Desubot wrote:

barnowl wrote:


A lascannon bypasses iridium armor, so it is just as good as normal armor, you still need those drones to LOS! on too.

The suit cant be ID though with T5 which is the point.

Narf, forgot about that boost on the commander unit. Same holds true, just you don't need the drones cool. I completely forgot about the T5 last game with him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jancoran wrote:

barnowl wrote:

Except in the list as used with the old Pos.Relay. Those units are not on the board to be shot at till after turn 2 and come on in more or less the order need and were needed to deal with threats before they are a problem. Really you should look at some of the batreps of his and jazzypaintball. While not the strongest list, it is very good at disrupting most common tactics. .

It served me well. Very very well. Glad to hear you read some of them.

Was disappointed by the changes to reserve in 6e. They put a bit of a dent in that approach.

I'm not discounting all of peregrine's posts ... there are are some valid points being made by him. I'm not sure why you would think that Jancoran is trolling though. He likes an unorthodox list - look at his 6ed list with no heavy slots filled.

My recent testing has found value in units that are generally deemed non-competitive online. I use a single heavy slot only - a skyray. Why, you ask? I wabnt to cascade markerlights on flyers. If I hit with my skyray. I can then hit with my pathfinders or marker drones. It works.

I use ten strong pathfinder units with ion and pulse. Sure we have lots of anti-infantry in a Tau list. But 6ed is infantry heavy. I have not yet felt they are superfluous.

I use Shadowson for two reasons. Sure his stealth shrouding is nice ( and I give him two drones as well) but better is his ability to grant reroll 1s. Your riptides taking nova wounds? I use two. I never got more than one wound on them since including Shadowsun. Not an optimal choice in a vacuum ... good thing we do not play in a vacuum.

I'm a big fan of suicide sunforge suits - cheap as chips at the cost. why is a av13/av14 deemed to be so difficult for Tau to handle - fusion is 9" half range now. Three suits will take dowen any AV14 vehicle reliably.

What I'm still not convinced of is using Tau as a standalone force. I'm more and more shifting to Tau as a very substantive allied force. I need convincing that allies are not pretty much mandatory for high level competitive tournaments.

barnowl wrote:


Was disappointed by the changes to reserve in 6e. They put a bit of a dent in that approach.

Righto, but the approach still works. Its now about adapting the existing strategy to the new equipment so to speak. But the concept of enemy pools is fundamentally sound. I will be working on that very question in future blogs as I test out more and more of the codex.

My brain will put the pieces together. But right now I am feeling that to make it all work coirrectly, one unit of Pathfinders will be mandatory, possibly more, but one for sure. I also think that Stealthsuits will play a bigger role than before in making the strategy work, just due to FOC restrictions. Deep Striking is now an option that has now grown in viability to support the strategy. I already did this to some extent but now can do it with absolute confidence. Everything about the new Codex and also the 6E base rules supports this as a way around the FOC restrictions.

I am hell bent on winning a tourney as a true pure Tau player. Soon.

I look forward to seeing how your testing goes ... I will also keep my eyes peeled for your batreps ... if you post them here.

Averaged across all possible matchups, the lascannon is still an excellent weapon. I find the best anti-horde weapons are templates because they negate cover as well and don't roll to hit. Of course, as BA, I expect to eventually get close. There are enough hard targets that I don't want to get close to to make the lascannon well worthwhile. Once all the codex astartes lists get DA pricing on lascannons, this will be even more true.

I see a lotta QQ just because things changed without considering the fact that we actually got better and more fun to play. Not only are there more than 2 lists that can be played now, all of our units are in some way useful. Some more than others but still, even the vespid have a use, a limited one, but a use none the less.

Also, the claim that Tau dont' have a whole lot of stuff to go take and successfully hold rear objectives may be true but I don't think that is something that is that necessary anyways. Especially because if we were to even try to hold those far objectives we'd need units that can withstand assaults and that is not the tau way.

I think the way to play tau is to hold onto your objective and use the Kauyon or Mont'ka ways of war to destroy your opponent while minimizing your losses, making it so your opponent will have a hard time doing two things. 1) taking the objective that you hold on your side of the board and 2) having their scoring units survive at the end of the game when they don't have many units left to defend.

In other words. Kill your opponent and walk over their corpse to take the objective.

 felixcat wrote:
I look forward to seeing how your testing goes ... I will also keep my eyes peeled for your batreps ... if you post them here.

I just posted one in the Batrep section actually. Feel free! http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/521800.page


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Averaged across all possible matchups, the lascannon is still an excellent weapon.

No one argued this point, ever. What was being pointed out is how much of a waste it isd against the type of army I was positing. I take a fair amount of them myself in IG lists.

 Jancoran wrote:
What was being pointed out is how much of a waste it isd against the type of army I was positing.

An army you have yet to post a list for. I think at this point we have to conclude that the army is about as real as GW's business sense.

After getting a few test games in against various armies, I'm going to have to agree with the OP.

At first I was on the Tau side saying that they were really good, but after some proxy games, there are some glaring weaknesses.

These are the issues we've found as a group testing the army...

- Some units are still too expensive.
Fire Warriors, Crisis Teams, Stealth Teams, Devilfish.

- The army cannot focus enough firepower to be effective.
Now, I play Deathwing and in 1750 I only have roughly twenty guys and two crusaders. I've tabled armies by turn 3/4 through just shooting. If Tau are a shooting army, why can't they do the same?

- You need roughly four units to drop a squad of ten marines and their bawks.
I saw this happen too many times over the last two gaming nights.
Scenario one - Ten MEQ in a bawks.
To destroy the entire unit took... one Pathfinder unit to mark the Rhino, Hammerhead Railgun to destroy the Rhino, a second Pathfinder unit to mark the marines, two Firewarrior squads and a Crisis team just to bring them down.
That was roughly 500 points to kill one unit of Marines. If there were no Pathfinders, the results would have been worse.

This was a typical scenario against a lot of different armies.

Tau look like a shooty army, but considering what I've seen and played against, they are a shooty army but they are weak at it.

So far the most shooty armies in my meta are Guard and Dark Eldar. Tau just cannot bring enough of their great weapons to bear without a lot of support.

They are definitely a finesse army and one that will break if you make a single mistake.

Best codexes from 6th:

1) Chaos.
2) Dark Angels.
3) Daemons.
4) Tau.

If you guys are losing with tau I really don't know what to say. I have found them to be very strong. Now I can say I have been winning with tau and you can say you have been losing and maybe I am just good and you are just bad. No way to really tell. So I looked up all the tau battle reports on the first page of the battle report forum. .


Tau are 8-3-1 in games. This is all in the first two weeks when people don't have their lists nailed out or have to models (I saw a serious lack of riptides) Many of the losing games where the tau players first or second games with the new codex and were using their old models.

So taking the battle reports as a snap shot about how tau are doing I would say Tau are pretty good. Maybe if you were being more hyper critical you would only look at the games vs IG, necrons and CSM as those are the three to beat armies, but so far we don't really have any conclusive data against just those armies. Over all, they feel very balanced in 6th leaning slightly on the powerful side, I would say they are stronger over all than demons and DA (even though demons is a bad match up for tau). I would say they are stronger than CSM minus the helldrake (that thing really puts CSM over the top) In the tournament scene they may struggle against the broken armies, IG and Crons, but will do fine against everything else and in friendly games they are strong without being too over powered where people don't want to play with you.

I haven't played against them yet, but my friend is very excited about a Tau equivalent of Autocannon spam. No idea why people say this is nerfed in 6th, my guardsmen beg to differ!

Oh when we tested, the Tau won, but the games were very close calls.

I'm not a finesse army player, I play Deathwing, so maybe I'm not a good player with the Tau.

Tau have massive strengths but also massive weaknesses.

For example, we found them very weak vs Vanilla MEQ and CSM and Blood Angels face rolled over them with DOA lists.

The hard counter to a lot of these armies was Riptide, but we found this a boring answer and one which could be countered just as hard back.

I think the elephant in the corner was the fact that Pathfinders are an auto take. Every list without Pathfinders suffered greatly as most of the other units couldn't hit enough times to be effective.

Riptide too has appeared in every list that we would consider competitive. It just seemed that there was a cookie cutter config to Elites, FA and HS.

Riptides, Pathfinders, Small squads of Firewarriors and Hammerheads with Farsight Bomb or smaller HQ and Crisis in the Elite slot.

Riptide too has appeared in every list that we would consider competitive. It just seemed that there was a cookie cutter config to Elites, FA and HS.

Riptides, Pathfinders, Small squads of Firewarriors and Hammerheads with Farsight Bomb or smaller HQ and Crisis in the Elite slot.

So I use Sky Rays, Marker Drones, Kroot, Shadowsun. I have shelved my hammerhead for the time being. I use no Broadsides. I do agree that Riptides will likely appear in every list. i agree that marker lights are needed. I have also tested with friends (five games with the new codex). My list is hardly cookie cutter for Tau.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/521854.page

Tau have massive strengths but also massive weaknesses.

For example, we found them very weak vs Vanilla MEQ and CSM and Blood Angels face rolled over them with DOA lists.

Tau have strengths and weaknesses like most armies do. Tau is decent against flyers now (I'm sure this will be a theme in every new codex), have decent defense against deep strike/reserve armies, and can field a lot of models with an MTO theme. All good for Tau.
Tau will not outshoot IG, GK. Tau troops are still weak.The notion that we do not need to take objectives in our opponents side of the table is seriously flawed. And we will not be massacring any high level lists. Can Tau win as they stand without allies? I've yet to be
convinced but to be honest many top lists can play stand alone in 6ed so this is not anything to be upset over.

Best codexes from 6th:

1) Chaos.
2) Dark Angels.
3) Daemons.
4) Tau.

Never mind when the codex was written. The two best codexes are GK and CSM. After that IG (brutal with sabre platforms now), Necrons (need allies) and SW (need allies). Nids are weak and so are Orks, Eldar and DE but the latter three are useful in allied forces. DA are not that good. Why do you think they are strong? SW and BA are both better overall.

Puscifer wrote:
After getting a few test games in against various armies, I'm going to have to agree with the OP.

At first I was on the Tau side saying that they were really good, but after some proxy games, there are some glaring weaknesses.

These are the issues we've found as a group testing the army...

- Some units are still too expensive.
Fire Warriors, Crisis Teams, Stealth Teams, Devilfish.

- The army cannot focus enough firepower to be effective.
Now, I play Deathwing and in 1750 I only have roughly twenty guys and two crusaders. I've tabled armies by turn 3/4 through just shooting. If Tau are a shooting army, why can't they do the same?

- You need roughly four units to drop a squad of ten marines and their bawks.
I saw this happen too many times over the last two gaming nights.
Scenario one - Ten MEQ in a bawks.
To destroy the entire unit took... one Pathfinder unit to mark the Rhino, Hammerhead Railgun to destroy the Rhino, a second Pathfinder unit to mark the marines, two Firewarrior squads and a Crisis team just to bring them down.
That was roughly 500 points to kill one unit of Marines. If there were no Pathfinders, the results would have been worse.

This was a typical scenario against a lot of different armies.

Tau look like a shooty army, but considering what I've seen and played against, they are a shooty army but they are weak at it.

So far the most shooty armies in my meta are Guard and Dark Eldar. Tau just cannot bring enough of their great weapons to bear without a lot of support.

They are definitely a finesse army and one that will break if you make a single mistake.

Best codexes from 6th:

1) Chaos.
2) Dark Angels.
3) Daemons.
4) Tau.

I'm not sure what to say to this... What was the Tau player fielding? He honestly shouldn't have been using the Firewarriors against the Space Marines. That target is better being shot at by a Riptide Nova-charged Ion Accelerator, plasma and/or snipers. The Markerlights shouldn't make huge differences. Pathfinder MLs aren't that great, what with the BS3. A Commander with Drone Controller or a Sniper Team with 3 Marksmen is better because those are more reliable.

This 1850 list I just made should be able to flatten space marines, terminators or normal:
To be honest, whatever list the Tau player was using was probably not that good, and if he was shooting at Space Marines with 12 Firewarriors at 16+" away, he was doing it wrong. No amount of Markerlights will help the Pulse Rifles negate the 3+ save, you need either double or triple that number of shots or weapons with AP2 or 3, like Plasma Rifles, Fusion Blasters, or Railheads sniping from backfield. Riptides are a fantastic all-purpose unit, and I think they will replace Crisis in most lists, except for the Farsight Bomb lists like the one I have.

The list above has 4 melta shots, 28 Pulse Carbine shots, and 10 plasma shots (in melta range) just in the HQ slot, and all of those are twin-linked and ignore cover thanks to the Sensor Suite and Command Node. Outside of that, the list has 58 sniper shots, 6 BS5 Markerlights, 4 BS3 Markerlights, 3 S7 AP2 skyfire/interceptor shots (or a S8/9 PA2 large blast). All I need to do is point the Sniper Marksmen at what I want dead, and it happens. The Farsight bomb comes in where it wants, blows up tanks, and melts terminators. 58 sniper shots takes care of everything else. 18 of those are BS5.

So people are complaining that our lists are all going to be cookie cutter lists. I have to agree at some points and disagree with others. Our army list is one of the smallest, it always has been and the update added a bunch of HQ, one Elite and 2 FA. So even with that we have one of the fewest numbers of playable unites. Take this and compare it with demons who have tons of options in every slot, they will have more diverse lists than us purely because they have more options. But once you look away from our limited types of units you see that all of our units are pretty balanced. Riptides are great but so are crisis suits and people swear on stealth suits. People are fighting about which HQ is best and really anyone but the melee ethereal is great. You can honestly take any unit (other than vespid) and be competitive and that is a sign of a good book.

There are some things that all lists will have in common, markerlights are a big one. But that is one of the unique things about our army. And markerlights don't only come in the form of pathfinders, people have been using marker drones with commanders, marker lights in firewarrior units, marker lights from sniper teams. Pathfinders are the most obvious but not everyone thinks they are the best so they are not an Auto include like so many people are whining about.

I have fit 23 marker lights into my list at 2000 and use a single five man pathfinder unit. My heavy support and fast attack slots are both atypical and work fine. Tau is a synergistic list. All the components in the list need purpose and function so that all the elements of the list support each other. Although this seems a transparant approach in practice it can lead to a variety of builds. I think MTO lists will define Tau at a tournament level.

Tau are weak against Marines? Hmm. News to me. I recently played vs an all Drop Pod Space Wolves army with over 70 Marines, after 2 turns the opponent called it because I killed 50 SW. That is without low AP weaponry. In fact, I only have 1 AP1 Weapon and a few shots that could rend with some luck.

MEQ die to torrent, IMO, it's more efficient and better against a wider variety of armies to rely on mass shots rather than quality of shots.

Well my gaming group are suggesting I look at Tau again.

They are helping me to play a non Terminator army, considering I have had all three of them.

That and all my friends are playing the other armies except Tau lol.

Backfire wrote:

I don't need to. I can read rules, you know. Honestly, you just don't get it: this is not about some stat nerf or price increase, this is about missing rules which were essential in playing the vehicles. It's like if Orks lost Furious charge and Mob rules. You don't NEED to take test games to realize that the army has become something totally different and does not work like the old army and if you loved playing Green Tide, then it does not matter how good Killa Kans or Big Gunz had become, the army you liked is unviable.

This was a while ago, and I'm late coming to this, so I don't know if anybody has brought this up, but as an avid orks player, WE DID LOSE FURIOUS CHARGE. The new rules edition KILLED my green tide lists as the loss of a +1 to initiative and being unable to bubble wrap my PK's killed them almost entirely. Did that mean I belly-ached and said that the new edition was crap? Hell no, I sat back down and drew up new lists that emphasized the new strengths of my army (which are hard to discern btw). Quit your belly-achin' and just eat your new codex or go sit in the corner where no one cares about you.

I seriously hate when these seemingly toddler tantrums arise because everything isn't just as they want it. Want to change the way things work in codexes and the 40k hobby as a whole? Go work for GW.

Kanrail wrote:

Backfire wrote:

I don't need to. I can read rules, you know. Honestly, you just don't get it: this is not about some stat nerf or price increase, this is about missing rules which were essential in playing the vehicles. It's like if Orks lost Furious charge and Mob rules. You don't NEED to take test games to realize that the army has become something totally different and does not work like the old army and if you loved playing Green Tide, then it does not matter how good Killa Kans or Big Gunz had become, the army you liked is unviable.

This was a while ago, and I'm late coming to this, so I don't know if anybody has brought this up, but as an avid orks player, WE DID LOSE FURIOUS CHARGE. The new rules edition KILLED my green tide lists as the loss of a +1 to initiative and being unable to bubble wrap my PK's killed them almost entirely. Did that mean I belly-ached and said that the new edition was crap? Hell no, I sat back down and drew up new lists that emphasized the new strengths of my army (which are hard to discern btw). Quit your belly-achin' and just eat your new codex or go sit in the corner where no one cares about you.

I seriously hate when these seemingly toddler tantrums arise because everything isn't just as they want it. Want to change the way things work in codexes and the 40k hobby as a whole? Go work for GW.

Your Green Tide also gained best Overwatch capability in the game (assuming you use Shootas). And was loss of +1 I really that big a deal given that MEQ armies tend to be I4 anyway? I'd think that nerf to Multi-assault was much bigger hindrance to Green Tide list.

By the way, the new Tau codex still sucks.

I feel I should clear up a misconception in this thread.

Vendettas should fear broadsides rather than the other way around.

Lets pit 3 Vendettas against 3 broadsides with skyfire and 6 missile drones. We will assume that the Vendettas get the first shot and the broadsides have 4+ cover from ruins or Aegis. Point values are slightly more for the vendettas. For simplicities sake I will use average rolls.

Turn 2. Vendettas come in and kill 3 drones rounded up. Broadsides kill1 Vendetta. Turn 3. Vendettas kill 2 drones. Broadsides kill another Vendetta. Turn 4. Remaining Vendetta kills last drone. Broadsides finish Vendettas off.

Final result. 3 Vendettas lost versus 6 drones, huge point disparity. Now granted the fight is actually closer than it appears on 100% average rolls, as the guard player only needs somewhat hot dice to kill a single broadside and dramatically alter the fight. Still, the tau player will come out ahead more often than not and without losing much either.

Furthermore, if the tau player really wants the broadsides to dominate, he can include a commander granting tankhunters or use shadowsun for the 2+ cover save.

Bottom line, flyers better watch out.

I really dont understand the people who cry about the new codex.

Pretty much every single unit (broadside put aside) was made cheaper, stronger, a combintion of it, or just too different to compare (and usually better then the old when done like this)

Restrictions were removed, new options were added, unusable things got fixed, guns got more shots, guns got more range, guns got new special rules, an army-wide rule that books overwatch (guns) got implanted free of charge.


The things that DID get nerfs? (and even then questionably)

1-TA gone? well, I used it too, but it was never really required and admit it you rarely used it for much other then shas'el.

2-Broadsides, S10 to S8 is a big hit, but the only ones were freaking OP and you know it.
On the bright side, you got a new main weapon option, a very improved SMS (now TL, longer range and ignores cover), and built-in MT and BSF (saving even more points). so it lost power from main gun, but got stronger utility.

3-Dpod nerfed? you know full well that thing was also OP shrouded for 5 points? heck I would put these on firewarriors if I could! the 5 point cost was meant for the OLD rules if you forgot them (you always count like you are in cover), not for the insane interactions with jink!
And at least it still functions at melta range now.

4-Hammerheads lost multi-trackers? yea, it sucks. but you know as well as I do that with new railgun price, and the improved ion cannon, it would have been OP with it.
And its still pretty damn decent without it, its a cheap tank with a good gun that can get into very, very awkward positions. show me a leman russ jumping across rooftops. (and sensor spins allow you to do that with no risk!)

4 things! in the entire codex! and the only reason they were not auto-takes 3 of each is that broadsides competed with hamerheads for slots, and Dpod and TA where upgrades for these very units!

The codex is cheaper, stronger, got stronger upgrade options (for those who with to keep model count low), has much more variety and it all around great.
A few things got nerfed, true. but they were all either OP from the firstplace, or would have become such combined with the new options.

And its STRONG, you don't need to start putting down math to realize that a 47 point crisis suit with plasma/burst is a serious threat to similarly-costed units, and its not even anything special, or based on any combos, its the most basic setup possible.
People say we must use markerlights and its a flaw? they are WRONG. I did perfectly well last codex with no markers at all (moar dakka style), and considering every single unit I was fielding got cheaper, I could just spam even more dakka. (tough I think I'll go for some drones)


Its a well-written codex, its a balanced codex, and its a fun codex.
What the hell more do you want?

 BoomWolf wrote:
I really dont understand the people who cry about the new codex......

+1 for body slamming the whiners in this thread.

 BoomWolf wrote:

3-Dpod nerfed? you know full well that thing was also OP shrouded for 5 points? heck I would put these on firewarriors if I could! the 5 point cost was meant for the OLD rules if you forgot them (you always count like you are in cover), not for the insane interactions with jink!
And at least it still functions at melta range now.

The Dpod wasn't nerfed. Yeah, maybe it gives +1 to cover saves now, but it also lost the 12" minimal range. And that's a HUGE improvement.

HA! New Codex sucks?!

REALLY???

I have gone 6-0-0 and that's against players who have played against Tau before and some very good players so don't give me the "They don't know how Tau work" BS. I find being very aggressive is working well for me - big risk, big gain. We are not just a "sit back and shoot" army any longer.

Space Marines are possibly the easiest army I've played against so far. Weight of quality high strength firepower just negates 3+ saves. With marker lights they become even more brutal.

We have possibly the best interceptor in the game (Riptide!) that just laughs at reserves. You can still fire your secondary weapons in the next turn so he's not completely useless. Interceptor is done on a weapon by weapon basis ;-) Deepstriking this thing close to a Stealth Team or Ethereal (I run Ethereal in Devilfish with homing beacon) always strengthens my already strong flank attack (Devilfish, Piranhas in front with fusion, Crisis team hiding behind DF, all moving in unison, firing)

IG are only gak because of their flyers - rest of the army I find really easy to take on and easily over come.

So shocked that some people still think Tau suck. I'd say it's more along the lines of you can't adapt or use what we have been given.

I am glad we no longer have Mat Ward over the top cheese. I stopped using Necrons on purpose because they were so easy and bland to use. I was fed up of being called "cheese" too. I imagine I could pick up BA or GK and do the same but these 6th Ed Codexes are a lot more balanced with all units having some use to a certain extent (Mega tournament power gaming aside, leave that to 5th Ed Codexes)

 AtoMaki wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:

3-Dpod nerfed? you know full well that thing was also OP shrouded for 5 points? heck I would put these on firewarriors if I could! the 5 point cost was meant for the OLD rules if you forgot them (you always count like you are in cover), not for the insane interactions with jink!
And at least it still functions at melta range now.

The Dpod wasn't nerfed. Yeah, maybe it gives +1 to cover saves now, but it also lost the 12" minimal range. And that's a HUGE improvement.

The main nerf is the price there.

Tabled an IG List tonight. Same list as before, haven't even used the new list yet (laziness of having to shelf and unshelf the army is mostly my problem, LOL).

The game was over by turn 3. I had eliminated three of his four sectors on the Scouring mission by then (effectively, though he had some singular model remnants here and there to clean up in the next round). Once again, never had to fire a single Markerlight from the Pathfinders. His flyers showed up and tried to dump demo charges on me at the end but ultimately, too little too late. The Kroot has already done their grisly work (as I love to say), so the losses didn't turn the tide.

His list was a fast moving mobile force that could reach anywhere it wanted to while blasting you into submission with missile fire whether you be infantry or vehicles. this was essentially the list:

Hellhound Squadron (2 x hellhounds, 1 DevilDog)
Valkyrie with Demo specialists in it
Vendetta with Demo specialists in it
Specialist squad on foot with...DEMO charges galore!
Penal Legion
BIG blob squad wit hBlob squad stuff
LOTS of missile Launcher teams. Like...a lot.
5 Storm Troopers (2 meltas)
5 Storm Troopers (2 melta)
Marbo
Company Command (lots o plasma)
Aegis

I dont know the exactitudes, but that was essentially the list. NASTY amount of demo charges in this list, tons of stuff that didn't really rely on BS to hit and none of it good for Tau health at all. I cant imagine how much damage that would do to a MEQ army but wow... Specialist squads are cool.

Had they gotten close enough to my troops (especially), they would have been devastating, but via meneuvering, I was able to cut him off and give him poor places to land. Once hovering, well... In addition I was able to use Interceptor on Marbo and on Specialist squads, so... Interceptor may be the most powerful thing about Riptides.

He actually did a pretty fair amount of damage when he got the chance as you can imagine, but I flooded him with firepower so quickly that he couldn't keep up the torrent. The back breaker was tank shocking his blob RIGHT into the path of a veritableplethors of flamers and STR 5 shots. It was...Not pretty.

I won 17-0. I lost a kroot unit and a Crisis Team. That's it.

Thought I'd share that. It was rather stunning. I'm still kind of in shock about it. The terrain was a big contributor in this one. A big LOS blocker impacted movement, Line of sight, and created a bottleneck that turned out to be very significant. I utilized it better in the end and io credit movement more than anything for the win.

Backfire wrote:

Kanrail wrote:

Backfire wrote:

I don't need to. I can read rules, you know. Honestly, you just don't get it: this is not about some stat nerf or price increase, this is about missing rules which were essential in playing the vehicles. It's like if Orks lost Furious charge and Mob rules. You don't NEED to take test games to realize that the army has become something totally different and does not work like the old army and if you loved playing Green Tide, then it does not matter how good Killa Kans or Big Gunz had become, the army you liked is unviable.

This was a while ago, and I'm late coming to this, so I don't know if anybody has brought this up, but as an avid orks player, WE DID LOSE FURIOUS CHARGE. The new rules edition KILLED my green tide lists as the loss of a +1 to initiative and being unable to bubble wrap my PK's killed them almost entirely. Did that mean I belly-ached and said that the new edition was crap? Hell no, I sat back down and drew up new lists that emphasized the new strengths of my army (which are hard to discern btw). Quit your belly-achin' and just eat your new codex or go sit in the corner where no one cares about you.

I seriously hate when these seemingly toddler tantrums arise because everything isn't just as they want it. Want to change the way things work in codexes and the 40k hobby as a whole? Go work for GW.

Your Green Tide also gained best Overwatch capability in the game (assuming you use Shootas). And was loss of +1 I really that big a deal given that MEQ armies tend to be I4 anyway? I'd think that nerf to Multi-assault was much bigger hindrance to Green Tide list.

By the way, the new Tau codex still sucks.

Yes, shootas became a must have now. I used to run nothing but slugga choppa boyz because that +1 to init allowed me to throw 100+ attacks at MEQ and other init 4 armies simultaneously. Was hilarious to watch and frustrating as hell for my opponents. Now its simply +1 Str, and I'm sorry, no where near as useful. I digress, I do have to agree the loss of Str 8 railguns on the broadsides seems a bit messed up, but I've been looking to them for allies. In all honesty, Tau look like they're going to fill the anti-armor whole in my orks list just fine, regardless of losing the Str 10's. Hell of a lot more reliable than BS2 rokkits, tell you that right now.

Kanrail wrote:

Yes, shootas became a must have now. I used to run nothing but slugga choppa boyz because that +1 to init allowed me to throw 100+ attacks at MEQ and other init 4 armies simultaneously. Was hilarious to watch and frustrating as hell for my opponents. Now its simply +1 Str, and I'm sorry, no where near as useful. I digress, I do have to agree the loss of Str 8 railguns on the broadsides seems a bit messed up, but I've been looking to them for allies. In all honesty, Tau look like they're going to fill the anti-armor whole in my orks list just fine, regardless of losing the Str 10's. Hell of a lot more reliable than BS2 rokkits, tell you that right now.

Er, now I don't quite understand. Ork Boyz are I2 base, and Furious Charge got them to I3, but all the MEQ are still I4 so they hit first anyway? (Of course there are probably some I3 opponents against whom it hurts...) Or were you talking about Nobz?
I agree that Challenge system was big nerf to how Powerklaw Nobz used to work. Plus of course some other stuff like new Assault rules etc. OTOH, vehicles are now much easier to assault, killing those Land Raiders isn't so hopeless for Orks anymore. Also, no more Fearless wounds!

