ui team leaders a markerlight and hard-wired target lock. This allows them to target separately from their unit and support other squads without forcing the squad to ignore a good target. Also, with a Sky Ray in my list, I can get some extra anti-tank called in should I need it. The Sky Ray itself is quite a handy tank, great at supporting other units and picking away at infantry squads with its secondary weapon system. I've yet to use Pathfinders regularly, as dedicating a squad to markerlight hits seems a bit... useless in my eyes, and I'm not yet at the point where I find I need that many markerlights. The mandatory Devilfish is also a double-edged blade in my eyes, as their Gun Drones will give your enemy a free kill point, and they're no longer as effective as Warfish as they were in 4th edition. Stealth Markerlight teams are great, but far too expensive, and Sniper teams take up a valuable slot in the Heavy Support area of our lists.
 
#3 ·
Personally i love my pathfinders, I put or run them into cover and most of the people i play agianst will just pour fire into them because they are afraid of markerlights. They dont always get thier points back but they always tie up more then thier points worth for a few rounds. The markerlights i field usually make some impact on my games, but ever since i negated the cover saves of a devestator squad in a bunker then killed them all with railguns and plasma/fusion, the biggest use of markerlights for me is fear of markerlights.
 
#4 · (Edited)
The new rule for dedicated transports has definitely turned me back on to Pathfinders. Before, you had to waste points on a nearly useless Fish, but now the unit choice seems like a steal by comparison.

Our jump jets getting Relentless is quite a boon for Stealth markers. I'm becoming a fan of team leaders with TA and MLs. A BS4, JSJing ML is nothing to scoff at.

Also, I think MLs may be even more necessary than before for stripping cover saves, considering the abundance of the 4+ variety...
 
#5 ·
A lot has been made over the new stealth marker team, and while the mobility of the squad, combined with the stealth gens make the unit quite a hard nut to crack, I have to say that I am not that big a fan of it.

I am so used to having a squad of five or six stealths with BC's that go hunting enemy troops that the loss of this excellent offensive unit, in replacement for a support unit really messes up my regular tactics. Also for me it is a bit of a points sink.
A three man stealth squad with Team leader upgrade, markerlight, MT and two Marker drones will cost you around 170 pts and this only provides you with three ML's. My regular six man stealth squad is only ten more points than that.

So for me the best way to get markerlights in the list is still Pathfinders. A squad of 8 with a Shas'Ui with Target lock only costs 111 pts. You get 8 markerlights that can fire at two different units. Or for 150 pts (twenty points less than the stealth marker team) you can get two units of five Pathfinders with Shas'Ui w Target lock, and you have ten ML's that can fire at four different units. This is of course with the understanding that you were going to buy a 'fish for your FW's anyway. Therefore it is not included in the points cost.

I agree with the above statements, with the fifth ed. rules on cover, I feel that Markerlights have become even more important for the Tau to bring to battle, so bring as many as possible. I have been play testing the two squads mentioned above, plus the markers that come with my skyray. Seems to be working out really well.
 
#6 ·
The only thing that limits use of markerlights in my lists is points cost. I use to think they were way overpriced (X pts for a single markerlight in a squad?! 3X pts for marker drone?! Saddling Pathfinders with an expensive Devilfish they rarely used themselves?!)

However, as my experience with the army grew, I came to realize just how effective markerlights were, and continue to be. They are a force multiplier unique in 40K, and we should pack in as many as we can afford. If I field fewer than 8 markerlights or so, I start to get worried. They do so many things! And having a bunch means that you can do more than just increase the BS of your fire warriors. I'm finding the ability to reduce/remove cover saves absolutely crucial to success on 5th edition tables, where 4+ cover is everywhere.

The skyray is my single favorite markerlight platform. Mobile, resilient, BS 4 if you include a targeting array (and you really should ;)), able to mark two disparate targets ... and it comes with a complement of seeker missiles to boot! What's not to love?

I used to dislike pathfinders, because of the devilfish anchor, but now that dedicated transports aren't so dedicated anymore, virtually every list should have a squad of these guys. Maybe even two....

I used stealth marker teams in the past, often in preference to pathfinders, and they only got better thanks to the clarifications on jump packs. However, I now strongly prefer pathfinders to these guys (because of the overall expense), but still use them in large games where I have the points. In a pinch, they can take the benefits of their marker drones for themselves, which is handy in enough gametime situations to be worth consideration.

Speaking of marker drones, I would want to have a pair in every unmounted fire warrior squad (if I could afford it, of course). This would allow the squad to mark targets even while on the move. But if you can spare 15 pts for a markerlight and HW target lock on the shas'ui, that'll do in a pinch as well.

I'd use sniper teams -- for the BS 4 markerlights! -- except that I prefer all the other heavy support choices so much more. (I've always wondered why they weren't elites.) However, I shall never forget israfel's army lists, built around sniper teams and multiple piranha skimmer teams. It's a style of play I'm eager to try some day; seems just as viable under the new edition of the game as it ever was in 4th.
 
#7 ·
I'm hot and cold on markerlights. Sometimes I take them, often I don't. They have never made an appreciable difference to the end result of a game.

The way I see it, to include markerlights you have to loose something else. So it balances out, what markerlights let you do is have a small, elite force.
 
#8 · (Edited)
Markerlights are now much more useful and valuable than they used to be. With new movement abilities for any Markerlight on a jetpack unit, the preponderance of cover saves and the bonus to BS the ML gives, just why is anyone not going to get anything but positive results taking them.

Markerlights are now much more useful and valuable than they used to be. With new movement abilities for any Markerlight on a jetpack unit, the preponderance of cover saves and the bonus to BS the ML gives, just why is anyone not going to get anything but positive results taking them.

The new rules’ regarding the Devilfish has meant I can take a unit of PF's and use their Devil Fish to transport my Fire Warriors, this means I do not have to pay for an extra DF, this leaves me with 85 pts to use on ML Drones.
I take 13 ML's in my 2000pt list and I can target 7 units a turn, this means I am usually able to get ML boosts against 4 or 5 units a turn. Just consider that fact, I am able to either up the BS of the unit targeting the opponent, reduce cover saves, launch seekers or reduce LDS for pinning (I take Gun Drones). This is a massive advantage and I also have the advantage of having MY ML's spread throughout my army. This spreading out means my opponent cannot effectively nullify my ML contingent.
I have my Ml's on unusual units like my Deathrains and the Stealth unit, I also have a Skyray that is very tough and to top it of a unit of PF's. With this spread I can cover the whole field but my Deathrain and Stealth Ml's are extremely tough to target.
Another bonus is that I can infiltrate my Stealth’s and the Pathfinders and get early shots away with Seekers; I find this to be extremely effective against things like Basilisks.
As I have mentioned before high volume accurate fire is going to be vital to countering cover saves and the ML's are key to this. Just +1 to BS and -1 to cover can make a massive difference to the damage inflicted on a unit and with the run rule the quicker a unit is taking maximum damage the better.
Anyone who does not consider Marker lights as the key to victory for Tau in 5th are to be frank fooling themselves. True a fine balance has to be achieved between paying for ML's and how that payment is detrimental to some other part of the list but to be quite honest a decent ML presence in a list can make all the difference, so determining that correct balance is worth the effort, I am not quite there yet but I am getting there and ML's will be in my list for sure.

By the way Skyrays rule.
 
#11 ·
As I think everyone will/has agreed on, is that markerlights became extremely more effective with the coming of 5th ed rules. As for taking them, well Im still trying to work them into my list. Ive found I never had the need for them before, and at the moment im fitting a skyray and a static firewarrior squad with Shasui markerlight and 2 marker drones into my list as a little test.

I know I dont have too many markerlights, but thats all the points im willing to move around to get some in. Its not that markerlights are bad, its just id rather have more points to spend on other things. Im considering dropping a crisis suit or a few firewarriors to try and get in a pathfinder team if the markerlights give me that much more effective army.

~SR~
 
#12 · (Edited)
I know I dont have too many markerlights, but thats all the points im willing to move around to get some in. Its not that markerlights are bad, its just id rather have more points to spend on other things. Im considering dropping a crisis suit or a few firewarriors to try and get in a pathfinder team if the markerlights give me that much more effective army.

~SR~
I have taken 3 Marker light Drones (2 on my Deathrains and 1 on my Stealth's). This has cost me 90 pts; however I have saved 85pts because I can use the Pathfinders Devilfish for my FW's now in place of the one I used to have to purchase for them.

This means I have gained the ability to improve the abilities of 3 other units for no real disadvantage to my army.

What you have to remember is that Marker lights can up the efficiency of the army to the point where losing one unit to pay for them will reap more dividends then the lost unit could have provided.
Consider for instance losing a unit of Gun Drones (96pts), this can pay for 2 or three units to take Marker lights or even better ML Drones (these give you the option of marking for the owning unit) and this can obviously mean an improvement to BS for the unit or taking down the cover save of the target unit. When you consider +1 BS to a FW unit will mean on average an improvement of 4 hits over a non ML'd unit (and often more) then it becomes obvious just how important ML's can be when you apply this over 2,3 or 4 of your armies units (I can ML for up to 7 units a turn in my 2000pts).

Even reducing scatter on Subs scatter can make a significant difference.

The opportunity to take ML's in many more units is also something that should not be ignored, spreading ML's throughout your army can really make it hard for the opponent, who in the past would usually have a unit of PF's and/or a Skyray to contend with (maybe the odd FW, ML unit). The ability to infiltrate the Stealth shielded ML is also a real boon for us, take a Seeker or two and infiltrate a Stealth unit so you can get LOS to those pesky hidden Basilisks etc and it can mean 1st turn death for those dug in pain in the ar**s.

I would advise anyone to really study the implications of the new rules for the Marker light before GW FAQ the back out of them.
 
#14 ·
In my eyes, the crux of the matter is whether you would be served better by having the markerlights, or by having the markerlights weight in points put into something else. Markerlights do increase your to-hit rate (among other things), but having more guns to shoot with also increases your to-hit rate. I would personally rather have a dependable number of shots than a 50% chance of a markerlight bonus.

In terms of our units wielding weapons with 4+ to-hit S5 (Stealth teams, Fire Warriors) you would need to have 9 shots equipped with a marker-drone (boosting Bs and averaged) to reach the equivalency of 12 regular shots in terms of points. If you have more than 9 shots coming out of the markerlight unit, the net-gain for the squad is better than the regular squad with three extra shots, and indeed, sometimes the squad size cannot be made greater to accommodate more models who would deal more shots. However, this is only a fraction of the game, and you must take casualties into account. What happens when you lose models? Your markerlights generate a lesser net effect, causing them to be less efficient with every model lost. In addition, models lost from a smaller squad go a longer way in determining whether the squad will fall back, and having less models in a squad mean less wounds to soak up enemy fire, less attacks in close combat, and a greater chance of being destroyed to the benefit of your unit.

