Kroot Loops wrote:I was in the Infantry, I've been to war. Kindly do not try to explain to me how it unfolds.

And I thank you, my brother in arms. I too have and am serving.

Kroot Loops wrote:Armies used to march in formation and fire at point blank range because that was the tactic developed when firearm technology coupled with left over martial traditions made it the most viable tactic at the time. As firearms improved and new tactics emerged, things changed.

Actually this is a major misnomer, as I understand it. Napoleon actually developed the tactic of marching "cheek to jowl," hence its name "Napoleonic" style of warfare. Before that, I believe, firearms were used by small groups or firing lines, much in the same way archers were used. Poor accuracy made this invalid, but by giving the rifles to the infantry, and using it as a quick volley right before they charged into hand to hand combat (which was the preferred method still), did work. It wasn't until rates of fire and accuracy increased did they cease to use formations. The Civil War, with the Confederate guerrilla tactics (which seems to be rarely mentioned in text books), high rate of fire weapons, and much more accurate weapons, did formations become less practical. WWI machine guns, artillery, land mines, GI bolt action rifles, did charges for hand-to-hand fully die out.

Kroot Loops wrote:British Supply lines were too long and they couldn't find the American forces and force a favorable confrontation.

See? The situation dictated the conditions of victory. The Americans didn't have to beat the British at their own game (in fact they usually lost trying to...), they just changed the rules, attacking the British where they were weakest.

Kroot Loops wrote:The political situation in addition to the terrain being unfavorable to armor and again, being unable to find and force the enemy into open confrontation contributed to the 'loss' in Vietnam.

Fact: Chinese and Vietnamese casualties dramatically out weighed American casualties to phenomenal proportions. Fact: America won most every major engagement in the war. Fact: When America attacked a Vietnamese or Chinese position, they won (major and majority of times). Fact: There was very little China or opposing Vietnamese could to do stop the Americans from going where they wanted or doing what they wanted. Martially, America had Vietnam in the bag. The problem? Hearts and minds. America lost that battle to phenomenal proportions. So why did we lose? Well, because we couldn't go and destroy the Chinese. After the Tet Offensive, the Vietnamese were finished (they never again played a part in any campaign), and before then, military victory over Vietnam was still a question. After wards, it was an inevitability. But knee biting of the "counter-culture" of the 60's played right into Communist propaganda hands; they showed a disenfranchised American youth supporting communist ideas and moral support for the Chinese and Vietnamese opposition (truth was, those in South Vietnam that weren't opposed to Communist Forces didn't care for communism and just wanted to farm their rice). Basically, America told the Communists "they were doing what was right and needed to keep killing Americans."

Kroot Loops wrote:You come up with a concept:
'These will be 'Space Marines'. They'll be a solid army with no real weaknesses, but they won't excel at anything; they'll also have strong armor and be very durable'
'These will be 'Eldar'. They'll feature highly specialized units that excell at one thing but are weak at another. By combining specialized units a balance force can be assembeled, or they can focus on one aspect or the other. They'll also have the fastest vehicles in the game'
etc etc.

Actually WH40k was a "Warhammer Fantasy Battle in Space" concept, with most all the fluff from Fantasy taken to 40k (then Rogue Trader). WFB was essentially a rip off of Tolkien, and that's where most of its fluff came from. There has been a lot of evolution, and fluff not from Fantasy of Tolkien created, but your example pretty much shot itself in the foot, so to speak: WH40k fluff came before the game.

Kroot Loops wrote:Then you test them so they are balanced against each other.
Then you write fluff to make them interesting. Why are they the way they are? What are some of their great triumphs? Their Great Defeats?

Yes, balancing occurs, and fluff is also extrapolated, but not nearly as much fluff is written for rules as rules are written for fluff. I'm sure an old Chaos Space Marine player can tell you about that.

It was first used in archer style elements due to, as I understand it, manufacturing limitations and martial traditions. The gun, like the crossbow before it, was the weapon of the weak and unskilled. Even into the 20th century a skilled archer was able to outperform rifle marksmen in terms of accuracy. However it took a lifetime of training to be proficient with the bow, and only a week or so to master basic marksmanship with a rifle.

It also had to contend in some places with the idea that ranged weapons were not for honorable warriors.

As manufacturing and firearm technology improved, as well as armies being forced to use firearms due to it's effectiveness, it became a standard weapon. Formation marching was nothing new, from the hoplite phalanx to the Roman Legions, formation combat was the order of the day for disciplined armies until modern times. although it would not surprise me if it was Napoleon who first places rifles into formation.

The situation did dictate the conditions of victory. My point is that this does not exist in 40k. There are no supply lines. You can not utilize stealth or guerilla tactics because your opponent sees where all your models are at all times. In a prolonged story based campaign, these things can come into play, but not a standard 40k match. It's needs to be 'you line up x points, and I'll line up x points, and on any given day, either side can win' It may be slightly harder for one side, and that's fine. But things coming down the road, like the Storm Harbringer, some armies have neither answer nor counter for.

Of course America won the battles in Vietnam when it came to a fight. That's never been in question. Being able to invade would have undoubtedly but the cap on Vietnam, but it wouldn't have put the Cap on China.

And while all of this may be interesting, it doesn't address anything about the game.

I wasn't talking of how it *was* created, but how it *should* be created. I think the armies are getting kind of out of hand, it'll either stagnat into an unplayable mess, or they'll have to reboot the system, in my opinion. GW has been doing this for a while, maybe they'll surprise me.

Tau need help. They're the worst Army in 40k (debatable with Necrons possibly). And there are only a few ways to go: Better shooting, more powerful shooting, reduce points to make them a horde army.

Or ridiculous rules, like:

Railgun screening network: Acknowledging the dangers deep striking and out flanking forces pose to the hunter cadre, The Tau have developed a highly advanced screening network. Each Railgun on the board may be used individually to counter a deep striking or flanking unit within 24" of a Tau Unit. Each Railgun may only fire once per turn in this function, and each individual target may only be fired at once for this rule. Railguns in a squad or squadron may fire at seperate targets for the purpose of this rule. Squadrons of vehicles that are deepstriking or flanking may recieve one railgun shot per vehicle.

If a deepstriking or flanking unit suffers an immobilized or destroyed result, any units that were embarked suffer a perils of the warp roll. If it suffers a stunned result, any embarked units are pinned, even if they would normally be immune to pinning.

And while that seems silly, it's not really that much far beyond some of the things coming out now.

Just look at the old method marching in tight formation up to another unit, then blasting each other at point blank range; at one point that was considered the most tactically pheasable mode of combat! But it went extinct.

It went extinct because of weaponry advances not because the tactic was flawed. It was the best tactic with the equipement available at the time. Americans should know this better than anyone because the tipping point to new weaponry making this tactic suicide came during your civil war the result being you guys inventing trench warfare (thanks for that by the way - the worst type of warfare in military history).

Look at Vietnam; with only the most basic of an assault rifle, most basic of ordinance (grenades, rocket launchers, etc...), the Chinese were able to hold back the American military force. Why? Not because they could tactically defeat the Americans on an equal playing field, but because the political environment allowed it to be so.