I do agree that the loss of S10 Broadsides made me panic to start with and I was quite concerned with how to deal with a lot of AV14 - only seen in IG armies and very rarely I play against more than three LRuss in any given game. However I have found a few things that have so far done the dirty work quite well (very well actually!)

Shadowsun + Stealths w/ fusion thrown in. If you can get no-LOS deployment you will be within melta range on the first turn given our 9" melta range. Very powerful if used correctly. Risky though given she may be our HQ! I like high risk though.

Piranhas - I have always been a fan of these guys. In my last few games they have been phenomenal. They just seem to get ignored until it's too late or simply survive. They have taken out so far: Dreadnought, Helbrute, Leman Russ, Ravengers and only one has died in return. Great blockers too. Now drones don't give up KPs they are fun to run alongside the Piranhas. I think they will be target number one.

Crisis Teams - Monat suits can be fairly good for coming in but I still prefer at least two with some drones. This is obviously much riskier and harder to pull off but can be lethal. So far they have accounted for more Dreadnoughts than anything else.

There are other options but these are the main three I have used with the most success. The Hammerhead is still very viable esp with Longstrike and MLs. It normally goes for pie plating troops or taking out lower AV vehicles that need to go quick.

 BoomWolf wrote:

4-Hammerheads lost multi-trackers? yea, it sucks. but you know as well as I do that with new railgun price, and the improved ion cannon, it would have been OP with it.
And its still pretty damn decent without it, its a cheap tank with a good gun that can get into very, very awkward positions. show me a leman russ jumping across rooftops. (and sensor spins allow you to do that with no risk!)

What, Hammerhead OP if it had Multi-tracker? I guess Riptide is OP too because it has more firepower and more mobility than Hammerhead.

Why does Tau codex even have tanks? It's obvious that Riptide does everything better, so why not just put them on Heavy support too. Lets face it, nobody would take Hammerheads if Riptides were an option.

Tau codex sucks. It's not a WEAK codex, it's a poor codex.

My current Tau army has 3 tanks and 2 Riptides. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill with your tank complaints. Sure, they got slightly worse in some specific applications-- but they got so much better in general that dissing them seems silly.

 Kingsley wrote:
My current Tau army has 3 tanks and 2 Riptides. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill with your tank complaints. Sure, they got slightly worse in some specific applications-- but they got so much better in general that dissing them seems silly.

How did they get better? Cheaper is not better.

um marklights got better
they got cheaper

i think thats it?

Backfire wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
My current Tau army has 3 tanks and 2 Riptides. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill with your tank complaints. Sure, they got slightly worse in some specific applications-- but they got so much better in general that dissing them seems silly.

How did they get better? Cheaper is not better.

Huge buffs to SMS, huge buff to ion turret, better benefits from markerlight support, addition of Longstrike, overall revamp of the Skyray, and cheaper is better. If I can now take a Hammerhead where previously I couldn't because it cost too much to be viable, it's a better unit. Imagine a Hammerhead that was AV14 4 HP and had a heavy 2 Railgun, but cost 600 points. In practice, the current Hammerhead would be better for obvious reasons.

Backfire wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
My current Tau army has 3 tanks and 2 Riptides. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill with your tank complaints. Sure, they got slightly worse in some specific applications-- but they got so much better in general that dissing them seems silly.

How did they get better? Cheaper is not better.

No, you're right, because a railhead in the old codex for 140 points is sooooo much worse than a railhead in this new codex with Longstrike for 170 points right? I mean, it's not like Longstrike adds +1 BS, the ability to overwatch, or give the tank Tank Hunters, turning it into the one of best anti-tank weapon in the game, right? And that boost to SMS was meaningless too. I mean, an extra 6" of range? pashaw. And please, Kingsley, just because you can now use Markerlights to boost snap shots and overwatch doesn't make this tank any better. It can't move as a Fast vehicle anymore, so you might as well just burn the model.

And that Riptide, man. It can do EVERYTHING the Railhead can. Like fire an S10 AP1 weapon with Tank Hunter. I mean, their Ion Accelerator is by far the best weapon in the game, amirite?

 Kingsley wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
My current Tau army has 3 tanks and 2 Riptides. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill with your tank complaints. Sure, they got slightly worse in some specific applications-- but they got so much better in general that dissing them seems silly.

How did they get better? Cheaper is not better.

Huge buffs to SMS, huge buff to ion turret, better benefits from markerlight support, addition of Longstrike, overall revamp of the Skyray, and cheaper is better. If I can now take a Hammerhead where previously I couldn't because it cost too much to be viable, it's a better unit.

Cost of Hammerhead was never an obstacle. If it was not taken, it was because Broadside was often even better for the role and HS slots were precious. Not because of points cost. I never saw a Tau army which didn't have all HS slots taken. I routinely had two Hammerheads even at 1000 point level (sometimes Hammerhead and Skyray, just for laughs). And lets see how much cheaper it actually is: old codex: Railhead+Burst cannons+Disruption pod = 155. New codex: Railhead+Disruption pod+submunition=145 points. Woo hoo, a 10 points drop, and loss of option taking a more expensive, but more capable tank.

And what about those improvements? Sorry, by your logic Ionhead got worse, not better, because it's now more expensive. I can't afford an Ionhead now where I previously could have! Sure, it's got Blast now. Too bad nobody ever takes the Ionhead for exact same reasons nobody ever took Ionhead in the previous book. Longstrike, upgrade character on a tank which still can't move & shoot. Nobody ever uses Pask or Chronus, I fail to see why Longstrike would be more popular. Skyray, only thing it has going for it is 6-missile Alpha strike against a flyer. Other than that, Broadsides outperform it in both anti-aircraft and anti-ground role. Skyray is hurt even more than Hammerhead was because of loss of Target lock and Multi-tracker, because it doesn't have weapons range Hammerhead does.

SMS got better...until you realize that you no longer have Target locks. Which means that most of the time when your Hammerhead or Skyray is shooting at high-priority tough target (which they have to, they're probably only ones in your army which can do the job), that awesome SMS is sitting idle. So there is no net gain.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 McNinja wrote:
No, you're right, because a railhead in the old codex for 140 points is sooooo much worse than a railhead in this new codex with Longstrike for 170 points right? I mean, it's not like Longstrike adds +1 BS, the ability to overwatch, or give the tank Tank Hunters, turning it into the one of best anti-tank weapon in the game, right? And that boost to SMS was meaningless too. I mean, an extra 6" of range? pashaw. And please, Kingsley, just because you can now use Markerlights to boost snap shots and overwatch doesn't make this tank any better. It can't move as a Fast vehicle anymore, so you might as well just burn the model.

Letsee. Old Railhead+Burst cannons + Multi-tracker + Target lock + Disruption pod = 170 points. Can move 12", shoot and split fire from Burst cannons and main gun. Yes, I flat out say that tank is as good or better than Longstrike Railhead. And I can take three of them, I can only take one Longstrike.

But let me ask a question: what was the POINT of removing MT and TL from tanks? Why was it done? Because I seriously can't see any. It was completely pointless nerf.

Backfire wrote:Longstrike, upgrade character on a tank which still can't move & shoot. Nobody ever uses Pask or Chronus, I fail to see why Longstrike would be more popular.

Cronos is more expensive for less gain, you don't see him giving tank hunters, he only gives +1 BS and ignoring shaken and stunned, which is less common in this edition with further reduces his worth. Pask isn't the best either, he is only BS4 and the weapons aren't complimentary enough to make him worth taking.

Also, why can't you move and shoot? You do understand that you can move 6" and fire a weapon right? Which is all you need in Longstrike's Hammerhead as the Secondary Weapon System isn't as important.

I like the look of this book, i won't be taking any riptides, and i really want to have some Ionheads, unfortunately the Railheads are beter for me as i need some long range AT which broadsides can no longer provide.

In my 1850, my HS is filled of 2 Railheads and a Skyray, the Skyray can either act independantly or use the Markerlights to help my Hammerheads get rid of cover or shoot at BS5, it can also help me to hit flyers with them, and flyers won't like S10 AP1 guns!

 GoDz BuZzSaW wrote:

Also, why can't you move and shoot? You do understand that you can move 6" and fire a weapon right? Which is all you need in Longstrike's Hammerhead as the Secondary Weapon System isn't as important.

IME, 6" movement is often insufficient. It's usually not enough to open up the angle to enemy side armour, not enough to move over terrain pieces, and certainly not enough to move to avoid incoming assault. Plus, ability to fire secondaries is actually very important. By the time enemy gets within about 18", you need every gun you got. In case of Skyray, it's even worse since you don't have "main gun", meaning that any movement has you firing at just one of your weapons at full BS.

Backfire wrote:
And lets see how much cheaper it actually is: old codex: Railhead+Burst cannons+Disruption pod = 155. New codex: Railhead+Disruption pod+submunition=145 points. Woo hoo, a 10 points drop, and loss of option taking a more expensive, but more capable tank.

Why take a disruption pod in the new Codex? 15 points is too much IMO. At 125/130 points (depending on turret), the Hammerhead looks a lot nicer.

I wouldn't say the codex is bad, it just feels rather... incomplete. We really could have used more troops and more troop options. A new transport kit would have been amazing as the devilfish doesn't really match up with Firewarriors at all. A cheap (points wise) open topped transport for pathfinders and firewarriors, would have sold well even if it was priced the same as the devilfish. We really only got two new units with a couple fine cast models thrown in. Pathfinders and Broadsides just got redone, but the Broadside got redone in an insane way (making it effectively a MC in base size, dollar cost, and model size yet being T4).

However I think things did get better. The one problem I used to have playing was dealing with high model count marine armies. Now I can bring so many effective AP2 and AP3 large blasts that it's easier for me to clear paths/objectives and fend off advancing MEQ/TEQ. Because of that it makes Kroot coming in from back table more effective. It makes it more viable to leave suits in reserve to deepstrike in melta range of tanks.

I am underwhelmed with a lot of it, but it does allow for a more aggressive play style. That said, I think Vetock should be taken into the streets and pelted with Devilfish until he says a point cost that makes sense.

 Kingsley wrote:

Backfire wrote:
And lets see how much cheaper it actually is: old codex: Railhead+Burst cannons+Disruption pod = 155. New codex: Railhead+Disruption pod+submunition=145 points. Woo hoo, a 10 points drop, and loss of option taking a more expensive, but more capable tank.

Why take a disruption pod in the new Codex? 15 points is too much IMO. At 125/130 points (depending on turret), the Hammerhead looks a lot nicer.

When you can take limited number of tanks which play critical role in your army, it makes very little sense to compromise with their survivability just to save few points so you could take one or two more Fire Warriors. Again, cheaper doesn't always mean better.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I wouldn't say the codex is bad, it just feels rather... incomplete. We really could have used more troops and more troop options. A new transport kit would have been amazing as the devilfish doesn't really match up with Firewarriors at all. A cheap (points wise) open topped transport for pathfinders and firewarriors, would have sold well even if it was priced the same as the devilfish. We really only got two new units with a couple fine cast models thrown in. Pathfinders and Broadsides just got redone, but the Broadside got redone in an insane way (making it effectively a MC in base size, dollar cost, and model size yet being T4).

However I think things did get better. The one problem I used to have playing was dealing with high model count marine armies. Now I can bring so many effective AP2 and AP3 large blasts that it's easier for me to clear paths/objectives and fend off advancing MEQ/TEQ. Because of that it makes Kroot coming in from back table more effective. It makes it more viable to leave suits in reserve to deepstrike in melta range of tanks.

I am underwhelmed with a lot of it, but it does allow for a more aggressive play style. That said, I think Vetock should be taken into the streets and pelted with Devilfish until he says a point cost that makes sense.

Sounds a bit like wish listing in regards to an open-topped Transport. Our stuff is quite fragile (sometimes) as it is, open topped transport?! We don't need to assault from them and I can't imagine a bunch of Firewarriors firing out of a vehicle ala Dark Eldar raider-eqsue tactics. The Devilfish would have been nice if it was slightly cheaper but for whatever reason they deemed it better to keep it at the original.

More troop options? I disagree with that BUT I think taking Darkstrider opening Pathfinders as troops would have been interesting. Not very competitive but interesting for fluff players. Most Armies have two or three. Not sure what else we could have really? Maybe an Honour Guard Firewarrior-esque squad? Similar to the old ones but maybe an option for us. Still, it's nothing I'm missing and in my last 6 games (all won) I haven't missed another troop choice.

Overall I am very happy with the Codex and I have had the most fun in 40k with this new book than I have for months and that includes using Necrons (Auto win army most weeks, very boring and bland to play)

Open-topped has too many advantages to offset the disadvantages. I would almost always prefer an open-topped transport to a closed one. The penaties for open-topped need to be more severe: like you can shoot the guys in the transport instead of the transport itself.

 Kingsley wrote:

Backfire wrote:
And lets see how much cheaper it actually is: old codex: Railhead+Burst cannons+Disruption pod = 155. New codex: Railhead+Disruption pod+submunition=145 points. Woo hoo, a 10 points drop, and loss of option taking a more expensive, but more capable tank.

Why take a disruption pod in the new Codex? 15 points is too much IMO. At 125/130 points (depending on turret), the Hammerhead looks a lot nicer.

this actually made me laugh

if "only" being able to move as far as most other tanks and effectively ignoring terrain plus being to move over units is not enough you can keep the gun drones and use them as an assault screen whilst your bs5 hammerhead (with no markerlight support) picks on a vehicle with a str10 ap1 gun that re-rolls armour pen.

against the previous codex i didnt mind the odds of running a land raider full of stuff into a tau frontline. that hammerhead with a 4+cover save (for moving with its disruption pods) is quite terrifying..... let alone just deploying it behind a ruin and grabbing a 3+cover.



the only thing i dont like about the new codex (assuming they eventually errata the bomber) is kroot..... and that is purely becuase i hate the models

 gr1m_dan wrote:
Sounds a bit like wish listing in regards to an open-topped Transport. Our stuff is quite fragile (sometimes) as it is, open topped transport?! We don't need to assault from them and I can't imagine a bunch of Firewarriors firing out of a vehicle ala Dark Eldar raider-eqsue tactics. The Devilfish would have been nice if it was slightly cheaper but for whatever reason they deemed it better to keep it at the original.

But units with unit strength shooting need open topped vehicles, like DE raiders and Necron Ghost arks. It fits their unit type. Firewarriors do nothing but shoot, and sticking them into a transport that only puts out the same kind of shooting as firewarriors just makes it a wase. It's not wish listing, it's what makes sense. Marines are well armored and get cheap transports with firing points. Ig are weak and get decently priced APCs with firing points. Necrons are well armored and get skimmer AV13 transports with decent weaponry plus open topped on a unit that is extremely survivable as is. Instead Firewarriors get the exact same transport as before in an edition where transports aren't as good because they can't be scoring. It's just silly that they kept it that way, especially when they give more buffs for firewarriors so they're better left out of transports in just about every scenario.

More troop options? I disagree with that BUT I think taking Darkstrider opening Pathfinders as troops would have been interesting. Not very competitive but interesting for fluff players. Most Armies have two or three. Not sure what else we could have really? Maybe an Honour Guard Firewarrior-esque squad? Similar to the old ones but maybe an option for us. Still, it's nothing I'm missing and in my last 6 games (all won) I haven't missed another troop choice.

I know Necrons only get two choices and SOB only have 1 I believe, but how many armies get to unlock units as troops? I know CSM has a total of 7 units that can be troop choices and they're all pretty good. And your personal win/loss record doesn't mean the codex lacks options and variety. Even just the ability to take Pathfinders as troops would have been interesting, or atleast make a unit scoring since Tau are somewhat at a disadvantage to some of the other armies with better options, Necrons being the prime example but CSM with plaguemarine troops and DAs scoring bikes are pretty good as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mrspadge wrote:
if "only" being able to move as far as most other tanks and effectively ignoring terrain

I'm tired of point this out. The Hammerhead body is 5.5" in length. That means you better be right up on a piece of terrain that's only .5" thick if you want to "effectively ignore" it and still fire. Same thing with moving over units. Anything thicker than a conga line is probably out of the question. So yeah. I think it's kind of a big deal because now I can only side shuffle and be able to fire unless I want to move forward and over something, then not be able to shoot. I could just hide it in the open with a clear path forward and hope my opponent doesn't go first.

Sounds like fighting against Tau hasn't changed that much except fliers are more dead and Land Raiders are less dead. Tau troops aren't casting grey hunters or plague marines off an objective, but then neither are regular meqs. And we pay more for the privilege of failing to beat high-end troops.

My friend has a Tau army. Maybe I'll monkey around with it some and see what I think.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
[...]


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mrspadge wrote:
if "only" being able to move as far as most other tanks and effectively ignoring terrain

I'm tired of point this out. The Hammerhead body is 5.5" in length. That means you better be right up on a piece of terrain that's only .5" thick if you want to "effectively ignore" it and still fire. Same thing with moving over units. Anything thicker than a conga line is probably out of the question. So yeah. I think it's kind of a big deal because now I can only side shuffle and be able to fire unless I want to move forward and over something, then not be able to shoot. I could just hide it in the open with a clear path forward and hope my opponent doesn't go first.

The problem with the Conga line is that the tank is also a skimmer, so it's on a skimmer base which raises it up, and the majority of the tank's frame is pretty high up (turret, main body, and engines). It'll take more than a conga line to really give it a cover save.

You say that it's ok to land in terrain, but I was replying to your comment on how there is no way to "clear" terrain and fire the weapons due to the size. And I thought a non-fast vehicle moving more than 6" couldn't fire any weapons. The Leman Russ is heavy, right? So doesn't that mean it can always move 6" and fire all weapons as normal?

 Savageconvoy wrote:
The problem with the Conga line is that the tank is also a skimmer, so it's on a skimmer base which raises it up, and the majority of the tank's frame is pretty high up (turret, main body, and engines). It'll take more than a conga line to really give it a cover save.

You say that it's ok to land in terrain, but I was replying to your comment on how there is no way to "clear" terrain and fire the weapons due to the size. And I thought a non-fast vehicle moving more than 6" couldn't fire any weapons. The Leman Russ is heavy, right? So doesn't that mean it can always move 6" and fire all weapons as normal?

if you move up to 6, you can shoot 1 weapon normally and snapfire EVERYTHING else.
over 6", only snapfire.

fast vehicles it goes to everything up to 6", 1 gun and snapfire up to 12", nothing beond that i believe (though you might still get to snapfire)

leman russes have a rule which lets them fire an additional gun to their main weapon (go that 1 bs3 heavy bolter!!!).

so you can creep up to the 1st floor of a ruin and blast away, just your drones/sms/bc will be snap firing. plus if fire warriors wont do it... how about drones

 Savageconvoy wrote:
The problem with the Conga line is that the tank is also a skimmer, so it's on a skimmer base which raises it up, and the majority of the tank's frame is pretty high up (turret, main body, and engines). It'll take more than a conga line to really give it a cover save.

You say that it's ok to land in terrain, but I was replying to your comment on how there is no way to "clear" terrain and fire the weapons due to the size. And I thought a non-fast vehicle moving more than 6" couldn't fire any weapons. The Leman Russ is heavy, right? So doesn't that mean it can always move 6" and fire all weapons as normal?

Alas, firing Ordance weapons force other weapons of the tank fire only Snap shots. So this makes for example LRBT pretty bad under present ruleset. OTOH, some other Leman Russ variants with no Ordnance weapons can move 6" and shoot everything.

You still wouldn't be able to move 6.1" and fire the template though, which is the main reason for even taking the Hammerhead now. But increasing snapfire up to BS4 for a single shot railgun would require 3 marker tokens, which is 6 pathfinders which are considerably more squishy and easy to take down than a Hammerhead. If you go with the marker drone loaded Commander, it's now two units just to bring one unit back to it's orginal state pre update. The easier option will probably just be to give it sensor spines and land where you please.

I'm not saying it's a bad tank, I'm just saying it's far from mobile and because of it's large size it's not as easy to hide as Imperial vehicles.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
And I thought a non-fast vehicle moving more than 6" couldn't fire any weapons.

You can still snap fire over 6". So Hammerheads are not crippled because they can still move 12" and then waste a bunch of markerlights to get back to BS 4. And of course we won't account for the cost of those markerlights when arguing that the Hammerhead got a price drop...

 Peregrine wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
And I thought a non-fast vehicle moving more than 6" couldn't fire any weapons.

You can still snap fire over 6". So Hammerheads are not crippled because they can still move 12" and then waste a bunch of markerlights to get back to BS 4. And of course we won't account for the cost of those markerlights when arguing that the Hammerhead got a price drop...

You need six Pathfinders to increase Hammerhead's BS to 4, those Pathfinders cost 66 points...

And use up a Fast Attack slot. They are also fairly easy to kill off, so lose pathfinders and tanks are now handicapped. Giving an opponent two bonuses for the price of one kill.

It's why I hate the idea of synergy with Tau. It's not synergy, it's like a clock where every gear is tuned to work with the others. However when you remove one cog, you don't have a clock anymore.

Yes hammer heads got a nerf. But if you guys try the new codex you will find that tau has many things that make up for it. I don't feel the need to run a bunch of hammerheads, not because they are not good but because there are other places to spend the points now. If you look at power level of all units everything is very well balance (except vespid who are still unplayable). And against everyone else we are pretty strong, much stronger than before to be sure. A page or so ago I linked all the dakka battle reports that had new tau in them. There were 12 reports, we won 8, lost 3, and tied 1. This is with a codex that is only two weeks old and people who are still brewing lists and deciding what they want to bring to the field.

 lambsandlions wrote:
I don't feel the need to fun a bunch of hammerheads, not because they are not good but because there are other places to spend the points now.

Which is fine for you. Some of us liked the old Tau tank list, and it is NOT fine that the list no longer functions. I played Tau specifically because the Hammerhead was so awesome, now I have to play the same all-battlesuit army just like everyone else. The fact that I'll probably win more does not make up for the fact that I'm not going to enjoy the army as much anymore.

(Well, more accurately I'm just not going to buy any Tau stuff.)

You know I was talking about Nobs. Been long enough I honestly forgot, lol. As for the no more fearless wounds, yes that was BY FAR the best change.

And I've actually gotten the Tau codex now, and in seriousness, it really is Codex: Markerlights, but I'm ok with this. I don't have any fond memories of playing them before, or any at all for that matter, so I'm fine with it.

 Peregrine wrote:


Which is fine for you. Some of us liked the old Tau tank list, and it is NOT fine that the list no longer functions. I played Tau specifically because the Hammerhead was so awesome, now I have to play the same all-battlesuit army just like everyone else. The fact that I'll probably win more does not make up for the fact that I'm not going to enjoy the army as much anymore.

(Well, more accurately I'm just not going to buy any Tau stuff.)

So we are not arguing that tau is bad, we are arguing that one aspect that you enjoyed is gone? There is nothing that anyone can say that will change things. As much as we say the hammer head is still a very good tank nothing we can say will give it 12'' movement back. But again, this is just you and a few other people that are having the problem. A lot more people seem to be enjoying the codex. And to be honest I think if you put your feelings aside and tried the new codex out you would find something you like.

Just a few cents worth of opinion from someone who has played against the new Tau.

It was a small game, only 1250 points, and I was using a scout heavy crimson fist army. I was a little surprised by how much my opponent got to field with only 1250 ponts. A hammerhead, two broadsides, a riptide, 3 crisis suits and commander, and 28 fire warriors, plus lots of drones with each squad. I had 20 scouts (one HtH, one sniper), 10 tactical mariens, 10 sternguard in a rhino, Pedro, a Stormtalon, and 5 devastators with missile launchers.

The hammerhead, broadsides, and Riptide made a pretty solid base of fire that I really had a hard time dealing with. The 2+ save on the Riptide, combined with it being a T6 multiwound monsterous creature, made it very tough to deal with. Snipers and hellfire rounds managed to only put 2 wounds on it the whole game, but admittedly, I finally just stopped wasting shots on it and focused on killing all of his firewarriors after turn 1.

The various missile pods are tough to deal with just because its such a huge volley of fire, especially the ones that do no require LOS and ignore cover.

Firewarriors are kind of squishy, and while the volleys of fire can be intimidating, BS3 cuts some of the effectiveness. Also, markerlights aren't the game breaker so many seem to think they are. The basic markerlight drones generally don't hit very often, and 15 points to put it on a firewarrior squad leader is a bit pricey, but then, that's how its all balanced out. At first reading, I thought markerlights were going to be a very broken aspect of the army, but in practice, they proved to be somewhat ineffective in his army build (he split the difference and took half markerlight drones and half missile drones). I guess there is something to the whole "Play the game before you form an opinion" line of thinking!

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Just a few cents worth of opinion from someone who has played against the new Tau.

It was a small game, only 1250 points, and I was using a scout heavy crimson fist army. I was a little surprised by how much my opponent got to field with only 1250 ponts. A hammerhead, two broadsides, a riptide, 3 crisis suits and commander, and 28 fire warriors, plus lots of drones with each squad. I had 20 scouts (one HtH, one sniper), 10 tactical mariens, 10 sternguard in a rhino, Pedro, a Stormtalon, and 5 devastators with missile launchers.

The hammerhead, broadsides, and Riptide made a pretty solid base of fire that I really had a hard time dealing with. The 2+ save on the Riptide, combined with it being a T6 multiwound monsterous creature, made it very tough to deal with. Snipers and hellfire rounds managed to only put 2 wounds on it the whole game, but admittedly, I finally just stopped wasting shots on it and focused on killing all of his firewarriors after turn 1.

The various missile pods are tough to deal with just because its such a huge volley of fire, especially the ones that do no require LOS and ignore cover.

Firewarriors are kind of squishy, and while the volleys of fire can be intimidating, BS3 cuts some of the effectiveness. Also, markerlights aren't the game breaker so many seem to think they are. The basic markerlight drones generally don't hit very often, and 15 points to put it on a firewarrior squad leader is a bit pricey, but then, that's how its all balanced out. At first reading, I thought markerlights were going to be a very broken aspect of the army, but in practice, they proved to be somewhat ineffective in his army build (he split the difference and took half markerlight drones and half missile drones). I guess there is something to the whole "Play the game before you form an opinion" line of thinking!

Because of the lack of Networked Markerlights available now it is generally accepted to take twice as many Pathfinders as ML hits you want on a target. If you are going to do Markerlight Drones then you pretty much have to do a Mark'O commander (Crisis Suit Commander with a Drone Controller, weapons and a target lock so it can shoot at something different then the Marker Drones) with the unit. I have been fielding two units of Pathfinders with 6 to 8 models (Bonded Knives and a Shas'Ui for leader ship tests) in them for my Markerlight needs.

Having seen the codex in work on 5-6 games now, with people using Riptides, Ionheads, Missilesides, Railsides, Hammerheads, and the works, all I have seen is demolition of some of the best Marine, Necron, CSM, DE and eldar armies out there.

I live in Portland Oregon and and happen to play in an area where in regionals our guys get in the top rather often yet they are having issues with Tau due to their effectiveness at being so versatile.

Tell me, can you actually predict what a Tau player will bring? Can you actually come in going against a tau player having that "rock beats scissors" list? Currently. . . no.

^

What works against MEQ works against Tau, maybe with the exception of the Riptide.

Lots of high S low AP shots, instagibbing suits and blowing up tanks.

I mean, it's not going to be that easy, but you can say for sure that a tau army will have Crisis suits and tanks.

Then again this might be as obvious a statement as "an army will have units in it".

Because of the lack of Networked Markerlights available now it is generally accepted to take twice as many Pathfinders as ML hits you want on a target. If you are going to do Markerlight Drones then you pretty much have to do a Mark'O commander (Crisis Suit Commander with a Drone Controller, weapons and a target lock so it can shoot at something different then the Marker Drones) with the unit. I have been fielding two units of Pathfinders with 6 to 8 models (Bonded Knives and a Shas'Ui for leader ship tests) in them for my Markerlight needs.

This. I have a decent amount of markerlights in my list (10 drone squad, crisis with 2 markerdrones, Mark'O with two marker drones, 2 sky rays). This is what I'm using as my main markerlight source:

Commander Mark'O, Iridium Battle Suit, Drone Controller, Target Lock, Twin Linked Missile Pod, 2 Marker Drones
10 Markerlight Drones

It is a large chunk of points ... 307 to be exact ... but it is very effective. I found pathfinders much too fragile. But I suppose there is a case for both approaches.