Before fielding markerlights, you need to ask yourself whether you really need them. Railhead? Has a good enough Bs, you can only boost Bs to 5 (making the scatter reduction even less) and many models who would be hiding in cover so that you would have to use markerlights to reduce their cover save have a better armour save anyways.
Broadsides? They're twin-linked, not only that but you can give them a targeting array so that they'll have a 90% guaranteed hit rate instead of a marker drone with half the range and a 50% chance of boosting the squad's Bs.
Deathrains? 90% guaranteed hit rate.
Fire Warrior team? The can admittedly benefit from a markerlight hit, but if it's from a marker drone then you aren't getting your points worth. Only markerlights from fellow Fire Warrior units and pathfinders will be worth the cost, and then how many markerlights can you use without some going to waste?

Also, you have to consider that both units must have a LOS on the unit being targeted, and with typical terrain deployment this can often not be the case. What do you do when your pathfinder squad can only see a squad that no other squad can see?

It's simply a matter of keeping things practical, and efficient. The only squads that are ever going to need the Bs boost are non-twin-linked crisis suits, stealth teams, Fire Warriors, Gun Drones and Vespid. Everything else has either a sufficient Bs so as to not need assistance, or twin-linked weaponry. Being able to supply that Bs boost without paying too much for it won't be easy either, as Marker-drones are quite expensive for a half-hitting markerlight, and full pathfinder squads will often find some shots wasted.

Since Night Fighting only occurs at turn 1 of Dawn Of War scenarios, and target priority no longer occurs at all, our markerlights have been reduced to four functions: Improving Bs, firing Seeker Missiles, helping pinning, and reducing cover. Seeker missiles are indeed useful, but they can get expensive and pale in comparison to the heavy firepower of our railguns. We have only two weapons that cause pinning in our list, and the AFP rarely finds use. Our Fire Warriors are rarely equipped with pulse carbines, meaning that pinning fire is left to Pathfinders and Gun Drones, and Pathfinders cannot benefit from their own markerlights and should be firing markerlights anyways. This leaves us with gun drones. A full squadron of gun drones will statistically kill one space marine per round of shooting. This can lead to good luck giving us more than one kill, and bad luck, producing zero kills. To use the pinning markerlights for the gun drones, you must shoot the unit targeted with the markerlights before you fire with the drones, and you must announce that you're using the markerlights for pinning purposes before you can see that such a test will be made. This can lead to an absolute waste of markerlights should you fail to take a wound from the unit. Take into account the difficulty of aligning two units targeting on one unit, as well as the vulnerability of Gun Drones who're staying out in the open (you would be daft to move them into cover), and you may do alright in damaging, maybe even pinning the unit. I wouldn't doubt that in the following turn the Gun drones would be routed, though.

And finally, there are cover save reductions. This is certainly a boon to us as indeed many clever generals will be finding insidious ways to give their squads cover, and to also obscure their vehicles (just look in the Tyranid forums for "gaunt wrapping"). However, many of the units that will be hiding in cover have a better save than their armour, and fielding weapons that will negate that save will be difficult due to our preponderance of AP 4 and up weapons. Units out in the field won't be getting a cover save, so this doesn't apply, and once again you can generally count on better armour. Eliminating the cover saves on vehicles will certainly be nice.

Obviously, I'm not bananas for markerlights, but that doesn't mean that I don't use them. My fire warrior squads' Shas'ui team leaders are equipped with markerlights and target locks, for I've already paid a good deal for the ability to field such weaponry, and I may as well make use of it. I also take a Sky Ray, for if your reduce the points cost of the vehicle by the number of seeker missiles it's taking, it's actually quite a cheap tank, and great at supporting other units. The seeker missiles allow me some versatility when playing, for if I suddenly find myself combating an army abundant in transports, I can launch up to four missiles to help combat the threat. The Fire Warriors can benefit from the Sky Ray's markerlights, and the Fire Warriors themselves can aid a stealth team or other unit that could use a boost. I never depend on markerlights, as I don't want to wager my survival on a 50/50 chance, I use them as a handy bonus, because you're never going to win a war with flashlights.
 
#19 ·
hmmm very considered reply, rep is on its way to you as I speak (or type, babble, rave, whatever).

In my eyes, the crux of the matter is whether you would be served better by having the markerlights, or by having the markerlights weight in points put into something else. Markerlights do increase your to-hit rate (among other things), but having more guns to shoot with also increases your to-hit rate. I would personally rather have a dependable number of shots than a 50% chance of a markerlight bonus.
Well I have always found that taking some ML's does increase the efficiency of the list. However as you have rightly said you have to gauge just when the downsides outweigh the benefits. I do however feel that ML's have a much more justified place in 5th then they did in 4th. I will try to explain why by answewring your points, prepare for a long post.
1st of though I will make the point that those dependable units can be made even more dependable by the judicous application of a few Ml tokens, FW's and their FOF are the prime example of this, just 1 ML can up thier hit rate by 20-25%.

In terms of our units wielding weapons with 4+ to-hit S5 (Stealth teams, Fire Warriors) you would need to have 9 shots equipped with a marker-drone (boosting Bs and averaged) to reach the equivalency of 12 regular shots in terms of points. If you have more than 9 shots coming out of the markerlight unit, the net-gain for the squad is better than the regular squad with three extra shots, and indeed, sometimes the squad size cannot be made greater to accommodate more models who would deal more shots.
One simple fact applies here, whatever squad size you take you are going to get more hits. More hits = more casualties which = less return fire. Also the advantage of reducing cover saves for units which would usually not get a save against AP5 weaponry cannot be ignored. That 4+ save is knocked sown to 5+ with just one ML and that makes a real difference. If you can find the points to take ML's (for instance by taking the PF Devilfish for FW's and thus not paying for one of their own) then nothing is really lost by taking them. I am not really sure what you are trying to get at with the number of shots point, because to be quite frank a unit like Stealths will not be taking the ML just to benefit themselves and this is the beauty of a networked ML, you can help other units. For the cost of one Stealth you can up the BS of the whole unit or help another unit. I take a Drone on my full strength Stealth unit and it has been nothing but good so far.
If you are having to really decrease the efficiency of another unit to take ML's then obviously you need to re-think, but careful planning and careful selection of just where the ML's are going to be placed are the key rules. For instance an ML Drone is wasted on a FW squad but they really work well (and are worth the points) in jetpack equipped units.

However, this is only a fraction of the game, and you must take casualties into account. What happens when you lose models? Your markerlights generate a lesser net effect, causing them to be less efficient with every model lost. In addition, models lost from a smaller squad go a longer way in determining whether the squad will fall back, and having less models in a squad mean less wounds to soak up enemy fire, less attacks in close combat, and a greater chance of being destroyed to the benefit of your unit.
This efficiency rule is true of any unit and to be quite honest is not really any more of an issue than for any other unit. If we thought this way then we would never take any units. As for the fall back, yeah it is quite true that in smaller units Drones can be a factor in fall back; however again this can be nullified by careful and selective choice of units they are placed with. For instance I have ML Drones attached only to my 2 Deathrain squads and my Stealths, why? Well because the Deathrains are always at max distance (pref behind cover) and the Stealths have the stealth field. THis makes them hard to target and thus casualty loss is not really a problem. Stick an ML Drone in a 6 man FW squad and you have problems. Also the other way to alleviate casualtie loss is to take Markerlights, not Drones.
What you also have to consider is ML's make the business of killing easier which reduces the effectiveness of the opponents units, if you are upping BS of your units and negating his cover saves (or even pinning) then you are reducing the chances of you actually losing models

Before fielding markerlights, you need to ask yourself whether you really need them. Railhead? Has a good enough Bs, you can only boost Bs to 5
(making the scatter reduction even less)
Nah bub, if you can get BS5 on a Hammerhead take it. Hammerheads are targeting the oppositions armour and the quicker that can be stopped the better. One thing I know from experience against other Tau players is this, if I have ML's and he doesn't (or I have more) I WILL win the battle against his Hammerheads, no end of times I have seen 1 or 2 rolled on the die and I have rolled a 2. To me that would be enough in its self but the reduction of scatter is important as well. If anyone tells you an inch is not important (ask your Girlfriends or Wifes:giggle:) they are wrong, it can make all the difference against those big Nid or Ork units.

and many models who would be hiding in cover so that you would have to use markerlights to reduce their cover save have a better armour save anyways.
Well if they have better armour then why would you use the valuable ML hit to reduce the cover save? Use it to help another unit. Also plenty of units in 40K will have worse saves than the cover save (or no save at all) and this can be a real problem if you are wanting to hurt units that are moving up field fast, the reduction of the cover save can make all the difference. There will usually be a unit that can benefit from an ML token and that is the thing something will benefit, if you do not have ML's then nothing benefits.

Broadsides? They're twin-linked, not only that but you can give them a targeting array so that they'll have a 90% guaranteed hit rate instead of a marker drone with half the range and a 50% chance of boosting the squad's Bs.
Please do not take this the wrong way but why are you stating the blindingly obvious as a reason for not taking ML's. True a TA equipped (though why anyone would do that is beyond me) XV88 will not need the ML token to hit; however that nice STR10, AP1 hit means nothing when the vehicle passes a 4+ cover save, that ML hit can reduce that to 5+ which means a much better chance of killing the target

Deathrains? 90% guaranteed hit rate.
Deathrains do not really need the Ml token to hit but again the cover point applies, also having a BS5 re-roll when a hit is desperately needed can be a real bonus. I take the Drone with my Deathrains because it is networked and can help both the DR or another Tau unit and is a safer place for the ML. It makes for a versatile, useful unit that can pop armour with 4 accurate shots and provide Ml support for another unit, at 146pts I class that as a bargain.

Fire Warrior team? The can admittedly benefit from a markerlight hit, but if it's from a marker drone then you aren't getting your points worth. Only markerlights from fellow Fire Warrior units and pathfinders will be worth the cost, and then how many markerlights can you use without some going to waste?
Markerlights have no place in FW squads in 5th (if they ever did anyway), to equip a FW squad with a ML costs 20pts (25 if you take a TL) and nerfs the movement of the FW squad; so why pay that much when you can get a networked ML Drone for 30pts that you can give to an XV8 or XV25 and have mobility to boot. Markerlights on FW's are never worth the cost, FW's benefit from ML tokens generated by other units and FOF FW units are probably the best use for tokens.

Also, you have to consider that both units must have a LOS on the unit being targeted, and with typical terrain deployment this can often not be the case. What do you do when your pathfinder squad can only see a squad that no other squad can see?
Oh c'mon dude the ML has a 36 inch range. I have rarely not had a target for the PF squad but the point you miss is we now have so much more choice of where to put the ML's. The mobility of ML's attached to XV8 and XV25 squads makes it very very unlikely you will not fraw LOS on a unit. ALso the Skyray is very effective at gaining LOS for its ML's. When you consider that an XV8 has an effective ML range of 42" and the Skyray 48" then it is going to be a very rare occasion that LOS is going to be a problem.
Also as far as cover goes it is true that this can be a problem for static ML squads but that has always been the case, we can now take more mobile ML's so it has actually got better for us not worse.