More to do with the Terrain and never actually fighting a full scale war against the americans. Whilst large chunks of the american army where fighting it was never a full commited to war on the same sort of scale as say WW2 and your war against Japan. If America had commited troops on that sort fo scale they'd have easily won but would have almost certainly found themselves in nuclear war with Russia...

How did the American Revolutionary forces defeat one of the most powerful empires on earth? The environment made such a victory/defeat possible.

I recon it had more to do with never actually fighting that army and instead fiighting a militia lead by a simpathiser... Rather stupidly the british leaders didn't see you country as valuable so never fought to keep it (not saying we would have won if we had actually decided to fight the war, but we didn't so it was a full gone comclusion and you still needed the help of the white flag brigade).

I'm going to have to side with Killkrazy a balanced game is the number 1 important thing. However fluff is also VERY important an deach army needs a unique feel to gain popular appeal but if certain armies are stuffed because the fluff doesn't allow them to compete (Orks for instance) then that has to go by the way side. Unfortunately the game balance has shifted almost entirely to CC now and that leaves the Tau a bit high and dry so they need a new codex more than anyone (except the poor Necrons how long have they been waiting for a new 'dex?).

Okay, apparently my attempt at explaining combat evolution and how technically superior forces can lose to technically inferior forces was massively misinterpreted.... what I was trying to show was that "superior" technology and tactics will win out over older/inferior tech and a tac. However, that does not mean that the guy who brings a club to a gun fight will necessarily lose the war, if he doesn't even have to swing his club to win.

As far as building a game around "balance," as opposed to the fluff. Well I think every army would end up the same flavor with no weaknesses, just strengths, and there would be no need for codex updates. There are a lot of other game systems like that. Battletech is a good example.

I don't really understand what combat evolution has to do with making 40K work as a game.

It is your opinion that balancing the game would result in bland codexes with very similar troops and tactics in each army.

Surely the current game gives that that lie. The 5e codexes do seem to be pretty well balanced among themselves.

The codexes which are badly out of whack (mainly Tau and Necrons) are suffering from some specific changes in the core rules, which attack them especially and not the other factions.

If you think that is subjective, consider this.

The game offers a variety of factors which can be varied from army to army -- BS/WS/Sv and so on -- plus the variations available in different weapons, and the points values. These factors can give the same basic troop type (infantry, for example) different strengths and weaknesses in each army.

As far as building a game around "balance," as opposed to the fluff. Well I think every army would end up the same flavor with no weaknesses, just strengths, and there would be no need for codex updates. There are a lot of other game systems like that. Battletech is a good example.

Why you seem to preclude the possibility of fluff and other factors. Just because game balance is the top priority doesn't make it the only priority.

When you buy a new TV your top priority might be price. Say you have £200 to spend that doesn't mean you go and find the TV with a price as near to £200 as possible. Other factors will still effect the TV you end up with like brand name, picture quality, aethetics, design size etc.

Just because game balance is the main driver it doesn;t mean you have to make a bland game or that fluff doesn't influence game design.

I think game balance should be the Go/No-go test. Not the beginning point of army building. I would say designing armies that are balanced, then making up fluff to fit them, is akin to inventing something, then trying to figure out what it is good for.

The two armies that are having the hardest time currently are Tau and Necrons, agreeable. However Tau are still not the crippled duck some people make them out to be. Do they need work? Most definitely. Do they need a fluff re-write? No, not at all. Tau are still very viable for play, difficult for tourney, most definitely, but not a crippled army.

Necrons and Tau are also the two newest armies, and are only first and second generation Codices. Considering that Tau never existed before (Necrons did appear way back), it isn't that surprising that they are having a hard time finding where they belong in 40k and finding both useful and fluff appropriate units.

If you want to balance Tau, and don't care about fluff, just clone the Space Marine Codex, change all the names, and make stuff up from there. You'll certainly be able to make up reasons why Tau are stomping around in SV3+ armor (mini-Crisis suits anyone?), have Dreadnoughts (Heavy Crisis Suits!), etc... But then that wouldn't fit their current fluff, now would it?

How about the BRB? The turn over of new recruits and casualties in the IG runs into the millions daily, the turn over is so high that no one knows what the actual strength of the IG is. Regiments are raised on a planet, given rudimentary training, shipped to the war zone, and thrown into battle.

Moot point as well as totally irrelevant.
The casualty numbers have zero relevance to the issue at hand.
The IG is so vast the standard crusade consist of a billion soldiers and no one even knows exactly how many billion of guardsmen there are in the whole IG. Thus no one knows the casualty ratio either.

Tau have hardly any experiance with deamons, eldar, dark eldar, necrons and chaos relative to IG.
Tau mostly fight back the odd ork and tyranid swarm and invade very poorly defended imperial planets and when "real" imperial forces arrive to reclaim them the tau realize its not as easy as they previously thought. This is what you get for being clustered tightly in one small spot in the galaxy.
As per GWs fluff, if the imperium wasnt so hard pressed by other and bigger threats (tau arent even up there with the big ones), the puny tau empire would be steamrolled in an afternoon.

Even the most professional IG regiment, the Cadians, has a nearly identical birthrate and death rate, which means it's a stagnant population. Have you ever been to a country ravaged recently by war? You'll find an interesting phenomenon, 60% or more of the population will be under the age of 18.

Since basically the entire population is fighting and Cadia is placed under the biggest and constant threat in the galaxy what is your point?
Tau live on secluded planets wrestled from weak and underpowered planetary governmets at such times the real imperial forces cannot help them.

To use a point of having some imperial armies being constantly beleguared and say casulties are hight and therefore the IG suck is laughable at best.
Lets invade the tau with a 13:th black crusade and I can start pointing out to you how high firewarrior casultie rates are, would that make any sense what so ever?

A SM chapter with all it's forces is a far cry from less than 10 space marines with no heavy support.

Not against an entire craftworld on its home turf it isnt.

Besides, at least in 'canon' fluff, Every faction gets their chance to shine. I'm more concerned about the table top. There is no reason the BA should have gotten this super skimmer of death that they are getting, but they are. GW has to make every army viable on the table, they aren't the only game in town anymore where we'll sit for six years hoping we'll be fixed 'next codex'. If they continue ramping the Imperium up and maintaining Xenos in a sub-par existance, I'll migrate with my dollars over to Warmachine/Hordes.

And I'm pretty sure you mean to say BS 4, not WS 4

Yeah the WS was a typo.

True, other races need time to shine on the TT as well but the foremost idea with this game is still that it is at least slightly based on fluff.
As for firewarrior fluff I dont really care how much they cost as long as it is balanced but they do not have the eye sight for a BS4.
The suits I would agree to for an adequate point increase.

I still remember the times tau were new and all armies abused the crap out of the game with those pesky never-can-die jump suits. Hopefully they will get more fun rules in the future since we dont really need yet another cheesy idiot proof unit all noobs can hang on to.

do Tau ever even do live fire exercises?

Hehe, we know about one, against an burned out rhino hull being towed to impress an imperial fist "diplomat".

2) The "Guardsmen" that are quickly recruited and poorly trained (those some people refer to as "having a lasgun thrust into their hands and told 'go!'") are what are called "Conscripts," and are pitiful in a model for model comparison to both Guardsmen and Fire Warriors.