Tell me, can you actually predict what a Tau player will bring? Can you actually come in going against a tau player having that "rock beats scissors" list? Currently. . . no.

No there is no established tournament list for Tau presently. My test list (five games played) has riptides and sky rays and no broadsides or hammerheads. I don't use an AGL nor do I use pathfinders. I do use piranhas ... yes, I know they are not quite as good as they once were but 50 points for essentially a landspeeder with melta is not terrible at all. I have issues with my Tau. I have not played them in awhile and in their previous incarnation they really were used more as allies ... played them twice in 6ed as a stand alone force. So I question wether I can succeed as a standalone force with the new codex. There are glimmers of hope. Ethereal certainly helps my troops. We do have decent anti-flyer and decent defense against reserves and DS. Do I need allies again and if so can I make a better allied list without Tau? I truly want to play my Tau ... I invested in doing up two riptides and two sky rays. I don't want them sitting on the shelf. I can certainly beat some very competitive builds but I've struggled against other builds that are not to my mind top tier (deamons/nids). Go figure.

Lumipon wrote:
^

What works against MEQ works against Tau, maybe with the exception of the Riptide.

Lots of high S low AP shots, instagibbing suits and blowing up tanks.

I mean, it's not going to be that easy, but you can say for sure that a tau army will have Crisis suits and tanks.

Then again this might be as obvious a statement as "an army will have units in it".

My current build has neither Crisis suits nor Hammerheads... Though I am considering a skyray.

I know a guy that runs just the commander and a sac squad of Crisis suits, oh and missilesides. He so far is undefeated with thislist but then again he is the guy I pointed too when people said Tau sucked. Before the new codex he was tearing apart great players on the reg. . .

Generally, I like the shift in how the army can be fielded--we can take a lot more units that are useful, we have units that interact with each other better, and generally it seems like even more fun to play. I don't feel tied in to a single build yet at all.

@ jancoran
Finished a small three game tourney yesterday without a loss. I used only two sky rays in my HS slot - no suits or railheads. I also used piranhas ... good lord I must be silly. Funny thing ... I ended up winning all three games. I'm not taking taking this as a definitive endorsement though. I played no IG ( which I feel will be the Tau nemesis) and the daemon list I played needed allies which might have swayed the ourtcome (pure daemons are okay but way to random).

 Jancoran wrote:

Lumipon wrote:
^

What works against MEQ works against Tau, maybe with the exception of the Riptide.

Lots of high S low AP shots, instagibbing suits and blowing up tanks.

I mean, it's not going to be that easy, but you can say for sure that a tau army will have Crisis suits and tanks.

Then again this might be as obvious a statement as "an army will have units in it".

My current build has neither Crisis suits nor Hammerheads... Though I am considering a skyray.

Is it Riptides instead of Crises and Broadsides instead of tanks?

Or let me rephrase: Please share :3

 felixcat wrote:

@ jancoran
Finished a small three game tourney yesterday without a loss. I used only two sky rays in my HS slot - no suits or railheads. I also used piranhas ... good lord I must be silly. Funny thing ... I ended up winning all three games. I'm not taking taking this as a definitive endorsement though. I played no IG ( which I feel will be the Tau nemesis) and the daemon list I played needed allies which might have swayed the ourtcome (pure daemons are okay but way to random).

Fantastic! The person I tabled was Ig as I mentioned. You'll do fine against them.

Today I faced MechDar with Dark Eldar allies in a 2K contest. I have yet to use my NEW list yet so this was, again, with the one in the Batrep. (2 x FW, 2 x Kroot, 2 x Pathfinders, 1 xcrisis, 2 x Riptide, Commander, Drone Swarm, 2 Devilfish's)

He had 2xDire, 1xwarriors in venom, 1xwarriors in Raider, blasterborn in venom, 3 Serpents, 2 Forgeworld D-cannon tanks, Eldrad, Farseer, The Duke, Firedragons)

I might be missing something in there but that was essentially it.

I tabled his force and got all the secondary's. I lost My Crisis team. That's Two tablings in a row. Yahoo. Not bad for an exploratotry list, eh?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lumipon wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

Lumipon wrote:
^

What works against MEQ works against Tau, maybe with the exception of the Riptide.

Lots of high S low AP shots, instagibbing suits and blowing up tanks.

I mean, it's not going to be that easy, but you can say for sure that a tau army will have Crisis suits and tanks.

Then again this might be as obvious a statement as "an army will have units in it".

My current build has neither Crisis suits nor Hammerheads... Though I am considering a skyray.

Is it Riptides instead of Crises and Broadsides instead of tanks?

Or let me rephrase: Please share :3

The new list which i have been too lazy to box up and prepare for battle is coming. I went and organized my garage and added some shelves so it'll be easuier to find everything. Really looking forward to trying it.

I've played 5 games since the new codex came out. Won all of them quite easily.

Old Tau Codex was all about Broadsides, Crisis suits and Hammerheads.

The New Codex has just nothing to see with what it used to be. Riptides seem to be the new "broadsides" (there's almost no list without one or two of these beasts). Crisis just lost their importance (mostly because Riptides take the Elite slots). Broadsides are now meh... Skyrays are THE Heavy Support, whereas it was almost never played with the old codex. etc.etc.etc.

Tau "commanders" need to adapt. Times are changing, for the Greater Good.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 gr1m_dan wrote:

More troop options? I disagree with that BUT I think taking Darkstrider opening Pathfinders as troops would have been interesting. Not very competitive but interesting for fluff players. Most Armies have two or three. Not sure what else we could have really? Maybe an Honour Guard Firewarrior-esque squad? Similar to the old ones but maybe an option for us. Still, it's nothing I'm missing and in my last 6 games (all won) I haven't missed another troop choice.

I know CSM has a total of 7 units that can be troop choices and they're all pretty good.

Cultists are garabage being more expensive than IG for signifigantly worse than IG performance.
CSM are good
Chosen are ok as troops but only with a special character do they actually become troops.
PM are great troops
Noise marines are ok at best
Bezerkers are mediocer assault troops in a shooting game. no one is planning lists around new units of bezerkers, people are just finding uses for the models they have.
Tsons are god awful, only the most fluffy non competitive army uses them. Similarly taking MoT on a sorcerer actually makes him worse. Huge tax to deploy as troops.

So yes, they have 7 troop options, more than any other codex I believe, but 1 is great, 2-3 are ok to good, and 3-4 are all but worthless

 Exergy wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 gr1m_dan wrote:

More troop options? I disagree with that BUT I think taking Darkstrider opening Pathfinders as troops would have been interesting. Not very competitive but interesting for fluff players. Most Armies have two or three. Not sure what else we could have really? Maybe an Honour Guard Firewarrior-esque squad? Similar to the old ones but maybe an option for us. Still, it's nothing I'm missing and in my last 6 games (all won) I haven't missed another troop choice.

I know CSM has a total of 7 units that can be troop choices and they're all pretty good.

Cultists are garabage being more expensive than IG for signifigantly worse than IG performance.

They cost as much as IG but don't get any good weapon options. They're still perfectly fine for backfield objective camping. Hardly garbage.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Exergy wrote:

Cultists are garabage being more expensive than IG for signifigantly worse than IG performance.

They cost as much as IG but don't get any good weapon options. They're still perfectly fine for backfield objective camping. Hardly garbage.

an IG squad with lasguns costs 50 points
a cultist squad with autoguns costs 60 points

IG have 5+ armor and grenades
cultists have 6+ saves.

IG squads have to purchase a platoon command section for 30 points, but that can carry more weapons and can give orders which dramatically increase the IG squads effectiveness.

Its more than just weapon options, the IG squad is just better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Puscifer wrote:

Best codexes from 6th:

1) Chaos.
2) Dark Angels.
3) Daemons.
4) Tau.

and yet Necrons and IG are stronger than any of the above.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BoomWolf wrote:
I really dont understand the people who cry about the new codex.
Pretty much every single unit (broadside put aside) was made cheaper, stronger, a combintion of it, or just too different to compare (and usually better then the old when done like this)
The things that DID get nerfs? (and even then questionably)
2-Broadsides, S10 to S8 is a big hit, but the only ones were freaking OP and you know it.
On the bright side, you got a new main weapon option, a very improved SMS (now TL, longer range and ignores cover), and built-in MT and BSF (saving even more points). so it lost power from main gun, but got stronger utility.

they really did need to go down to str8, mass str10 ap 1 at long range silly good. The problem is the cost of the str8 didnt go down enough. The missiles are now noticeably better even at killing armor than the rail rifle. The internal balance of the weapon options is terrible. Not an expert but I think the missiles should be 5 points more and the rail rifles 5 points less, total 10 point additional swing, maybe 5 points is more in order but I dont know.

@exergy, i agree with you on the HYMP cost being a bit strange. Broadsides could fit fairly safely at about 55/60 points with the heavy rail rifle and still not be cheesy, since you can only max out 9 s8 shots for an entire heavy FOC worth. To me, it's more about the fact that a squad of broadsides still costs just as much, but is worse at dealing with the armor they're meant to kill, missiles only being marginally better, and I can't get more broadsides/meltaguns elsewhere to compensate, as well as a nerfing of shield drones, so the 'sides are actually less durable.

Essentially, despite the melta elsewhere getting better, I can't get any more of it, and I was already in short supply of AT to begin with.

Then again? Maybe my meta is different - I face mostly mech, with blob support, usually no significant flyer presence. Tough mech, too - 3 vindicators just wipe off entire crisis suit squads that can't even dent them unless I deepstrike next to some counter-charge units. DA powerfields is really rough in IG blobs, or in LR's parked next to artillery/chimeras, or just in a razorback/predator list.

 Exergy wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Exergy wrote:

Cultists are garabage being more expensive than IG for signifigantly worse than IG performance.

They cost as much as IG but don't get any good weapon options. They're still perfectly fine for backfield objective camping. Hardly garbage.

an IG squad with lasguns costs 50 points
a cultist squad with autoguns costs 60 points

IG have 5+ armor and grenades
cultists have 6+ saves.

IG squads have to purchase a platoon command section for 30 points, but that can carry more weapons and can give orders which dramatically increase the IG squads effectiveness.

Its more than just weapon options, the IG squad is just better.

The IG squad doesn't give cheap as chips troops to a Codex otherwise buying elite troops. They fulfil different roles.

Mentlegen, IG vs CSM is getting a bit off topic.

But on the topic of troop choices, what ya guys think of the new kroot.

I had my first game of new tau Saturday, had a 10man sniper kroot in some forest, survived 7 turns of non stop barrage from an enemy fire warrior squad with a fireblade, (luckly he didn't use his marker lights on them but instead on other squshy stuff) only to lose something like 4 models total while taking about 7 of his with marker support.

I think that's the exception rather than the standard. I had 15 kroot and 3 krootox get doomed and charged through cover by a DE beast squad 10" away on their first turn, fail to do anything meaningful in overwatch and assault, (as well as the supporting fire from my various FW units) and become a slingshot for the beasts to consolidate super far towards my frontlines.

uberjoras wrote:
I think that's the exception rather than the standard. I had 15 kroot and 3 krootox get doomed and charged through cover by a DE beast squad 10" away on their first turn, fail to do anything meaningful in overwatch and assault, (as well as the supporting fire from my various FW units) and become a slingshot for the beasts to consolidate super far towards my frontlines.

Probably best not to infiltrate/ position your self that close to a troop like that (unless they got the warlord trait that lets them redeploy within his own DZ)

My situation was interesting as he could of taken em out if he had focused, instead he kept going for that juicy riptide which also survived till the end of the game with 2 wounds left.
(though specifically this was a game for fun and for both of us to learn new tau)

uberjoras wrote:
I think that's the exception rather than the standard. I had 15 kroot and 3 krootox get doomed and charged through cover by a DE beast squad 10" away on their first turn, fail to do anything meaningful in overwatch and assault, (as well as the supporting fire from my various FW units) and become a slingshot for the beasts to consolidate super far towards my frontlines.

so a VERY powerful assault unit combined with a psykic power from an allied army changed your kroot and beat them. I dont think many infiltrators will do well against that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

uberjoras wrote:
I think that's the exception rather than the standard. I had 15 kroot and 3 krootox get doomed and charged through cover by a DE beast squad 10" away on their first turn, fail to do anything meaningful in overwatch and assault, (as well as the supporting fire from my various FW units) and become a slingshot for the beasts to consolidate super far towards my frontlines.

Probably best not to infiltrate/ position your self that close to a troop like that (unless they got the warlord trait that lets them redeploy within his own DZ)

My situation was interesting as he could of taken em out if he had focused, instead he kept going for that juicy riptide which also survived till the end of the game with 2 wounds left.
(though specifically this was a game for fun and for both of us to learn new tau)

Eldrad has the d3 redeploy standard which i highly suspect was involved with the 'doom'

 Exergy wrote:
SNIP

Eww that's pretty gross.

Though if we are in that sort of predicament, i think it would be best to hide the kroot in outflank and react to the way they play.

 Desubot wrote:
But on the topic of troop choices, what ya guys think of the new kroot.

I had my first game of new tau Saturday, had a 10man sniper kroot in some forest, survived 7 turns of non stop barrage from an enemy fire warrior squad with a fireblade, (luckly he didn't use his marker lights on them but instead on other squshy stuff) only to lose something like 4 models total while taking about 7 of his with marker support.

The new Kroot are good and bad in my opinion.
I had a unit eat Kabalite Warrior Squad on outflank. Following turn they got shot and assaulted and lost almost half the unit. However, A combination of lucky rolls and AP5 let me match the DE and hold on until Fire Warriors could mop up.

Good:
Cheaper or gain Sniper make them nice objective campers or outflanking troops. Also, AP5 eats through guardsmen and the squishy Eldar aspects. 6+ helps in close combat.
Bad:
Loss of 1S and 1A from Kroot Rifles means if you REALLY want to assault with your Kroot for whatever reason, you have pick your fights unless they're tar-pitting.

I am missing the massive shield drone nerf. It still as 4++ save and is cheaper.

On the Tank subject, yeah Tau Tank lists took a massive beating, Tau tanks in general took hit. Long Strike just does not really compensate for the combined hits of the multi-tracker and Target lock lose.

barnowl wrote:
I am missing the massive shield drone nerf. It still as 4++ save and is cheaper..

The drone's used to take on the sv characteristic of the controller. So if you had broadside controllers you would have sv2+ 4++ drones. Those are a ton more durable than just 4++ drones. But with missile drones I don't see people using shield drones with broadsides even if they were sv2+ 4++. The nerf hurts me because I used to take a commander with iridium armor and two shield drones to make a 2+ wall basically making my crisis team into crisis terminators.

Well heck, even plain crisis suits - I'd rather take markerlight drones than shield drones, because at least they do something if they're not dead. They have a cover save if the suits are in a ruin, and they're just as good at being ablative wounds if that's all you need. Which, at least marker drones are fairly nice and cheap enough now.

I do miss a stealth drone swarm. Odd that they switched T stats - drones gained a T and stealths lost one. It's sad that stealths are still 30 points each, because I would love to pay 20ish for them.

uberjoras wrote:
Well heck, even plain crisis suits - I'd rather take markerlight drones than shield drones, because at least they do something if they're not dead. They have a cover save if the suits are in a ruin, and they're just as good at being ablative wounds if that's all you need. Which, at least marker drones are fairly nice and cheap enough now.

I disagree, as a shield drone's sole purpose in life is to absorb the weapons that would ignore armor or instagib your crisis suits. Taking a pair just helps keep your suits alive MUCH better as they at least have a chance to save against an AP4 or better roll. I've lost count of the amount of wounds that my stealth drones have shrugged off because of the fact that they had a 4+ invuln save

The problem is that if you want those shield drones to take the insta-gib wounds then they have to be in front of the suits. If they are infront of the suits then they're going to be taken down with small arms fire first since they'll only save 50%. Then that leaves suits to get insta-killed by S8 weapons.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
The problem is that if you want those shield drones to take the insta-gib wounds then they have to be in front of the suits. If they are infront of the suits then they're going to be taken down with small arms fire first since they'll only save 50%. Then that leaves suits to get insta-killed by S8 weapons.

^What this person said.
Drones, Shield Drones especially, should have gotten a unit wide Look Out, Sir type rule where any non-precision wound the unit takes can allocated to them.

Puscifer wrote:

Best codexes from 6th:

1) Chaos.
2) Dark Angels.
3) Daemons.
4) Tau.


and yet Necrons and IG are stronger than any of the above.

Not only are Necrons and IG stronger than any of the above, I would argue that the list Puscifer provided is fairly out of order as well. It's way too soon to say where Tau fit in, but Chaos is probably pretty far from being #1 (it certainly is in my area with most long time Chaos players having completely dropped the army because of the new book).

Around here, people seem fairly excited about the Tau book. They are having fairly decent success in games as well. The only that concerns me is that I'm really only seeing gunline armies. That was my one criticism of the book and in my local meta it seems like my fears are being confirmed. The codex just feels like it's pushing you to play more of a static gunline than the mobile Tau I've always loved. I still think it's a good book, I'm just in that awkward, "my girlfriend just cut her hair and looks completely different phase" if that makes sense. lol

 acekevin8412 wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
The problem is that if you want those shield drones to take the insta-gib wounds then they have to be in front of the suits. If they are infront of the suits then they're going to be taken down with small arms fire first since they'll only save 50%. Then that leaves suits to get insta-killed by S8 weapons.

^What this person said.
Drones, Shield Drones especially, should have gotten a unit wide Look Out, Sir type rule where any non-precision wound the unit takes can allocated to them.

perhaps 4+ LOS from any model to a shield drone, automatic and 2+ being other options

Tycho wrote:

Not only are Necrons and IG stronger than any of the above, I would argue that the list Puscifer provided is fairly out of order as well. It's way too soon to say where Tau fit in, but Chaos is probably pretty far from being #1 (it certainly is in my area with most long time Chaos players having completely dropped the army because of the new book).

He had a slight mistype in the list. He meant this:

1. Nurgle and Baledrakes
2. Flying Monstrous Creatures
3. Dark Angels
4. Tau
5. Daemons
6. Chaos Space Marines

He had a slight mistype in the list. He meant this:

1. Nurgle and Baledrakes
2. Flying Monstrous Creatures
3. Dark Angels
4. Tau
5. Daemons
6. Chaos Space Marines

OOOOOOh. Ok. Well when you put it like that the list makes perfect sense. Not much to argue with there!

 Savageconvoy wrote:
The problem is that if you want those shield drones to take the insta-gib wounds then they have to be in front of the suits. If they are infront of the suits then they're going to be taken down with small arms fire first since they'll only save 50%. Then that leaves suits to get insta-killed by S8 weapons.

This is true, but then they have to waste two units firing at my suits instead of just one, as not many units can fire both small arms and large weapons and any unit that could would be a priority target as they're usually the most annoying and shootiest portions of their army.

I'm not a big fan of using drones at their base BS and I definitely dislike wasting a drone controller on my fireknives when I can make their firepower more effective. BS3 is bad enough, BS2 is borderline unuseable IMO. If the invuln upgrade wasn't so expensive I would use that but instead I definitely would much rather the drones to absorb wounds.

 YotsubaSnake wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
The problem is that if you want those shield drones to take the insta-gib wounds then they have to be in front of the suits. If they are infront of the suits then they're going to be taken down with small arms fire first since they'll only save 50%. Then that leaves suits to get insta-killed by S8 weapons.

This is true, but then they have to waste two units firing at my suits instead of just one, as not many units can fire both small arms and large weapons and any unit that could would be a priority target as they're usually the most annoying and shootiest portions of their army.

I'm not a big fan of using drones at their base BS and I definitely dislike wasting a drone controller on my fireknives when I can make their firepower more effective. BS3 is bad enough, BS2 is borderline unuseable IMO. If the invuln upgrade wasn't so expensive I would use that but instead I definitely would much rather the drones to absorb wounds.

Pretty sure, Marines of most flavours can take a Special/Heavy weapon surrounded by bolter boys. The bolters kill the drones allowing the special to wound/kill the/a suit(s). The same situation applies for IG infantry squads, however this is less reliable due to the weakness of lasguns. I think I covered about half of all armies out there with that line.

 acekevin8412 wrote:


Pretty sure, Marines of most flavours can take a Special/Heavy weapon surrounded by bolter boys.

blatantly false. No marines can take special weapons

This codex really just pointed out how squishy crisis suits are without taking huge advantage of an unreliable 4+ look out sir on a character up front. For optimal defense, you go character with 2 weapons and a shield gen (or 1 weapon, shield gen, stim) , then shield drones closest to him, then the other 2 suits. Only problem is, it's really not too reliable, 25% of the time your expensive specialized setup will just net you a dead crisis suit. That's about how likely it is for a broadside to pen a rhino now, too

I feel like the book was rushed out by someone very inexperienced with Tau. Lots of silly things abound, like burst cannons versus SMS on hammerheads, vespids going up in cost, kroot getting so much weaker when they supposedly can go toe-to-toe with an ork boy, stealth suits getting even weaker, devilfish not going down in points, and one serious pet peeve of mine - odd point costs on crisis suits, and increase in cost for melta, burst cannons, flamers, and missile pods which were clearly costed so as to be even multiples of 5.

uberjoras wrote:

I feel like the book was rushed out by someone very inexperienced with Tau. Lots of silly things abound, like burst cannons versus SMS on hammerheads, vespids going up in cost, kroot getting so much weaker when they supposedly can go toe-to-toe with an ork boy, stealth suits getting even weaker, devilfish not going down in points, and one serious pet peeve of mine - odd point costs on crisis suits, and increase in cost for melta, burst cannons, flamers, and missile pods which were clearly costed so as to be even multiples of 5.

I agree. It seems like they did more of a quick patch than anything else. Only two new units and only two redone kits. It really looks sad compared to what a codex that already had a lot (CSM) got just as many as Tau got, even though its a very limited codex starting off.

 Exergy wrote:

 acekevin8412 wrote:


Pretty sure, Marines of most flavours can take a Special/Heavy weapon surrounded by bolter boys.

blatantly false. No marines can take special weapons

I think my tactical squads' meltagun & plasma gun would like a word with you

I can think of several quick fixes that many Tau players have been begging for, just off of the top of my head, yet the changes that were made, were ones that people didn't seem to even really want that much, like sniper drones (which are only good if you spend exorbitant points on maxed squads and ethereals), and pathfinders going full squish mode, or drones going t4. As this thread has shown, it also removed a lot of things that Tau players have come to love about the army, like vehicle target locks, or shield drones taking their owner's save. It also failed to give Tau players things that we've been asking for in the long interrim - another troop choice (drones? Stealth suits? Would have been very easy to do), good flyers, more vehicle options, more alien auxiliaries, FOC swaps for certain units, ability to do theme lists like "all-drone", "all-kroot", "all-suit", and "why are there 30 devilfish hulls" .

I'm making no comment about the quality of the book - I'm sure it has some great units, and lots of strategy and high-level things for supercool tactical players who think they're better than other people because they win. I just want to have fun making models and pushing them around the table with my friends' models, and have lots of different surprising armies that I can use each week so I can have fun stories to tell about "that time I had 200 termagants on the table versus full IG tank spam" or "Bob the Fire Warrior has held out miraculously for 4 combat rounds on his own against 5 terminators, killing one terminator out of pure spite for death.", or my personal favorite, "My broadsides charge your hive tyrant. No, I'm not joking."

 Exergy wrote:


blatantly false. No marines can take special weapons

whuuuuuu...

 Exergy wrote:

 acekevin8412 wrote:


Pretty sure, Marines of most flavours can take a Special/Heavy weapon surrounded by bolter boys.

blatantly false. No marines can take special weapons

Except, of course, for the ones that can.

uberjoras wrote:
This codex really just pointed out how squishy crisis suits are without taking huge advantage of an unreliable 4+ look out sir on a character up front. For optimal defense, you go character with 2 weapons and a shield gen (or 1 weapon, shield gen, stim) , then shield drones closest to him, then the other 2 suits. Only problem is, it's really not too reliable, 25% of the time your expensive specialized setup will just net you a dead crisis suit. That's about how likely it is for a broadside to pen a rhino now, too

I feel like the book was rushed out by someone very inexperienced with Tau. Lots of silly things abound, like burst cannons versus SMS on hammerheads, vespids going up in cost, kroot getting so much weaker when they supposedly can go toe-to-toe with an ork boy, stealth suits getting even weaker, devilfish not going down in points, and one serious pet peeve of mine - odd point costs on crisis suits, and increase in cost for melta, burst cannons, flamers, and missile pods which were clearly costed so as to be even multiples of 5.

You puzzle me.

The things you bring up (besides the Devilfish) seem off some how. Yes you can complain about these things but at the same time I think its more of your play style that is making it bad for you. Having played with the new Tau, the old Tau, and against both, I have to say that your worries are just plain misconstruded. Yes ther is MORE that could be done, but when has that NOT been the case with any codex?

The new Tau is an improvement, and you can cry, moan, *****, your way around the table but it wont change a thing, so unless you go back to playing the last Tau codex (which I shudder to think of those that would. . . ) Just stop. Why dont you come up with ways to improve your game play. I for one play this game for "fun" so if your going to say that you "push plastic around the table" and are not competitive then come up with ways to fix your issues, you have a full codex of synergy built in. Take a look and find your version.

(Rant is not in anger and mild annoyance)

Remember: this codex ended the world.

...but on the off chance the world does spin tomorrow, I have to say, a little more sunshine will reach our hooves with this codex around.

The new codex is... impressive in its capabilities. The built in flaws are going to get caught by opponents. Crusaders just got more popular I imagine (think about it...) and of course Dark Eldar are going to really enjoy fighting Tau if they are smart about it (again... think about it for a second...)

Tau are the future. lets all agree on that. the good guys are finally winning. All is as it should be in Whoville.

@lysenis, I see what you mean; I'm not trying to complain about Tau overly much, but really, crunch some numbers - FW are equal to vespids point for point at shooting marines now, which is only very mildly offset by the better vespid statline.

My gripes really boil down to the fact that Vetock writes very poorly internally and externally balanced codexes - with lots of "meh" and some "amazing" thrown in - see Riptide vs stealth suits, or pathfinders/piranhas vs everything else in FA, or the entire HS slot. If I wanted 2+ heavy weapon carriers, I'd use oblits, not broadsides. Slow tanks with scary blasts? IG or any vindicator. Snipers? Eldar *troops*. Skyrays are so 1-trick with their ponies that it's almost a bit ridiculous, mostly due to the awkward seeker missile wording on a vehicle always firing its own seekers. And none of those units have any real character besides maybe sniper drones doing JSJ just to kill themselves with DT since they're camped in terrain most of the time.

For context, I play with a bunch of grognards, who are great to RP with, but totally take their wargaming way too seriously. My latest game versus an eldar corsair player outside of my usual group was super fun, and taught me a lot about how to improve the way I play my army. I still felt like his old codexes brought more to the table than I could possibly field even with a handicap, and he had 2 SC's and a farseer taking up probably a third of his list, compared to my 1 ethereal.

You see this in every game ( digital and boardgames ) that the mentallity that every nerf means now that its "useless" and if it have some flaws that your oppoment can exploit the army/unit is especially useless.

As a gamedesigner myself, i can only shake my head.

Personally, i think Tau currently allow for a lot of different lists without being useless, you can go Crisis heavy, or riptide heavy, broadsides or hammerheads without causing your army to be a "automatic lose" which certian armies can manage to put themselves into a auto-lose if they dont follow 1-2 set-lists. And more importantly: other armies have a chance against you, thats about being balanced is all about: To go up against a oppoment you can actually beat.

My gripes really boil down to the fact that Vetock writes very poorly internally and externally balanced codexes - with lots of "meh" and some "amazing" thrown in - see Riptide vs stealth suits, or pathfinders/piranhas vs everything else in FA, or the entire HS slot. If I wanted 2+ heavy weapon carriers, I'd use oblits, not broadsides. Slow tanks with scary blasts? IG or any vindicator. Snipers? Eldar *troops*. Skyrays are so 1-trick with their ponies that it's almost a bit ridiculous, mostly due to the awkward seeker missile wording on a vehicle always firing its own seekers. And none of those units have any real character besides maybe sniper drones doing JSJ just to kill themselves with DT since they're camped in terrain most of the time.