It's simply a matter of keeping things practical, and efficient. The only squads that are ever going to need the Bs boost are non-twin-linked crisis suits, stealth teams, Fire Warriors, Gun Drones and Vespid. Everything else has either a sufficient Bs so as to not need assistance, or twin-linked weaponry. Being able to supply that Bs boost without paying too much for it won't be easy either, as Marker-drones are quite expensive for a half-hitting markerlight, and full pathfinder squads will often find some shots wasted.
The ONLY squads, dude you just named the majority of the Tau army. Also Hammerheads, Skyrays, Seekers, all benefit from ML tokens. Ml Drones are not actually that expensive now, in 4th they were because they made units less efficient due to movement restrictions. However having a highly mobile networked ML for 30pts that does not hinder the unit carrying it can only be a bonus. Like I said if you can find the points then they will be helpful (how can they not be). Yep a 50% miss rate is less then ideal but it only takes one ML hit to pay for itself, just killing two Marines pays for it. If you do as I have and take the ML Drone in units that can keep it safe then you will usually get two hits a game and that is enough to usually ensure they have been worth taking. Sure there will be times they do nothing but this can be said for any unit/wargear etc.
As for the wasted shot syndrome, does this not apply to every single unit in the game? funny how you never see players saying "damn that's it I am not taking Pulse rifles again, I missed with 5 shots in that turn" but for some reason an ML missing is somehow much much worse, why? a missed Ml does nothing but so does a missed gun shot.

Since Night Fighting only occurs at turn 1 of Dawn Of War scenarios, and target priority no longer occurs at all, our markerlights have been reduced to four functions:
Wooah reduced to four functions, why? can you not use the ML in night fight anymore? I know I have used it plenty.

Improving Bs, firing Seeker Missiles, helping pinning, and reducing cover
No night fight is still totally valid use for the ML, so we have lost one thing TP and who ever used that anyway? I know I never did.

Seeker missiles are indeed useful, but they can get expensive and pale in comparison to the heavy firepower of our railguns.
They are not expensive if you take a Skyray and with the new outflank rule and the ability to take an infiltrating ML with Stealths, the Seeker has just become a very good way of taking down those pesky tanks that like to hide at the back of the field. A couple of Seekers on a Devilfish can be very useful.

We have only two weapons that cause pinning in our list, and the AFP rarely finds use. Our Fire Warriors are rarely equipped with pulse carbines, meaning that pinning fire is left to Pathfinders and Gun Drones, and Pathfinders cannot benefit from their own markerlights and should be firing markerlights anyways. This leaves us with gun drones. A full squadron of gun drones will statistically kill one space marine per round of shooting. This can lead to good luck giving us more than one kill, and bad luck, producing zero kills. To use the pinning markerlights for the gun drones, you must shoot the unit targeted with the markerlights before you fire with the drones, and you must announce that you're using the markerlights for pinning purposes before you can see that such a test will be made. This can lead to an absolute waste of markerlights should you fail to take a wound from the unit. Take into account the difficulty of aligning two units targeting on one unit, as well as the vulnerability of Gun Drones who're staying out in the open (you would be daft to move them into cover), and you may do alright in damaging, maybe even pinning the unit. I wouldn't doubt that in the following turn the Gun drones would be routed, though.
The ONLY squads, dude you just named the majority of the Tau army. Also Hammerheads, Skyrays, Seekers, all benefit from ML tokens. Ml Drones are not actually that expensive now, in 4th they were because they made units less efficient due to movement restrictions. Wow thats a long paragraph for a situation that will rarely come up. One thing always bugs me with examples like this though "Marines" OK yes it is hard to kill Marines, but what about all the non Marine stuff thats say TGH3 and has a 5+ save. It suddenly does not sound to stupid to have that Gun Drone squad out there using their carbines does it. A Drone squad will kill a damn sight more than 1 of that unit and the ML token (or tokens) will make pinning easier to achieve. You se this is what bugs me, you are using one limited example to rubbish the ML's pinning enhancement and this is just not right. A large majority of units are vulnerable to pinning weapons (and by the way the AFP is going to see a lot more use in 5th), so clever use

And finally, there are cover save reductions. This is certainly a boon to us as indeed many clever generals will be finding insidious ways to give their squads cover, and to also obscure their vehicles (just look in the Tyranid forums for "gaunt wrapping"). However, many of the units that will be hiding in cover have a better save than their armour, and fielding weapons that will negate that save will be difficult due to our preponderance of AP 4 and up weapons.
Which is exactly why the ML is so good for us. That preponderance of AP4 and worse weapons means that every single hit is valuable; so every boost to BS is valuable because it means an increase in hits, which means more wounds and more failed saves. If no ML's are taken you are stuck with average BS with average AP weaponry. Also again why would anyone be stupid enough to use ML tokens to reduce cover saves of units with better armour saves. This is simply not a good argument against ML's, what it does is assume players are idiots. The main use of the ML for cover saves is going to be against units shielded by other cheaper units, for nerfing the cover saves of obscured vehicles and for helping to reduce the advantage offered to units that have crap armour saves who now have for all intents and purposes the chance to obtain a 4+ or 5+ invulnerable against our weapons. Believe me if you have a wave of Orks or Nids running your way and your nice 30" AP5 rifles shots are bouncing of cover then you will be grateful for the ML tokens believe me.

Units out in the field won't be getting a cover save, so this doesn't apply, and once again you can generally count on better armour. Eliminating the cover saves on vehicles will certainly be nice.
No they will not be getting cover saves so you use the ML token to up the BS of the shooting unit and kill even more of the exposed unit. Win win situation applies here bud. Remember that ML's have 5 uses not one.

Obviously, I'm not bananas for markerlights, but that doesn't mean that I don't use them. My fire warrior squads' Shas'ui team leaders are equipped with markerlights and target locks, for I've already paid a good deal for the ability to field such weaponry, and I may as well make use of it
I find this amusing you slate the ML drone for its costly BS3 ML and you then tell us you pay 25pts for the basically same thing but with less mobility, non networked ML and the nice side effect of limiting your FW's mobility. You slate ML's and yet you use probably the least efficient manner of taking them. I am not surprised you are not bananas on them if this is how you field them. Sorry to sound harsh but c'mon you cannot argue against ML Drones when you take these.

I also take a Sky Ray, for if your reduce the points cost of the vehicle by the number of seeker missiles it's taking, it's actually quite a cheap tank, and great at supporting other units. The seeker missiles allow me some versatility when playing, for if I suddenly find myself combating an army abundant in transports, I can launch up to four missiles to help combat the threat. The Fire Warriors can benefit from the Sky Ray's markerlights, and the Fire Warriors themselves can aid a stealth team or other unit that could use a boost. I never depend on markerlights, as I don't want to wager my survival on a 50/50 chance, I use them as a handy bonus, because you're never going to win a war with flashlights.
Hmmm a little contradictory methinks, you earlier said that Seekers were not a good reason to take ML's and then go on to list an extensive number of uses for the Marker light, most of which you argued against earlier. No body should rely on ML's and you have basically made the argument for ML's in your last paragraph. They are indeed a handy bonus but you are wrong, those Flashlights can and do win wars or to be more precise they make the odds of winning a lot more favourable.
 
#15 ·
I apologize if this has come out before, but I can't seem to find it.

Can units in cover claim a 4+ save against markerlight hits?

My gut says "no", as cover saves are used to save wounds, and markerlights don't wound anything. Curious as to what others might think....
 
#16 ·
@lLonginus

I completely agree with the above. There are units that benefit more from markerlight hits than others and you do have to balance points versus efficiency in every aspect of army list building. However every unit benefits from the ability to reduce cover saves and not wanting to restate myself too much from my earlier post, I do want to add as a reminder that we are basically able to add a half price unit of pathfinders any time you were going to use Firewarriors in a devilfish. A devilfish costs effectively the same price as a unit of 8 pathfinders, so you are adding 8 markerlights into your list for half the price it used to cost. Even at a BS of 3 that is still an average of 4 hits, reducing that 4+ cover save to nothing and upping the BS of whatever unit you want by one. You can swarm a Carnifex behind all the guants you want, with 8 markerlights I can still turn it into mush in one turn (hopefully :soldier:). I will pay 100 odd points to do that any day of the week!!

Like I said before, I believe that Pathfinders are the best way to get multiple markerlights into your list, because in terms of points to effectiveness, you are getting highly effective for basically not very much. In terms of my playing style, I always take at least one unit of pathfinders in my army (often two units of five) and a Skyray.
Markerlights are the cats pyjamas, yes the cats pyjamas.
 
#18 ·
Super! Thanks for that.

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion....
 
#20 ·
Nice post lLonginus, although I don't agree with some of your points you highlight another slant on the discussion. The light use of markerlights as opposed to no use and heavy use. It introduces a third option into the mix.

So well done.
 
#22 · (Edited)
The light use of markerlights as opposed to no use and heavy use. It introduces a third option into the mix.
Aha, this is the group I seem to be in. In a 2000pt list, I generally only take a 7-man Pathfinder squad(TL on the 'Ui) and give a TL+ML to my Stealth team leader. Now thats only eight MLs, with three possible targets. I tend to let the block of six Pathfinders mark a unit that I really need the counters on, then the Pathfinder 'Ui and Stealth leader's MLs can potentially lend a hand elsewhere, treating those two separate shots as more of a "bonus".

This way, I get just enough support to tip things where I need it, but I'll never have to rely on it.

As ILonginus was pretty much saying; MLs are great, but they don't guarantee wins.

(Keep in mind also that I'm mostly a Mech player, as I thoroughly enjoy mobility. So in 4e, the inherently static nature of MLs turned me off. So for me, the 5e changes are quite dramatic.)
 