Conscripts or poorly trained local pdf militia.
Real imperial guard are a highly professional army with decades under each regiments belt before being rolled out, if ever.

3) If Tau Sergeants (however you call them) are the "betters," then shouldn't Guard Sergeants and Space Marine Sergeants also have +1BS? What about the Veteran Sergeants? Shouldn't they also be +1BS compared to their normal Veteran components? Then wouldn't the commanders be an additional +1BS too? I mean, not only are they veterans, but their also even better than the Sergeants! So that would put a Guard Company Commander at BS6 and Space Marine Captains at BS7! I'm not implying this is good logic, I am showing that just because you're a "veteran" or "Sergeant" doesn't mean your BS should be immediately bumped.

This is what happens when faction fanatics take over, we end up with drones having BS10.
I´we seen this with sister ideas on another board, fluff was bent to hell and back in order to excuse S6 power weapons, BS5 across the board and 3+inv saves and you only see the ridicule of it all if you are an outsider without bias clouded vision stepping in mid discussion and are subsequently burned at the stake for daring to point out the idiocy.

1. FW should have BS4, as it fits with the army theme of focused ranged fire

You need to provide better reasons otehr then "you want".
Bad eye sight in the fluff anyone?
Tabletop wise, having S5 R 36 rifles with BS4 to them would mean a ridiculous point cost of a firewarrior and as far as I know NO fluff tells us of firewarriors being a deathwing-alike elite army.

3. Skinnattittar; who somehow believes that the IG is the ultimate fighting force in the galaxy and nothing should be better than them

He reflected upon the true fluff of IG, thats all. A human who has a longer life span then a tau and who fights in a professional army for most of his life will inevitable be better then a short living and half blind firewarrior!
The only thing the firewarrior will have that is better will be the quality of his wagear and that is also the case with 4+ saves and super guns.
If you have a problem with that then look at yourself, inventing fluff reasons to give firewarriors BS4. As far as I know no FW models are ever wearing any glasses

The demands of gameplay take precedence over fluff.

Yes and no. Fluff also needs to be interlinked with the game. Why else go to lenghts to invent rules that make almost identical units differ (bikes and jetbikes). Why else put effort into making tabletop distinctions between very similar things like jump packs and jet packs?

If the gaming was all it was about we should have similar figures only painted different and with similar rules.

Same thing goes for war gaming. An army with fluff that rends it unable to compete with those that exist is an army that is doomed to become extinct.

The important thing to recognise is that no army has fluff that makes it ineffective!!!!
Its the point costs that often make things op or up.
We can take a pure grot army and make them overpowered if we price each frot at 1p a piece and remove slot limitation, its not the fluff of crappy grots that would make such an army unbalanced.

When considering a new tau codex and new rules I would say the most important things are to represent fluff and do so in a balanced way without any cheese loopholes or without ending up with each and every tau army being built in just one or two ways.

Good read, To bad thats YOUR OPINION. Which when it gets down to it... opinions arent what really matters

not really, opinion alone is not what matters. An opinion with logic, fluff and common sense backign it on the other hand, that is what matters. So far I see no, zero, nada good reasons other then "your own opinion" to give firewarriors BS4!

Firewarriors are 10, bs 3, and ld 7, cant take heavy weapons, cant take CC weapons, there is no ldr fix for stopping them running off table.

please explain all of those Math/Cost wise as to why they should NOT get beefed up.

Maybe you should start asking yourself what do firewarriors get that guardsmen do not?

Using your logics chaos thousand sons marines are absolutely worthless, they only get an AP3 bolter and no heavy weapons and they cost like 23p each!
I dread the thought of you being an avid chaos player, that wey we would have to listen through rants about you advocating point reductions for 1ksons marines as well as heavy weapons for them simply because IG cost less and can take heawy weapons.

Geez, the lack of solid arguments never sizes to amaze me

That's one of the most nonsensical things I've ever heard. You do realize that in Imperial Armour 3, the Tau utterly embarrassed the IG at every turn, that they were one shotting their tanks from beyond visual range?

*sigh*
You realize that in imperial armour the Raven Guard totally embarrassed the tau army too?
Should I use that as a point to make SM BS5 across the board?

Besides, wasnt it not one of you tau BS4 apologists who recently told me that non GW canon fluff isnt worth jack?
Do try to live like you preach the next time.

WH40k =/= real life. Every soldier in the army does not share a stat line.

Fine, then firewarriors from different septs on different planets can also be said to have non similar stats!
How would you like some firewarriors to have BS2?
Or using your reasoning lets give both IG and firewarriors a BS of 1D6-1. That should conform better to your version of "real life".

You come up with a concept:

'These will be 'Space Marines'. They'll be a solid army with no real weaknesses, but they won't excel at anything; they'll also have strong armor and be very durable'

'These will be 'Eldar'. They'll feature highly specialized units that excel at one thing but are weak at another. By combining specialized units a balance force can be assembeled, or they can focus on one aspect or the other. They'll also have the fastest vehicles in the game'

This is how GW do it, They give a new army/race a theme, inherited strengths, weaknesses, encouraged gaming styles etc.
This is all framed by the fluff give to the race.

Thus tau are made highly mobile but part static with transport options. Weak in melee but also average or even weak in shooting skills. This is ofset by superior technology (wargear) and finally the melee was given an option in the form of rather bland kroot but this is ok as quality melee is supposed to be lacking in the theme.
They were even given a specialized anti MEQ unit that by now is overpriced for that it does.

Now what you are trying to do is to upset GWs own balance by introducing high BS skill into the brew of already best shooty wargear in the whole game of 40k. Sorry dude byt this radical decision is only GWs to make and should the make one other aspects of the army/race will suffer badly to counterbalance this.

WFB was essentially a rip off of Tolkien

And Moorcock.

The situation did dictate the conditions of victory. My point is that this does not exist in 40k. There are no supply lines. You can not utilize stealth or guerilla tactics because your opponent sees where all your models are at all times

Because standard 40k missions are about one platoon vs another platoon during the course of one day. Importing big picture things like supplies etc is out of the scope for that.
On the other hand you are perfectly free to play apoc sized games over a course of battles and locations with each outcome dictating conditions for the players that can be made to reflect morale, supply lines, reinforcements etc.
40k is not devoid of such things, they just dont fit into one core rule book.

Tau need help. They're the worst Army in 40k (debatable with Necrons possibly).

LOL
Try again! Does the phrase "deamon hunters" mean anything to you?

If any army deserves a codex before tau it is they.

Railgun screening network: Acknowledging the dangers deep striking and out flanking forces pose to the hunter cadre, The Tau have developed a highly advanced screening network. Each Railgun on the board may be used individually to counter a deep striking or flanking unit within 24" of a Tau Unit. Each Railgun may only fire once per turn in this function, and each individual target may only be fired at once for this rule. Railguns in a squad or squadron may fire at seperate targets for the purpose of this rule. Squadrons of vehicles that are deepstriking or flanking may recieve one railgun shot per vehicle.
If a deepstriking or flanking unit suffers an immobilized or destroyed result, any units that were embarked suffer a perils of the warp roll. If it suffers a stunned result, any embarked units are pinned, even if they would normally be immune to pinning.