Wait, your complaint is that Vetock didn't include a bunch of non Tau units in the Tau codex, or carbon copies of said units? That doesn't make any sense. I just disagree with just about everything you posted here. I think Tau is one of the most internally and externally balanced codexes we've seen yet this edition.

Well, I'm not sure about that, a few inner balance issues are still there (like stealth suits and vespids still underwhelming)

But its is overall a good codex, lots of options, lots of fun and generally kicks ass, while not being too good at it.


(also, why do people keep mentioning DE as if they will decimate Tau, they are the only army I manage to blow off the table every single time.)

I don't think there is anything wrong with Stealth suits or Vespids, honestly, there is just a lot of appeal to the units they compete against. You can't really do much more to buff either of these units without breaking them, Stealth suits in particular. 2++ guys that can deploy basically anyway they want and can allow other units to deploy without scatter? Oh, and can bring along Fusion Blasters to boot? Whats not to like there. They just aren't Crisis Suits, and people really, really like crisis suits.

ShadarLogoth wrote:
I don't think there is anything wrong with Stealth suits or Vespids, honestly, there is just a lot of appeal to the units they compete against. You can't really do much more to buff either of these units without breaking them, Stealth suits in particular. 2++ guys that can deploy basically anyway they want and can allow other units to deploy without scatter? Oh, and can bring along Fusion Blasters to boot? Whats not to like there. They just aren't Crisis Suits, and people really, really like crisis suits.

Vespids want to get into melee combat.. and while it is great they have I5.. the WS3 and S3 and 1 attack on the Strain Leader kind of hurt things.
Stealth suits want you to be jumping in and out of cover.. but that is a risky proposition when you have to take a Dangerous Terrain test every time you do so. Don't have to give them Move through Cover, just a new rule that says they don't have to take a Dangerous Terrain test when jumping into or out of Dangerous Terrain..

ShadarLogoth wrote:

My gripes really boil down to the fact that Vetock writes very poorly internally and externally balanced codexes - with lots of "meh" and some "amazing" thrown in - see Riptide vs stealth suits, or pathfinders/piranhas vs everything else in FA, or the entire HS slot. If I wanted 2+ heavy weapon carriers, I'd use oblits, not broadsides. Slow tanks with scary blasts? IG or any vindicator. Snipers? Eldar *troops*. Skyrays are so 1-trick with their ponies that it's almost a bit ridiculous, mostly due to the awkward seeker missile wording on a vehicle always firing its own seekers. And none of those units have any real character besides maybe sniper drones doing JSJ just to kill themselves with DT since they're camped in terrain most of the time.

Wait, your complaint is that Vetock didn't include a bunch of non Tau units in the Tau codex, or carbon copies of said units? That doesn't make any sense. I just disagree with just about everything you posted here. I think Tau is one of the most internally and externally balanced codexes we've seen yet this edition.

I agree with both of you, actually.

So far, the 6th edition codices come off the same way the Necron codex does:

- Each slot, except for troops, has a few "eh" units that aren't really worth taking... except in fluffy/non-competitive lists. Vespids, Raptors, Darkshrouds, Lychguard, etc, are all supbar compared to other units in the respective slots.

- Some of the wargear lacks imagination. This is incredibly noticable in the CSM and CD codices. If you have them all, look at both 6th chaos codices, then look at the Grey Knight codex, and compare their wargear section and their special rules. Do you notice a stark difference in the amount of gear and imagination between the Gk codex and the Chaos codices? The GK codex has tons of stuff that shows tons of imagination. The Chaos codices... not so much. This is crap, because CSM have a literally unending supply of unique gear, what with the whole "warp and randomness" thing. Hell, GK Inquisitors have a better way to have random daemon weapons that CSM or even Daemons do.

It's all about how invested a person is in the army. I pointed this out when the Necron codex came out; it is obvious that mat Ward put more imagination and work into the GK codex than the Necron codex. Either he was poked and prodded into making the GK codex full of stuff, or he simply liked them more. Regardless, it's dumb, and that's why 6th codices feel a bit empty.

Well, I only use Tau as an allied detachment and nothing has really changed in my list. I use a commander that has some extra benefits (c&c, drone controller, mss and iridium) with the same three broadsides (now with skyfire, HYMP and four missile drones). So minor changes to my fire base. They still sit behind an AGL with my lootas and FW squad. I cannot see taking a riptide over lootas. Problem is that the new codex requires marker drones or TL weapons or a drone controller for BS5 missiles. I don't think it was well thought ot at all. That said, the puretide chip is almost OP and skyfire/interceptor everywhere is nice indeed. IKt allows me more flexibility with my Orks. I find it amusing that I need to use two tier two codexes to make a tier one list (debatable).

I pretty much agree with McNinja. And speaking of investment ... I will play Tau because I've invested in using them as allies. That has not changed. I now have the bonus of skyfire and supporting fire. I have a puretide chip. I have mss. So I'm happy enough. I reiterate what I previously posted - Tau will be suited best to an allied detachment role.

@shadar, no, If I wanted those units, I'd ally them I just want something that can honestly compete at a similar level - oblits are far and away better than a broadside in very many ways, the least of which is that they can move and still shoot stuff. Kroot now are not meant for mobile or agressive play - kroot are gunline units now, and have very little use in CC as even a deterrent or speedbump.

@mcninja, you bring up a really good point, something I think many players have been feeling without explicitly saying. One of the big complaints in my area for DA is that besides the dakka banner of PFG, there's really no good customization options for DA. It's either banner PFG libby or tech, on bike or TDA, and would you like fries with that?

CSM suffer a similar fate, in that you're probably just using juggernaught/bike with 1/3 actually good weapon options, or a sorcerer because yay psychic powers. DP's have been pretty scarce my area, so I'm guessing they're underwhelming for their points.

Tau have fairly good HQ options, but I'm actually pretty underwhelmed by them as well. A cadre fireblade isn't good if you want to play mobile (and is 100% uncustomizable), and for a static gunline, ethereals are probably better - but those are just a giant "if I die, Tau player loses almost by default". Commanders in general are okay, I think the standout is shadowsun. It simply makes me frustrated that I can't do anything to customize any HQ slot outside of commanders.

If I could take multiples of the special wargear, or had a couple new options beyond interceptor/precision shot (or a super expensive skyfire), that would make me very happy with crisis suits - even if it was like the CiB from last codex, or a small blast weapon, or even onager gauntlet suit squads, You can't seriously say those would be OP or not fun to play/against. (And it would've driven sales of a new crisis suit box...)

But alas, the words printed are what we are left with.

I'm wondering why tau players are complaining they're dependent on marker lights. It seems to me that markerlights are kind of like nice little divination pskers. They really help shooting without having runes of warding ruining their fun.. Why complain that you hate having to use a useful piece of wargear? It makes sense in fluff as well. I imagine that tau ( in their peace-loving ways), aren't trained as thoroughly as space marines or dedicate centuries to mastering warfare like eldar aspect, which is why they're BS 3. The markerlights show that they rely on technology to make up for lack of training and experience.

 ironhammer2194 wrote:
I'm wondering why tau players are complaining they're dependent on marker lights. It seems to me that markerlights are kind of like nice little divination pskers. They really help shooting without having runes of warding ruining their fun.. Why complain that you hate having to use a useful piece of wargear? It makes sense in fluff as well. I imagine that tau ( in their peace-loving ways), aren't trained as thoroughly as space marines or dedicate centuries to mastering warfare like eldar aspect, which is why they're BS 3. The markerlights show that they rely on technology to make up for lack of training and experience.

Well fire warriors are sent to fire warrior school. Im fine with BS 3 on most things, but was sad that a simple earth caste engineer couldn't upgrade the targeting system on those giant suits. little sad such a technologically progressive race.

uberjoras wrote:
My gripes really boil down to the fact that Vetock writes very poorly internally and externally balanced codexes - with lots of "meh" and some "amazing" thrown in - see Riptide vs stealth suits, or pathfinders/piranhas vs everything else in FA, or the entire HS slot.

I'm not sure I agree. To me it seems that literally every unit in the new Tau book is potentially useful in a list. There are not very many books that I can say that about-- Tau might actually be the only one. Even Space Marines, one of the most internally balanced books in the game, has its Vanguard Veterans, Legion of the Damned, and Honor Guard-- Tau don't seem to.

uberjoras wrote:
If I wanted 2+ heavy weapon carriers, I'd use oblits, not broadsides. Slow tanks with scary blasts? IG or any vindicator. Snipers? Eldar *troops*. Skyrays are so 1-trick with their ponies that it's almost a bit ridiculous, mostly due to the awkward seeker missile wording on a vehicle always firing its own seekers. And none of those units have any real character besides maybe sniper drones doing JSJ just to kill themselves with DT since they're camped in terrain most of the time.

You seem to be evaluating Tau units through the lens of other units that they aren't analogous to. Obliterators, for instance, carry a wide range of heavy weapons, but they can't use the same weapons every turn and the weapons they have are radically inferior to those brought by Broadsides. Obliterators are more like super-Terminators rather than a true heavy weapon unit-- very flexible but not efficient for bringing weapons to the table. Similarly, the Hammerhead is a lot more than just a "slow tank with scary blasts."

Alas...and so from this thread it seems I shall not be wasting 50 bucks and will be sticking to the custom codex I made on here...

What's the point of adding new units and nerfing old ones if you're not going to fix the original problems with the codex...

I await the day that games workshop releases an online and stops releasing a paperback codex for each race, then updates the online one consistently rather than treating what is essentially an MMTWG like it comes on an n64. Imagine the balance that would occur when they could respond to customer complaints. Imagine how much money they'd save by not having to print the codex, and how much profit they'd make by pleasing their fanbase. The new releases look epic for every army...but as soon as I hear that half of them are utterly useless I immediately don't want to spend my money.

An online codex that meant they could tweak things would solce the problem so much better. There wouldn't be a problem over the bomber rules because they could update it a week after release.

And the ad revune they would make from people visiting their site to download the codecies and codex changes...oh man...

 dbsamurai wrote:
Alas...and so from this thread it seems I shall not be wasting 50 bucks and will be sticking to the custom codex I made on here...

What's the point of adding new units and nerfing old ones if you're not going to fix the original problems with the codex...

What was the original problems with the codex?

You can launch ships into space, but you can't give them upgrades targeting systems? Sad, so sad.

 Miri wrote:

Vespids want to get into melee combat..

...Stealth suits want you to be jumping in and out of cover.. but that is a risky proposition... .

eh... No. Stingwings do not want to get into combat.

Stealthsuits jumping into cover and then IF they roll a 1, getting a save is a chance Im willing to take.

Dangerous terrain checks aren't too risky. There is always the off chance that you'll fail the check and the save, but it's the same odds for a crisis suit. Crisis suits just have the benefit of having multiple wounds. I also really don't see them needing to jump right into terrain though, since the unit only needs to get 25% obscured to get the 2+ save.

Really the stealth suits downfall is the same as the last edition. They are too expensive compared to crisis suits, they are weaker than crisis suits (single wound T3 vice 2W T4), and they aren't as well equipped because of the forced weapon load out. Now that Crisis suits can take double fusion it's even worse for stealth suits since a single deepstriking crisis suit can have the same anti-armor capability as a 190 point unit. It's really puzzling why they thought the unit was fine as is.

Stealth suits can Outflank and have 2+ saves under normal conditions thanks to Stealth and Shrouded. They honestly seem like a very strong option to me thanks to their ability to threaten the back lines, "home objectives," etc. I wouldn't take fusion blasters though-- burst cannons should be sufficient against rear/side armor anyway.

The deployment options and their built in defense are both pretty good upgrades the Crisis teams would love to have. I think they just play to a different style. Being MORE powerful isn't important. being powerful ENOUGH is.

The problem is that Kroot can do the job stealth suits can for cheaper and more reliably thanks to shot volume and sniper rifles for MC and other tough targets. It's done cheaper and can be taken more than 3 times, while being considerably less durable thanks to only a 4-5+ cover save but having huge quantities of wounds to fall back on. Stealth suits do the same job that just about any other unit can do better. Taking up an elite slot and being expensive are just nails in the coffin.

As a long time Tau player I am very satisfied with the new codex. Things change, but they changed well.

Now we have more marker lights. The Broadsides don't have strength ten rail guns, but you can give the sky fire and that is kind of huge.

The thing of it is, the Tau do not play like other armys, you have to get clever and wiley with them. You have the win the game, not just hang back and let your army win.

Also GW has pretty much smacked us back down and said 'STOP MATHHAMMERING, NARRITIVE PLAY." Honestly I like it.

I wish I could agree.

I am playing with Large kroot units right now. heres how it goes:

1. Not on table
2. Outflank, Rapid Fire
3. Get charged, use RapidFire to try and repel. Fail and die. OR
3. Enemy pelts the Kroot after tank shocking them, prepars to charge. Kroot have ONE round to fire Sniper rifles, best case.
4. either ay they are gone or the enemy is vanquished by now, or both.

I mean this is pretty much it. Their value is how they pul the enemy away from where they really should be going. The enemy cant leave a scoring unit behind them but yet if they go there they know they are doomed. The Kroot offensively are not scaring anyone.

Now the Etheral makes them more interesting. It kind of turns the corner for them but then look at the points you're committing. Plus the VP you're risking...for a Kroot unit? nnnnn...... Maybe?

I hope you dont get the wrong impression because I love what Kroot have done for my army. they have probvably killed more vehicles than any other unit in my force.

I just dont think that they havethe same jobas Stealth units in any way and they CERTAINLY dont outperform them on any level that I can see. Stealthunits take far more punishment, far faster, better leadership and a LOT more shots over the course of the game.

10 Kroot should get 30 shots off every game reliably. I dont see Stealthsuits being outdone in that regard. I really don't.

The benefit though is that if your Kroot are dying, it's ok because they are cheap and you can take 6 large units of them. A unit of 20 Kroot costs 140 points compared to 6 stealth suits costing 180. Kroot are able to put out 20 shots at 24" while stealth suits can put out 24 shots at 18" with a 6 inch jump. Kroot only get better from there since they can either double their weapon output at 12" or they can use sniper rounds. Kroot are just far more versatile at the cost of being cheap acceptable loses. Stealth suits, I won't argue with any further. They're expensive, have terrible weapon load outs that lack versatility or utility, have so few wounds that small arms are a huge factor that reduce their firing strength significantly per wound, and they take up slots that are better left for stronger suits (either Riptide or Crisis). It was the same last edition and it'll be the same this edition, some people just want to justify expensive S5 guns.

 Kingsley wrote:
Stealth suits can Outflank and have 2+ saves under normal conditions thanks to Stealth and Shrouded. They honestly seem like a very strong option to me thanks to their ability to threaten the back lines, "home objectives," etc. I wouldn't take fusion blasters though-- burst cannons should be sufficient against rear/side armor anyway.

Yes, exactly. Comparing Stealth Suits pound for pound against Crisis Suits purely on shooting capability ignore the Stealth suits awesome 2++ cover save and extremely open deployment options. They are really two very different units, but I certainly wouldn't say Crisis are always going to be the superior option. Stealth suits are much more versatile strategically speaking, although for some reason that's an advantage that gets completely over looked in most "tactics" discussions, as strange as that is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

It was the same last edition and it'll be the same this edition, some people just want to justify expensive S5 guns.

Yeah, and some people want to just ignore all the other things they are capable of and focus exclusively on the S5 guns...

The issue is, if backfield harassment is what you want, what better to do it with than deepstriking crisis suits, or fish of fury, or heck, even vespids? Each of those units are powerful in their own right, but stealth suits have the sole benefit of 2+ cover (sometimes). But here's some math for bolters - 10 MEQ approach and rapid fire, 20 shots hit 12 times, make 8 wounds, and kill 1-3 stealth suits, depending on their cover and luck situation. That's not much, no, but it's the same points value roughly of crisis suits that would have died from the same firing, who would've contributed more distraction and over-commitment to kill than the stealth suits.

Stealth Suits are simply excellent. What is required to use them is... a strategy that makes use of their abilities.

If you aren't able to come up with one, then sure. You'd be lost trying to use them.

As one who made extensive use of them at times, I have seen the remains of their work and been keenly satisfied by the devastation. Entire flanks collapsed in front of them and there was nothing they could do at times. Kroot will never have that effect on a flank. Not ever.

Kroot are good for entirely different reasons than Stealth Suits so theres no actual REASON to choose between the two.

But as an academic point of interest, I cannot agree that Kroot are even a possible replacement for them. They're not even tasked with the same strategic job.

Why I am intrigued by stealth suits is not their weak shooting, but toys you can get for them. Posrel and homing beacon, mainly.

Say, 3 stealth suits and 2 drones, with 'vre, homin/pos (likely you will need just one) and a fusion for good measure, maybe with a target lock.

That's 142 or something? That's 12 pulse shots, which is very inefficient when compared to other options. But then there is a melta, a 2+ save in any cover and the ability to pinpoint deep-strikes.

The same points would get you a full squad of two-weapon suits, without upgrades, so make of that what you will.

I'm going to try the Stealth suits, possibly a dual fusion, but not expecting much.

As a tyranid player I'm honestly shocked that Tau players are griping about their new dex. Just because the Tau aren't Necron or Grey Knight level good doesn't mean you didn't't get an amazing dex. I mean I used to snicker whenever Tau armies came up but now Missile sides, Riptides, and those bombers make me assume the position every time they show up. I mean you still have the best LRAT around. Me? I'm still stuck with expensive as hell T-fexes. You on the other hand can swamp a board in S6+ shots from across the board like nobody's business.

 Jancoran wrote:
Stealth Suits are simply excellent. What is required to use them is... a strategy that makes use of their abilities.

If you aren't able to come up with one, then sure. You'd be lost trying to use them.

As one who made extensive use of them at times, I have seen the remains of their work and been keenly satisfied by the devastation. Entire flanks collapsed in front of them and there was nothing they could do at times. Kroot will never have that effect on a flank. Not ever.

Kroot are good for entirely different reasons than Stealth Suits so theres no actual REASON to choose between the two.

But as an academic point of interest, I cannot agree that Kroot are even a possible replacement for them. They're not even tasked with the same strategic job.

I need a situation summary of how something like this happens. Stealthsuits are not that overwhelmingly effective to collapse flanks, imo. They are more of a scaple to remove specific units, often at the expense of the suits themselves. Even with 2+ cover saves, they tend to die due to the low toughness and often exposure to the enemy due to being so close. (due to melta and burstcannon 18" range)

Big units of kroot can have that effect, especially if properly used with the right tactics (Isn't that always your excuse for units being used right?) I played against a fellow Tau player and had my krrot effective wreck his hammerhead the turn they came on and would have waste all his small firewarrior units had his commander with air burstiing frag launcher die to the 4 melta hits I put on him (rolled quad ones for wounding). The kroot were a pain in his side the whole game, and took him 3 turns of shooting to finally get them to run away to the point where they wouldn't rally. My other kroot blob helm my side of the table, and main for an effective safehaven for my farseer, dispite having a couple templates and a 10man kroot alpha strike happen to them. I vote kroot over stealthsuits for killing troops. my stealthuits over kroot for scaple removal of tanks/outflanking tricks.

I use stealthsuits as well, but they are a scaple and a means to an end with positional relays tricks bringing on my shadowsun and her fire dragon escort behind my enemy's line.

I don't see how you can claim that Stealth suits are excellent. They haven't changed since the previous edition while Crisis suits got cheaper and stronger, Piranha got cheaper, Kroot got better, Riptides were introduced, and even gun drones got better. Just do a cost comparison with Piranha. For 200 points you get 5 AV 11/10/10 and a total of 40 S5 shots. Meanwhile for 204 points you get T3 2+ cover suits and 28 S5 shots. The Stealth suits will always be denial units, but the Piranha can have the chance to be a scoring unit. The Piranha is less susceptible to small arms fire than the stealth suits. Kroot are always scoring and denial units as well.

As Coyote said, they have some tricks with their homing beacon, but even then I think the Recon drone works better for that.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I don't see how you can claim that Stealth suits are excellent. They haven't changed since the previous edition while Crisis suits got cheaper and stronger, Piranha got cheaper, Kroot got better, Riptides were introduced, and even gun drones got better.

I don't see how you can claim that steath suits are NOT excellent. They just got a 33% increase in their shooting capability on their base model, have a 4+ mobile cover save, which is like a weaker invuln but becomes a 2+ in any actual cover. They didn't really change in points but they absolutely trash lightly armored infantry, force TEQs to roll many dice and can absolutely shred lighter armor. They can also JSJ and I havn't even talked about their equipment options.

Just do a cost comparison with Piranha. For 200 points you get 5 AV 11/10/10 and a total of 40 S5 shots. Meanwhile for 204 points you get T3 2+ cover suits and 28 S5 shots. The Stealth suits will always be denial units, but the Piranha can have the chance to be a scoring unit. The Piranha is less susceptible to small arms fire than the stealth suits.

Completely different FOC slot, but sure, I'll play along. The fact of the matter is the stealth suits are much more survivable than the pirhanas. Light vehicles are incredibly weak in 6E, even the fast ones like the Pihranas. Sure, they can score in 1/6 of the game modes but they also are also tend to die easier due to their lack of JSJ to hide behind cover.

Kroot are always scoring and denial units as well.

They also die when you look at them. I play to prevent my opponent from scoring by killing their troops. Why would I invest in the obviously weaker of my two troop choices?

If you want to get into cost comparisons, then I'll give it to you:

Since I do not currently own a riptide (Still waiting for mine) I've been running my old elite slot setup of 1x Fireknives and 2x Stealth (first all burst, second with 2x fusion) and here is how the costs play out:

The fireknives, 3 suits with MP and TL Plasma and 2x shield drones is ~208 points (Don't have my codex with me)

A full, all burst stealth team with no add-ons is ~208 points as well

A full stealth team with two fusion and no other addons is ~218 points

The team that has had the most impact for me in my three games? My all burst stealth. They lay down 28 S5 AP5 shots, hide in cover and are ridiculously hard to remove once they are there. Once they make themselves known, my opponents tend to focus most of their army their next shooting phase, rarely killing the whole unit and allowing me to counter with my other teams. And they still have 4 shots per model just to keep up a good rate of fire on light targets even with models missing. These guys outflank, with acute senses giving you more flexibility, and suddenly are inside their back lines, shredding any unit up to two feet away from the table edge and getting away into cover in the assault phase.

The worst unit in my army, just so I'm clear, is my fusion stealth. The fusion is almost worthless and when I get a Riptide he's taking their place. 2x fusion means my stealth teams are firing at 75% capacity just so they can have two AP1 shots. Would much rather to force my opponent to roll ones.

Bottom line, my stealth teams are haymakers. They show up, remove an enemy unit from the board and proceed to distract my opponents while the rest of my army keeps up the heavy fire.

Well to be fair we did lose the ability to stealth cloud which was a decent way to get a TON of shots in and cheap bodies with 3+ armor

now we lose the extra bodies and wounds and gain 1 extra attack for free.

Its different and we needs think of different tactics with them now.

I can't take it seriously when you're trying to say that a piranha is somehow weaker than a T3 stealth suit. Even with side shots, it's makes the standard bolter require 6's just to glance and it will get a 4+ cover save. Compare that to the Stealth suits with T3, so wounding 2/3 of the time and with a 2+ save.

10 bolter shots at piranha = 6.67 hits, 1.11 glances, .56 hullpoints gone.
10 bolter shots at stealth suits = 6.67 hits, 4.44 wounds, getting .74 wounds.
the Piranha is also a vehicle with multiple hull points, so even if a glance gets through it doesn't stop it. Cover saves are good, and I'll grant that. For comparison the autocannon which is geared to take down light vehicles and still wounds stealth suits on a 2+.

4 autocannon shots gets 2.67 hits, which gets 1.78 glances/pens, and .88 hullpoints lost.
4 autocannons at stealth suits get 2.22 wounds, and .37 wounds.

The 2+ cover does give stealth suits the edge, but the fact that Piranha are less vulnerable to small arms fire I think is the winning factor.

My real issue though is the fact that they are an expensive single wound T3 model with a fixed weapon option compared to suits in the same slot, which can also JSJ, with T4, multiple weapons and upgrade options, and can take drone blobs like stealth suits could. 3 suits with dual burst cannons and drones ends up being 258 points for 36 S5 shots, +1 T and +4 wounds.

Also shield drones are complete trash now, unless on an IC.

Coyote81 wrote:


I need a situation summary of how something like this happens. Stealthsuits are not that overwhelmingly effective to collapse flanks, imo. They are more of a scaple to remove specific units, often at the expense of the suits themselves. Even with 2+ cover saves, they tend to die due to the low toughness and often exposure to the enemy due to being so close. (due to melta and burstcannon 18" range)

Big units of kroot can have that effect, especially if properly used with the right tactics (Isn't that always your excuse for units being used right?) I played against a fellow Tau player and had my krrot effective wreck his hammerhead the turn they came on and would have waste all his small firewarrior units had his commander with air burstiing frag launcher die to the 4 melta hits I put on him (rolled quad ones for wounding). The kroot were a pain in his side the whole game, and took him 3 turns of shooting to finally get them to run away to the point where they wouldn't rally. My other kroot blob helm my side of the table, and main for an effective safehaven for my farseer, dispite having a couple templates and a 10man kroot alpha strike happen to them. I vote kroot over stealthsuits for killing troops. my stealthuits over kroot for scaple removal of tanks/outflanking tricks.

I use stealthsuits as well, but they are a scaple and a means to an end with positional relays tricks bringing on my shadowsun and her fire dragon escort behind my enemy's line.

Yes the "excuse" I use for using units is that they are strategically appropriate. "Excuse". You kill me.

I mentioned earlier that my Kroot have killed MORE VEHICLES than any oher unit. So...again... and probably not for the last time... I repeat: I like Kroot. But Kroot have a job that is not the same. And Stealthsuits are excellent. And I'd take both. Just so we're clear on that.

I think what he meant was that your answer for everything seems to be "you need a statedgy to use them. If you can't think of one, it's your fault and the unit is fine." Which doesn't really hold any weight since you could apply that for anything. Really it's just a way of saying something without saying anything. It's like saying "You can bake a cake without needing heat. If you can't figure out how to do it, the recipe is fine but you fail as a baker." If you want to make a claim, it holds no weight unless you support it with some demonstratable. Mathhammer works great for this since everyone can do the math themselves. Ancedotal statements about how they tear through enemy flanks everytime doesn't hold as much weight since not all details are observable or repeatable.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I think what he meant was that your answer for everything seems to be "you need a statedgy to use them. If you can't think of one, it's your fault and the unit is fine." Which doesn't really hold any weight since you could apply that for anything. Literally it's a way of saying something without saying anything. It's like saying "You can bake a cake without needing heat. If you can't figure out how to do it, the recipe is fine but you fail as a baker."

But the problem is that he's right. The Tau army, as of the past few years, has never been an army where you just push your models across the table and as long as you roll well you win. It is an army that requires a bit of forethought, some strategic ingenuity and then luck.

You are trying to look at stealth suits and say "These models are terrible in a vacuum" and we're trying to tell you that we HAVE used these models and they sure as heck are anything but. You don't understand why so you're trying to poke holes in his argument. Now I will poke holes in yours.

I can't take it seriously when you're trying to say that a piranha is somehow weaker than a T3 stealth suit. Even with side shots, it's makes the standard bolter require 6's just to glance and it will get a 4+ cover save. Compare that to the Stealth suits with T3, so wounding 2/3 of the time and with a 2+ save.

[then mathhammer of bolters vs autocannons]

You are trying to force me into an argument where you're saying your point is correct.... but all you're saying is the mathhammer of marine bolters against pirhana armor. Why would marines be shooting their bolters at pirhanas? I'm certain that they would be using weapons OTHER than their bolters to be shooting at vehicles. On that same token, I'm actually positive that the last time my stealth suits entered the battlefield near a squad of space marines, I had make sure that squad was not able to counterattack onto my stealth suits, leaving a grand total of 0 bolter shots headed their way the next shooting phase.