#21 ·
Actually, Rikimaru, I quite enjoy the occasional debates that we hold. You're one of few LO members who consistently goes into great detail about the points that you support. Admittedly you're a bit straightforward about it, but you're very convincing. And I enjoy writing the lengthy responses, for even if my claims are ill-founded, so long as I back them up it allows us to dig deeper and find working solutions for the Greater Good :dance: And I must confess, some of my examples were not the best, but I had to get those basic examples out of the way so that I might present the more specific examples. Now, back to the issue(s) at hand!

rikimaru said:
Well I have always found that taking some ML's does increase the efficiency of the list. However as you have rightly said you have to gauge just when the downsides outweigh the benefits. I do however feel that ML's have a much more justified place in 5th then they did in 4th. I will try to explain why by answewring your points, prepare for a long post.
1st of though I will make the point that those dependable units can be made even more dependable by the judicous application of a few Ml tokens, FW's and their FOF are the prime example of this, just 1 ML can up thier hit rate by 20-25%.
I strongly agree with you here, rikimaru, Markerlights got worlds better with the dawn of 5th edition. Cover saves now abound, and Relentless allows Marker drones to be much less hindering and more versatile in our ever-present jetpack squads. A single markerlight hit, at most, will increase as squad's hit rate by 19.4%, in the case of Gun Drones, but most commonly a single hit boosting Bs will increase the hit rate on a Bs3 squad by 16.7%. The larger the volume of fire, the more shots hit as a result of this, and to cite your example, a FOFing full fire warrior squad at Bs3 will statistically get 12 hits; at Bs4 they will achieve 16 hits.

rikimaru said:
One simple fact applies here, whatever squad size you take you are going to get more hits. More hits = more casualties which = less return fire. Also the advantage of reducing cover saves for units which would usually not get a save against AP5 weaponry cannot be ignored. That 4+ save is knocked sown to 5+ with just one ML and that makes a real difference. If you can find the points to take ML's (for instance by taking the PF Devilfish for FW's and thus not paying for one of their own) then nothing is really lost by taking them. I am not really sure what you are trying to get at with the number of shots point, because to be quite frank a unit like Stealths will not be taking the ML just to benefit themselves and this is the beauty of a networked ML, you can help other units. For the cost of one Stealth you can up the BS of the whole unit or help another unit. I take a Drone on my full strength Stealth unit and it has been nothing but good so far.
If you are having to really decrease the efficiency of another unit to take ML's then obviously you need to re-think, but careful planning and careful selection of just where the ML's are going to be placed are the key rules. For instance an ML Drone is wasted on a FW squad but they really work well (and are worth the points) in jetpack equipped units.
Yes, taking two equal squads and boosting one with a markerlight token will see the boosted unit to be the superior unit, however if you took the points needed to get that markerlight token and gave those points into bulking up the non-markerlight squad, you would find the two squads to be more or less equal, the non-markerlight squad would have more wounds (hence less morale checks and harder to destroy), and the non-markerlight squad would be more dependable. My issue with single markerlights is that you're essentially tossing a coin and betting the squad on the results of that coin toss. With a large squad you're tossing a dozen coins, and the more coins you toss the more likely you are to get a 50/50 result (speaking from the angle of probability). I would personally much rather be able to depend on a squad's performance level than squeeze my eyes shut and wish really hard that I'd get a favourable result. "Hope is the first step on the road to despair", as I'm sure you've all read plenty of times, and I'd rather not let that hope for a fortunate roll cause me to make a poor choice in the name of luck.

I'm a bit confused on your usage of Marker drones, the way I'm hearing this you seem to be telling me that the Marker Drone may fire at a separate unit from its owner, and this is quite simply not the case. Yes, the Marker Drone does fire before it's master, however, it is still a member of the squad and must obey normal shooting rules (unless some sneaky Tau general snuck around and put target locks on all of the marker drones)

Reducing a cover save does indeed make a noticeable difference... when firing at squads in cover. I tend to fire at the more immediate threats, as I often play against assault based armies, and eliminating the most pressing threat is often the closest threat, and that threat many times does not move through cover so that they might get into close combat a turn sooner. I am also shooting from cover the majority of the time, so in a pissing contest with my opponent I can rely on my generally superior weaponry to win the day anyways. A markerlight comes in, once again, as a handy bonus for me, rather than a necessity. And, once again, there are the units with armour superior to their cover, making markerlights redundant for the purposes of reducing saves.

rikimaru said:
This efficiency rule is true of any unit and to be quite honest is not really any more of an issue than for any other unit. If we thought this way then we would never take any units. As for the fall back, yeah it is quite true that in smaller units Drones can be a factor in fall back; however again this can be nullified by careful and selective choice of units they are placed with. For instance I have ML Drones attached only to my 2 Deathrain squads and my Stealths, why? Well because the Deathrains are always at max distance (pref behind cover) and the Stealths have the stealth field. THis makes them hard to target and thus casualty loss is not really a problem. Stick an ML Drone in a 6 man FW squad and you have problems. Also the other way to alleviate casualtie loss is to take Markerlights, not Drones.
What you also have to consider is ML's make the business of killing easier which reduces the effectiveness of the opponents units, if you are upping BS of your units and negating his cover saves (or even pinning) then you are reducing the chances of you actually losing models
Unfortunately, True LOS has made hiding such a squad very difficult unless they were hiding behind a wall, however this would imply an area of terrain, forcing a dangerous terrain check upon all models that leave the terrain in their movement phase to see past the wall and shoot, and a further dangerous terrain check when the squad moved back into the terrain so that they could hide from return fire. That's a 1/3 chance of inflicting an unsaveable wound upon yourself per turn. Awful odds as far as I'm concerned, and once again, the Marker Drone has to target the squad that the Deathrains are targeting.

The stealth squad with markerlights and marker drones is quite an effective choice, but it is hardly efficient in my eyes, for two reasons: You're paying an absolutely ludicrous price for the squad, and by mixing Marker Drones into the squad you're dividing the purpose of the stealth team. A pure stealth team will have a solid role as an anti-infantry and Indirect Fire destruction infiltration unit, a mixed unit will either be shooting to kill a squad or shooting to support another squad's shooting. A squad with a confused purpose and a massive points cost has no place in my lists.

Ha, and you cite me for poor examples. Of course a 7-strong unit of infantry drawing constant attention is going to have problems, I would honor the unit were it to survive the length of the game! I have indeed taken that markerlights "make the business of killing easier", however, I always weigh this against the benefits that having however many points I would be spending on said markerlights spent on another unit instead, hence my 9-Fire Warriors and a drone vs. 12 Fire Warriors example. Taking markerlights does reduce my chance of losing models, but having more models that are doing the same amount of work without the markerlight does "make the business of killing easier" and make the losses that I do inevitably sustain have less of an impact. 5/9 is much worse than 5/12 in terms of losses.

rikimaru said:
Nah bub, if you can get BS5 on a Hammerhead take it. Hammerheads are targeting the oppositions armour and the quicker that can be stopped the better. One thing I know from experience against other Tau players is this, if I have ML's and he doesn't (or I have more) I WILL win the battle against his Hammerheads, no end of times I have seen 1 or 2 rolled on the die and I have rolled a 2. To me that would be enough in its self but the reduction of scatter is important as well. If anyone tells you an inch is not important (ask your Girlfriends or Wifes) they are wrong, it can make all the difference against those big Nid or Ork units.
Hammerheads may be, but I personally would be using them much more often against groups of infantry thanks to the new blast rules. Broadsides have gotten a new lease on life with True LOS, and despite the potential for their target having a cover save, I've got multiple shots coming out of the Broadside squad to compensate. This is a situation where I would indeed gladly accept the assistance of a markerlight or two, hence why I field a total of four: they're useful, just not that useful. Deathrains are much cheaper and do a fine job against most vehicles, and with their higher volume of shots and greater arcs of fire they'll be dealing with most of the targets that are within their abilities to damage, leaving the tougher units to the railguns. Personally, against those big Nid or Ork units, I prefer massed pulse fire, but that's neither here nor there.

rikimaru said:
Well if they have better armour then why would you use the valuable ML hit to reduce the cover save? Use it to help another unit. Also plenty of units in 40K will have worse saves than the cover save (or no save at all) and this can be a real problem if you are wanting to hurt units that are moving up field fast, the reduction of the cover save can make all the difference. There will usually be a unit that can benefit from an ML token and that is the thing something will benefit, if you do not have ML's then nothing benefits.
Like I said earlier, getting the obvious examples out of the way first. It's a bit frustrating, you keep speaking of Markerlights as though they're free. If I walked up to a person who really loved cake (you know one) and said "you can have a cake for $10, or a cake and a flashlight for $10" the person would definitely take the cake and the flashlight because it's all benefit and no cost (plus, what if it's dark and they can't see their cake???). The thing about Warhammer 40,000 is that it's NEVER all benefit and no cost, a cost is always present, and the costs and benefits guide us in the army choices we make. You're a seasoned Tyranid player also, rikimaru, and let me bring this up as an example:

Genestealers.

Ooh, does everybody love Genestealers, they're awfully dangerous. Scuttlers is quite a handy biomorph, especially with the new rules, and it's a great biomorph to have, so let's say we take Scuttlers on our 12 strong brood. Extended Carapace is practically a must! Being able to save against standard infantry weapons helps a ton. And who doesn't love scything talons? 4 attacks on the charge? Heck yes!

But now, our 192 point brood without biomorphs has become a 324 point brood. For that cost, you could have 20 regular genestealers, and this factor is always in my mind. Sometimes, it's effective to take all of the biomorphs, but you'd often be better served by simply having more of the bare-bones models. In my eyes, the markerlights are the scything talons; sure you're getting more attacks, but instead of buying those additional attacks I could just by more models and get a similar amount of attacks with many benefits outside of close combat by taking the larger brood.

If you do not have a markerlight, something DOES benefit, just not in the "it's awesome right now" sort of way

rikimaru said:
Please do not take this the wrong way but why are you stating the blindingly obvious as a reason for not taking ML's. True a TA equipped (though why anyone would do that is beyond me) XV88 will not need the ML token to hit; however that nice STR10, AP1 hit means nothing when the vehicle passes a 4+ cover save, that ML hit can reduce that to 5+ which means a much better chance of killing the target
I would, as I much value the near-guaranteed hit rate (also consider what I said earlier).

rikimaru said:
Deathrains do not really need the Ml token to hit but again the cover point applies, also having a BS5 re-roll when a hit is desperately needed can be a real bonus. I take the Drone with my Deathrains because it is networked and can help both the DR or another Tau unit and is a safer place for the ML. It makes for a versatile, useful unit that can pop armour with 4 accurate shots and provide Ml support for another unit, at 146pts I class that as a bargain.
Changing a 88.888% chance to hit with four shots to a 97.222% is barely going to have an effect, and I pray that you never find yourself in a situation where you actually need it. That being said, once again, being Networked does not give the Marker drone a free target lock (unless I'm completely ignorant of something not in the codex), and a TA equipped Deathrain should never have need of such services on a regular basis.

rikimaru said:
Markerlights have no place in FW squads in 5th (if they ever did anyway), to equip a FW squad with a ML costs 20pts (25 if you take a TL) and nerfs the movement of the FW squad; so why pay that much when you can get a networked ML Drone for 30pts that you can give to an XV8 or XV25 and have mobility to boot. Markerlights on FW's are never worth the cost, FW's benefit from ML tokens generated by other units and FOF FW units are probably the best use for tokens.
That depends entirely on what you use the Fire Warrior squad for. I personally enjoy fielding them as static firepower elements, and I assume that you would take a Shas'ui team leader with bonding knife on a full squad, hence why I consider them to not be so much of a points sink on a Fire Warrior squad. I say movement nerfs the shooting of a Fire Warrior squad, so why take a transport that you can't shoot out of? I've known you to be a proponent of FOF squads for quite some time, and it's quite simply not up my alley, so I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.

rikimaru said:
Oh c'mon dude the ML has a 36 inch range. I have rarely not had a target for the PF squad but the point you miss is we now have so much more choice of where to put the ML's. The mobility of ML's attached to XV8 and XV25 squads makes it very very unlikely you will not fraw LOS on a unit. ALso the Skyray is very effective at gaining LOS for its ML's. When you consider that an XV8 has an effective ML range of 42" and the Skyray 48" then it is going to be a very rare occasion that LOS is going to be a problem.
Also as far as cover goes it is true that this can be a problem for static ML squads but that has always been the case, we can now take more mobile ML's so it has actually got better for us not worse.
I agree that they will often have range and LOS on a unit, and I support pathfinders in that they adhere to a single purpose, but once again taking a marker drone on a XV8 or XV25 squad is simply a way of debilitating that squad in my eyes (for the third time, unless someone snuck target locks onto all of them). I do support Sky Rays as they are efficient for their points, durable, and versatile.