That really made my day

Skinnattittar wrote:I think game balance should be the Go/No-go test. Not the beginning point of army building. I would say designing armies that are balanced, then making up fluff to fit them, is akin to inventing something, then trying to figure out what it is good for.

The two armies that are having the hardest time currently are Tau and Necrons, agreeable. However Tau are still not the crippled duck some people make them out to be. Do they need work? Most definitely. Do they need a fluff re-write? No, not at all. Tau are still very viable for play, difficult for tourney, most definitely, but not a crippled army.

Necrons and Tau are also the two newest armies, and are only first and second generation Codices. Considering that Tau never existed before (Necrons did appear way back), it isn't that surprising that they are having a hard time finding where they belong in 40k and finding both useful and fluff appropriate units.

If you want to balance Tau, and don't care about fluff, just clone the Space Marine Codex, change all the names, and make stuff up from there. You'll certainly be able to make up reasons why Tau are stomping around in SV3+ armor (mini-Crisis suits anyone?), have Dreadnoughts (Heavy Crisis Suits!), etc... But then that wouldn't fit their current fluff, now would it?

It is possible to have balanced armies without making everyone the same.

Take Space Marines. Traditional strengths has been

1. good all around, the standard from which every other army is measured (Saying they are the 'average' army is a bit of a misnomer, they are high-average)
2. Durable. From 3+ saves on troops, to a AV14 on all sides transport, to 2+ Termi armor, to ironclad/venerable dreads, A Marine force isn't just going to fold under one round of typical fire.

And Take Eldar, traditional strengths would be:
1. Powerful Psyker abilities to buff their own army.
2. Specialized units that can outperform Marines in their specialty
3. Very fast, mobile transports and fleet troops

In a game, Marines could win by playing against the specialties of the eldar forces. Or as the Ork saying goes, 'Dakka the Choppy bits, Chop the Dakka bits'

Eldar would want to use their speed and mobility to prevent the marines from doing so.

The game would be won by the person who executed their plan the best and made the fewest mistakes (barring the ever looming displeasure of the dice gods)

But take a look at what's happening now. Storm Harbringer? A fast Skimmer with good armor, amazing troop capacity, staggering firepower, and can launch jump infantry in assault after moving 12"? Oh, and it can deepstrike and still launch that assault. Or take Pedro, and you're entire Marine Army is Fleet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pyriel- wrote:
insert a lot of nonsense here

So you ignore the fluff you don't like and claim Skinn as the Prophet of the IG, revealing it's true fluff! Psst, The IG isn't real, their fluff is whatever GW decides to print at the given time.

If anyone here sounds like a rabid fanboy on a rant, it's you. Take a breath, and try to post coherently

Yes, DH needs a new codex, because that's what this game needs, is another release of the bloat of 8 codex that is the IoM. Lets see 5e releases have been SM, IG, SW, Nids, BA. And rumors, while unreliable at this point, say the Inquisition will be next.

The range of the pulse rifle is not 36 inches. And I'd love to see you scrubs quoting the long range of the pulse rifle actually play a match as Tau against IoM. Round 1 it'll be 'zomg I can shoot 30"!!!!' Round 2 it will be 'Where are my FW?'

FW are half blind? Sorry, no. Their eyes don't focus as quickly as a human eye does, and I'm pretty sure that was designed to explain their poor weapon skill, not their poor ballistic skill.

Oh, and railgun defense screen? Yeah, that was explicitly stated to be an example of a ridiculous rule, not a proposed one.

Kroot Loops wrote:...claim Skinn as the Prophet of the IG, revealing it's true fluff!

Thanks! I needed a new quote for my signature.

Funny, a bit out of context, but funny

I was led to believe that Tau are poor in close combat because they find it detestable and uncivilized. Below them (which would explain their affinity for the races that don't have such a repulsion). The poor eyesight, as I understood it, explained why their BS wasn't through the roof despite being an army focused on powerful ranged shooting.

I don't know where all the "poor eyesight" commentary comes from as there is nothing in my codex about it; however, a search on the 40k wiki produced this:
"Tau vision is considered slightly superior to humans - their visual spectrum extends a little more into the ultraviolet and infrared wavelengths. However their pupils do not dilate giving poorer depth perception and slower focusing reflexes than Humans."

I also found on another website mention of a GW article when Tau were first introduced that mentioned eyesight being another cause for poor close combat skills.

I searched high and low and found no mentiont that poor eyesight caused bad shooting. If that were the case, one would expect their rifles to be shorter range...

Skinnattittar wrote:I was led to believe that Tau are poor in close combat because they find it detestable and uncivilized. Below them (which would explain their affinity for the races that don't have such a repulsion). The poor eyesight, as I understood it, explained why their BS wasn't through the roof despite being an army focused on powerful ranged shooting.

Nope, I've read the eyesight thing before, although I don't recall where at the moment, but I'm fairly certain, as Agnosto said, it was mainly a CC thing. Just because you don't like CC doesn't mean you'll suck at it.

And The Tau don't like Kroot because they're good in CC, in fact they try to curtail their alien allies from such barbaric practices. The enjoy the Kroot's fieldcraft and infiltration ability, which has synergy with and complements Pathfinder teams, or the Vespids synergy and complementary pairing with Crisis Suit Teams (Tau Codex, page 10).

You're going back to the fluff. Ignore the fluff.

Accept that Tau are an army which is bad at H2H because that makes them different. Then think about what can be improved to compensate: firepower, mobility, defence, and cost reduction.

Kilkrazy wrote:You're going back to the fluff. Ignore the fluff.

Accept that Tau are an army which is bad at H2H because that makes them different. Then think about what can be improved to compensate: firepower, mobility, defence, and cost reduction.

I love how you just sounded like a hypnotist....."look at the light, you are getting sleep, sleepy; when you awake, you'll be a blue dude with 4 fingers."

I don't think anyone wants a Tau army that is good at CC (and Yes, I know as I say that, there will definitely be someone who does want them to be) because that would completely change the nature of the army.

I have the BA rumors too firmly in mind at the moment, the Storm Harbringer and Shockwave pretty much trumps mobility in any form of x number of inches movement

agnosto wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:You're going back to the fluff. Ignore the fluff.

Accept that Tau are an army which is bad at H2H because that makes them different. Then think about what can be improved to compensate: firepower, mobility, defence, and cost reduction.

I love how you just sounded like a hypnotist....."look at the light, you are getting sleep, sleepy; when you awake, you'll be a blue dude with 4 fingers."

It worked in Avatar!

Kilkrazy wrote:

agnosto wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:You're going back to the fluff. Ignore the fluff.

Accept that Tau are an army which is bad at H2H because that makes them different. Then think about what can be improved to compensate: firepower, mobility, defence, and cost reduction.

I love how you just sounded like a hypnotist....."look at the light, you are getting sleep, sleepy; when you awake, you'll be a blue dude with 4 fingers."

It worked in Avatar!