Which leads me into my next point, your big issue here is that you're trying to just mathhammer it out and take that as the written truth on how matchups play. It doesn't account for unusual situations such as a squad of 10 terminators failing 6 of their saves to one shooting attack from overwatch or firewarriors winning in close combat against anything. I've seen odd things like this happen enough to where mathhammer is only a GUIDE. It tells me only approximately what I should expect. I could get much better, I could get WAY worse but what I do know is how favorable my matchup is and pray I didn't upset the dice gods that day and have my "This is so certain it should never fail attack" fail miserably.

My real issue though is the fact that they are an expensive single wound T3 model with a fixed weapon option compared to suits in the same slot, which can also JSJ, with T4, multiple weapons and upgrade options, and can take drone blobs like stealth suits could. 3 suits with dual burst cannons and drones ends up being 258 points for 36 S5 shots, +1 T and +4 wounds.

This is actually too funny to ignore. You state that stealth suits are too expensive than provide a squishier, more expensive unit as a counter argument. Yes, crisis suits are T4 with a 3+ armor and 2 wounds. They are also incredibly vulnerable compared to stealth teams. AP3 weapons tear right through that squad you proposed. No armor saves allowed. I've had so many crisis suits die to well placed S8 AP3(or better) weapons that I make sure to take shield drones with my crisis teams now. But then you said....

shield drones are complete trash now, unless on an IC.

...and I have to completely dissagree with you. The problem is that in this case you see them as what they were, not what they are now. Yes, shield drones were better in the past but their base function has not changed one bit. Shield drones exisit to deter high-strength low-ap weapons from firing at them, requiring a committal from other resoruces from your opponent to remove them. The argument that is constantly thrown at me is "just use small arms fire" is a joke as well. The list you had provided above is also defeated by killing the shield drone wall with small arms fire then killing the suits with high-strength low-ap weapons.

Once you stop looking at things from your very narrow perspective, then you will understand more about the Tau as a whole. The Tau army is the only army I've ever owned a codex for and by far the army I have played the most. I am surely not an expert on the game but I know what makes my army tick throughout the entirety of it and am impressed anytime someone tries to tell me that something in the codex is bad without even trying to find a way to use it right! All you can do to debate me is to theoryhammer and throw numbers out everywhere but everything I have said here is straight up experience. What HAS worked for me against a wide variety of armies.

Math Hammer DOESN'T really tell you everything, does it? No.

CONTINGENCIES have no definable points value. So while I'd love to get into a math debate, the math simply CANNOT deal with this problem.

There is no points cost for the RELATIVE DIFFERENCE in impotance between being able to Deep Strike and NOT. Stealth can. Kroot can't. Unless you CHOOSE to be arbitrary, you cant define that value either. Its something you have to SEE. Anecdotal is the favorite (and overused, condescending) word I hear used to describe that.

So YOU, the Math Hammer guy can EITHER give it an arbitrary number (which flies in the face of any math hammer) OR... accept that this is utility that you either WANT strategically or dont.

If you dont, thats YOUR choice, not a Math issue.

Kroot must Snap Fire Sniper rounds when they come in. Stealthsuits can fire freely with Precision shot using ATS. The ATS can be math hammered, but the opportunity cannot.

Stealthfields have no MATH you can disassemble. They have it ALL the time. kroot have it SOMETIMES. What's the math on that? There is none!

SITUATION and STRATEGY determine these contingency values.

Being unasailable in close combat because of JSJ... Whats the value? Do you know? No! There's no number.

The VOLUME and literal deployment area of a kroot unit vs. a Stealth unit? Whats the points value for being compact and easier to hide? There is none. Its totally subjectot the situation. Sometimes ou will LOSE because you cant hide and other games, you wont NEED to hide. But what are the points for that potentiality of benefit? Completely undefinable.

So math fails you when you look at this. Which is why I didn't engage in it. If we were on a shooing range, your math per shot stuff might matter.

For example:

24 STR 5 shots, hitting on 2's: 13.33 wounds v. T4.

30 Kroot Sniper shots or just long range ones, hitting on 4's: 7.5 (12.5 if they could use a couple Markerlights)wounds v T4.

AP is better on Stealth. 180 points, point for point gives you...what in the case of Kroot? Does that look superior to you?

Lets try short range, Rapid Fire:

24 STR 5 shots, hitting on 2's: 13.33 wounds v. T4.

30 Kroot Rapid Firing shots (60 shots), hitting on 4's: 15 wounds v T4

So you'd trade all the Stealth Suits give you for that? Sure. But not because math tells you to. it's because Kroot have things going for them that Stealth won': Scoring, more wounds to give, and the ability to take advantage of Ethereals and such.

Whats the points value of scoring? Who knows! So there's no MATH to do there.

Claiming Mathhammer can solve this as an argument here is a fallacy. It just can't.

You have to be on the receiving end to understand the true threat of some things. You have to be FRUSTRATED by the inability to DO anything about a threat before you understand its potency, like th first time you see Corbulo in action. You can TELL me that X unit xets 4 kills per Y and you might not be wrong That just isn't the end of the story though.

Math IS a good guide when two units ESSENTIALLY do the EXACT same thing. It can be a nice tie breaker. But the strategy is where its at.

That's my take on it.

 YotsubaSnake wrote:

But the problem is that he's right. The Tau army, as of the past few years, has never been an army where you just push your models across the table and as long as you roll well you win. It is an army that requires a bit of forethought, some strategic ingenuity and then luck.

Are you implying that other armies don't require forethough (List making), strategic ingenuity (Deployment, list making, and objective placement), and luck (anyone that uses dice for anything)? I don't know how I can be any more clear. If you have a claim you have to back it up. Jancoran has made claims several times in various threads and very rarely does he back it up with anything more than "you have to use tactics". I will admit he is correct, only because it's a tactical game (which I'd imagine most games are by definition).

You are trying to look at stealth suits and say "These models are terrible in a vacuum" and we're trying to tell you that we HAVE used these models and they sure as heck are anything but.

If I was looking at them in a vacuum, then why did I provide examples of units that can do the job better and compare the base abilities, FOC position, stats, weapon loadouts, and even durability to enemy fire? If I was looking at it in a vaccuum I'd have nothing to compare it to.

You are trying to force me into an argument where you're saying your point is correct.... but all you're saying is the mathhammer of marine bolters against pirhana armor. Why would marines be shooting their bolters at pirhanas? I'm certain that they would be using weapons OTHER than their bolters to be shooting at vehicles. On that same token, I'm actually positive that the last time my stealth suits entered the battlefield near a squad of space marines, I had make sure that squad was not able to counterattack onto my stealth suits, leaving a grand total of 0 bolter shots headed their way the next shooting phase.

6 stealth suits shooting at 10 marines gets you only 2.67 unsaved wounds at BS3. Being generous and getting BS5 gets a total of 4.44 unsaved wounds. Pretty hard to garuntee that not a single bolter is getting shot back and hardly what I'd consider to be flank breaking.
Regardless, the reason why I pointed out the marine's ability to fire bolters at Piranha was just to demonstrate that Piranha are a more durable platform for massed S5 fire on a fast moving unit. I agree that a far better weapon against piranha would be a weapon with higher strength and longer range, which is why I used the Autocannon just to be fair on the issue. I'll even admit that the autocannon is kinda the lower performing weapon on anti-tank abilities, and the stealth suits will be more durable compared to Missile Launchers and lascannons. That wasn't my point though. My point was just that Stealth suits are still vulnerable to bolter fire due to being single wound T3 models.

Which leads me into my next point, your big issue here is that you're trying to just mathhammer it out and take that as the written truth on how matchups play. It doesn't account for unusual situations such as a squad of 10 terminators failing 6 of their saves to one shooting attack from overwatch or firewarriors winning in close combat against anything.

I was honestly going to read and reply to the rest of your points, but here is where you show a gross misunderstanding of how tactics work. Luck is not able to be factored in or counted on. Period. End of story. Mathhammer is reliable because it is easy to do, understand, and repeat. I can give you the same numbers I'm running, and you can do the math yourself to verify mine or prove me wrong if I forgot to carry the one. Ancedotal evidence and pure luck are absolute garbage to base tactics on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jancoran wrote:
For example:

24 STR 5 shots, hitting on 2's: 13.33 wounds v. T4.4.43 unsaved wounds

30 Kroot Sniper shots or just long range ones, hitting on 4's: 7.5 (12.5 if they could use a couple Markerlights)wounds v T4. 12.5 wounds resulting in 2.08 unsaved wounds against armor and 3.5 other unsaved wounds for a total of 5.5 unsaved
AP is better on Stealth. 180 points, point for point gives you...what in the case of Kroot? Does that look superior to you?

Yes... yes that does look superior. Going to T5 makes it go higher in the Kroots favor, while also being a scoring unit.

Lets try short range, Rapid Fire:

24 STR 5 shots, hitting on 2's: 13.33 wounds v. T4.

30 Kroot Rapid Firing shots (60 shots), hitting on 4's: 15 wounds v T4 Which would be 25 wounds at BS5, or more wounds than the Stealth suits could even put out

So you'd trade all the Stealth Suits give you for that? Sure. But not because math tells you to. it's because Kroot have things going for them that Stealth won': Scoring, more wounds to give, and the ability to take advantage of Ethereals and such.

If you're going to be silly and just randomly give Stealth suits BS5 without giving Kroot the same benefit then you're either being ignorant or just entirely decietful. Either way I wash my hands of discussing with you since you are unable to provide a single valid argument other than a 2+ save.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also all wounds in red are against MEQ 3+ armor.

Its funny to read a post like that Jancoran, it reads a lot like : I don't know how to apply the math so it doesn't work!

Mathhammer does tell you which gambles are good to take, and which are poor. This feeds into strategy as you are playing on a series of bets against an opponent. The more bets you can make in your favour, the better you set yourself up to win.

Certainly there are outliers, and a 51% chance to succeed doesn't mean you can count your chickens - but when you are aware of what the "mathhammer" (normally just called statistics) actually means it does tell you quite a bit.

Not all, but a lot.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Are you implying that other armies don't require forethough (List making), strategic ingenuity (Deployment, list making, and objective placement), and luck (anyone that uses dice for anything)? I don't know how I can be any more clear. If you have a claim you have to back it up. Jancoran has made claims several times in various threads and very rarely does he back it up with anything more than "you have to use tactics". I will admit he is correct, only because it's a tactical game (which I'd imagine most games are by definition).

No, what I'm saying is that you are the kind of person that I could write a f'ing field manual on specifically how I use my units and you would still disagree or not have answers. It's not that he's not backing it up, it's that you're not actually trying to be open enough to see what he is seeing, just blaming his inability to explain what he is trying to convey on being a bad player. It's a poor argument in itself.

If I was looking at them in a vacuum, then why did I provide examples of units that can do the job better and compare the base abilities, FOC position, stats, weapon loadouts, and even durability to enemy fire? If I was looking at it in a vaccuum I'd have nothing to compare it to.

But you ARE looking at it in a vacuum. You literally said "WEAPON X VS TARGET Y GIVES THIS AVERAGE # OF WOUNDS" That is a vacuum. One vs. the other with no outside influences.

6 stealth suits shooting at 10 marines gets you only 2.67 unsaved wounds at BS3. Being generous and getting BS5 gets a total of 4.44 unsaved wounds. Pretty hard to garuntee that not a single bolter is getting shot back and hardly what I'd consider to be flank breaking.

This is because you are looking at it from a vacuum YET AGAIN. I said that they entered from that side and I guarenteed that they did not get shot back. I did not say how and you jumped to the assumption that my stealth teams destroyed the enemy in one shooting attack by themselves. Here is what happened a week ago, from memory (so it may be fuzzy)

1) Stealth team enters the board, approaching unit in the marine unit that has already taken two casualties the prior turn and is sitting in a cover of ruins.

2) My sniper drone team fires, two markerlights and four sniper shots hit, 1-2 marines fall to wounds with the enemy marked twice.

3) My stealth team uses 2 markerlights, fires at BS5 and kills the remaining enemy troops.

4) My stealth team advances in the assault phase to nearby cover to prepare for the enemy counter attack.

By utilizing this combined arms, I secured a flank for my army, isolating my opponent's remaining troops in the far corner leaving me only needing to prepare for his deep strike counter-attacks next turn. This is an actual event that happened in an actual game that I ended up winning. You are not thinking of the WHOLE PICTURE when you vacuum the mathhammer. Stop t, it is not helping your cause. Tau are about combined arms, which is why every time you place their units inside a vacuum you loose credibility.

Regardless, the reason why I pointed out the marine's ability to fire bolters at Piranha was just to demonstrate that Piranha are a more durable platform for massed S5 fire on a fast moving unit. I agree that a far better weapon against piranha would be a weapon with higher strength and longer range, which is why I used the Autocannon just to be fair on the issue. I'll even admit that the autocannon is kinda the lower performing weapon on anti-tank abilities, and the stealth suits will be more durable compared to Missile Launchers and lascannons. That wasn't my point though. My point was just that Stealth suits are still vulnerable to bolter fire due to being single wound T3 models.

and your point was a poor one, unfortunately. I won't repeat my argument about mathhammer, but I will talk tactics. I was placing a unit forward and thus requred them to be protected in order to take an advantagous position. In order to accomplish that goal, covering fire from other units on the board was required. This means that I ensured secuirty in one location to put an advantage on my opponent and force them to react to my movements. Following this attack, I quickly remobilized to prepare for his counterattack next turn when his deep striking units were going to hit the table. This is where I'm certain you havn't had any kind of actual training for the effectiveness of combined arms strategic objectives. I am utilizing my stealth teams as a quick hit-and-run kill securing unit. They are not as mobile or shooty as your pirhanas, but they are much easier to hide and much tougher to kill overall.

I was honestly going to read and reply to the rest of your points, but here is where you show a gross misunderstanding of how tactics work. Luck is not able to be factored in or counted on. Period. End of story. Mathhammer is reliable because it is easy to do, understand, and repeat. I can give you the same numbers I'm running, and you can do the math yourself to verify mine or prove me wrong if I forgot to carry the one. Ancedotal evidence and pure luck are absolute garbage to base tactics on.

Yes. Luck is not able to be factored in or counted on. I could list NUMEROUS real-world examples of how forces that should have lost in a battle came out victorious. Luck is fickle yet realisitc and very true. However pure mathhammer is pure garbage to base your tactics on as well. You have to understand that there is a third factor you're not even taking into account and that is your opponent as a player. You're seeing the game as "my models vs his models" and I'm seeing it as a "My moves vs my opponents", meaning I am not only trying to take advantage of favorable matchups but also making your opponent second-guess himself. Is he playing too aggressively? Can I make him move poorly to catch his units out of position? These are things that you can't apply with your mathhammer approach, things that cause these lucky situations to arise and become a factor in the game and making it not only fun but interesting to play. Something I'm not even sure you utilize.

 Jancoran wrote:

There is no points cost for the RELATIVE DIFFERENCE in impotance between being able to Deep Strike and NOT. Stealth can. Kroot can't. Unless you CHOOSE to be arbitrary, you cant define that value either. Its something you have to SEE. Anecdotal is the favorite (and overused, condescending) word I hear used to describe that.

Actually, you're wrong. Of course you can give it a value. You can even give it a reasonably well defined value. As someone else pointed out, just because you can't doesn't mean it can't be done.

Hint: Start with how often you'll show up when you need to, typically a 2/3 chance. Work out the odds that you land close enough to where you need to be to do what you want. Then factor what you'd have been able to accomplish otherwise. I think you'll find that deep striking stealth teams is a losing proposition unless you can bag a high-value target, like a land raider, with a fusion team. Their ability to infiltrate and guarantee their availability from turn 1 is just better than reserve odds otherwise.

Stealthfields have no MATH you can disassemble. They have it ALL the time. kroot have it SOMETIMES. What's the math on that? There is none!

You're a genius, clearly there's no possible math that could be used to model terrain availability. You do know that people have modeled far more complex things than the rules for toy soldiers, right?

You have to be on the receiving end to understand the true threat of some things. You have to be FRUSTRATED by the inability to DO anything about a threat before you understand its potency, like th first time you see Corbulo in action.

Uh, sure. Maybe you do. Most of us are capable of understanding based on reading. It's really not that hard, give it a try sometime.

... But the strategy is where its at.

That's my take on it.

Duly noted. Your take is one way of approaching the game. Not a very good one, but if its working for you, keep at it. The rest of us can continue a discussion about comparative value without you telling us we're wrong and how it can't be done.

I don't see how you can claim that steath suits are NOT excellent. They just got a 33% increase in their shooting capability on their base model, have a 4+ mobile cover save, which is like a weaker invuln but becomes a 2+ in any actual cover. They didn't really change in points but they absolutely trash lightly armored infantry, force TEQs to roll many dice and can absolutely shred lighter armor. They can also JSJ and I havn't even talked about their equipment options.

I like this part because you make these claims for stealth suits. Lets see:

33% increased shooting, your right, but piranha went from 5 shots to 8 shots at 18" i think that is a win.

Mobile cover save. Yup, but that didn't change, The mobile coversave on the piranha didn't really change either it used to cost 55pts, guess what it costs 55pts now with dpod as well. Getting better saves in terrain is somewhat mitigated by having to take dangerous terrain tests, and possibly causing morale test on yourself due to failures. That is always a huge risk at key points in a game. you also have to take into account in this section the downsides of failed saves. Piranha might only take a glancing hit, the might take something worse, but whatever that first piranha takes, has no effect on the rest of the unit. Where as 2 failed armor saves could see your LD8 stealthsuits (( if you pay 10pts, which always feels expensive seeing as we don't get any stats other then ld, at least other srgts get +1 A, some get BS, or +1 AS) the simple fact that your expensive suit unit could go running off the table after two wounds, makes it's AS vs piranha AV not quite as good either.

Trash light infantry? Doing some quick mathhammer, I just don't see how 204pts of stealthsuits (assuming 6 suits and 2 gun drones) shooting at guardsmen in ruins (Yes you need to default to 4+ cover saves because they are most common) 28 shots -> 14hits -> ~10 wounds -> 5kills does not equal trashing, a hammerhead for 131pt with railgun and sms trashes infantry. And as savageconvoy above posted, piranha put out a ton more shots at the same Str and BS, so obviously put more wounds on an infantry unit for the same price. Similiar argument for TEQ and light armor. Although piranha do ahve the option to take seeker missiles, for 40pts you could take 5 seeker missile, move 12 on the first turn and fire all fire at a monstrous creature of something similar and cause some serious damage. Its a good advantage since they can both take fusion, although piranha can take 5 where as stealth suits can only ever have 2 per squad.

Mobility. you talk about JSJ, but never praise the crazy fast mobility of fast skimmers in this edition. 30" in a turn can allow piranha to quickly change the flow of a game by turning a flank into an overwhelm set of models for units to deal with. Don't discount the ability of the drones to disembark, increasing the mobility effectively, but allowing the unit to splitfire, without giving up more killing points either, and even if they do kill the drone, they don't get kill point unless they kill all five piranha.

Over all your reasons for stealthsuits don't really separate them from other units, because those other units got the same increased firepoiwer or more, those other units got cheaper, and often have more and better options as well.

@Jancoran

Wow your math just roves my point about kroot firepower versus stealthsuits. even with a two markerlight advantage kroot out shoot stealthsuits at 12". even at 15 models, they put out the same firepower as the stealthsuits at 12", or those 30 models the same at 24" as the 6 stealthsuits do at 18" vs T4 (as you stated).

I don't really have anything else to prove, your math just shouts to me to take kroot as troops, or piranha in my fast attack instead of using my precious elite slots fot stealthsuits to "shred infantry" as you stated. I think the key to the codex if to use the right unit from the right slot, without using up slots that do things better then any other slot, and in this case the elite slot is for bringing special weapons and ap2 templates, not burst cannons and other S5 infantry killing guns. We get that elsewhere in our codex and they seem to do a better job, based on your math and mine.

This is because you are looking at it from a vacuum YET AGAIN. I said that they entered from that side and I guarenteed that they did not get shot back. I did not say how and you jumped to the assumption that my stealth teams destroyed the enemy in one shooting attack by themselves. Here is what happened a week ago, from memory (so it may be fuzzy)

1) Stealth team enters the board, approaching unit in the marine unit that has already taken two casualties the prior turn and is sitting in a cover of ruins.

2) My sniper drone team fires, two markerlights and four sniper shots hit, 1-2 marines fall to wounds with the enemy marked twice.

3) My stealth team uses 2 markerlights, fires at BS5 and kills the remaining enemy troops.

4) My stealth team advances in the assault phase to nearby cover to prepare for the enemy counter attack.

By utilizing this combined arms, I secured a flank for my army, isolating my opponent's remaining troops in the far corner leaving me only needing to prepare for his deep strike counter-attacks next turn. This is an actual event that happened in an actual game that I ended up winning. You are not thinking of the WHOLE PICTURE when you vacuum the mathhammer. Stop t, it is not helping your cause. Tau are about combined arms, which is why every time you place their units inside a vacuum you loose credibility.

Your entire situation could have been done by piranha or kroot for the summary you gave. And I think the statement savageconvoy are not said in a vacuum, its a direct comparison, which is fair. Looking at a unit in a vacuum is like looking at chaos cultists without taking into account the whole codex. The cultists are terrible, they don't have effective weapons, they don't have a good means of getting to the battlelines and using their short ranged and ineffective weapons. But when taking in the whole codex, they're fantastic! Any marine player would love to have a unit like that. (Thus the abundance of IG allies) That being said, taking into account the rest of the codex when looking at a unit is the exact opposite of looking at a unit in a vacuum. What your talking about is looking at a unit on the battlefield and the role it plays. There is some merit to that. Seeing as 40k is an ever changing meta and environment, attempting to base a unit on a single game and it's battlefield role to place it above other units (even multiple games is not enough, you would have to be able to say it worked against more then 50% of the armies out their, every time, to have someone even thing it's an effective strategy) The battlefield role of stealthsuit is going to vary against armies, and it's effectiveness is going to vary as well. I find using those arguments are a deceptive way of boosting their ability.

Any value you place on an item / rule / ability that doesn't have a points value of it's own will in fact be arbitrary, because even if you're deriving it from a set of probabilities (i.e. chance I come in on the turn I want from reserves, and land within 18" of my chosen target) you're still making assumptions that don't reflect the entire volume of possible encounters.

How do you determine the value of Stealth, Shrouded, Infiltrate and Deep Strike? What assumptions do you use in order to calculate their worth? How do you determine, for example, whether Deep Strike is worth X points and Infiltrate (which gives Outflank) is worth Y points, when you start adding in things like Positional Relays and Homing Beacons? How do you define a unit's chances of getting to a point on a board where those items become a factor, when you can't readily define where or what that point will be, or when that needs to happen?

You're absolutely correct that you can, indeed, model a great many things accurately based on whatever assumptions you choose to make. You have to acknowledge, however, that any parameters you choose will be arbitrary at best (even if you choose the Final Table at Adepticon or the top 10 lists at the past 10 major tourneys or whatever), and that consequently any result you derive from that model - no matter how accurately calculated - will also be arbitrary, and likely very wrong when used in any situations that don't conform well to the model you used.

That's what Jancoran and Yostuba are getting at here. That there are intangible, difficult to measure tactical advantages that having Stealth, Shrouded, Infiltrate and Deep Strike on Stealth Suits give them that - when combined with their playstyle and army list - give them significant advantages in their games.

Stealth Suits can deploy in one of four ways, after all. They can deploy regularly, with the rest of your army. They may be Infiltrated, deploying after your army and your opponent's army is set up. That's a significant positional advantage of it's own, as it means they automagically have a better chance of being where they'll be most effective from the start. "Most effective" can also, by the way, simply mean denying board space to enemy infiltrators. They can Deep Strike, should you judge the situation will be fluid enough that you'll want that flexibility, or if you judge that your XV25s won't be effective if they're on the board first turn, or if you want your opponent to advance and open space to exploit in his backfield. You can enhance the accuracy of this via Tetras and Homing Beacons, or an attached Warlord. You can also Outflank, allowing you a guaranteed entry from anywhere on a board edge. You've got a 2/3 chance to get which one you want, but that can be enhanced by Positional Relays on Pathfinders and Crisis Suits to give you utter certainty. And, of course, reserves can be made more reliable with a Comms Relay - a far more viable option now that we've got plenty of anti-air capabilities in our Codex. Oh, and of course, Stealths are automagically more survivable against any AP3 or better weapons, due to Stealh and Shrouded.

How, exactly, can you define those survival, positional and temporal deployment advantages (and their attendant disadvantages) in a way that can bring it down to a simple points per model value?

We already did that, I believe. We compared weaponry, survivability, damage output, equipment options/loadouts, and initial unit costs. You can look at it any way you want, but stealth suits offer nothing except T3 wounds with a 2+ cover save. The equipment and abilites outside that are not limited to stealth suits and are on generally more specialized units that are much more versatile and cost effective. How much would I pay for three T3 2+ saves? Not 90 points. I won't pay 12 points for a T4 4++ invul save in shield drones.

Doesnt Stealth Suits come with Markerlights?
If so, in a seeker missile heavy list you could have your stealth infiltrate near a target that you would like to bit some markerlights into and fire off those seekers at BS5 with str8 ap3 seeker missiles on whatever you feel need a shot to the face.

As they are Jet pack infantry they shoot their heavy weapons regardless due to relentless so they can easily JSJ markerlights or bursters or fusions to do their thing.

What Kroot have is stealth in forests and do more wounds per shooting round, but you pick them for scoring so what chance to they have to score a point? In the situations they have a objective in a forest is a better situation than a objective out in the open, or behind a building and can they actually shoot at the enemy from their scoring point?

People sling around "tactics" and "math" and "statistics" without really going on about what those means in game.
Sure a Kroot does more in a outright firefight but do they survive being shot at? and will they even shoot if they sit on a objective?

In the case where you need a unit that can shoot from round 1 that have a chance of doing damage, you might consider the stealth suits for early infiltrate shennanigans, or if you want outflanking troops that can tarpit and capture you pick the kroot. So Pick your unit for what role you would like them to do and what situation you want to make with them.

Sure. Cherry-picking your comparison units does tend to bias the results though, doesn't it?

Compare 3 Crisis with 1 Burst Cannon each, to 3 Stealth Suits. Compare 3 Crisis with 2 BCs and 1 Fusion Blaster to 3 Stealth Suits. See how they compare in terms of shooting - the Crisis will come out worse, because with either loadout they're more expensive.

Compare their survivability. Crisis are T4, so they take less wounds from non-AP3 weapons of S6 or less. Against S7+ AP4 or worse weapons, Crisis lose out again on a points per wound taken, again because of their higher expense. Against AP3 weapons of any kind, Crisis lose out again, because the Stealth and Shrouded significantly increase the survivability of Stealth Suits, regardless of whether they're in cover or not.

Consider loadout. Here, Crisis win by a mile - they can take more weapons per model, more variety of weapons, more drones to supplement. You can then run various comparisons of the various permutations of those loadouts against similar Stealth loadouts; the results will vary.

Consider deployment and mobility. Both move the same, both can outflank, both can deep strike. But Stealh Suits can Infiltrate, and Crisis can't - so Stealths win again.

Let's compare them to Kroot, shall we? We'll do 3 Stealth vs. 15 Kroot to start, since that's an even point comparison.

In terms of firepower, Kroot throw 3-18 more shots per turn, at 1 less strength. In terms of sheer ability to force saves, Kroot have it. Against anything with an armor save, the AP6 of the Kroot Rifles means that even against GEQ, Kroot have to be in rapid fire range to out-kill Stealths. Same thing holds against MEQ/TEQ - the Kroot have to be within rapid fire range in order to get more wounds inflicted than the 3 Stealths can.

Survivability: Both are T3, so that's a wash. Stealths have 6 wounds total, Kroot have 15, so on a pure wounds per point basis Kroot win. Of course, against anything with an AP better than nil, Stealths take 3 times as many hits before they fail a save. Against S6+ weapons, Stealths fare worse, but even then they require 9 S6 wounds to kill them off. So, Kroot are more resilient to non-blast direct fire weapons of S6 or better.

On to mobility... Here, there's no contest. Stealths get JSJ, Kroot don't. Stealths have Deep Strike, Kroot don't. Need I say more?