rikimaru said:
The ONLY squads, dude you just named the majority of the Tau army. Also Hammerheads, Skyrays, Seekers, all benefit from ML tokens. Ml Drones are not actually that expensive now, in 4th they were because they made units less efficient due to movement restrictions. However having a highly mobile networked ML for 30pts that does not hinder the unit carrying it can only be a bonus. Like I said if you can find the points then they will be helpful (how can they not be). Yep a 50% miss rate is less then ideal but it only takes one ML hit to pay for itself, just killing two Marines pays for it. If you do as I have and take the ML Drone in units that can keep it safe then you will usually get two hits a game and that is enough to usually ensure they have been worth taking. Sure there will be times they do nothing but this can be said for any unit/wargear etc.
As for the wasted shot syndrome, does this not apply to every single unit in the game? funny how you never see players saying "damn that's it I am not taking Pulse rifles again, I missed with 5 shots in that turn" but for some reason an ML missing is somehow much much worse, why? a missed Ml does nothing but so does a missed gun shot.
rikimaru said:
Wooah reduced to four functions, why? can you not use the ML in night fight anymore? I know I have used it plenty.
rikimaru said:
No night fight is still totally valid use for the ML, so we have lost one thing TP and who ever used that anyway? I know I never did.
rikimaru said:
They are not expensive if you take a Skyray and with the new outflank rule and the ability to take an infiltrating ML with Stealths, the Seeker has just become a very good way of taking down those pesky tanks that like to hide at the back of the field. A couple of Seekers on a Devilfish can be very useful.
rikimaru said:
The ONLY squads, dude you just named the majority of the Tau army. Also Hammerheads, Skyrays, Seekers, all benefit from ML tokens. Ml Drones are not actually that expensive now, in 4th they were because they made units less efficient due to movement restrictions. Wow thats a long paragraph for a situation that will rarely come up. One thing always bugs me with examples like this though "Marines" OK yes it is hard to kill Marines, but what about all the non Marine stuff thats say TGH3 and has a 5+ save. It suddenly does not sound to stupid to have that Gun Drone squad out there using their carbines does it. A Drone squad will kill a damn sight more than 1 of that unit and the ML token (or tokens) will make pinning easier to achieve. You se this is what bugs me, you are using one limited example to rubbish the ML's pinning enhancement and this is just not right. A large majority of units are vulnerable to pinning weapons (and by the way the AFP is going to see a lot more use in 5th), so clever use
That depends a bit on your army. Would it be better if I labeled all of the squads that do not need Markerlight support for the purpose of Bs? Commander, Retinue, Ethereal and honour guard, Crisis suits with twin-linked weapons (or template/blast weapons), Kroot, Pathfinders, Broadsides, Hammerheads, and Skyrays. I'm leaving out Piranhas and Sniper Drone teams as they're hardly used, and Devilfish because they are debateable as Warfish (though I will no longer use them as such) and not worth the markerlight either way. Did I not concede that these units can benefit from ML tokens despite not needing a Bs boost?

I use "Marines" as an example because they are a good medium, the "middle of the road" unit as it were. Let's recount all of the units immune to your pinning tests, hm?

Tyranids (hello Synapse)
Orks in squads of decent numbers.
Monstrous Creatures
Fearless squads
Vehicles

This leaves us with maybe half of every army out there at most that can even be affected by pinning. And while there are admittedly Imperial Guard squads, Eldar Guardians and Dark Eldar (and don't forget other Tau! Wait, 5+ sv, nevermind), however, there are plenty of squads that are nigh immune to such shooting (Terminators, Bikers, or basically any unit with a decent T or Sv value). You're fishing for three kinds of fish in an ocean of sharks, and it doesn't really support take-on-all-comers gaming. Admittedly a harassment unit has its uses, and that is what a Gun Drone squadron is, however, I would rarely be dedicating the resources needed to create favourable odds that I would pin a squad, and I tend to pay more attention to the more common threats.

There, I've covered most of the units in the game "to rubbish the ML's pinning enhancement". I would like to observe this "large majority" that you speak of, for I find the units that I think you speak of (Guardsmen) tend to hide in tanks. We probably play against quite different opponents.

I agree that the AFP will be much more prominent in 5th edition, and forcing two leadership tests is always better than forcing one, however actual effective pinning is few and far between, and it's not something I can rely on at all.

rikimaru said:
Which is exactly why the ML is so good for us. That preponderance of AP4 and worse weapons means that every single hit is valuable; so every boost to BS is valuable because it means an increase in hits, which means more wounds and more failed saves. If no ML's are taken you are stuck with average BS with average AP weaponry. Also again why would anyone be stupid enough to use ML tokens to reduce cover saves of units with better armour saves. This is simply not a good argument against ML's, what it does is assume players are idiots. The main use of the ML for cover saves is going to be against units shielded by other cheaper units, for nerfing the cover saves of obscured vehicles and for helping to reduce the advantage offered to units that have crap armour saves who now have for all intents and purposes the chance to obtain a 4+ or 5+ invulnerable against our weapons. Believe me if you have a wave of Orks or Nids running your way and your nice 30" AP5 rifles shots are bouncing of cover then you will be grateful for the ML tokens believe me.
Once again, every single hit is indeed valuable, and there are two ways to achieve this: either increase the rate of hits, or increase the number of shots. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes, and enough bullets will find you hitting quite often. Every additional shot is valuable because it means another chance to hit, which means more wounds and more failed saves. Less markerlights lead to more shots, this isn't a cake vs. cake+flashlight world, it's a biomorphs vs. no-biomorphs world. And, once again, simple examples first. I honestly can't think of why anyone would reduce the cover of a squad with a superior armour save, perhaps they've got sufficient AP? I agree that Markerlights will be useful for reducing the abundant cover saves in this edition. And I do recall mentioning that such squads would be a thing to note, especially with the "Gaunt Wrapping" tactic being brewed in the Tyranid forum, so markerlights can be useful. I'm not saying that Markerlights should be ignored like the plague, but to bump a Fire Warrior squad's Bs to 4 and then eliminate the enemy squad's cover saves you would need a full squad of pathfinders backing them up. Admittedly in FOF range this can be useful, but that's 100 points plus transport being dedicated to a single purpose, to pump out 24 shots, 16 hitting and 11 enemy gaunts dead. What of the retaliation? In all likelihood the Fire Warrior squad will be assaulted, as well as the tank, and both will be severely mauled if not destroyed. Then you've got 100 points of pathfinders who no longer have a squad to support. 12 Fire Warriors rapid firing, or 30 Fire Warriors blasting away at range. I'd much rather be able to whittle my enemy away (especially with the new assault rules) than bank a couple hundred points on a single turn's shooting.

rikimaru said:
No they will not be getting cover saves so you use the ML token to up the BS of the shooting unit and kill even more of the exposed unit. Win win situation applies here bud. Remember that ML's have 5 uses not one.
Alright, I admit that markerlights on turn 1 of a Dawn Of War battle can do a bit to help, but it's a rare use, and as I've said, pinning is hardly something I'd bank on. In my mind Markerlights only have three uses: Bs Boost, Cover Save reduction and Seeker Missiles.

rikimaru said:
I find this amusing you slate the ML drone for its costly BS3 ML and you then tell us you pay 25pts for the basically same thing but with less mobility, non networked ML and the nice side effect of limiting your FW's mobility. You slate ML's and yet you use probably the least efficient manner of taking them. I am not surprised you are not bananas on them if this is how you field them. Sorry to sound harsh but c'mon you cannot argue against ML Drones when you take these.
I pay 15 points to make my Fire Warrior squads courageous enough to stand and stop them from running off the board if they break at five models or less. I spend another 15 points to allow the team leader to donate markerlight tokens to other units in need, or to help deal with an unexpected amount of enemy tanks or monstrous creatures (see an Armoured Company or Godzilla list for examples). Should my stealth team be firing at an enemy squad, or perhaps my other Fire Warrior squad is in need, I'll use my markerlights to provide some additional support. You say it limits my mobility, I say it supports my firepower and versatility. It may be an ineffecient way to take markerlights in your mind, but I'm not under the false impression that Marker Drones have target locks. I don't want to purchase a Pathfinder squad, that's too many markerlights on one unit if I take a whole squad and too few models in the unit if I take a minimal squad (breaks with every casualty), plus I'm forced to take a transport that I doubt I'll use. I don't take Marker Drones on my suits as my suits often don't need the support, and I don't take a markerlight on my stealth team leader as it would split the unit in its role. I don't take Sniper teams for their markerlights, it's only one markerlight per squad and I value the Heavy Support slot too much for such things. A Fire Warrior squad is an acceptable place for a Markerlight to me, because I'm already paying the points for the option to take it when I purchase my boosted leadership and bonding knife, and a single pulse rifle will hardly be missed from a squad's ranged shooting. A Sky Ray is a good place to take Markerlights, because you can move at Cruising speed while firing most of, if not all of your weapons, and it allows your Fire Warrior squads a heavy weapon option. It absorbs a lot of fire for not having much independent worth, and with a high front armour value and Disruption Pods it can take that kind of punishment. I can argue quite well against Marker Drones; they're damned expensive and impractical to field most of the time. I'd much rather be taking two markerlights on my Fire Warrior squads than one Marker Drone on any other squad.

rikimaru said:
Hmmm a little contradictory methinks, you earlier said that Seekers were not a good reason to take ML's and then go on to list an extensive number of uses for the Marker light, most of which you argued against earlier. No body should rely on ML's and you have basically made the argument for ML's in your last paragraph. They are indeed a handy bonus but you are wrong, those Flashlights can and do win wars or to be more precise they make the odds of winning a lot more favourable.

When exactly did I say this? I can't find it on this page, the closest thing I said was this:
lLonginus said:
Seeker missiles are indeed useful, but they can get expensive and pale in comparison to the heavy firepower of our railguns.
However, I said that they were useful. I do believe that if you're taking Markerlights simply so that you can use Seeker Missiles, you're quite daffy, as the cost of seeker missiles quickly stacks up and their value isn't as great when weighed against Missile Pods and Railguns. I do use a Sky Ray, not inherently for its Seeker Missiles but for everything about it, it's a versatile and useful tank, and I choose to also make use of the attached Seeker Missiles.

I made the argument for Markerlights? I think a better phrase would be I made the argument against not using markerlights. Any great debater takes into consideration the "opposition"'s side in the debate; he tries to walk in his opponent's proverbial shoes. Why would he think like this, what would cause him to think like this, and so on. I'm not saying Markerlights are entirely bad, I'd say Spore Mine Clusters are entirely bad, don't ever take them unless you want to lose. What I'm saying is that markerlights aren't bad, but they aren't great either. They aren't the messiah of Tau weaponry, they won't win wars on their own and at the end of the day, you may have been better off with more guns and more models. You've got to look past just the shooting, the % rates and so forth, because 90% of 10 is 9, and 50% of 100 is 50, and even though 50% is less than 90%, you had a lot more go to the 50%. Warhammer 40k is a game of risks, rolling dice and hoping that you get lucky. You can see markerlights as a way of reducing risks, I see them as a way of compounding them: not only do you pay to have a 50% chance of an effect, having that 50% chance of an effect can cause players to make unnecessary gambles in their play. That's why people play the lottery! They think to themselves "oooh it's a long shot, but if I get lucky I'll win big!". In 40k you're playing with squads, and markerlights can encourage that gambling nature that can lead to losses.