QFT

Kilkrazy wrote:You're going back to the fluff. Ignore the fluff.
Accept that Tau are an army which is bad at H2H because that makes them different. Then think about what can be improved to compensate: firepower, mobility, defence, and cost reduction.

a) I won't ignore fluff. If I want to play a boring, uninteresting game where the only fun is running around looking for headshots, I'll play Counter-Strike. If I want to play a game where I actually feel like I'm part of the game, I'll play 40k. If you just want to move guys around, then play chess or checkers.

I more then except that Firewarriors are poor in close combat, but I do not think that making the Tau army better is giving them all BS4 for no reason other than to make Tau players happier. It's just a sad and pointless reason to do anything.

It's funny, I just read the Tau fluff in the BRB for the first time. It was about them crushing 7 regiments of Catachan Imperial Guard

Hrm, Tau beating IG in the BRB... in the Tau Codex... In the Taros Campaign... Very well Skinn. You must adhere to the fluff. I expect you to flee the table every time you face Tau :p

Now back to the dead horse, resume beating.

Kroot Loops wrote:It's funny, I just read the Tau fluff in the BRB for the first time. It was about them crushing 7 regiments of Catachan Imperial Guard

Hrm, Tau beating IG in the BRB... in the Tau Codex... In the Taros Campaign... Very well Skinn. You must adhere to the fluff. I expect you to flee the table every time you face Tau :p

Now back to the dead horse, resume beating.

lawl so true!

oh and fluff on tau facing space marines, space marines get pew pewed to piece until the marines hold a piece of ground that is overly important to the tau and are force to close to try and dig them out of their holes.. then the marines grab the tau in melee and it makes up for the beating they take at range.

I mean ignore the fluff as a means of determining what the rules of the game should be.

Write rules that make an interesting game then write fluff to support the rules.

Not to mention that GW has no problem changing fluff when it suits their purposes.

I don't play Tau but I have played against them. BS3 is low for a shooting unit, but anything higher might be OP with the high str of their guns for a troop choice. However, Tau players can use Markerlights to make them hit really easily, and with their high str guns that is devastating.

Also I agree, cheaper transports would make Fire Warriors more fun ^^

Callum wrote: I don't play Tau but I have played against them. BS3 is low for a shooting unit, but anything higher might be OP with the high str of their guns for a troop choice. However, Tau players can use Markerlights to make them hit really easily, and with their high str guns that is devastating.

Also I agree, cheaper transports would make Fire Warriors more fun ^^

problem is how fragile/static/expensive the different sources of marklights present...

If your fragile and relatively cheap, your static

If your expensive as hell, your still fragile yet a little harder to see but you can move

If you honestly think skyray is an option...well i dunno its a pos in my opinion

TopC wrote:problem is how fragile/static/expensive the different sources of marklights present...
If your fragile and relatively cheap, your static
If your expensive as hell, your still fragile yet a little harder to see but you can move
If you honestly think skyray is an option...well i dunno its a pos in my opinion

Guardsmen are really cheap now, but they're very mobile now too. I usually keep half my army moving during a game. That's nothing compared to most, but for an army that used to do zero moving, that's a lot! I used to actually just skip my movement phase, if not to get my armor in better positions to shoot. Guardsmen are also still impressively fragile, more fragile than Tau even! If you gob them up and buy a Commissar, they'll stick around better, which Tau don't have, so that's a possibility, but that's not the focus of this thread.

Tau have Markerlights, fix the units bearing Markerlights and be done with it. Even if it means putting a Markerlight drone in the squads for a +1BS boost or have them do the old IG Sharpshooters method.

As for fluff and rules? Make soemthing interesting up and write the rules for that, tweak them as need be to adjust fire, and then work in the proper points value. Making up rules then finding fluff is like putting the cart before the horse. It just doesn't make sense! You'll end up getting wild and wonky units whose fluff might fit them, but in such an alien way they may as well not have fluff. It's a good methodology for power gamers, but if you're playing 40k just to win, you're missing out on the majority of 40k.

Skinnattittar wrote:if you're playing 40k just to win, you're missing out on the majority of 40k.

We think the same in that much.

There are numerous ways to make the Tau 5th edition ready without making them OP; I guess we'll just have to wait and see what GW eventually comes up with.

I've been thinking more and more of a guard army but there's too much painting involved for my tastes but you have to love the flexibility and fire support they bring to the game.

Skinnattittar wrote:

TopC wrote:problem is how fragile/static/expensive the different sources of marklights present...
If your fragile and relatively cheap, your static
If your expensive as hell, your still fragile yet a little harder to see but you can move
If you honestly think skyray is an option...well i dunno its a pos in my opinion

Tau have Markerlights, fix the units bearing Markerlights and be done with it. Even if it means putting a Markerlight drone in the squads for a +1BS boost or have them do the old IG Sharpshooters method.

Markerlight Drones can already be put in Fire Warrior squads, as is.

agnosto wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:if you're playing 40k just to win, you're missing out on the majority of 40k.

We think the same in that much.
There are numerous ways to make the Tau 5th edition ready without making them OP; I guess we'll just have to wait and see what GW eventually comes up with.
I've been thinking more and more of a guard army but there's too much painting involved for my tastes but you have to love the flexibility and fire support they bring to the game.

For all the major short comings of the new IG codex, I have to admit that it is actually a very good codex that reflects the fluff of professional Guard a lot better. An individual Guardsmen is still highly expendable, but with great quantity comes a great quality. And I actually have a reason to move around with 5th Edition! I like the idea of claiming objectives, and at my local shop, most of the players like to place them in strategic locations(though we still have powergamers that place them in hard to get to and easily defended places that make no sense fluff-wise). Places such as high grounds, important structures, or sometimes just in a wide open and claim it is some sort of important material. Except for assaults being really over powered (one Guardsmen can kill a million Marines), 5th Edition is the best so far, in my opinion!

Che-Vito wrote:
Markerlight Drones can already be put in Fire Warrior squads, as is.

This thread is so big I can't remember if we discussed this but maybe make tau like other armies in 5th where you buy a sergeant and 4 grunts then buy upgrades and additional troops. So you get an included 'el with markerlight and multi-tracker which would allow him to shoot his gun and the marker light.

I know someone mentioned making marker lights assault; that doesn't sound so bad.

Small fix that would go a long way to evening things out without making tau OP. I still like the idea of heavy or special weapon options. Maybe be able to purchase a seeker missile for every 5 men in the unit. Dunno, just throwing out thoughts.

Edit:
meant seeker missile, not smart missile.

Tau don't have enough powerful special weapons on their tanks?

I'm curious; how do Markerlights currently work in Firewarrior squads?

Skinnattittar wrote:Tau don't have enough powerful special weapons on their tanks?

I'm curious; how do Markerlights currently work in Firewarrior squads?

Actually, tank, singular. Hammerhead has two options railgun and ion cannon. I just feel firewarriors are too vanilla, every army's troops have some options at least.

Currently, squads have two ways to access markerlights, you can take an team leader who can purchase an upgrade for his weapon or you can take a drone controller and buy a couple of markerlight drones. So you can potentially have 3 marker lights in a unit but it would cost you 50pts in wargear, not to mention the cost to upgrade to an 'ui.

What about those little buggers, what are they called? The sky-mobiles? (I think they look like a snow-mobile with wings) Don't they have a melta weapon option? And don't act like Railguns with sub-munitions aren't God-guns!