So, even with minimal time, I can demonstrate that the comparison isn't as cut and dried as you made it out to be.

Veskrashen wrote:
Any value you place on an item / rule / ability that doesn't have a points value of it's own will in fact be arbitrary, because even if you're deriving it from a set of probabilities (i.e. chance I come in on the turn I want from reserves, and land within 18" of my chosen target) you're still making assumptions that don't reflect the entire volume of possible encounters.

You're aware that there's an entire industry based around doing exactly what you're saying can't be done, right? How do you think insurers decide how much to charge you?

How do you determine the value of Stealth, Shrouded, Infiltrate and Deep Strike? What assumptions do you use in order to calculate their worth? How do you determine, for example, whether Deep Strike is worth X points and Infiltrate (which gives Outflank) is worth Y points, when you start adding in things like Positional Relays and Homing Beacons? How do you define a unit's chances of getting to a point on a board where those items become a factor, when you can't readily define where or what that point will be, or when that needs to happen?

As you said, you work with probabilities. Consider Deep Strike.

There are two ways to use the math. The first is to decide whether deep striking is a good idea in a given game. To do this, you first establish your expected return if everything goes right. If your opponent has a land raider, the expected return will be 250 points, if everything goes right.

You then start modifying this downwards based on what might not go right. If you have two fusion guns, that 250 points will be reduced by the chance that you miss, the chance that you don't pen, the chance that it doesn't explode, the chance that you land in the wrong place to attack it, and so on. When you do this, you'll have a better idea of the real expected return on the action.

Then you figure out, what's the return if you don't deep strike. If you deploy instead and spend those 2 turns shooting at marines?

Then you take it a step further. What's the opportunity cost if you don't deep strike? Is this a risk you have to take? If the 2 fusion guns are your only weapons that can hurt the land raider, and it holds a scoring unit, the opportunity cost may be the chance to win the game. In this case, regardless of the odds of success, you have to take the chance.

Now, you weigh the two against each other, and if the expected return on deep strike is greater than that of not deep striking, you go for it.

Some parts of this are easier for people to grasp. The part about "if it's your only option" is easily understood by most players. But the mathematical return on the action when it's not necessary is less understood. Better players do a lot of this instinctively, but it's certainly possible to math it out on paper.


Then you get to the second part - what is this worth. And, this is what GW is really really bad at, because they don't really understand it. It's why you'll suddenly see a unit that's extremely undercosted and gets taken 3-per-army, like a helldrake, or a unit that's massively overpriced and ignored, like mutilators.

In order to appropriately determine the value of such things, you need to have some baseline expectations to work off of. Take Shrouded, for example. In order to properly price it, you need to know:

What is the expected terrain density.
What cover would normally be available.
What is the expected increase in durability for the unit that has this rule.

Shrouded is worth more on a 6+ save model than a 3+ save model, because it's boosting the survivability of the model by more.

No one is saying it is easy to work this all out, in fact, it's rather complex, and as you point out, there are a lot of possibilities to consider. But saying it's impossible is wrong. Saying it cannot be done is wrong. As far as systems go, 40k is not that complex, it's easily modeled and if you want to take the time, it's not that difficult to run the numbers.

You're absolutely correct that you can, indeed, model a great many things accurately based on whatever assumptions you choose to make. You have to acknowledge, however, that any parameters you choose will be arbitrary at best (even if you choose the Final Table at Adepticon or the top 10 lists at the past 10 major tourneys or whatever), and that consequently any result you derive from that model - no matter how accurately calculated - will also be arbitrary, and likely very wrong when used in any situations that don't conform well to the model you used.

Not arbitrary, not if you do it correctly. Arbitrary implies randomness, and educated guesses are not random, they're made consciously. Good tournament players make these evaluations before every event. If you believe there will be a lot of vendettas at an event, paladins become a worse choice. Yes, sometimes people's guesses are wrong, and they get knocked out of a tournament as a result. But don't confuse that error with their thinking being arbitrary. Educated analysis of the expected metagame is a part of tournament prep, and picking the units that will outperform against the field is a skill, not an arbitrary thing.

Stealth suits can take one markerlight per squad on the shas'vre, so 15 points on top of the 30ppm. So they aren't very useful in that regard. Adding to that they can only take 2 drones max. So Crisis suits can bring more markerlights and relatively cheaper.

Crisis suits also have Jetpacks and can take more versatile weapons and can shoot more than one per suit. The limitations are what really hurts the stealth suit squads in this regard. If they could take missiles or any other weapon, they'd be a better choice. However they are stuck with the shortest ranged weaponry.

Kroot can take many cheap bodies. That's how they are survivable. Put them into cover for 4+ (ruins or forests or anything else and go to ground) and they are decently survivable. The key part is that they have more wounds that need to be removed before a leadership check needs to be taken. They are flimsy, I will admit. Despite that they are cheap and can be taken in multiples. Elites are a lot more rare and can be used for a much better and more specialized unit like Crisis suits and Riptides. You do get to place objectives as well, so you can almost garuntee a kroot blob can sit on an objective.

They can very easily shoot and sit on an objective. They have 48" range weapons and can take up to three of them. Surviving isn't that difficult either. They get the same cover save as firewarriors will, but cost much cheaper and take larger squads, so more wounds that have to be lost before the unit crumbles.

Kroot can infiltrate as well. Also they can take acute senses. And special weapons. Really they can do anything the stealth suits can do, but more cost effectively.

 Redbeard wrote:

Veskrashen wrote:
Any value you place on an item / rule / ability that doesn't have a points value of it's own will in fact be arbitrary, because even if you're deriving it from a set of probabilities (i.e. chance I come in on the turn I want from reserves, and land within 18" of my chosen target) you're still making assumptions that don't reflect the entire volume of possible encounters.

You're aware that there's an entire industry based around doing exactly what you're saying can't be done, right? How do you think insurers decide how much to charge you?

Of course. They're called actuaries. They do statistical modeling and such, using such variables as health, age, etc etc etc to determine what their likely loss ratios are and all that. Those same individuals then build in a healthy margin of error, then charge you more to ensure profitability. Why? Because while you can statistically model the likelihood of a person aged 83 in rural southern Georgia dying within the next 12 months, assuming knowledge of his age and such, you have no way of modeling what the odds of him getting killed by a drunk driver are within that time period. Or the odds of him being killed by a flash flood. A lot of that is subsumed within general mortality rates - which kinda aggregate all those factors - but being able to determine what incremental risk to build into your policy to account for the freak accident is essentially beyond their ability to determine with any real accuracy. It is, literally, incalculable. So they make reasonable assumptions, tack on a big margin for errors they can't account for, and call it good enough. Those companies that don't do that tend to go bankrupt when things don't go as smoothly as estimated.

No one is saying it is easy to work this all out, in fact, it's rather complex, and as you point out, there are a lot of possibilities to consider. But saying it's impossible is wrong. Saying it cannot be done is wrong. As far as systems go, 40k is not that complex, it's easily modeled and if you want to take the time, it's not that difficult to run the numbers.

Not arbitrary, not if you do it correctly. Arbitrary implies randomness, and educated guesses are not random, they're made consciously. Good tournament players make these evaluations before every event. If you believe there will be a lot of vendettas at an event, paladins become a worse choice. Yes, sometimes people's guesses are wrong, and they get knocked out of a tournament as a result. But don't confuse that error with their thinking being arbitrary. Educated analysis of the expected metagame is a part of tournament prep, and picking the units that will outperform against the field is a skill, not an arbitrary thing.

I cut out a lot of your analysis in order to save space, but I will say that it's an excellent rundown of the different variables involved. You are absolutely right that you can calculate, with some degree of accuracy, whether it's worth deep striking a unit of Fusion toting Crisis in to take shots on a Land Raider on Turn 2 or Turn 3. You can model the opportunity cost of holding something in reserve, to make that kind of a shot, versus your expected value of the shooting you'd be able to do in return. You can even model the opportunity cost of not having it survive to use those Fusion Blasters against that Land Raider. And yes, there's a difference in the value of Stealth to a 5+ save model as opposed to a 3+ save model.

All that said, I do still feel that it is, indeed, arbitrary. Your expected terrain densities are arbitrary - you can guess, you'll probably be pretty close, but it'll be a guess. You can make a reasonable estimate of where on the board you think that Land Raider will be, and you can make assumptions about what else is in the list and where it'll be in relationship to that LR, and you can model mishap probabilities and all that. And again, I'd say that even though those calculations are relatively straightforward to do, running all the various permutations of all the various terrain densities in all the various table layouts with all the various deployments will all the army lists (good and bad) for every codex out there and all their ally permutations (good and bad) is simply... well, it's not as simple or straightforward as you imply. And I'm not so sure the effort is worth just going with a rough "good enough" model of 1/3 of the time I'm dead on target, 1/6 of the time I'll scatter closer to my target in a way that increases my chance of mishap, 1/6 I'll scatter in a direction likely to take me out of my effective range, and the rest is a crapshoot as to whether or not I'll be able to get the shot I want.

I also feel that, again, it's hard to put a points value on unit option flexibility, or on a unit special rule, at least not in a vacuum. You can easily model different Crisis loadouts against each other, and against different units in the codex - hell, I do that in Excel already, and I'm not all that great at the statistical modeling thing. It's harder to put a points value on Stealth and Shrouded on a Stealth Suit vs. the weapon flexibility of a Crisis Suit. Each one depends on so many other variables - what you're using it against, what's shooting it, what the rest of the list has, etc etc etc - that I don't think you can make a blanket statement about that. That's why I feel "Unit X sucks, don't use it" isn't useful advice, since it ignores a whole host of scenarios and reasons and situations where Unit X could perform well, or even outperform it's usual replacement or competitor units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Stealth suits can take one markerlight per squad on the shas'vre, so 15 points on top of the 30ppm. So they aren't very useful in that regard. Adding to that they can only take 2 drones max. So Crisis suits can bring more markerlights and relatively cheaper.

Crisis suits also have Jetpacks and can take more versatile weapons and can shoot more than one per suit. The limitations are what really hurts the stealth suit squads in this regard. If they could take missiles or any other weapon, they'd be a better choice. However they are stuck with the shortest ranged weaponry.

Kroot can take many cheap bodies. That's how they are survivable. Put them into cover for 4+ (ruins or forests or anything else and go to ground) and they are decently survivable. The key part is that they have more wounds that need to be removed before a leadership check needs to be taken. They are flimsy, I will admit. Despite that they are cheap and can be taken in multiples. Elites are a lot more rare and can be used for a much better and more specialized unit like Crisis suits and Riptides. You do get to place objectives as well, so you can almost garuntee a kroot blob can sit on an objective.

They can very easily shoot and sit on an objective. They have 48" range weapons and can take up to three of them. Surviving isn't that difficult either. They get the same cover save as firewarriors will, but cost much cheaper and take larger squads, so more wounds that have to be lost before the unit crumbles.

Kroot can infiltrate as well. Also they can take acute senses. And special weapons. Really they can do anything the stealth suits can do, but more cost effectively.

This is an analysis I can work with. In it, you clearly explain what you feel the alternatives are to Stealths and why you think they're superior. It's much much better than just saying "they suck,don't take them" because we can then actually argue about where your analysis conflicts with mine, and vice versa.

For instance, I don't assume I can place the objectives, and I don't assume that I can afford to let Kroot sit on them. Primarily because you can't determine in advance if that's going to be a useful strategy. It is utterly useless in The Relic or Purge The Alien, or even Crusade for the most part . In most tournaments, you don't get to place the objectives, and there's no guarantee they'll be in cover. Finally, with the plethora of stuff that's long ranged, AP6 or better, and ignores cover, I make no assumptions about Kroot being able to survive simply because cover is available. Thunderfires taught me that, and Helldrakes have pretty much reinforced it. I also disagree that Kroot are better just because they can take more bodies. It takes 6 bolter wounds, on average, to cause a 3-man Stealth Suit squad to take a Ld 8 check. It takes 4 bolter wounds to cause a Ld 7 check on a similar points value of Kroot. That's not what I would call significantly more resilient, point for point. I also don't feel that 48" S7 AP4 rapid fire guns are worthwhile, especially not at 25pts per shot and a 60pt minimum tax on top of that. Oh, and since it'll be in your backfield on your objective, you'll be shooting at front armor of vehicles, not the squishier side and rear where S7 is far more effective. S4 AP6 is far worse than S5 AP5 except within 12" rapid fire range. S7 AP4 is far worse against vehicles of any kind that S8 AP1 fusion. Stealth not only have Acute Senses for free as part of being battlesuits, they get the 2d6 JSJ that Kroot will never have. Kroot cannot, in fact, do everything Stealths can better. In short, I feel you overestimate their effectiveness considerably, and as a result compare them far too favorably.

There is, as I've said on a different thread, an argument to be made based on FOC availability. They do indeed compete with Crisis and Riptides FOC-wise, so I feel in a lot of ways that's what they need to compete against - the hard choices in the Tau codex don't often come down to points, but rather to FOC slots. Thus, to me at least, the argument about whether Stealth Suits are worth taking comes down to whether or not you need the Elite slots for Crisis or Riptides. If you've got the roles those things perform well covered in the rest of your list, or if Infiltrating Stealths with a Homing Beacon can enhance those Crisis suits' performance, then I definitely think they're worth considering. I also think it's reasonable to look at what other FOC slots might be freed up if you used Stealths instead of Crisis or Riptides in a list.

I like that we are having the conversation about stealth suits because it proves that the codex is not a one trick pony but has multiple viable units that can fit multiple roles. I personally do not like stealth suits because I feel their performance is inconsistent. There are games where you can't get into cover and shoot with their 18'' range, there are games where they bring down your opponents whole flank, there are games where they do nothing but absorb a ton of fire, and games where a hell drake fly over them and they die. When stealth suits are good they are really good and when they are bad they are really bad, which is different from most of our other units.

I feel if you really want a flanking unit then shadowsun with crisis suits is the way to go. It cost a little more but you get a lot more survivability with more wounds and higher toughness and you get much better weapon choices. There is nothing like outflanking, clearing out a building and then taking up keep there and whats as the enemy tries to shoot you away, and every wound they cause just kills a 12pt gun drone.

 lambsandlions wrote:
I like that we are having the conversation about stealth suits because it proves that the codex is not a one trick pony but has multiple viable units that can fit multiple roles

Not really. People were having a conversation about stealth suits before the new codex even though they were garbage, so all a continued conversation means is that people are willing to talk about bad units. They weren't a viable option in the previous codex, and they aren't a viable option in the current codex.

 Peregrine wrote:

 lambsandlions wrote:
I like that we are having the conversation about stealth suits because it proves that the codex is not a one trick pony but has multiple viable units that can fit multiple roles

Not really. People were having a conversation about stealth suits before the new codex even though they were garbage, so all a continued conversation means is that people are willing to talk about bad units. They weren't a viable option in the previous codex, and they aren't a viable option in the current codex.

Peregrine has spoken, so it must be true.

Really, all the people whose tactical acumen raises to the level of put units down, shoot at opponent, are the ones who consider them bad. The people who know how to do more things in 40k then just throw dice at their opponent are the ones that see the strategical flexibility the unit opens up, and consider them good. That's why you see all the detractors only mentioning the amount of S5 shots/point and resiliency/point, and completely ignoring their deployment options and specialty gear. That's a dead give away to me that some ones tactical and strategic capabilities are sadly lacking in this game. Unfortunate, but true. The saddest thing is these people tend to have a disproportionate amount of hubris surrounding their ignorance making it nigh incurable. Sucks :(.

ShadarLogoth wrote:
completely ignoring their deployment options

Which are incredibly overrated. Infiltrate is usually worthless (it just gets you closer where you can get shot at sooner), and outflanking is of limited value when your other units can deep strike into many of the same areas and you have an IC that can outflank better units. It's nice to have options, but not at the expense of the unit's primary role.

and specialty gear

Which is all of two items. Stealth fields are marginal at best since they just compensate for the unit only being T3/W1, and the homing beacon is decent but also available on Pathfinders (a far superior unit).

That's a dead give away to me that some ones tactical and strategic capabilities are sadly lacking in this game.

No, it's a dead giveaway that some people overvalue gimmicks and take inefficient units in the desperate hope that the gimmick will actually matter. Unfortunately it usually doesn't.

ShadarLogoth wrote:

Really, all the people whose tactical acumen raises to the level of put units down, shoot at opponent, are the ones who consider them bad.

Wow. Thanks for assuming that people against your opinion are obviously less skilled and tactical than you are. I bet you completely ignore the majority of arguments made against stealth suits.

The people who know how to do more things in 40k then just throw dice at their opponent are the ones that see the strategical flexibility the unit opens up, and consider them good. That's why you see all the detractors only mentioning the amount of S5 shots/point and resiliency/point, and completely ignoring their deployment options and specialty gear.

And I'm right. We totally covered all the wargear, USR, weapons and unit limitations. It's been covered.The only difference is that stealth suits can take a single marker and a homing beacon. That's it. That does not justify 90 points.

That's a dead give away to me that some ones tactical and strategic capabilities are sadly lacking in this game. Unfortunate, but true. The saddest thing is these people tend to have a disproportionate amount of hubris surrounding their ignorance making it nigh incurable. Sucks :(.

Wow... the irony is overwhelming. I have offered a fairly decent comparison of stealth suits to multiple units that can do all the jobs better. I brought in math to show the averages, unit sizes and costs, and equipment load outs. Most of the arguments for stealth suits have been mostly anecdotal or just broad statements like stating that stealth suits infiltrate makes them better in a way that normal people can't grasp. Yet I'm the one blinded by hubris. Even though I've offered fair comparisons and shown my work to prove my reasoning. Way to prove me wrong. Keep up the amazing work.

Which are incredibly overrated. Infiltrate is usually worthless (it just gets you closer where you can get shot at sooner), and outflanking is of limited value when your other units can deep strike into many of the same areas and you have an IC that can outflank better units. It's nice to have options, but not at the expense of the unit's primary role.

LOL. The fact that you actually think that tells me all I need to know about you. Have fun with your static no imagination gunlines while the adults are playing real games at the big boy table Peregrine. I have no intention arguing with a brick wall.

Savageconvoy

I think your analysis was much fairer, I just think you are selling their deployment options and ability to pinpoint DS other units a bit short. These are massive difference makes in a list designed to take advantage of them. Sorry to lump you in with Peregrine.

I am going to have to agree with Dracos, Redbeard and Savageconvoy on the value of mathhammer. Sure, it may be difficult to impossible to quantify everything in the game, but their are also a lot of aspects of the game that can be easily quantified, and those quantities are quite meaningful. Mathhammer provides explicit, factual, and verifiable information on the performance of units under specific circumstances, which is far more informative than the random "this unit sucks"/"no the unit is great, you just need to learn to use tactics" type arguments that get thrown around.

Sure, its quite difficult to quantify the value of Stealth Suits infiltration, outflanking and deepstriking, but mathhammer can clearly quantify how much damage the Stealth Suits are likely to do once they use one of these mechanisms to get in range of their target, as well as calculate the likelihood of various outlier scenarios, such as the chance the stealth suits will miss with both their fusion blasters. And when the Stealth Suits suffer return fire, the mathhammer can again be used to estimate how much punishment they can take. After all, regardless of the method the Stealth Suits use to get to their target, you still need to know if they will inflict appreciable damage on the target, and if they will suffer lesser or greater damage in return.

Mathhammer is a valuable tool that should not be ignored. Rather than being used an excuse to ignore the math, tactics and strategies should instead be looked upon as something that can be improved with better understanding of the statistical performance of various units. After all, how are you suppose to execute sound tactics if you have no basis on how a unit is going to perform?

Wow. There is a lot of vitriol in this thread over stealth suits.

As I see it stealth suits remind me a lot of Imperial Guard Stormtroopers. They are expensive, somewhat gimmicky, and other units can do it better... but damn if they are not the unit that does it in the coolest fashion. Their fluff paints a portrait of a unit that embodies the Tau way of war like no other. They are evocative, but they are not the best. This is, however, okay. Not being the best does not mean they can not have an impact in game. Sure you might not win a major tournament (probably partially due to a tragic lack of terrain that enhances vacuum mathhammer), but if you can pull off something incredible with them more kudos to you. This is just a game. Have fun!

ShadarLogoth wrote:
LOL. The fact that you actually think that tells me all I need to know about you. Have fun with your static no imagination gunlines while the adults are playing real games at the big boy table Peregrine. I have no intention arguing with a brick wall.

Since when does "focus on efficiency in the primary roles instead of gimmicks" mean "gunline"? Does a list with crisis suits/riptides/etc magically become a static gunline because its units have been optimized for maximum shooting efficiency?

And I'm glad you've resorted to petty insults, it does more than anything I can do to demolish your credibility.

 Peregrine wrote:

ShadarLogoth wrote:
LOL. The fact that you actually think that tells me all I need to know about you. Have fun with your static no imagination gunlines while the adults are playing real games at the big boy table Peregrine. I have no intention arguing with a brick wall.

Since when does "focus on efficiency in the primary roles instead of gimmicks" mean "gunline"? Does a list with crisis suits/riptides/etc magically become a static gunline because its units have been optimized for maximum shooting efficiency?

And I'm glad you've resorted to petty insults, it does more than anything I can do to demolish your credibility.

The primary role of the game is capping, holding, and contesting objectives. Flexible deployment options is a far more important factor towards that primary goal then math hammering damage and resiliency efficiencies. Good players realize that without it having to be spelled out for them. I guess we know what category that puts you in.

I'm not throwing petty insults, just calling a spade a spade. I'm sorry if that offends you.

Terrain is also exceptionally important. As line of sight blocking terrain on a board increases so too does the usefulness of stealth suits. In a Cities of Death themed board they become little nightmares. That said stealth suits are sub-optimal when placed on an open killing field without enough line of sight blocking terrain to afford them decent hiding places. They need to make use of their mobility or they become a giant point sink. They are designed to draw units away from objectives or other more critical units. They are also, as previously stated, more resilient against high strength weaponry that would chew up a unit of XV8s in a single turn.

They are useful and they do work, but their general dependence on a more specific battleground makes them less reliable than other options that will work whether or not you have a whole host of buildings or a little empty patch of ground with a "rock and bit of wall" that is labeled area terrain.

ShadarLogoth wrote:
Flexible deployment options is a far more important factor towards that primary goal then math hammering damage and resiliency efficiencies.

Not true at all. Flexible deployment has value, but a unit with flexible deployment but poor damage/durability is a bad unit. It doesn't matter how flexible your deployment options are if you can't do very much once you use them.

(And this is especially true for Tau, since we have alternative units with better damage/durability and the same or better deployment options as stealth suits.)

I'm not throwing petty insults, just calling a spade a spade. I'm sorry if that offends you.

Keep up the good work and we'll see what the mods have to say about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nightwolf829 wrote:
As line of sight blocking terrain on a board increases so too does the usefulness of stealth suits.

Actually it's the exact opposite. Stealth suits are worse when you have lots of LOS blocking terrain because their cover bonuses are only relevant when they're in LOS of something that wants to shoot at them. If you have easy access to complete LOS blocking then crisis suits bring much better firepower with the same defense.

Not true at all. Flexible deployment has value, but a unit with flexible deployment but poor damage/durability is a bad unit. It doesn't matter how flexible your deployment options are if you can't do very much once you use them.

(And this is especially true for Tau, since we have alternative units with better damage/durability and the same or better deployment options as stealth suits.)

Yes, and if Stealth suits had 6+ armor saves and S1 heavy 1 guns, then you might have a point. The truth is, they are easily in the neighborhood of other units in those areas, plus offer you game winning options the other units don't.

Keep up the good work and we'll see what the mods have to say about it.

LOLOLOLOL. Did you just threaten to cry to Mommy? Wow.

ShadarLogoth wrote:
The truth is, they are easily in the neighborhood of other units in those areas

They aren't even close. Even if you like burst cannons stealth suits are 30 points for a single BC compared to 42 points for two BCs on a crisis suit, and the crisis suit has the option to take better guns. That's a huge difference in firepower per point.

plus offer you game winning options the other units don't.

Game winning options like what?

LOLOLOLOL. Did you just threaten to cry to Mommy? Wow.

I didn't threaten anything, I just reported all of your rule-breaking posts. Just like I'm about to report this one.

Being rude to people breaks the no.1 rule of the forum, and is liable to attract a penalty from the moderators.

@Peregrine

Stealth Suits are not game WINNING units however they force your opponent in to some tough choices. They can carry wargear to get your Crisis Teams or outflanking Kroot / Devilfish w.Darkstrider in to position with detrimental effects. They are the only Suits that can infiltrate WITHOUT Shadowsun.

With the new changes to our Fusion Blasters they are also one of the few units who can get armour (and even possibly within Melta range) first turn. Plenty of tables we play on have good LOS Blocking buildings so...12" away - 6" move - 6" away from armour - 9" melta range baby! (I have actually used this twice and wrecked face with it first turn, Shadowsun was attached also)

Regarding Crisis Suits - there is little point taking 3 guns and it's wiser to specialise up. Taking Burst Cannons for anti-infantry is great and even works well against MEQ but having two plus another weapon is a little redundant - and becomes expensive.

Stealths have a very valid place in an army and can be good fun to use.

Nightwolf829 wrote:
Wow. There is a lot of vitriol in this thread over stealth suits.
This is just a game. Have fun!

This has happened forever though on Stealthsuits. I'll say this: I am legitimately surprised that so many improvements to the unit were made and yet...still this.

And after thinking about it, I guess it's nothing to me if some don't use them. Most of them are so star struck by the Riptide (and for good reason) or the improved Crisis teams (which I spent 6 years essentially not using but would now definitely use) that they wont even bother trying their alternative Elite. And their lack of practice using them probably wont help. That they never owned more than 6 of them at any time probably also wont help if they even own any now (yes i know, someone will say they have 18 and tried them, got it, check check). The last models they did were so ugly that Im not surprised that some just took one look and said "They could be Gawds gift to Warhammer and I wouldn't field THAT ridiculum". That matters to some.

Maybe what it will take is to go win a tourney or two with them to try and change a mind or two. Barring that (and maybe even AFTER that) there's going to be doubting Thomas's and bruised egos that will pretend it never happened to make themselves feel "right". As a famous sports philosopher once said: "Just win, baby".

Phanixis wrote:
I am going to have to agree with Dracos, Redbeard and Savageconvoy on the value of mathhammer. Sure, it may be difficult to impossible to quantify everything in the game, but their are also a lot of aspects of the game that can be easily quantified, and those quantities are quite meaningful. Mathhammer provides explicit, factual, and verifiable information on the performance of units under specific circumstances, which is far more informative than the random "this unit sucks"/"no the unit is great, you just need to learn to use tactics" type arguments that get thrown around.

I absolutely agree with this, which is why I try to explain why / how I see the value of those less tangible and less measurable things in ways that do allow them to be compared across units. It's also why arguments that don't attempt to do so, but simply rely on broad unstated assumptions irritate me so much. And you'll note that my reply to SavageConvoy and Redbeard noted this fact, and laid out what I felt was less quantifiable and why those things would impact a person's decision to take them. The fact that they laid out their arguments in ways that allowed us both to take a good look at what scenarios those advantages would and would not apply actually furthers the discussion, rather than hampering it.

I also would say that "the unit sucks"/"learn tactics LOL" arguments generally revolve around the various assumptions people are making that feed into the mathhammer they calculate. It's easy for one person to say that Kroot are more resilient because it takes more small arms fire to dig them out of ruins or woods than it takes to cause casualties to Stealth teams in the open. It's just as easy for another person to look at Stealths and say they're far more resilient than Kroot because they generally don't care about things like SMS and Thunderfires and Blastmasters that tear Kroot to pieces.

Sure, its quite difficult to quantify the value of Stealth Suits infiltration, outflanking and deepstriking, but mathhammer can clearly quantify how much damage the Stealth Suits are likely to do once they use one of these mechanisms to get in range of their target, as well as calculate the likelihood of various outlier scenarios, such as the chance the stealth suits will miss with both their fusion blasters. And when the Stealth Suits suffer return fire, the mathhammer can again be used to estimate how much punishment they can take. After all, regardless of the method the Stealth Suits use to get to their target, you still need to know if they will inflict appreciable damage on the target, and if they will suffer lesser or greater damage in return.