Markerlights: take them, but never depend on them.
 
#25 ·
Note that I'm typing this all as I read it because I've become too exasperated with each paragraph and feel a pressing need to respond, so if I seem to change minds part way through, your explanation is here.

rikimaru said:
4 extra hits is well worth the cost of the ML, think of it this way if you want to get 4 extra hits from a squad by upping the number of the squad you would need to spend a minimum of 80pts (50% miss rate means you need to take 8 extra FW's to average 4 extra hits). This equates to 3.33r pts per hit over 6 turns (80pts divided by 24 hits).
Now a Marker Drone costs 30pts and an ML will cost a FW squad 20pts. An ML Drones cost per hit equates to 1.25pt (30pts divided by 24hits over 6 turns). Now ignoring the fact that you cannot take 20 strong FW squads, even if you did it is more cost efficient to ML the FW team to up their efficeincy. This is one reason ML's are so good. Even if the ML Drone missed three times the cost is still only 2.5pts per hit. The 20pt ML comes in at a pitiful 0.833r pts pr hit and 1.66r pts per hit if it missed three times (however it is not networked which reduces its value in game terms)
If you think of it in these terms then the ML is a bargain.
You've got to realize, rikimaru, that I'm not outright against you in this. I hate to repeat myself, but I feel like it's pertinent enough to necessitate it:
lLonginus said:
In terms of our units wielding weapons with 4+ to-hit S5 (Stealth teams, Fire Warriors) you would need to have 9 shots equipped with a marker-drone (boosting Bs and averaged) to reach the equivalency of 12 regular shots in terms of points. If you have more than 9 shots coming out of the markerlight unit, the net-gain for the squad is better than the regular squad with three extra shots, and indeed, sometimes the squad size cannot be made greater to accommodate more models who would deal more shots.
I'm not sure what your bit of mathematics there was about, but I am saying that with our units with Bs3 S5 AP5 weaponry, when the squad is putting out 12 shots it is equally effective (on average) as a squad putting out 9 shots with a marker drone's markerlight token upping Bs, and that with every additional shot, the markerlight squad becomes more and more effective than the non-markerlight squad.

Also, I dislike pointing out errors as it usually draws out disagreement, but you would actually only need four Fire Warriors to achieve those four extra hits (remember in the situation we were discussing the squad was rapid firing). So just halve the results of your math and you'll have accurate results, and it's still a net gain for the markerlight unit so long as more than 12 shots are being fired.

rikimaru said:
For some reason you assume that whenever an ML is taken the squad has to be reduced, why?. It is easy to take ML's without reducing numbers. For instance most players will factor in a pathfinder squad as standard, others take a Skyray and like I said with the new transport rules it is now possible to avoid the cost of an extra Devil fish if you are taking PF's. If you go this route then the ML's and Drones are not costing you anything more for the list then you paid previously. You are in fact getting more, you get a useful DF, Pathfinders, extra ML's and more efficient units because of said ML's.
I make this assumption because I build from the ground up, always, and you seem to take it from the top down. You've stated quite a bit about how being able to share a Pathfinder's devilfish frees up a multitude of points, I ask you why you were wasting those points in the first place? With this change resulting from the new edition it seems that you're suddenly finding yourself with a lot of points, and since you've got nothing else to put those points into, why not markerlights? I instead look at those 80+ points and say "that's another 8 Fire Warriors" or any number of other things. Assume that you have a full list with zero markerlights in it, and the list has hit the points limit for your game. If you added in a markerlight, would you not be removing something from another part of your list to gain the points needed? It's a matter of perspective, but instead of a useful devilfish, Pathfinders and extra markerlights you could be getting a useful devilfish, Pathfinders and oh, say, an additional kroot squad? Maybe another broadside with some goodies.

rikimaru said:
Also you can only bulk up units so much and THE ONLY WAY of increasing the efficiiency of a full unit is by the use of ML's. When facing armies with BS4 as standard and / or fast assualt then that efficiency is sorely needed.
Yes, you can only bulk up a unit so much, however you can purchase more units. If you've gotten to the point where you can't purchase more Fire Warrior squads, then you should probably be playing an apocalypse game or a game with multiple FOCs. Maxing out a squad and boosting it is indeed good, however I would prefer to save some points and have two squads instead. One squad would get assaulted and destroyed, with two squads the survivor can rapid-fire into the assault unit.

rikimaru said:
As for the luck point, well I do not rely on ML's to make any unit effective, what I do know is that in at least 50% of the turns (more with my BS4 MLS's) my units are going to be working with boosted BS or the opponent is going to be facing reduced cover save, Seekers and possible pinning etc.
Good that you don't.

rikimaru said:
I find your logic flawed, a unit will have a base level of performance and that performance can only be boosted by taking ML's. True if you sacrifice numbers to take ML's (this is in fact one of my main arguments for NOT taking 6 man FW squads with ML's) then you will find the unit less durable and any ML token will only up the performance to normal squad size results level; however the simple answer is don't take reduced squads with and rely on ML's. ML's should be used to bolster full or your standard sized squads and not taken in place of numbers, this can be done easily.
It blights me to no end that you ignore the rules of quantity versus quality. "The simple answer is don't take reduced squads with and rely on markerlights"? I'd love to simply have a full squad, but there's a constriction on the game called points. It's like telling a marine player that the simple answer is to not make his squads smaller, but also to make those squads terminator squads, just where the hell is he going to get the points? Obviously a 6 man Fire Warrior squad with a Markerlight is going to be a bad choice, we aren't like the majority of other races that can hide a heavy weapon or special close combat weapon in a large squad and use the squad to soak up wounds. We don't use squads as delivery systems for a weapon, our squads are the weapon. However you're ignoring that you can have more than one squad, and that the points for a markerlight can go elsewhere! Augh!

rikimaru said:
I never said that ML Drones can target a different unit to the owning unit. I take Deathrains with target lock on the team leader, HW DC and Marker Drone. This means I have the choice of either marking for the Deathrains (and yes I do think any gain in accuracy is worth the cost) or the DR squad can hit a unit and the Drone can ML for another unit (at the same target the DR's targeted obviously), which can then add to the shooting at the target unit (this works great against tough units) OR the normal DR and Drone can target one unit while the team leader targets another unit. For 30pts this versatility is a bargain.
Alright, if you think less than 10% accuracy is worth 30 points on a twin-linked squad, so be it, I cannot change your mind. I've always been a proponent of focus within a unit; the unit should have one function alone. Tau generally work on this principle, as I alluded to in my previous paragraph. I think putting a target lock on a Deathrain squad so that the squad can pop multiple transports in a turn is great, however, sacrificing the better use of one deathrain so that it can support another squad is a concept that I oppose. The Deathrain is best at what it does, and should it be firing in support of another unit then it will not be utilizing itself to its optimum use. To use another of my poor examples, if your Marker drone and Deathrain support your hammerhead or broadsides that are engaging a Land Raider (or other suitable AV14) the Deathrain is wasted for that turn. Also, perhaps you're supporting a Fire Warriors squad engaging your encountered innumerable hordes of T3 5+ save units. The Fire Warriors are wounding on a 2+ and ignoring armour anyways, and while the Deathrain's shooting is certainly appreciated, it would be better used against say, that chimera that just transported the squad (or wave serpent, or rhino, and so on). It's a bargain to you and a waste to me.

rikimaru said:
My Stealth team leader used to have a TL and HW DC but he TL I discovered was stupid. I tend to use the ML token to up the Stealths BS to 3+ which makes them more effective and also ups their survivabilty (more casualties = less shots at my Stealths), but the option is there to use the token for another unit. I value the option of having the ML available for the Stealths at all times without having to take an ML token from another unit.
Glad your lists are continuing to improve rikimaru, 5 points is small but still valuable. As I've stated before (multiple times now), Bs3 S5 AP5 is more valuable when firing ten marked shots or more. On a stealth team it does give them the option of launching a seeker missile against an enemy vehicle (though I disagree with wasting the unit's abilities) or marking something for another squad when they aren't in range/LOS to use their burst cannons. I'll just take this as an affirmation of agreement on this one.

rikimaru said:
This is the beauty of having multiple ML units, you can hit the pressing target but also hit those annoying units entrenced in cover and more importantly those units entrenched in cover on "objectives". Again you are assuming I rely on the ML to win and this simply is not the case. I always build a list from the core up, by this I mean taking solid dependable units that can win in their own right (without help) but this includes the Skyray and Pathfinder sqaud. I then add ML's if I have the points. The new 5th rules have given me those points to play with and I now have a list that makes my core unit EVEN MORE effective without any detriment to my list. If others can do this then why would they be advised against it. ML's are there to help not work instead of.
Pardon me, but huh?! I'm just going to go ahead and assume you were tired when you typed that red bit. The thing is, as I've already stated, that you could take markerlights to support your core, or you could add units to make your core larger, more durable, having more shots, and so on and so forth.

rikimaru said:
Also you are forgetting that new very important rule 'cover saves from enemy and friendly units'. Often in the game the movement of units will inevitably lead to occasions when you have no choice but to fire through a unit and this gives a huge advantage to those units with poor saves. The only advantage we had before was the fact we could aly down 'unsavable' fire against things like Nids, this advantage has been very much reduced, so anything that reduces this advantage is vital. The only thing that provides the means to negating this advantage is MArker lights, case closed. If you face Nids, Orks, Eldar, DE etc then you will need ML's do not kid yourself you will not.
Nope, I've been keeping it in mind. Deployment and positioning are key elements in the game, and even the best deployment can be made ineffective, so markerlights can be useful. So can a kroot squad to intercept those assaulters that wouldn't have existed had you not saved points by not buying marker drones. And, once again, huh?!

rikimaru said:
Rubbish, a two man DR team and single Drone is easy to hide. Also why DT tests, XV8's have a 6" jump range so why would you jump into terrain, jump behind it dude. You do not take DT tests for jumping over terrain. Also I answered the targeting point earlier.
Ponder this then: a crisis suit has a 1.5" diameter base. That means to cross an area of terrain, that area of terrain has to be 4.5" or less (because you don't move from the front of your base to the back of your base). Now this is great if you're playing with two-dimensional terrain, but most people tend to play with areas of terrain, not strips. Moving along the edge of a piece of terrain is a difficult procedure to do properly if you're trying to maintain range and LOS with the entire unit, along with successfully moving the unit back so that any part of their body cannot be seen (quite difficult with areas of forest).