Oh yeah, pirahna but they're fast attack and melt when shot, just like space marine land speeders.

Sub munitions is good but still a little more variety in the army wouldn't hurt. I'd like to see a resculpt of the vespid and make them not suck as much and maybe human auxiliaries or something to break up the monotony of painting everything vomit brown.

It costs 80 points to add three markerlights to a FW squad. It costs a minimum of 20 points for one marker light that can't be used by the squad it belongs too, a minimum of 40 points for one that the squad can use.

However all versions of the markerlights that FW can take can not fire if they move.

A Piranha with a melta and a targeting array is 70 points, as much as a land speeder with a multimelta and a heavy flamer. Piranha has the benefit of front armor 11, Land speeder has the benefit of deepstriking

Hammerheads are nice, and railguns are still nice, although they've been devalued in 5th. Secondary weapons are not good, and You're limited to 3 hammerheads in an army. They compete with Broadsides, which are much better vehicle killers.

And hammerheads have to chose between a str 10 AP 1 slug or a str 6 AP 4 large blast, compared to the Leman Russ, which can fire a Str 9 AP 2 Lascannon as well as a Str 8 AP 3 large blast in the same turn.

Kroot Loops wrote:It costs 80 points to add three markerlights to a FW squad. It costs a minimum of 20 points for one marker light that can't be used by the squad it belongs too, a minimum of 40 points for one that the squad can use.

However all versions of the markerlights that FW can take can not fire if they move.

A Piranha with a melta and a targeting array is 70 points, as much as a land speeder with a multimelta and a heavy flamer. Piranha has the benefit of front armor 11, Land speeder has the benefit of deepstriking

Hammerheads are nice, and railguns are still nice, although they've been devalued in 5th. Secondary weapons are not good, and You're limited to 3 hammerheads in an army. They compete with Broadsides, which are much better vehicle killers.

And hammerheads have to chose between a str 10 AP 1 slug or a str 6 AP 4 large blast, compared to the Leman Russ, which can fire a Str 9 AP 2 Lascannon as well as a Str 8 AP 3 large blast in the same turn.

Doesn't that also negate cover and allows ana additional D6 or something for armor penetration? As well as access to Markerlights, which the Leman Russ does not.

I have not said Tau vehicles are properly pointed for 5th Edition. They would need to be reasonably adjusted for points.

The Sub-munition round? No, it's just str 6 ap 4, it doesn't ignore cover, it's not barrage, and it's not melta or ordnance. You can use marker lights to reduce cover on a 1 for 1 exchange.

Skinnattittar wrote:

Kroot Loops wrote:It costs 80 points to add three markerlights to a FW squad. It costs a minimum of 20 points for one marker light that can't be used by the squad it belongs too, a minimum of 40 points for one that the squad can use.

However all versions of the markerlights that FW can take can not fire if they move.

A Piranha with a melta and a targeting array is 70 points, as much as a land speeder with a multimelta and a heavy flamer. Piranha has the benefit of front armor 11, Land speeder has the benefit of deepstriking

Hammerheads are nice, and railguns are still nice, although they've been devalued in 5th. Secondary weapons are not good, and You're limited to 3 hammerheads in an army. They compete with Broadsides, which are much better vehicle killers.

And hammerheads have to chose between a str 10 AP 1 slug or a str 6 AP 4 large blast, compared to the Leman Russ, which can fire a Str 9 AP 2 Lascannon as well as a Str 8 AP 3 large blast in the same turn.

Doesn't that also negate cover and allows ana additional D6 or something for armor penetration? As well as access to Markerlights, which the Leman Russ does not.

I have not said Tau vehicles are properly pointed for 5th Edition. They would need to be reasonably adjusted for points.

Cheapest way to get a submunition and ignore cover..

Hammer head + rail gun + Burst cannons + Disruption pod..if you want to be able to move + multi tracker

165pts

8 pathfinders + mandatory devilfish + disruption pod (who cares if this thing can shoot at this point..) 96+ 85 = 181

165 + 181 = 346pts for a str 6 ap 4 large blast fired at BS 4, with no cover save, assuming you hit average, doesnt have bonuses to cover saves be it through abilities or going to ground.. all you MEQ or better armor out there..dont worry..you still get your saves >.<

*edit* no extra bonus for penetrations

pretty large amount of points invested for minimal rewards... how many russes in 1 squad can you run for 346points?

However all versions of the markerlights that FW can take can not fire if they move.

That depends on how you play it. In 5th Ed. all jetpack models are now relentless meaning the marker drones can move and fire their heavy weapon. Though technically by RAW the odler codex supercedes this most people I know play the RAI that the drone can move and shoot now.

ON a side note, Tau can't get 2d6 penetration from anything except fusion blasters.

The piranha vs multi-melta & HF landspeeder sort fo shows the Tau's problems:

Both have BS4

One has a fusion blaster 12" range and 6" for AT, the other a multi-melta, 24" range and 12" for AT.

One has 2 gun drones for 2 x S5 BS2 AP5 pinning shots the other a heavy flamer for template S5 AP4.

One counts as 2 KPs when destroyed the other only counts as 1.

The SM one is better in every possible incidence. far better AT due to range, and better anti-infantry and in annihilation it doesn't cost you 2 KPs.

Er, Flingit,

check the drone entries on page 31 of the codex. All drones take on the unit type of their controller. A ML drone (or any other drone) attached to a FW 'Ui has a unit type of infantry, not jump(jet pack) infantry. As a result, they are not relentless.

Kroot Loops wrote:Er, Flingit,

check the drone entries on page 31 of the codex. All drones take on the unit type of their controller. A ML drone (or any other drone) attached to a FW 'Ui has a unit type of infantry, not jump(jet pack) infantry. As a result, they are not relentless.

Although this would allow a Crisis suit team to drop in with a Marker Drone, increase it's own BS with the marker drone by firing on the Deep Striking turn, and then have the Crisis unit fire at BS 4/5.

Che-Vito wrote:

Kroot Loops wrote:Er, Flingit,

check the drone entries on page 31 of the codex. All drones take on the unit type of their controller. A ML drone (or any other drone) attached to a FW 'Ui has a unit type of infantry, not jump(jet pack) infantry. As a result, they are not relentless.

Although this would allow a Crisis suit team to drop in with a Marker Drone, increase it's own BS with the marker drone by firing on the Deep Striking turn, and then have the Crisis unit fire at BS 4/5.

except then you spend 60pts for the average 1 marklight hit

TopC wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Kroot Loops wrote:Er, Flingit,

check the drone entries on page 31 of the codex. All drones take on the unit type of their controller. A ML drone (or any other drone) attached to a FW 'Ui has a unit type of infantry, not jump(jet pack) infantry. As a result, they are not relentless.

Although this would allow a Crisis suit team to drop in with a Marker Drone, increase it's own BS with the marker drone by firing on the Deep Striking turn, and then have the Crisis unit fire at BS 4/5.

except then you spend 60pts for the average 1 marklight hit

Yup!

Che-Vito wrote:

TopC wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Kroot Loops wrote:Er, Flingit,

check the drone entries on page 31 of the codex. All drones take on the unit type of their controller. A ML drone (or any other drone) attached to a FW 'Ui has a unit type of infantry, not jump(jet pack) infantry. As a result, they are not relentless.