Mathhammer is a valuable tool that should not be ignored. Rather than being used an excuse to ignore the math, tactics and strategies should instead be looked upon as something that can be improved with better understanding of the statistical performance of various units. After all, how are you suppose to execute sound tactics if you have no basis on how a unit is going to perform?

Again, I totally agree. That's why blanket pronouncements drive me nuts. I would be far more interested in an analysis that said something like "Stealth Suits are generally a poor alternative to other units for anti-infantry and anti-armor work, because they compete with Crisis Suits and Riptides for Elite slots, and it's easy to get effective long range anti-infantry in other areas of the Tau codex. That said, Stealth Suits are more resilient, point for point, than other infiltrating units such as Kroot, and (having greater deployment options and mobility of Jet Packs) are able to threaten larger areas of the board with their anti-infantry shots than Kroot or Fire Warriors are able to do (both of which need to be within rapid fire range to out-shoot Stealths). In addition, Stealths are more survivable than Crisis, point for point, against any shooting of S8 or higher, or AP3 or better, assuming those shots don't ignore cover. Finally, the Homing Beacons that Stealth Suits can carry - when combined with infiltrate and their greater mobility - does open up additional options for Deep Strike reliant builds that can significantly increase their effectiveness."

That kind of analysis gives you a far better feel for what scenarios or lists you might want to take Stealth Suits over other more obvious options. It also allows someone to look at them and determine whether (given their meta, projected matchups and projected terrain, etc etc etc) attempting to use them in their list is worth doing or not. And, of course, this kind of analysis also gives you insight into what you might be able to expect from an opponent who does take them, which lets you better devise counters to that opponent.

All of which, IMO, is better than "that unit sucks" / "tactics LOL" that happens far too often.

 Jancoran wrote:

This has happened forever though on Stealthsuits. I'll say this: I am legitimately surprised that so many improvements to the unit were made and yet...still this.

"so many improvements"
You mean +1 shot, drones got reduced in quantity but don't require drone controllers, and the addition of homing beacons that are only taken on two other units? That's not so many. That's three. That's three mild improvements.

And after thinking about it, I guess it's nothing to me if some don't use them. Most of them are so star struck by the Riptide (and for good reason) or the improved Crisis teams (which I spent 6 years essentially not using but would now definitely use) that they wont even bother trying their alternative Elite.

This is so glaringly ironic that I hope you even noticed it. Why is it that I hear from the pro-stealth side that the no-stealth side is blinded and biased. We offered legitimate arguments (which haven't been refuted really) and yet we are the ones that are just biased and unable to learn. Really?! Let me change that around for you. "Most of them are so star struck by the Stealth or the improved Shrouding that they won't even bother looking at the unit for what it is?" Not very fun when the other side makes assumptions about the opposing side's motivations and character. This is also insane since most of the animosity is coming from the pro-stealth side, and has made offensive remarks and bogus claims about how the people against are just unreasonable and stubborn while most of us have offered a reason for our line of thinking.

And their lack of practice using them probably wont help.

Thank you for the random assumption that we haven't tried them out. You never even bothered to ask how many games we have tried them in, you just assumed that.

That they never owned more than 6 of them at any time probably also wont help if they even own any now (yes i know, someone will say they have 18 and tried them, got it, check check).

So your personal experience is the only experience that matters, even if we have tried them out? Seriously? You ignore mathhammer then go straight to personal experience while shrugging off others. I don't think Tactics is the right forum for that kind of thinking.

The last models they did were so ugly that Im not surprised that some just took one look and said "They could be Gawds gift to Warhammer and I wouldn't field THAT ridiculum". That matters to some.

What? Now we're just hating on stealth suits because of the ugly models? Wouldn't field them because they are ugly?! Conversion! People would have used counts as! Bought the XV-15 which is still available! But no. We are just shallow. Thanks for another assumption. I could have lived with you just completely glossing over your failed attempt at math on the previous page, but this is almost insulting how much you claim to know about my reasoning for hating stealth suits despite the fact that I listed them off several times and didn't bother to include one in your entire list of assumptions.

Here's a hint. If you're trying to prove something and have to resort to assumptions about the opposing side's motivations, then it probably means you don't have anything left to stand on.

It's interesting that you consider a 25% increase in firepower a "mild improvement." Overall I've found that Outflanking units are extremely useful, far beyond what their actual combat capabilities indicate. For instance, I often take a unit of 10 Scouts with bolters. This doesn't seem like a particularly efficient unit and indeed in a straight combat comparison it isn't, but in many situations it wins games by scoring Linebreaker, assaulting enemy units, etc. Stealth Suits must be evaluated in the context of Outflankers, which are often extremely disruptive to the enemy. In that sense I believe they acquit themselves admirably.

Are Stealth Suits ever going to be a three-of? No, probably not. But can a single Stealth team be a useful addition to an army list? Certainly, especially a list that doesn't feature outflank-oriented Pathfinders. Such units can often be worth it for disruption and tempo control alone.

It's a 33% improvement from the original, I will admit that's nice. If it was the only change in the codex, it would look more appealing. It's not exclusive though. Most units can get burst cannons. Several units can get fusion blasters. Infact stealth suits are the only unit where they are limited to how many the unit can take. Crisis suits can take none, 1 on a suit, 1 on all suits, 2 on a single suit, 2 on all suits, and just about any combination you want. Piranha can take multiple as well. Stealth suits are the only unit where the have a useless limitation of 1 for every 3 suits. With the burst cannon it's the same issue of one per stealth suit while it can be taken on crisis suits, hq's, bodyguards, devilfish, hammerheads, skyrays, piranha, the fighter, and even a drone gets a burst cannon. It's all the same gun too. If stealth suits were the only unit to get the 4 shot version, then I would consider it something more than a mild improvement. The bar got raised across the board, it doesn't mean the stealth suit is close to catching up with it's more versatile counter parts.

Even with outflanking considered, it's nothing really special. Piranha, outflanking kroot, 4d6 thrust riptides, deepstriking crisis suits all have ways of getting linebreaker. It's nothing really exclusive to stealth suits. Can they get it fairly easy? I would agree since it's a unit that can hide in the back field and be pretty much ignored while the rest of the game revolves around it. Kroot however can serve a far mor vital role because they are outflanking with cheap acute senses, can take 48" S7 rapid fire guns, are scoring, and are in a slot with plenty of room. The sniper rounds alone make them a more vesatile unit because they get precision shots, wounds on 4+, rending and pinning.

I'm not saying you can't run a single unit and that it won't do some good. By all means it can definately do some damage and score linebreaker. However I think there are more cost effective and versatile means of achieving that. For me, I favor versatility because I face plenty of different lists and I know that I have my S5 quota filled.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

You mean +1 shot, drones got reduced in quantity but don't require drone controllers, and the addition of homing beacons that are only taken on two other units? That's not so many. That's three. That's three mild improvements.

We offered legitimate arguments (which haven't been refuted really)...

Let me change that around for you. "Most of them are so star struck by the Stealth or the improved Shrouding that they won't even bother looking at the unit for what it is?" Not very fun when the other side makes assumptions about the opposing side's motivations and character. ...while most of us have offered a reason for our line of thinking.

Thank you for the random assumption that we haven't tried them out. You never even bothered to ask how many games we have tried them in, you just assumed that.

...So your personal experience is the only experience that matters, even if we have tried them out? Seriously?

...You ignore mathhammer then go straight to personal experience while shrugging off others.

Here's a hint. If you're trying to prove something and have to resort to assumptions about the opposing side's motivations, then it probably means you don't have anything left to stand on.

Clipped for brevity.

Sacageconvoy, you are overstating this.

1. YES... THOSE changes you just mentioned PLUS the upgrades they can now take that they couldn't which you tacitly avoid mentioning in your minimizing statement. And yes... those changes were free and upgrades are not expensive. It made it BETTER for the same points. This is an OBJECTIVE truth, so why are you arguing it?

2. You offered some legitimate arguments wrapped in a dismissive shell of glittering generalities. You ACTUALLY SAID verbatim that a Kroot can do whatever the Stealth suit can! This is your "objective" argument? Kroot take wound 2-3 times FASTER that Stealthsuits but you're going to say that the Kroot unit size is their "key"? You said those things and you tell me now that these were good arguments! Well...

3. I am not required to ASSUME what you think of Stealthsuits because...you...told...me. And everything you ...TOLD me... Was some math and some of this vague analysis of their less tangible values. Not experience. If you had any extensive experience using them you'd have said so long before this point in the discussion. So do not PRETEND like you have been "playing stealth suits all along and they suck". You haven't and yeah I AM willing to bet on it.. You've been hung by the tongue here. Your argument comes down to staring at the page and telling me "Its not that hard to figure out" (your words. not mine).

4. How dumb is it to suggest that I feel my experience is "the only one that matters". That sounds like a kid whose mad that his parents have chided him. This is a forum. Its MY EXPERIENCE that I am sharing. Im not here to share YOURS. My EXPERIENCE (and it is considerable when it comes to this unit) is that they are good. Why would I say different? Why SHOULD I say different if I have gotten players to concede in turn 2 almost exclusively because of the stealth suits eating their flank like flame to ice? I don't have anything to apologize for if I'm winning. Your experience, however little or much it may be with this unit is what is is. Play the victim all you want. Stop complaining that I'm "assuming", especially when I'm assuming rightly. Someone like you who can look at a PAGE and so imperiously declare that stealthunits are trash again surely did not spend money or time on them unless you count getting on a forum and tyelling people your opinion (which is legit, as long as you can stand the counter point).

5. I didn't ignore Math Hammer. I told you why you can't use it exclusively in this case unless YOU place arbitrary numbers on the different features of the unit and attempt to quantify the truly unquantifiable. With infinite terrain variation, and its impact on the enemy, let alone on you, its absolutely an irrational position to state that these things can be calculated BEFORE you get to the table at which point your list was already DONE. That's why there ARE multiple units to choose from instead of just one ubiquitous one in a codex: a suit for every occasion. We also pointed out that shooting range type comparisons are inadequate because while in the vacuum of a shooting range you might make some valid points, there is more to consider in a units value.

6. You made your motivations very clear. I don't have to guess them. Your stated it!!! Your motivation here is to try and prove that stealth suits are trash as YOU said. What is it I need to GUESS at exactly in your motivations? You care if people agree or you'd have dropped it, as would I have. But we do care that the word gets out on this unit because PERHAPS we both have at least one common goal: We want to see more Tau players winning and any advice we can give is toward that end. So I know that you mean well with the advice you offer and I certainly do. But understand than none of this theory is going to change the BIG number of wins I have using the unit. it just wont. You're not sitting here on this forum talking to people who LOSE all the time. Quite the opposite. As it says in the header of my blog: "What works, works. Arguing otherwise is a fools errand".

You're over reacting in my opinion and trying to make this more personal than it is. Like i said: don't use them, as you haven't in the past. It's fine. Just don't be surprised when Im not exhorting people to listen to such a negative perspective on them, given that I have seen first hand...a lot... how good they can be. I know how to use them. You could learn to do it too I can assure you that the brilliant choices you have in the Tau Elites aren't JUST Riptides and Crisis Teams. You can build a whole army around the Stealthsuits too if you'd like and win with it.

Instead of spending your energy debunking it... Try? Its a new codex. This is the TIME to do so.

 Peregrine wrote:

 lambsandlions wrote:
I like that we are having the conversation about stealth suits because it proves that the codex is not a one trick pony but has multiple viable units that can fit multiple roles

Not really. People were having a conversation about stealth suits before the new codex even though they were garbage, so all a continued conversation means is that people are willing to talk about bad units. They weren't a viable option in the previous codex, and they aren't a viable option in the current codex.

I can see value in Stealth Suits; I just don't see how they're more useful than crisis suits in the new codex for their roles.

I'd take 3 Crisis suits over 6 stealth suits anyday.

Now, if I Could take a pair of drones for every stealth suit, I think I'd have to disagree with you...

Can't you just imagine this working well?

6 suits, ATS except for two with Fusion guns, each with Target Lock. - shas'ui has a burst cannon and a VRT (so he has precision shots, but still gives the squad H&R)
Commander with 2 Fusion guns, Target Lock and Drone controller
14 drones of varying kinds, probably a few markerlights so you can do markerlights without needing to use pathfinders.

^ I agree.

Not being able to take drones on Stealth Suits is probably a bigger nerf than all the buffs they got.

A drone cloud was massively annoying and somewhat potent against DE. Immune to DL and not as vulnerable to poison, and could glance the vehicles to death, as they were made of paper and chewing gum.

But alas, you can only take 2 drones now (and only with the 'vre upgrade(?)), which makes every failed save a hefty loss.

And if you want durable S5 fire, you could take a Crisis with dual BC and a stim-injector for 57 points, but god knows why you would need something like that.

 Jancoran wrote:

1. YES... THOSE changes you just mentioned PLUS the upgrades they can now take that they couldn't which you tacitly avoid mentioning in your minimizing statement. And yes... those changes were free and upgrades are not expensive. It made it BETTER for the same points. This is an OBJECTIVE truth, so why are you arguing it?

They got better, I admit that. I'm arguing that the crisis suits got significantly better though. While stealth suits have multi-trackers, they can only take one model with 2 weapons. They have BSF for free, but crisis suits can take an array of weaponry that make better utilization of them. All the other wargear and options are available to suits and most of them to the riptide. Out of all the upgrades the only ones that offer a noticable advantage are the BS2 overwatch and interceptor. But here's a question, if you're boasting about load outs and wargear, why don't you present a unit load out and present why it's a reasonable unit. You aren't. You're using the gaps argument. You will keep saying that I'm missing some fine detail or something that can't be calculated to hide behind instead of arguing the point.

2. You offered some legitimate arguments wrapped in a dismissive shell of glittering generalities. You ACTUALLY SAID verbatim that a Kroot can do whatever the Stealth suit can! This is your "objective" argument? Kroot take wound 2-3 times FASTER that Stealthsuits but you're going to say that the Kroot unit size is their "key"? You said those things and you tell me now that these were good arguments! Well...

And you offered nothing and dismissed statistical analysis. I was not being dismissive, I was using the math and showing that other units are more versatile. I believe that my claim is more subjective though since I'm stating that Kroot are more versatile and able to be used for a wider range of uses for the army, and just about every job the stealth suits can do can be done with better army cohesion since the other choices don't take up elite slots. I think your claim is the more objective one that stealth suits are good for any game any time provided you wave your hands and say "tactics". I already said why kroot are a good unit, and showed your math to be wrong, while your bias and dismissal is proudly flaunted. The Kroot blob is plenty durable due to the number of wounds required to take a morale check. Next you'll try to tell me that a 5 man squad of terminators get 2+ armor and that makes IG blobs useless.

3. I am not required to ASSUME what you think of Stealthsuits because...you...told...me. And everything you ...TOLD me... Was some math and some of this vague analysis of their less tangible values. Not experience. If you had any extensive experience using them you'd have said so long before this point in the discussion. So do not PRETEND like you have been "playing stealth suits all along and they suck". You haven't and yeah I AM willing to bet on it.. You've been hung by the tongue here. Your argument comes down to staring at the page and telling me "Its not that hard to figure out" (your words. not mine).

And here you try to ignore what you just posted before, and try arguing that statistics don't work. Less tangible values? Their shooting is a less tangible value? Are you being honestly serious? You're the one who made the claim that stealth suits break flanks all the time, and now the shooting is a "less tangible value"? You have done nothing other than use your own personal experience to back up the claim. I didn't need to do that, which is why I didn't mention it. My personal record doesn't matter though since it's not repeatable. Which is why I used the statistical breakdown of their effectiveness. I'm sorry for offering people verifyable and repeatable probabilites. Maybe I should just spin a story about how I won an apocalypse game with a single gun drone to prove their merit.

4. How dumb is it to suggest that I feel my experience is "the only one that matters".

Really? You're really going there?
" That they never owned more than 6 of them at any time probably also wont help if they even own any now (yes i know, someone will say they have 18 and tried them, got it, check check). " You just blatantly dismiss what anyone else could claim from experience while only backing up your claims with your own personal experience. Again, are you marking this up as dishonesty or ignorance?

This is a forum. Its MY EXPERIENCE that I am sharing. Im not here to share YOURS. My EXPERIENCE (and it is considerable when it comes to this unit) is that they are good. Why would I say different? Why SHOULD I say different if I have gotten players to concede in turn 2 almost exclusively because of the stealth suits eating their flank like flame to ice? I don't have anything to apologize for if I'm winning. Your experience, however little or much it may be with this unit is what is is. Play the victim all you want. Stop complaining that I'm "assuming", especially when I'm assuming rightly. Someone like you who can look at a PAGE and so imperiously declare that stealthunits are trash again surely did not spend money or time on them unless you count getting on a forum and tyelling people your opinion (which is legit, as long as you can stand the counter point).

And you don't disappoint. Assuming that you're assuming rightly about my experience? Very dishonest tactic really. Again your experience doesn't matter for anything since it's not repeatable like statistics are. Go ahead and make all the claims about how you win singlehandedly because of stealth suits. It matters for nothing because it's not repeatable and nobody else can claim the same outcomes.

5. I didn't ignore Math Hammer. I told you why you can't use it exclusively in this case unless YOU place arbitrary numbers on the different features of the unit and attempt to quantify the truly unquantifiable.

Really? BS, S, Range, AP, T, and save values are unquantifiable? DO you even math?!

With infinite terrain variation, and its impact on the enemy, let alone on you, its absolutely an irrational position to state that these things can be calculated BEFORE you get to the table at which point your list was already DONE.

So you don't even understand that you get to place half of the terrain or can agree to set terrain? Or even understand that terrain is fairly average from store to store barring a small amount of exceptions?

We also pointed out that shooting range type comparisons are inadequate because while in the vacuum of a shooting range you might make some valid points, there is more to consider in a units value.

Way to just dismiss your failed math attempt earlier. There are exceptions that will change results, like units being hidden out of LOS, but the majority of shooting game wide will be unaffected. And in either case the results would have as much impact on either unit really.

6. You made your motivations very clear. I don't have to guess them. Your stated it!!! Your motivation here is to try and prove that stealth suits are trash as YOU said.

... That isn't even close to what motivation is. Motivation is the "why". I stated stealth suits aren't good which is a "what" claim. I stated why they are bad, which is a "how" claim. You don't know what my motivation is, because I have none. I am not biased in this regard and in fact have conceded on issues such as durability and equipment. If I was just being dismissive I wouldn't bother refuting and making claims that can be shown to be wrong, like statistics.

What is it I need to GUESS at exactly in your motivations? You care if people agree or you'd have dropped it, as would I have. But we do care that the word gets out on this unit because PERHAPS we both have at least one common goal: We want to see more Tau players winning and any advice we can give is toward that end.

the difference is, I provide numbers and comparisons to show other players numbers and facts they can go over and verify and on average what to expect. You flash your winning record and baseless claims. One is helpful the other is misleading.

I'm not even going to quote the last statement because it's all based on the assumption that I haven't given them a shot. That I haven't tried them. That I haven't compared them with other players and their results. How about you ask me how many games I played with them? I garuntee I will give an honest answer towards that. Because I don't mind backing up my claims.

 Kingsley wrote:
It's interesting that you consider a 25% increase in firepower a "mild improvement."

It's not really a 33% increase because they lost targeting arrays (which were also a 33% increase) and the ability to take gun drones on every model.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
It's interesting that you consider a 25% increase in firepower a "mild improvement."

It's not really a 33% increase because they lost targeting arrays (which were also a 33% increase) and the ability to take gun drones on every model.

You're right, instead they're getting the impact of a 5pt TA and a 3pt BSF for free. Oh, and because of that whole issue of having a 4 shot BC be able to potentially land 4 hits, you're getting a higher maximum number of hits for the same number of models.

Yes, they can't take gun drone swarms anymore, but if they were taking DCs to bring along drones they weren't using TAs and BSFs. So you're basically comparing the current 4 shots at BS3 for 30pts against the previous 3 shots at BS3 + 1 shot at TLBS2 for 40pts. You're getting more hits per point with the current suit. Moreover, a current max unit of 6 suits plus 2 drones fires 28 shots, vs 6 suits plus 12 drones at 30 shots. The current max squad costs 214, whereas the previous max squad costs 300. I don't see how being able to spend 86pts more in order to gain 2 additional S5 AP5 shots was such an advantage over the current version.

You're missing the point. I'm not saying that stealth suits didn't get better (they obviously did, even if it's just the gain in point efficiency from having the 33% increase built in instead of a 10 point upgrade), I'm saying that the improvement was much less than 33% because the extra shot is somewhat negated by the loss of two powerful upgrades. Overall it's an improvement, but not a very significant one, and not one that addressed the actual problems with stealth suits.

Veskrashen wrote:

You're right, instead they're getting the impact of a 5pt TA and a 3pt BSF for free. Oh, and because of that whole issue of having a 4 shot BC be able to potentially land 4 hits, you're getting a higher maximum number of hits for the same number of models.

Targetting arrays were 10 points actually. They got the multitracker, which can only be used on the shas'vre with a markerlight, and the BSF. The BSF really is almost a negligible bonus since their weaponry is AP5, with the exception of the limited fusion blasters, and rarely will it come into play. I'd even argue that it's not even really as effective on stealth suits since with the edition change only two markers are needed to reduce all cover. Previously it saved a marker token or two, but now it's questionable. The only situation it really helps is for 5+ hordes being left in the open during night fighting, which is negated if night fighting is in turn 1 and stealth suits are in reserves.

Yes, they can't take gun drone swarms anymore, but if they were taking DCs to bring along drones they weren't using TAs and BSFs. So you're basically comparing the current 4 shots at BS3 for 30pts against the previous 3 shots at BS3 + 1 shot at TLBS2 for 40pts. You're getting more hits per point with the current suit. Moreover, a current max unit of 6 suits plus 2 drones fires 28 shots, vs 6 suits plus 12 drones at 30 shots. The current max squad costs 214, whereas the previous max squad costs 300. I don't see how being able to spend 86pts more in order to gain 2 additional S5 AP5 shots was such an advantage over the current version.

I think I'm getting the numbers mixed up. 6 stealth suits at 30ppm and 10 ppm drones from the previous edition got 300 total.
6 suits without drones and TA ends up being 240 total.
6 stealth with 12 drones get 30 bs3/bs2 and twin-linked shots. Getting on average about 12 hits
6 stealth with TA got about 12 hits.

Currently we get
6 stealth getting 24 shots, and about 12 hits.
with two drones getting about 2 more hits.

current costs runs 180 still for suits with another 24 for drones.
so previously we had:
240 for 12 hits with no drones
300 for 12 hits with drones
compared to now:
204 for 14 hits.

It's actually a significant swing in points for the new version actually.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
The only situation it really helps is for 5+ hordes being left in the open during night fighting

And not very much even then. BCs only have 18" range, so the maximum cover bonus a target could get would be +1, and only in the last 6" of range.

Stealth suits have a place. They aren't a jaw-dropper unit, but they can give some flexibility that I can understand a player enjoying. Unfortunately I think they may be a little less useful now that people have moved to such an Infantry-focused "meta."

just for fun, lets look at suits with dual burst cannons and 6 drones.
I got 228 total for 6 burst cannons and 12 drones.
suits will get the same 24 shots and 12 hits.
Drones will get about 6 more for a total of 18 hits.
Even at volume of S5 fire the crisis suits look like a better deal.

I personally still think that the Piranha is the go to mass S5 firesupport unit. Troops and FA have plenty of sources of S5 while Elite slot would be better suited for the various suit and Riptide varients. Due to the high point cost and the FOC position, I still think they are more of a hinderance.

Thought TAs were cheaper back in the old days, ah well. Also, in order to take drones with the new version, you have to upgrade one of the suits to a 'Vre for 10pts, making it 214 for 14 hits. Still a lot more efficient.

Finally, you get those 14 hits for 214 and still have 6 support systems available to use. Doing so increases the total cost of the unit, of course, but adds additional capabilities.

Re: BSFs - they help against GEQ in cover during night fight as well. They also help with fusion against any target during night fight - those are shots you definitely want maximum effect on. Sure, if you're within melta range then it doesn't matter, but there's the 12-18" range band where it does, and being able to land hits past MEQ/TEQ in cover in later turns of the game is an advantage. And best of all it's free.

One of the main considerations is in fact the fact that they occupy the elite slot. They really seem to fit the fast attack slot better, but alas you work in the context provided.

I don't think that stealth suits are bad per se, but rather that they are not competitive with what you want out of your elite slots.

I get "enough" (can you really ever have enough firepower?) S5 firepower out of firewarriors. I don't feel the need to spend other slots getting it. On the otherhand, you have very minimal anti TEQ or anti AV out of the troops and fast attack slot.

Stealth suits are not a great choice (although I'd hesitate to call them bad, given a proper context) due to the opportunity cost of giving up a crisis suit team or Riptide.

 Dracos wrote:
One of the main considerations is in fact the fact that they occupy the elite slot. They really seem to fit the fast attack slot better, but alas you work in the context provided.

I don't think that stealth suits are bad per se, but rather that they are not competitive with what you want out of your elite slots.

I get "enough" (can you really ever have enough firepower?) S5 firepower out of firewarriors. I don't feel the need to spend other slots getting it. On the otherhand, you have very minimal anti TEQ or anti AV out of the troops and fast attack slot.

Stealth suits are not a great choice (although I'd hesitate to call them bad, given a proper context) due to the opportunity cost of giving up a crisis suit team or Riptide.

"What you want out of your elite slots" is highly dependent on the rest of your list and your playstyle. So, even if most people are probably better off using Riptides or Crisis, there is still reasons to take Stealths in the Elite slot. You're absolutely correct that you can get S5 AP5 by the bucketload in pretty much any FOC slot in the codex. There are only 3 units that can take Homing Beacons - Ethereals, Steaths and PFS - as well as only 3 units that can take Positional Relays - Crisis, Stealths and PFs. You can get both with either Stealths or PFs. Only 3 units have Infiltrate - Stealth, Kroots, and Shadowsun. If you need Infiltrating PosRel or Homing Beacon, a Stealth Suit unit is the only way to get it. If you want Deep Striking Homing Beacons, Stealths are the only way to get it. If you want Infiltrating Fusion Blasters then it's Shadowsun solo or with Stealths.

So again, it's more than just "what guns can I take in this slot and how efficiently does it kill things". There's other factors at play that may override the desire or conventional wisdom to use your Elite slots solely for Riptides and Crisis.

Lumipon wrote:
^ I agree.

Not being able to take drones on Stealth Suits is probably a bigger nerf than all the buffs they got.

A drone cloud was massively annoying and somewhat potent against DE. Immune to DL and not as vulnerable to poison, and could glance the vehicles to death, as they were made of paper and chewing gum.

But alas, you can only take 2 drones now (and only with the 'vre upgrade(?)), which makes every failed save a hefty loss.

And if you want durable S5 fire, you could take a Crisis with dual BC and a stim-injector for 57 points, but god knows why you would need something like that.

Stealthclouds were indeed awsome and highly uinderrated by many.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You say that the success with Stealthsuitsd cant be repeatable. I watched a guy use the exact build I told him to tonight and he rolled his IG opponent who had 3 Griffons, 2 Basilisks and 2 Demolishers in the list.

This has been done. It will be done again. Just not by SavageConvoy.. That's fine. Just try to understand that when you get beaten by it, it wasn't an illusion. and if you win with it (and you clearly haven't) that also will not be an illusion.

Well, okay, here's a counterpoint - I use Fire Warriors fairly effectively as long-range anti-tank and anti-flyer. They've taken down more rhinos, chimeras, IG artillery, russes, and flyers than my hammerheads ever have, all without ever using EMP grenades. Then again, the genius who I play against sometimes shows me av10 with those vehicles because I'm probably a hereditary predecessor to Creed (tactics lol). The damage and distraction my FW do, paired with their scoring ability, versatility, and great survivability (can g2g for 3+ cover in most cases) means that FW are my best flank harassers. With a devilfish, they even kick some booty against foot-borne MEQ types. And even still, when there's literally 150 termagants on the table against me, I'm probably going to lose every single time because getting through that many fearless fnp bodies is really not going to happen any time soon.

My current Tau list is 9-0, against 7 different Generals. In those games, KROOt have killed more vehicles than ANY of my other units (taken singularly). My last game, they blew a StormRaven out of the sky. My opponent was NOT amused.