rikimaru said:
No I am not dividing the purpose of the squad, I have the option to use the ML token for another squad. The main point to taking the ML Drone is so I can utilise the token for the Stealths shooting without using a token another unit could use. Also Stealth's tend to be used for infiltrating and so can be out of range of ML units for a few turns. My Stealth team has the same role it ever had but if needed I can use the ML token to help out another squad which can add its shooting at the unit, for instance 24 BS4 shots from a FW squad will be more effective than 18 from the Stealths, this is a useful benefit.
Ah, we were thinking of different stealth markerlight squads (I had in mind the squads with an excessive number of marker drones) so it looks like we had a bit of confusion there. And past that, I've already essentially gone over this.

rikimaru said:
The Stealth squad is not a poor example, like I said earlier to get the same benefit as the BS boost from the Drone I would need to take 2 extra Stealth suits, thats 60pts. I cannot bulk up the unit any furrther and I cannot use the ML token from a normal Marker light on my TL. I would have to use an ML from another unit (which means I have to decide which is most needy). A full vanilla Stealth unit costs 180pts with Drone it costs 210pts, hardly a massive leap and does not mean I have to reduce the number of models in my Stealth unit (or any other unit). In fact my 2000pts list has the same amount of FW's Kroot etc that it did before. I only lost the XV88's because I wanted a change and two Hammeheads.
By taking the ML on the Stealths I have benefits but no downsides, so how is this a bad example. Taking ML's on FW squads means compromise and has always and always will be a poor choice for the sighting of ML's in the Tau army. M
My casualty index has actually gone up in the Stealth squad because I have one extra model. FW teams usually have to be reduced to pay for ML's and yep this is bad, if it comes to FW's then I am with you I would take 12 FW's over 6 or 9 and an ML anyday.
Once again, communication errors, I was talking about the 6 strong Fire warrior team with marker drone. A full vanilla stealth unit costs 180 points, with drones it's at least 215 points (team leader, and then you might want a bonding knife too). I agree with you on the point with the stealth team, however it seems that we will perpetually be at odds with markerlights on Fire Warrior teams. I use a full squad of Fire Warriors with a Shas'ui (leadership bonus) with markerlight and target lock. Having the markerlight on the team leader only hinders the squad by removing one pulse rifle from the round of shooting, and that is if I choose to use the markerlight. The team leader markerlight gives me versatility. You may need to reduce a Fire Warrior team to add a markerlight, I've always had the points set aside.

rikimaru said:
Massed pulse fire with a BS boost is much more effective, so it is not niether here nor there. I can up the BS of my FW squad and still have ML's free to help other units. I can up my FW's BS to 5 and reduce any cover save to near zero if need be and still have ample ML's to help other units. This is all done without any compromise and that simply cannot be argued against can it?
Oh and by the way I take Hammerheads for the subs not the solid shot and the ML is a big help there as well. Never disputed that the XV88 is a bit more useful but I am holding out on a lasting opinion until I see just how vulnerable they are to those rrunning units and how badly those cover saves truly are.
*sigh* yes, with a Bs boost it is indeed more effective, however I am stating time and again that I prefer the additional shots, wounds and so forth that additional units provide in contrast to the points spent on markerlights. I do have markerlights, and they do help in such situations (see "Sky Ray") however there IS a compromise and that compromise is the points that you are diverting. Seriously, I'm incredibly aggravated by your constant insinuation that markerlights are free!

As for the Hammerhead submunition round, -4 to scatter will be plenty for me almost all of the time, for if I'm fighting a horde (and they're sure to be spaced out to reduce casualties from things like submunitions) then a shot in the middle of the squad will practically guarantee I hit as many models as I can, even with 8" of scatter.

rikimaru said:
When did I ever say they were free. I have only said that with the new transport rules it has left ME with points to spend by virtue of losing the DF of my FW's. If anyone uses Pathfinders in their pre 5th list and still take them then they are in the same position as well because no one ues the PF DF to transport PF's.
You know, I could probably find you ten of your phrases that practically say that they are. You've never outright stated that they are free, but you've said countless times that anybody who uses a markerlight isn't losing anything, and it's outright false.

rikimaru said:
Hmmmm bad example I actually take Scuttle and Ext carapice, so your using the wrong argument against me here
Obviously you can hear me, but it's plain to see that you aren't listening.

rikimaru said:
Quite contradictory there dude, you slate me for taking the ML to up the hit rate on a Deathrain team yet say you value the near guaranteed hit rate for the XV88 the ML offers. Like I said earlier the DR team can split fire (something I do and did a lot anyway pre 5th rules) and now I can help other unit out by providing near perfect hit rates with my DR and up their BS to boot. This can only ever be a benefit.
Um, pardon? When did I say that I would use a markerlight to boost the Bs of a 89% hit rate? Eliminating the cover save on a vehicle is what I value, not >10% bonus accuracy.

rikimaru said:
Retinue only goes to BS4 max and they and the commander can benefit from the cover reducing ability of ML's (especially for their Plasma). Broadsides again can benefit from the cover benefits. Honour guard can be upped to BS5 and also again the cover thing applies. XV8's with twin linked weapons without TA's can benefit from BS boosts and also cover again. Hammerheads are probably one of the best uses for the ML in the Tau army, scatter reduction, BS boost and reducton of cover all help the venearable HH. Skyray can benefit by having other units call its Seekers which leaves their ML's free to help other units. Sniper teams and DF are less favoured true but that only two units (Kroot are moot as they have never been able to benefit). I refute your ascertion that many units do not benefit from ML's, most of the Tau army are only improved when ML's are involved.
It's aggravating that you state these things like I don't know them, or haven't stated them myself, because I do, and I have. I find Bs4 to be quite sufficient, and find Bs5 to be a bit greedy. I'm not saying that a unit doesn't benefit from markerlights (remember my cake vs. cake+flashlight bit?) however boosting Bs4 to Bs5 and reducing an inch of scatter are not cost effective. Reducing cover is useful, when necessary.

On a side note, I can't help but ask you to check your spelling a little more, perhaps I've got Obsessive Compulsive Disorder but after so many misspelled words I can't help but point it out.

rikimaru said:
Tyranids (hello Synapse) Only the ML's can help to kill the synapse, which only leads to an easier victory

Orks in squads of decent numbers. Yeah but what about all the squads who are not in big numbers?

Monstrous Creatures, yeah you often see countless MC's in most lists.

Fearless squads, Ok so use the ML tokens to up the BS of the units shooting them, again its a win/win situation

Vehicles, well duh
Tyranids (hello Synapse) Only the ML's can help to kill the synapse, which only leads to an easier victory Only Markerlights, huh? Have you forgotten about additional railguns, missile pods, plasma rifles.....

Orks in squads of decent numbers. Yeah but what about all the squads who are not in big numbers? I admit I'm not overly familiar with the ork codex, but unless they're grots I'd presume they might have a fearless leader, or be one of the squads that's essentially invulnerable to pinning shots (2+ save) or one of those squads that will already be in close combat with you. Such squads exist, the commonality of such squads is the important matter.

Monstrous Creatures, yeah you often see countless MC's in most lists.Not particularly, but they occur often enough to note, especially in the favoured Tyranid "Godzilla" lists

Fearless squads, Ok so use the ML tokens to up the BS of the units shooting them, again its a win/win situation
The point was pinning, not boosting Bs, so let's keep it on topic.


rikimaru said:
Errrrr half empty means half full dude, what about the half that can be pinned, every unit pinned is one less unit hurting you and ready for more hurt next turn.
rikimaru said:
I am not going to stand here and say that pinning is all that useful; however ML's improve the chances of a unit being pinned when you need it and that cannot be denied as a benefit. You are trying to say that ML's have been nerfed in certain uses and this is simply not true. the only thing they have lost is target priority.
I'm sorry, maybe I should've elaborated on that a bit: on a good day, if you should be so fortunate, half of your opponent's list will be able to be affected by pinning. Perhaps Markerlights haven't been nerfed so much in terms of pinning; target priority tests no longer exist, for which we are grateful, pinning has gotten worse because pinned units go to ground in addition to being pinned, seeker missiles are equally effective, +1Bs is slightly more effective with the scatter reductions, but our Bs can be 5 maximum anyways so it's not going to have any significant effect, night fighting has gotten worse as 1/3 of games had concealment, and an additional 2/3 of games had dusk and dawn (and dusk was significant on games of random length). Reducing cover saves is just as effective, but much more commonplace now. You can cling to Night Fight as an option as you wish, however I've all but forgotten about it since it only occurs in 1/18 turns.

rikimaru said:
Answer me a question, how do you increase the number of hits without paying for them? You cannot use the argument that taking ML's costs pts and then say increase the number of hits, because increasing number of hits means taking more models. ML's are a cost efficient way of increasing a units efficiency. I am not saying inundate your list with ridiculous amounts of ML's but consider the benefits of taking a reasonable number against what you would lose for taking them. In my case I have lost a Devilfish and there are other units that have lost out in 5th that can be dropped in favour of a few more ML's (I am talking about 90ish pts worth here over whatever ML presence you already have). I for one if I had Piranhas in my list would be considering very heavily losing them and taking ML's in their place, or that oft mentioned FW DF.
Yes, increasing the number hits does mean taking more models. So, I take more models. Yes, I can take more models because I can take more than one squad. And we're apparently in agreement that taking markerlights has benefits and to not inundate your list with them. As I've said, I'm not in the place to drop something, because I always build anew (and taking Piranhas or excessive Devilfish is a bad idea, as you say. LO members! Don't do it!).

I am not going to answer this at length because the example is to situational said:
I'm sorry, I didn't think FOFing a squad and then getting counter-assaulted was that uncommon of an occurrence. And I said the latter bit more akin to meaning that the Pathfinders just watched their buddies get eaten, and were sad. They can't support the Fire Warrior squad, because it is dead, they can indeed support other units.

rikimaru said:
Night fight is now in a lot more missions than it used to be and ML's can be very helpful. That HH does not have to test to hit that Landraider for instance if an ML token is available. Pinning should never be banked on but if the situation arises where pinning is going to save a unit then what is wrong in having an edge.
Really? Like, seriously really? I want you to point me to these abundant night-fight missions. Seriously, I need to be aware of these games. There's nothing wrong with having an edge, I just don't often try to cut things with a bowling ball.

rikimaru said:
No you are under the false impression that I think Drones have TL's, I never said they did, you assumed. The fact remains that to take ML's on a FW squad you have to pay 20pts (25 with a TL), even if you do not take bonding. Taking ML's on FW's is the most inefficient way to take ML's. You say it supports your firepower and versatility, you are justifying the inclusion of ML's on this unit but you decry their inclusion on other squads that have the added benefits of mobility and networked ML's, I just find your points contradictory.
Good that we've got that cleared up then, I was merely assuming that you wouldn't hinder a unit to use a markerlight. So much for assumptions, eh? Yes, you have to pay those points, however I would always pay ten of those points anyways, so in my eyes I'm only paying 15 points for the markerlight itself, and the target lock that allows me to not hinder the rest of the unit's firing when using the markerlight. I say it supports firepower and versatility, for it supports the unit's firepower without me having to focus the full force of the squad on a target to simply score a markerlight hit. It supports versatility by allowing me to fire as normal with the fire warrior squad, and to also support other squads with markerlights and to launch Seeker Missiles in times of need. I decry the inclusion of them on squads via marker drone, because the drone has to fire as a part of the squad. Yes, the markerlight in the squad can support that squad, for said markerlight is networked, however you cannot mark for another squad without forcing the rest of the squad to shoot with you. Everything looking non-contradictory now?

rikimaru said:
The PF squad needs the numbers to work, it is the single best way for another unit to gain maximum benfit from the ML tokens. You will usually get 3-4 tokens per turn and this will mean a possible 2+ improvment to BS and reduction of cover saves. You can also use the tokens for pinning or to launch seekers at the unit. Most players will use the DF to transport FW's as static is by far and away the least popular choice for Tau. You have to consider this when discussing dude, a lot of your arguments seem to be based on the way you use the army, the way I use my army is much more in line with how most Tau players use theirs (mobile, FW units in DF, Pathfinders etc) and I consider how the majority of players play when I am recommending units/tactics etc. Your 30 static FW example is a perfect example, not many players use 30 static FW's but the vast majority will use some DF transported FW's
If you'll recall, I said this:
lLonginus said:
I support pathfinders in that they adhere to a single purpose
Are they good at what they do? Yes. Is their abundance of markerlights a potent force? Yes. I acknowledge this, and I've stated that I, personally, don't need such a forceful... force of markerlights in my list. Someone else might, that's their decision. It's annoying that you keep telling me that I'm not thinking about the things that I'm thinking about.