Although this would allow a Crisis suit team to drop in with a Marker Drone, increase it's own BS with the marker drone by firing on the Deep Striking turn, and then have the Crisis unit fire at BS 4/5.

except then you spend 60pts for the average 1 marklight hit

Yup!

at which point your better off running an HQ squad + targetting arrays...

EL 25 (more than reg suit, this is mandatory so dont factor for at least 1 squad.)
bg 10 (+ than reg suit)
bg 10 (+ than reg suit)
+targetting array on each bg = 20

total 40points for + 1 bs, instead of 60 =-?

TopC wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

TopC wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Kroot Loops wrote:Er, Flingit,

check the drone entries on page 31 of the codex. All drones take on the unit type of their controller. A ML drone (or any other drone) attached to a FW 'Ui has a unit type of infantry, not jump(jet pack) infantry. As a result, they are not relentless.

Although this would allow a Crisis suit team to drop in with a Marker Drone, increase it's own BS with the marker drone by firing on the Deep Striking turn, and then have the Crisis unit fire at BS 4/5.

except then you spend 60pts for the average 1 marklight hit

Yup!

at which point your better off running an HQ squad + targetting arrays...

EL 25 (more than reg suit, this is mandatory so dont factor for at least 1 squad.)
bg 10 (+ than reg suit)
bg 10 (+ than reg suit)
+targetting array on each bg = 20

total 40points for + 1 bs, instead of 60 =-?

Hey, I never said it was a great option!

It certainly is costly, if you've got a lot of points to throw around though..

Shas'vre + TA + HW DC
two suits + TA
two ML drones

Three squads of those, firing at BS4 standard but on average being able to shoot at BS5. A costly, but effective Deep Striking unit... (think twin-linked plasmas here.) By no means will I tout this as "the bestest stragedy everrr...but I certainly will be trying it out against MEQ armies.

Don't bother with twin-linked weapons if your suits are already at BS4 or 5. You are better off to stick a fusion gun on and have three high power shots from each suit at close range.

Don't bother with twin-linked weapons if your suits are already at BS4 or 5. You are better off to stick a fusion gun on and have three high power shots from each suit at close range.

It would be only 2 still as they can't take a multitraker and a targeting array hence why he's gone for a twinlinked weapon...

FlingitNow wrote:

Don't bother with twin-linked weapons if your suits are already at BS4 or 5. You are better off to stick a fusion gun on and have three high power shots from each suit at close range.

It would be only 2 still as they can't take a multitraker and a targeting array hence why he's gone for a twinlinked weapon...

unless its on an HQ squad thats running HW Multis

True but the example wasn't using the HQ and Shas'vre... It was running a totally redundant Shas'vre (just throwing away 5 points) and 2 Shas'ui. Hence no multi-trakers allowed.

FlingitNow wrote:True but the example wasn't using the HQ and Shas'vre... It was running a totally redundant Shas'vre (just throwing away 5 points) and 2 Shas'ui. Hence no multi-trakers allowed.

good catch i concur then

FlingitNow wrote:True but the example wasn't using the HQ and Shas'vre... It was running a totally redundant Shas'vre (just throwing away 5 points) and 2 Shas'ui. Hence no multi-trakers allowed.

FlingitNow...think about what you are posting...
Yes, the team leader is an additional 5 points that allows for the taking of hardwired Target Lock/Drone Controller.

Make them a Shas'vre and add in a Multitracker...and you can equip a special issue weapon such as the lovely Cycolin Ion Blaster or Airburst. Frag.

Both of those are very useful in an anti-MEQ role (which is what I posted.)

Deep-strike within rapid fire range with twin-linked BS 5 plasmas (3 dead MEQ) along with CIB you have another 1-2 dead Marines.

Against GEQ, twin-linked Burst cannons with AFP at BS5...9 S5 AP5 shots along with a S4 AP5 Large Blast, all with an 18" range. (you can do the math on the amount of dead Guardsmen)

[[Note: I present this simply as an interesting build, and something I will have to test out. Not the "end all" of Tau deepstriking kicka$$]]

Shas'vre + TA + HW DC
two suits + TA
two ML drones

Three squads of those, firing at BS4 standard but on average being able to shoot at BS5. A costly, but effective Deep Striking unit... (think twin-linked plasmas here.

This is the example you used. No mention of spec issue wargear you were talking about twin-lionked plasmas and hence why I said the shas'vre was redundant. Team leader allows you to give him a multitraker, TL and drone controller. Just not the spec issue wargear.

That was my point yeah upgrade him to the vre if you want the cyclic ion blaster and or AFP, but I tend to stick those on my commander if I take them (big fan of the AFP).

FlingitNow wrote:

Shas'vre + TA + HW DC
two suits + TA
two ML drones

Three squads of those, firing at BS4 standard but on average being able to shoot at BS5. A costly, but effective Deep Striking unit... (think twin-linked plasmas here.

This is the example you used. No mention of spec issue wargear you were talking about twin-lionked plasmas and hence why I said the shas'vre was redundant. Team leader allows you to give him a multitraker, TL and drone controller. Just not the spec issue wargear.

That was my point yeah upgrade him to the vre if you want the cyclic ion blaster and or AFP, but I tend to stick those on my commander if I take them (big fan of the AFP).

Seems that this build is better suited for a Farsight army. Farsight + Bodyguards, HQ squad, + 3 Crisis teams.
With targetting arrays, all fire at BS4+, at BS5 with Markerlights.

HQ:


[783 points]
- O'Shovah (170)
-Bodyguard (245) Hard-wired Targetting Arrays (35) Hardwired Multitracker (35) Hardwired Drone Controller (0) Marker Drones (60)
Twin-linked Plasma Rifles, Flamer (238)

[317 points]
- Shas'el (50) Hard-wired Targetting Arrays(5) Hard-wired Multitracker (5) Hard-wired Drone Controller (0) Marker Drones (60)
Twin-linked Fusion Blaster (18) CIB (15)
-Bodyguard (70) Hard-wired Targetting Array(10) Hard-wired Multitracker (10) Twin-linked Missile Pod (36) AFP (20) Burst Cannon (8)

Throw in a squad of footslogging Pathfinders (have their transport take a squad of Fire Warriors after they arrive), and two squads of Fire Warriors. You'll have a playable anti-MEQ army that can still put a hurting on GEQ. They'll be highly mobile, and able to claim objectives (as long as you babysit the two squads of Fire Warriors in transports.)

You forgot to put targeting arrays on the Shas'vre which surely i sthe whole point of taing them? But yeah that could work. Would be low on scoring though... lus very low on anti-tank and anti-transport.

FlingitNow wrote:You forgot to put targeting arrays on the Shas'vre which surely i sthe whole point of taing them? But yeah that could work. Would be low on scoring though... lus very low on anti-tank and anti-transport.

Ah, nice catch. I meant to put Targetting Array, not Target Lock (which is useless in 5e).

[corrected]

It could possibly have 4 scoring units (4 squads of 6 Firewarriors), that would have to be babysat like mad. A squad of Pathfinders would be needed as well to allow rerolling for Deep Strike rolls.