Do you know the vast majority of Tau players? Do you talk to them often, and do they tell you of how they use their Fire Warriors? You're assuming once again.

rikimaru said:
You said that Seekers can be expensive and are not that effective when compared to Railguns. I would say this is saying that they are not a reason to take ML's, I know you said they can be useful but you then went on to basically argue against their inclusion.
Is that not true? Is a S10 AP1 gun that can be fired independently every turn not better than a S8 AP3 gun? I've also said that they are not a reason to take Markerlights, as there are better reasons, and I argue against their supplemental inclusion because they are expensive per shot, and with a full game's shooting you could almost buy yourself a broadside which would be much more useful for the points. They're useful, and they come free on a Sky Ray, so why not use them if you have them? Just don't go out of your way to add seeker missiles to your vehicles.

rikimaru said:
Thats just it though they are great, if you find the balance they are brilliant, they offer nothing but bonuses to a wide range of applications and have no real downside.
No real downside in relation to other units, because everything costs points. The downside of taking them is that you're not taking something else, and that's it. If you think it's more worthwhile to take more markerlights than more of something else, so be it.

rikimaru said:
Nobody ever said depend on them, the fact is they do offer significant bonuses to any army that uses them. I find your argument about gambling weak. Remember you are always going to be guaranteed a units minimum performance (I/E its base stat line) the only thing you get with ML's is a chance of improving the performance of units, they do not impede a units performance (apart from one example the ML on a non relentless squad will nerf its mobility). That 50% chance you talk about is a 50% chance to improve, you do not lose anything if you fail. More models does not always ensure victory, tactics and unit synergy ensures victory just as much as numbers and ML's can be used to much grerater effect in many more ways than having a few extra models. Maybe you should think on that a bit before decrying the inclusion of a few more ML's then your list includes.
Yes, it is indeed a weak argument, but an argument that has a foundation in actual gameplay. I stated this because it's one of many things I consider, and it's worth letting other people consider it too. Am I going to get a cookie because of it? No, unless I get up off of my butt and go get myself one (which I just might). Don't assume that I believe this concretely, it's merely one of many thoughts. I decry using more markerlights than my list includes in my list. If I had three stealth teams, or crisis squads with two weapons per model, or lots of FOFing Fire Warriors, I would want to include more markerlights because there would be a significant amount to gain, however in my list the only squads that aren't Bs4 or twin-linked (or both) are a stealth squad, fire warriors and kroot, and I have plenty of markerlights as far as those units are concerned. Trust me, I've thought about it.

rikimaru said:
As long as you are not weakening your force to a stupid level the ML inclusion in a list can only offer benefits. They still need what any other unit needs to work 'intelligent usage' but in the hands of a good list builder and player the ML will do nothing but reward in 5th and I find your opinion of how they should be included (Skyrays and FW ML squads) very narrow minded. You simply have to consider that not everyone plays as you do. Ml's may have a place in FW squads in purely static lists I am happy to concede but even then other units are still better places, but my point is that I am happy to admit it is an option, you however seem intent on decrying probably the biggest advantage that 5th has thrown our way and I simply do not understand why.
I don't like them on marker drones when trying to mark for other units, and I don't like using markerlights when more models would result in a net equal result, because extra wounds means extra survivability. Hence, I support them on Fire Warrior squads that aren't mounted in devilfish, for they can multi-task effectively with the use of a target lock. I support them on Pathfinders, because Pathfinders are, once again, focused in their purpose, and were I to need ~4 markerlight tokens on a regular basis, I would use them. I support them on stealth teams numbering more than 3 members, and on Sky Rays. I don't support them on marker drones in Broadside teams, Fire Warrior teams and Crisis teams. I'm fairly certain that those are all of the places you can get markerlights, besides the sniper teams that find a permanent place on the shelf.

rikimaru said:
Going to bed now, my head hurts
Yeah, mine did too after my last post, 4am finds me sleepy and irritable. Notsomuch this morning though. I'm glad the thread is finding a consensus on having people find a reasonable amount of markerlights for their lists, and not overdoing it. I'm merely not as large of a proponent of markerlights as rikimaru because most of my units don't need the support (I take plenty of kroot and Deathrains). As I've said, were I to play with a list more like rikimaru's, aka FOFing Fire Warriors, I would field pathfinder squads. It's all a matter of finding what fits into your list best.

I apologize for another "really long post".
 
#26 ·
Ok first things first, the spelling. I typed the thing at 5 in the morning and I have run it through a spell checker and most of the errors are simply mixed up letters I/E 'ei' instead of 'ie' and repeated letters (such as three L's instead of 2) or the apostrophe missing from words like that's. I usually check and run stuff through a spell checker but it was late and I was tired. So I think the comment was quite unjustified dude.

I would also like to say that you do not have to get aggravated in anyway, I am not saying you are wrong just that you seem to have a somewhat limited view of what the ML can do. I fully respect you and know you are a fine contributor to the Tau forum, so please if I have annoyed you accept my unequivocal apology. I do not think you are against me in anyway, I simply think that your view of the ML is somewhat out dated and based to much on 4th rules.

Right a few points regarding the posts.

Marker lights are not free and I have never intimated or said that they are. What I have said is that because of changes to the way the Tau army works under 5th (such as the PF DF able to be used for FW's now and units becoming much less efficient like Piranhas) it is quite easy to find the points for a few more ML's without having to take points away from existing units.
Of course this will not apply to every player but it is quite easy to work a few more ML's into a list without overly compromising any other unit.

You seem to make the argument that ML's cannot be taken without compromising something and this is quite simply not as bad a case as you make out.

Of course if you used a list with no ML's and wanted to add some you would have to make choices but these choices are not the straight forward compromise you seem to think they are. Losing a few FW's or a Piranha or 1 XV8 to facilitate the taking of a few ML's can really help the efficiency of the overall list. It is all about analysing the changes and working out by playing if the changes result in better results. All I am saying is that the 5th rules have made the ML much more usable, valuable and efficient.

Your main argument seems to be that taking ML's will reduce the number of models you can take. Well yeah that can be a problem. My point is that most players will have existing ML's in a list and with a few minor changers a few more can be added. With the new mobility and the need to remove cover saves the ML is now a much more viable choice, but not to the detriment of the overall list. We agree on this point but we seem to disagree on how much taking the extra ML's will affect a list. That is fine and I think we have both made our points clearly. We can argue back and forth with specific examples but the overriding fact is that the ML can help a list in many ways over and above what a single unit (taken in place of the ML's) could.
Units have limited uses but the ML can help in many ways, you have to factor these sorts of equations into the decision of what to take.

Anyway I do not want this fine debate to end up in bad feeling, we have both made valuable, concise, useful and valid points and no one is wrong. Both approaches are valid, if you think that numbers of shots are the way to got then honestly I have no problem with that. I simply hold the opinion that the ML when used well can benefit an army much more than a few extra shots or few extra numbers in a few squads and I value that flexibility to improve ALL my units (all that can use ML tokens that is).

Thanks for the debate but I think the long replies should cease and it should be made clear that I know you were not arguing against me but simply putting your views forward, I hope you can appreciate I was simply doing the same. I promise that the long posts will not be creeping back :act-up:
 
#28 ·
Indeed. We use them differently, but understandably, and perhaps more 5th edition games will see my ways changed (I'm certainly going to be doing a lot of experimenting).

So what's up this week for Topic of the Week? I say we debate secondary weapons systems on vehicles, because there are a lot of fine choices, but some choices are suited to some vehicles better than others (and that whole gun drone kill point thing is a bother in itself). What's in store, Lost Nemesis?
 
#29 ·
I apologize if this point was already made, but if you want me to read your posts you should probably explain your points in small little bites like:

pathfinders cost X more points (where X is small) than a fire warrior for a carbine + a markerlight. Not to mention the fact that they have a scout move, their fish REALLY helps with deepstriking units (which are fun to take, but moot point if you don't like to risk it), and the fish can be given to your fire warriors.

Why are you not taking this unit? Why are you not taking two? Pretty much any unit benefits from markerlights (don't tell me deathrain don't need them. Try shooting at a squad of killa kans in range of a kustom force field), so I don't see the "my whole army is TL, bs4" argument as very persuasive. If you don't like markerlights, or don't like the mobility restriction of the heavy weapon or whatever, don't take them. But markerlights don't have to be a points efficiency concern. In terms of shooting, a support team of 5 markerlight pathfinders will benefit you more than an additional 6 fire warriors. Period.
 
#30 ·
I apologize if this point was already made, but if you want me to read your posts you should probably explain your points in small little bites like:
Yes please Riki and lLonginus. No point in an explanation if no one bothers to read it.

pathfinders cost X more points (where X is small) than a fire warrior for a carbine + a markerlight. Not to mention the fact that they have a scout move, their fish REALLY helps with deepstriking units (which are fun to take, but moot point if you don't like to risk it), and the fish can be given to your fire warriors.
Pathfinders cannot really be compaired to Fire Warriors as Fire Warriors score but Pathfinders don't.
 
#32 ·
Indeed, posts generally vary in length depending on how much there is to say. If you noticed how the post was segmented you would've noticed that each point was divided. Admittedly, I could have divided each segment into an individual reply, but then this thread would take a good deal longer to chew through (and it would take me a good deal longer to post). It also makes formulating a response to multiple points more convenient when all of those points are in one place. Rikimaru and I are used to this kind of discussion, and we had a very good and productive debate, whether it's convenient for you to read a decent sum of information at one time or not is unfortunately your problem. I suppose books aren't for everybody these days.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top