Anti-transport is covered by the 7 twin-linked Plasma Rifles at BS5 plus O'Shovah's 1 Plasma Rifle as well as the Dawn Blade which rolls 2d6+5 against vehicles. For the other squad it is covered by a twin-linked Fusion Blaster, as well as 2 twin-linked Missile Pods at BS5.

Against tanks, (think AV13/14) the list is more limited to the twin-linked Fusion Blaster at BS5, and OShovah's Dawn Blade at WS5. You could squeeze this all into a 1500 list, and have a Tau list that would *have* to focus on wiping out the enemy as quick as possible. The 3+ armor saves help, but if a few points are left over then the addition of a few shield drones to each squad would be useful.

I find markerlights far more useful for stripping cover saves than boosting BS. 3 TL PR at BS 3 in RF range with no cover saves out performs 3 TL PR at BS 5 /w Cover saves.

Also, your example can be exceptionally abused by even a single demolisher cannon. Against something like the SW list that shoots 21 krak missiles a round, the Farsight bomb is fairly easily diffused, especially without shield drones.

Also, I believe you'll find that the vast majority of players and tournament organizers disagree with you about the target lock doing nothing, including the INAT FAQ

Kroot Loops wrote:I find markerlights far more useful for stripping cover saves than boosting BS. 3 TL PR at BS 3 in RF range with no cover saves out performs 3 TL PR at BS 5 /w Cover saves.

Deep Strike the units within Rapid Fire range (Pathfinders allow a reroll in case of a mishap due to being too close), boost BS to BS5. 7 TL PR at BS5 without cover saves outperforms 7 BS4 without cover saves.

If the unit is in cover, than the idea of Deep Striking within Rapid Fire range is probably out of the question anyways.

Kroot Loops wrote:Also, your example can be exceptionally abused by even a single demolisher cannon. Against something like the SW list that shoots 21 krak missiles a round, the Farsight bomb is fairly easily diffused, especially without shield drones.

Exactly. Every list has it's counter, I just found it to be interesting, and something I want to give a shot.

Kroot Loops wrote:Also, I believe you'll find that the vast majority of players and tournament organizers disagree with you about the target lock doing nothing, including the INAT FAQ

RAW, they do nothing in 5e...but you are correct. Regardless, I meant "Targetting Array"

The Farsight bomb can be great fun, the rare times I break it out I tend to do seven helios suits, HWMT, HWDC, Targeting Arrays and 14 shield drones. It wrecks things, but you have to realize they're half of a 2000 point army. If it gets taken out, game over.

It works best against other lists that has a simular 'eggs all in one basket' kind of set up, like 2x Nob Bikers lists.

I've lost track though, FW BS?

RAW, they do nothing in 5e...but you are correct. Regardless, I meant "Targetting Array"

RAW has it's uses, but this falls in the same category as the 'Mawloc can't deepstrike on another unit' idiocy.

I mean, for crying out loud, the Hazard Suit rules were released This Month with target lock as one of it's wargear options.

I was reading this thread earlier, and someone mentioned 'cycling weapon racks' on Crisis suits, and how there isn't anything like that in the game, but there is:

Obliterators!

I wouldn't mind if Crisis suits had a rule similar to Obliterator weapons, it would make them a lot more useful in a 'crisis,' so it could still be pretty fluffy. Would it really be that game breaking if this, usually mega-expensive, unit had access to all of it's weapon options? Leave the air-burst grenades and cylic-ion guns for the HQ though.

Also, FW with BS 4 would be a little nuts. I'm happy with it just on the Etheral body guard guys, but they should have a 'counts as troops' rule. And FW really need a way to shoot marker lights after moving. I really liked the addition of more marker light stuff when the newest codex came out, as that was something very unique to the army.

Kroot Loops wrote:The Farsight bomb can be great fun, the rare times I break it out I tend to do seven helios suits, HWMT, HWDC, Targeting Arrays and 14 shield drones. It wrecks things, but you have to realize they're half of a 2000 point army. If it gets taken out, game over.

It works best against other lists that has a simular 'eggs all in one basket' kind of set up, like 2x Nob Bikers lists.

I've lost track though, FW BS?

RAW, they do nothing in 5e...but you are correct. Regardless, I meant "Targetting Array"

RAW has it's uses, but this falls in the same category as the 'Mawloc can't deepstrike on another unit' idiocy.

I mean, for crying out loud, the Hazard Suit rules were released This Month with target lock as one of it's wargear options.

Well it's use was to avoid Target Priority checks...which no longer exist. I'll have to look again at what it's INAT use is, and I'll get back to you.

Che-Vito wrote:
Well it's use was to avoid Target Priority checks...which no longer exist. I'll have to look again at what it's INAT use is, and I'll get back to you.

INAT FAQ says to disregard the target priority test. Current usage allows to fire at different units.

INAT says ignore target priority checks and use the Target Lock for whatever it is supposed to do (I can't remember all the various uses.)

If you like, you assume there is a Target Priority check and it is passed automatically.

agnosto wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:
Well it's use was to avoid Target Priority checks...which no longer exist. I'll have to look again at what it's INAT use is, and I'll get back to you.

INAT FAQ says to disregard the target priority test. Current usage allows to fire at different units.

Ah, okay. Not something I would use...but that makes sense.

I don't use them on crisis suits either, as I typically have the entire team set up for one task, but some people use them if they have one suit with a fusion gun, to the fusion gun can shoot at a tank and the other guys can shoot at a different unit.

Target Locks are however vital, imo, for broadside teams. In my usual set up of 2xHammerheads and 1 full broadside team, a target lock on the team leader gives you 5 railguns that can shoot at 4 different targets, versus 5 railguns that can shoot at 3 targets. Sounds like a small difference, but it's huge in effect.

Target Locks are however vital, imo, for broadside teams. In my usual set up of 2xHammerheads and 1 full broadside team, a target lock on the team leader gives you 5 railguns that can shoot at 4 different targets, versus 5 railguns that can shoot at 3 targets. Sounds like a small difference, but it's huge in effect.

I find in general I wouldn't want to fire at 4 targets but having the target lock allows me to split my fire so one target takes 1 railgun shot and 2 other targets take 2. 3 TL railgun shots is generally over kill for one target whilst 1 railgun shot is likely to miss, fail to pen or roll bad on the damage table.

This is off the main topic. Perhaps the subject is exhausted and the thread should be closed.

it's simple, and in the fluff it says that they're slightly weaker then a guardsmen.

why? They're well worth it, and BS3 is average for an average trooper.

Kilkrazy wrote:This is off the main topic. Perhaps the subject is exhausted and the thread should be closed.

Unfortunately I will have to agree. I think the argument has presented itself numerous times and boiled down to the two opposing views.

Well, I will take advantage of being a moderator to have the last word.

Argument for -- They need something to make up for their points cost and weakness in H2H.

Argument against -- Fire Warriors do need something but other things would be better, such as range 15 rapid fire, or a defensive shot against assaulters, for instance.

Various fluff based arguments.

My own view is that BS3 is fine, combined with markerlights, but markerlights need to be made cheaper, and FW need something else to make them better against H2H.