So there are many ways to skin the cat. And that's what I am enjoying so much about the new Tau. Such diversity in how you can play them.

 Jancoran wrote:

You say that the success with Stealthsuitsd cant be repeatable. I watched a guy use the exact build I told him to tonight and he rolled his IG opponent who had 3 Griffons, 2 Basilisks and 2 Demolishers in the list.

Unless you're planning on sharing the details about what happened, including the list compositions and how the units performed, then your statement is useless. You just said that someone used stealth suits and won a game. Congrats. That has absolutely no tactical information in it, and again you're making a claim that sounds like stealth suits can be incredibly powerful without describing how they can be. It's entirely dishonest if you won't provide evidence of the claim outside of the anecdote.

This has been done. It will be done again. Just not by SavageConvoy.. That's fine. Just try to understand that when you get beaten by it, it wasn't an illusion. and if you win with it (and you clearly haven't) that also will not be an illusion.

that was an entirely pointless comment. You're making the same assumptions that I haven't used stealth suits or played against them. You make the claims that stealth suits are amazing and game winning, yet can't back it up. You tried to say that we just don't understand because we have to use tactics and strategy with them, like the entire game doesn't revolve around that and we have never heard of the concept. You refuse the experience of others, and won't even ask, but flaunt your own. You deny that averages even factor into this, and dishonestly gave weighted numbers in your examples by giving stealth suits BS5 and not granting the same to Kroot and ignoring effects like rending on sniper rifles. Really the only thing you've even put forward to try and support your claims is the assumption that I haven't tried them, I've never faced them, I haven't seen others use them, and I never asked how they worked for other people. You never even asked me, when I told you that I would provide an honest answer. But more importantly than my personal experience I've offered the comparisons and averages, I am attempting to provide evidence so that other players can look at the information and compare it for themselves to come to an informed conclusion. You have only offered the point that players try them, and if they don't work like you propose then they are using them wrong.

 Jancoran wrote:
My current Tau list is 9-0, against 7 different Generals. In those games, KROOt have killed more vehicles than ANY of my other units (taken singularly). My last game, they blew a StormRaven out of the sky. My opponent was NOT amused.

So there are many ways to skin the cat. And that's what I am enjoying so much about the new Tau. Such diversity in how you can play them.

I don't believe your story about the kroot unless your bring krootox. Without krootox you need something like 80 kroot shots to wreck a stormraven. And this is not a viable use for kroot. Stop using mathmatically extreme stories to attempt to prove poijts.

Okay I will give you the information on his game. As I have done the same kind of list I'll give you more than that.

Game was Kill Points. Tau sporting 3 Stealth units, 2 Stingwing units, some Broadsides and 3 Fire Warriors, 1 kroot. Drone swarm, commander, Ethereal,

Imperial Guard using Leman Russ's, Plasmaguard in chimeras, an IG blob , with Space Wolf allies. Allies were stationed at the edges, in anticipation of a heavy flank attack, which was inevitable of course. IG Lemans were ready to blast the Stealthsuits after their first turn. IG vets in the center so they could respond to either side depending on which side the Tau outflanked to. Drop Pod in reserve with, I think, Arjac and his buddies.

The stealth suits all infiltrated to one side, while the rest of the army was placed the opposite side entirely, pincer style. Stingwings were in reserve as were Kroot.

Rnd 1:
Space Wolves were wiped on the western flank by two of the Stealth units with Markerlight support. Third unit killed a Chimera and the Plasmavets tumbled out, pinned.
Broadsides knocked out a Chimera, no pinning.
First blood and Linebreaker acheived.

IG fired all their Large blasts at the Stealth teams. but they had retreated into large circles and cover made them nearly unkillable. Scatter was minimal, but costly, given how spread out they were able to be with no wolves in the way and no reprisal from the Vets possible. IG blob fired into the Stealthsuits as much as they could BUT basically the net result was, they killed half of the one squad and a couple drones from another. No shots were able to go downrange to the Broadsides etc... Drop pod did come in and Arjac and friends tried to kill the Broadsides with shooting.

In Round 2
The Stingwings dropped in and the Stealthsuits moved forward.Two Leman Russ's went down to Melta fire and a side shot from the Broadsides combined. The IG vets were killed to a man by the Fire warriors and the Kroot as well as the Stingwings.

Bit of bad luck, as the Ig landed a nice shot and obliterated the damaged Stealth unit. Blob got equally lucky, forcing another to run with just three casualties. Some Stingwings also got caught in the fire storm and went down, but they held. Overall a very good round for the IG. Arjac and his friends killed the Broadsides outright, but lostal most the entire squad to defensive supporting fire. Only Arjac and four Marines survived the experience. By winning so handily, they were out in the open however.

Round 3:
The Stealthsuits regrouped and with Markerlight help, were able to do some damage to the blob, while the second unit did a serious number on them, killing 12 in one go! The Remaining Stingwings brought the pain as well, cutting down the Command Squad to a man. the badly damaged Stingwings killed a PCS by shooting and then charging them.
Arjac and friends died to insane rapidfiring.

The Vindetta came in and tried to snipe the Command Suit but the one drone between him and death took it like a champ. The unit that DS'd out the back tried to kill more Marker drones and hit pretty well. Made their morale check. The Blob decided to charge the Stingwings and hopefully stay in close combat. It worked. the Blob did not kill all the Stingwings and the Stingwings stod their ground despite losing.

Round 4:
The Fire Warriors advanced, and fired at the DS unit, cutting it down to 2 guys and making them flee.
The Stealthunits charged the IG blob, and together with the remaining Stingwings, finished their much weakened numbers. Blob gone.

The Ig conceded. The Vindetta was still in the sky but had nothing to kill. A running vet squad wasn't coming back but on double 1's. The small unit of flanking Spacewolves on the other side were never going to make it anywhere near anyone.

Had the game continued I think the Tau would have tabled the enemy except the Vindetta which would be a crap shoot. The Kroot can shoot it down but its no guarantee.

So overall a very impressive win.

That was the most recent game I saw Stealthsuits in. Im obviously not the player in question, so I dont have the lists to look at but it was pretty memorable. The flank crumpled, and kept crumpling. Relying on large blasts to kill big circled-out units is a non starter and the Plasma guard would have been great for the job and did do damage, but for their Chimeras being made of paper meche on the sides.









Automatically Appended Next Post:

Coyote81 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
My current Tau list is 9-0, against 7 different Generals. In those games, KROOt have killed more vehicles than ANY of my other units (taken singularly). My last game, they blew a StormRaven out of the sky. My opponent was NOT amused.

So there are many ways to skin the cat. And that's what I am enjoying so much about the new Tau. Such diversity in how you can play them.

I don't believe your story about the kroot unless your bring krootox. Without krootox you need something like 80 kroot shots to wreck a stormraven. And this is not a viable use for kroot. Stop using mathmatically extreme stories to attempt to prove poijts.

I use krootox. So now you can beleive my story. All 9 of them. Lol.

My current list is as follows. Please note that this is not my new version which Im still constructing, just the one I was using to test things:
170pts 10 Kroot +7 Hounds+3 Krootox
170pts 10 Kroot +7 Hounds+3 Krootox


90pts 10 Fire Warriors
90pts 10 Fire Warriors


194pts 7 Pathfinders (3 x Rail rifles, Recon, Grav and Pulse Drones, EMP Grenades)
95pts Devilfish (Disruption Pod)


194pts 7 Pathfinders (3 x Rail rifles, Recon, Grav and Pulse Drones, EMP Grenades)
95pts Devilfish (Disruption Pod)


140pts 10 Marker Drones


150pts Commander (Flamer, Vectored Retro Thrusters, Drone Controller, Command and Control Node, Repulsor Impact Field, Neuroweb System Jammer, Puretide Engram NeuroChip, Onager Gauntlet)


235pts Riptide battle suit (Ion Accelerator, 1 Missile Drones, Velocity Tracker, Early Warning Override)


235pts Riptide battle suit (Ion Accelerator, 1 Missile Drones, Velocity Tracker, Early Warning Override)


139pts 3 Crisis Suits (TL Fusion Blaster, Flamer)


1999pts



Automatically Appended Next Post:

uberjoras wrote:
Well, okay, here's a counterpoint - I use Fire Warriors fairly effectively as long-range anti-tank and anti-flyer. .

Do you mean Flyuing Monstrous Creatures? Not a LOT of flyers go down to STR 5. Tau obviously would make you shine though.

Wow... That was effective. Never silenced a thread for two days before. Lol.

You should have waited weeks or months until someone necro'd it before posting. I think everyone, myself included, have given up whining to try new things with Tau or make new houserules to make it work.

And I just have ridiculous luck taking pot shots at flyers and side/rear armor of vehicles. My fire warriors can't hit infantry worth a darn, but they really hate av11 vehicles.

whining or winning? Lol.

I am just amused that so much was made of me "showing" the circumstances of the win I saw with Stealthsuits even though, really... It really wasn't that ground breaking. When you look at it, the victory made sense. Good plan, good execution. I told him exactly how to do it, his opponent knew it was coming and couldn't stop it.

So I figured that once I explained it, showed the example and the list I am using now, they'd tell me something like this: "oh but but but but but..." But no. To their credit, they didn't.

This is a tactics thread though, so I think it is worth exploring these kinds of ideas, maybe on its own thread, with a somewhat more open minded approach..

I do want to try stealth suits sometime. They're just a bit contrary to my usual mantra of "I already have enough s5" because I run 30+ FW's in every list. I need to find a good way to utilize them.

Well this is one.

The queston for you doesn't seem to be "should I have STR 5" because you already have it in there (30 FW's). the question is "WHERE do I want the STR 5?"

And then realize that the STr 5 comes with 18" STR 8 Melta. It changes things a bit. So does where you can deploy it ANd how tough it is to kill. It provides antitank ability but a lot more as well.

As in the case of this little battle I watched, you can obviously see that infiltrating and going first proved devastating. The enemy couldn't plan for where the stealthsuits might be, They were able to take the "weak side", wipe it out and spread out, then use dead hulls for cover as they progressed through the enemy. That's what happened. I think that, in the end, WHERE the fussilade came from was WHY it was successful.

Think of Stealth suits as REPOSITIONABLE fire warriors if it helps.

People keep comparing crisis and stealth stats and guns, and forget to take into consideration their abilities.

Stealth+Shroud is nice and all, but its not the reason to take stealths, just a nice defensive buff.

You take stealths so you can infiltrate. infiltrating fusion at the very least will force your opponent's deployment into a more defensive formation around their armor, infiltrating burst cannons can grab early midfield presence.

Mathammer is nice and all, but tactics are still a part of this game, and as far tactics are concerned, stealth are more versatile, and have a bigger impact on deployment.


Imagin you are an IG player, and you see the enemy Tau infiltarte 2 teams of stealth suits, each with 4 bursts and 2 target-lock fusions.

How safe do you feel about going reserve-heavy now?
How safe do you feel to deploy the russes up front?
How safe do you feel about leaving the artillery in the corner while your main force is up front?
How safe do you feel to place the ADL outside your deployment zone and run for it first turn?

Not very much, I assure you.


Sure, it only works for some players, but the ones who loves it, LOVES it.

Yeah thats what happened in the battle report above. Well... Battle summary anyways.

The silence is due to giving up trying to reason with a brick wall. you gave us a story that once again included a player winning because of extraordinary dice rolls. this is the last math I will do for a while.

-10 grey hunters
- two units of 6 stealthsuits with 2 meltas each. @ BS5 due to marker support

4 melta shots hitting on 2's and wounding on 2's: we'll round up to 3 dead marines Assuming no cover saves from markerlights

8 suits with 4 shots = 32shots each hitting on 2's
32 x (5/6) = 26.7 hits
26.7 hits wound on 3's: 27.6 x 2/3 = 17.8 wounds
17.8 wound fail on 1's and 2's: 17.8 x 1/3= 5.9 wounds (round to 6)

In total 9 dead marines, pretty good, but lets brake down the points.

Marines: 10 Grey Hunters 2x Plasmagun, Wolfstandard, Power Axe 185pts

Tau needed to almost kill them.

- 2x unit of 6 stealthsuits with 2s Fusion Blaster 380pts
- 16 Pathfinders (needed 8 markerlights to give BS5 and ignore cover saves to both units) 126pts
( I'll give you the benefit of having the drone swarm and commander instead. 10 drones plus one commander with dc, 2x mpods. thats 259pts instead.
Total of 506pts (639pts)

Is this really your argument? This a great strategy because over 600pts of Tau can kill 9 space marines in one turn? this is why the thread has been silent. You can't argue things are a good strategy base strictly on results, you have to take how they impact your army as a whole. If you have over 600pts aiming at one unit that costs less then 200pts, your being very inefficient with your units and you may kill that one unit, but if your enemy can eliminate your units with better efficiency on his turn, he's one the point battle. Why not build your list better and use units that kill marine more efficiently then stealthsuits with marker support therefore minimizing the points you need to kill those marines.

The main reason I don't like your comment and stories, is because I feel they teach people that are new to playing Tau very bad habits. They can be over come sometimes by great generalship and sound tactics. but in the end, New people need to learn sound list building before anything else. Because being a good general and learning tactics comes by playing. list building is something that can be taught, and I feel your ideas teach these new people to start off on a bad foot.

No offense meant, you might be a great general and have sound tactics, but the list (your list?) in the story is very inefficient and put the player behind as the game begins.

there were three units. Not two, math wiz. Gun drones too.

It happened. pretending that math will make it go away is a fools errand.
Oh and um...this IS a tactics thread...not a list building thread. Just thgought I'd remind you of that as well.

 Jancoran wrote:
there were three units. Not two, math wiz. Gun drones too.

that makes his point better. It took over three times the cost of the unit you killed to take them down, and you argue that "no! It costed way more!".

It happened. pretending that math will make it go away is a fools errand.

.... Wasn't pretending that the math doesn't work your argument? You were the one saying that math doesn't work and can't be used. So wouldn't that be your errand?

 Jancoran wrote:
there were three units. Not two, math wiz. Gun drones too.

It happened. pretending that math will make it go away is a fools errand.
Oh and um...this IS a tactics thread...not a list building thread. Just thought I'd remind you of that as well.

Thanks for making my point. The points cost need to kill a simple 10 man was too high.

I'm sorry that you don't relate list building and tactics together. But I've learned over the years, that you have to do your list building as you plan your strategy and vice-verse. Doing one without the other is a waste of time. And that is what we're really talking about here right? Strategy? The tactic are the moves you plan on making once you've seen the enemy and the battlefield your playing on. Going too in depth on tactics specifically is a waste of time due to the wide variety of situations people could encounter.

I believe with Tau, the key to winning is managing your firepower to most efficiently destroy your opponents army. Sure you can spend of 600pts with any unit and kill space marines, but wouldn't you rather plan to only have to use 300pts to kill those same space marines? I think this is the key thing your missing and refusing to acknowledge and/or explain how your "tactics" are remotely efficient.

Oh and about the math. If I get struck by lightning, yea it happened, but the math doesn't disappear and the likelihood of that happening again is still extraordinary, I can't count on getting hit by lightning every time.

And you wonder why I didn't bother humoring your requests for information on the battle.

How many of those Stealth units were wiped or fleeing at games end Savageconvoy? Did you count them? Let me help you: ZERO stealth units dead or fleeing. Only the Broadsides were completely wiped. So he probably doesnt CARE if it took 600 points to kill a 2000 point army any more than IG care if it takes them 3x200 point leman Russ Plasmacutioners to stomp someone! You think that disappoints him in the LEAST?

You sir are worried about the WRONG thing entirely,

So heres some math: IG lost 1600 points in units (Vendetta and some Space Wolves left, and a Drop Pod, plus I think some vets) Tau lost 140 in total units, close as i can tell.

None of it looks very lucky to me. they killed the Marines (expected with so much shooting). Then the Leman Squadron with Broadside help (expected, not in any way shocking)... then whittled the blob and company (again, expected). then finished the blob. Seems like it went pretty much how you'd expect. Stingwings threw their two cents in, would have been more useful against Marines and I am sure it's why he had them.

Even if I agreed with your kind of math, and told you you're 100% right... It works. You can argue that its inefficient til the cows come home if thats your thing. Doesn't change what happened and what will happn again.

Can't win em all, but a Stealthy flank attack is pretty darn scary. I've seen it. I respect it. Choose to underestimate it at your own peril, friend.

When you win games like that. I blame your opponent for making mistakes.

I believe with Tau, the key to winning is managing your firepower to most efficiently destroy your opponents army. Sure you can spend of 600pts with any unit and kill space marines, but wouldn't you rather plan to only have to use 300pts to kill those same space marines? I think this is the key thing your missing and refusing to acknowledge and/or explain how your "tactics" are remotely efficient.

What 300 points of Tau Kills 10 Space Marines in one salvo.

Go ahead. I'll wait. Don't worry though, the answer is pretty irrelevant.

What Jancoran and others are trying to illuminate to you is that the unit is capable of threatening different aspect of the board and changing the way the opponent deploys, how they react to certain things, opening up opportunities for you to exploit their mistakes. And please, for the love of God, don't tell me that tired line the good Generals don't make mistakes. They all do. Napolean did, and he trips over the higher level thinking of most 40k "generals."

Just killing stuff slightly more efficiently doesn't win you games. Killing the right unit at the right time, and positioning the board in the right way, wins you games. 40k is not a "shooting game" despite what novice generals will tell you. 40k is a game of positioning. Games are won and lost during the movement phase and during deployment. Two phases the Stealth suits do quite well in. No amount of math hammering point efficiencies can make that any clearer. You are either experienced with disruption units, like Mutilators, Mandrakes, Flayed Ones, Lone Wolfs, Soladins, or Stealth teams, or you are not. If you are experienced with them and both understand the difficult decisions it places on your opponent as well as the flexible options it gives you, you understand that what they do goes far beyond their shear in a vacuum two units shooting at each other thought experiments.

Now, are these units you want to max out and spend half your points on? No. I would say as a general rule ~10-15% of your list dedicated to flexible distraction is generally sufficient. The rest can go towards your math hammered perfectly efficient pewpew. But I can't say this enough. Take a unit or two of these consistently and learn how to make your opponents life difficult with them. They will make you a better general and you will win more games that way.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Coyote81 wrote:
When you win games like that. I blame your opponent for making mistakes.

That's the disconnect. The assuming every opponent is perfect and doesn't make mistakes. That's a myth. A fantasy. These people don't exist. Everyone makes mistakes, and some units, particularly ones people don't interact with a lot, force more mistakes then others.

 Jancoran wrote:
And you wonder why I didn't bother humoring your requests for information on the battle.

Yeah, how dare I ask that you provide some evidence for a claim. I should have just let you say whatever you wanted and accept it as fact.

How many of those Stealth units were wiped or fleeing at games end Savageconvoy? Did you count them? Let me help you: ZERO

hmm... Zero... That's odd, because I thought you said

Bit of bad luck, as the Ig landed a nice shot and obliterated the damaged Stealth unit.

oh wait. That's right, because you did. Way to go, math wiz.

Coyote81 wrote:
When you win games like that. I blame your opponent for making mistakes.

Ooooooooh. I seeeeeeee. For eight years, that's what that was. A contstant stream of mistakes made by players in multiple states and countries.

You're probably right.

Aaaanyways... it might be good for you to remember that this wasn't my game anyways. I just told him how to do it. And I told his opponent what was coming, just to make it hard. He said all the same things you have. Didn't help his case I'm afraid. Fun to watch though.

The thread was originally in regards to the codex being a pile of Feth, and my central point was that it certainly was not and look at all these great options you can try, this being ONE of them. Pointed out my own list, which is nothing like it. My central point remains the same. He can win with Stealths. I can win with Pathfinder awesomeness and a couple riptides. You can win with...uh...math and Savage convoy can win with condescension and glittering generalities backed by math! There's a way to fight for everyone here in the new codex and it will not be boring.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
And you wonder why I didn't bother humoring your requests for information on the battle.

Yeah, how dare I ask that you provide some evidence for a claim. I should have just let you say whatever you wanted and accept it as fact.

How many of those Stealth units were wiped or fleeing at games end Savageconvoy? Did you count them? Let me help you: ZERO

hmm... Zero... That's odd, because I thought you said

Bit of bad luck, as the Ig landed a nice shot and obliterated the damaged Stealth unit.

oh wait. That's right, because you did. Way to go, math wiz.

yup, one., thats right.

Changes my point ALOT. Oh wait. nope. been a while since I read that thing so you'll excuse my poor memory on that point. Or not. I don;t care. I gave you the "proof" or example you asked for with predictable results from you.

ShadarLogoth wrote:

I believe with Tau, the key to winning is managing your firepower to most efficiently destroy your opponents army. Sure you can spend of 600pts with any unit and kill space marines, but wouldn't you rather plan to only have to use 300pts to kill those same space marines? I think this is the key thing your missing and refusing to acknowledge and/or explain how your "tactics" are remotely efficient.

What 300 points of Tau Kills 10 Space Marines in one salvo.

Go ahead. I'll wait. Don't worry though, the answer is pretty irrelevant.

What Jancoran and others are trying to illuminate to you is that the unit is capable of threatening different aspect of the board and changing the way the opponent deploys, how they react to certain things, opening up opportunities for you to exploit their mistakes. And please, for the love of God, don't tell me that tired line the good Generals don't make mistakes. They all do. Napolean did, and he trips over the higher level thinking of most 40k "generals."

Just killing stuff slightly more efficiently doesn't win you games. Killing the right unit at the right time, and positioning the board in the right way, wins you games. 40k is not a "shooting game" despite what novice generals will tell you. 40k is a game of positioning. Games are won and lost during the movement phase and during deployment. Two phases the Stealth suits do quite well in. No amount of math hammering point efficiencies can make that any clearer. You are either experienced with disruption units, like Mutilators, Mandrakes, Flayed Ones, Lone Wolfs, Soladins, or Stealth teams, or you are not. If you are experienced with them and both understand the difficult decisions it places on your opponent as well as the flexible options it gives you, you understand that what they do goes far beyond their shear in a vacuum two units shooting at each other thought experiments.

Now, are these units you want to max out and spend half your points on? No. I would say as a general rule ~10-15% of your list dedicated to flexible distraction is generally sufficient. The rest can go towards your math hammered perfectly efficient pewpew. But I can't say this enough. Take a unit or two of these consistently and learn how to make your opponents life difficult with them. They will make you a better general and you will win more games that way..

So 300pts of Tau was a comparison statement, not a fact, but i can come up with a more efficient setup then that if you want. something around 400pts and doesn't use 4 force org slots as well. Here you go since you need fact and not comparison statements.

Unit 1: 3x Crisis Suits 2x suits with 2x plasma rifles, 6x marker drones, sha'vre with C&C node, MSS, Drone controller (Feel free to add a third option of your choice to the first two suits)

Unit 2: 3x Crisis Suits 3x suits with 2x plasma rifles

You can do the math, but unit one fires, kills 5 marines @12" and puts 3 marker lights on the target. Unit 2 fires, use BS4 and no cover saves, @12" it kills 6-7 marines.

Total 419pts. 2 force org slots, for 10pts more, you can split fire the markers at one unit and the plasma rifles at another.

This is a prime example of effciency. These units can still deepstrike if needed. Kills half as many guys from 24".

Ok, back to the meat of the discussion.

Having played armies that require a lot more finesse and use of distractions, feints and other such ploys for 10+ years (Woodelves). I can tell you that these ideas are not lost on me. (Hench my love of kroot over firewarriors, I bring some of each and shadowsun outflanking units that normally can't, from the back table edge using stealthsuits to deliever position relay) your ideas are sound, but you can't do it at the expense of making an efficient list as well. It's all one big puzzle and the pieces need to fit. Bringing a bad list and saying you can when by being a better general means that when you play a player that is just as good as you. (Often happens when playing tournament level games) Which ever person brings the more efficient list for the type of game, often is the one the wins the game. Thus why i preach for people to learn how to make efficient lists. Once you have that you can learn tactics. just assume each opponent is a pro (so you don't under estimate them) and then your wins will come easier and easier.

Yes there is more to it then comparing two untis using math, but specific field tactics are much hard to show on a forum, thus unit comparison is what things normally break down to. My orignal arugement about this stealth setup is to use more efficient units that do the same thing. Which includes disruption tactics. That is exactly how I use Kroot Blobs, shadowsun escorted units, and deepstrikers.

Stealthsuits are good disruption units, but so are Kroot/shadowsun/piranha. I just think that the stealthsuits are the least efficient of these. Hopefully that futher explains my part of the arguement, and maybe you guys can respond with more then. "It takes tactics to use them correctly, you jsut don't see it" Imo, thats the truth of everything in warhammer. If you don't use proper tactics, the even the more efficient unit is worthless.

Regardless of the specifics of stealth suit's performance, I do think they could have a role in a Tau army - they just might be in the wrong slot or cost a bit much for what they do. Stealth suit troops would be pretty incredible, even at 30 points. I would probably take a unit of 6 just to replace 12FW + d-fish, because tactically they *are* pretty useful to have.

Right now though, Elite slots are really important to stuff melta/ap2 into, since you don't really get it anywhere else in the codex besides snipers or suicide piranhas. If I come up against a tough army that doesn't care about my skirmishers one bit - like 20+ terminators, or paladins, or IG blobs in front of cover-ignoring artillery, or a lucky roll on divination for perfect timing on almost any libby, or just straight up drop pods - then I need some tough, efficient dudes that can kill those threats immediately, not whittle them down over 3+ turns. Hammernators nearby my scoring troops need an immediate answer, not 'oh well if I kill one every turn, they'll go away eventually...' Crisis suits (and riptides) do provide that answer, Stealths don't really do that as well. Stealths aren't as scary as a Riptide, nor as tanky either, so they're just not going to divert as much attention/firepower as a riptide will. They don't have as much pure killy as crisis suits have, and take about the same punishment as crisis suits do from small arms fire point-for-point.

But that's coming from me, who doesn't really play tournaments, and whose local meta has shifted towards heavy mech, terminators, & blobs instead of towards basic infantry.

When you throw superlatives on the table it sort of is in poor faith.

I know of no "worthless unit". Haven't seen one.

Don't play 'em if you don't think you can win with 'em. I can. others have as you can see.What more can i tell ya'

 Jancoran wrote:
When you throw superlatives on the table it sort of is in poor faith.

I know of no "worthless unit". Haven't seen one.

Don't play 'em if you don't think you can win with 'em. I can. others have as you can see.What more can i tell ya'

I agree with this completely. Nothing irks me more when people trample on the English language in a rather futile attempt to further validate their point.

There isn't a single unit in the game that is truly "worthless." Sub optimal? Maybe. But never, ever, worthless. "Non competitive" is almost as bad, particularly when you've seen first hand said "non competitive" unit...compete.

I also love it when "non competitive" units win its always because of luck, or bad opponents, or bad scenarios, or bad tournaments, but never, ever, because of a bad initial appraisal by the speaker.

ShadarLogoth wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
When you throw superlatives on the table it sort of is in poor faith.

I know of no "worthless unit". Haven't seen one.

Don't play 'em if you don't think you can win with 'em. I can. others have as you can see.What more can i tell ya'

I agree with this completely. Nothing irks me more when people trample on the English language in a rather futile attempt to further validate their point.

There isn't a single unit in the game that is truly "worthless." Sub optimal? Maybe. But never, ever, worthless. "Non competitive" is almost as bad, particularly when you've seen first hand said "non competitive" unit...compete.

I also love it when "non competitive" units win its always because of luck, or bad opponents, or bad scenarios, or bad tournaments, but never, ever, because of a bad initial appraisal by the speaker.

Quoted for Truth.

What am I supposed to do, give all my medlas and awards and prizes back now because the wins were invalidated by math? I mean should I apologize ot all my victims and say "naw man I was joking, here's yer Gift cert dude" and buy him a beer to make up for my years of delusion.

When someone is trying to teach you how to do something new, its usually better to listen, especially when it comes to a new codex that no one here should be claiming to have mastered yet. Might accidentally l;earn something. Who knows.

@ Jancoran You are acting pretty self obsessed, and making some terrible assumtion that your acting teaching me something I didn't already know. I guess I'm wrong and should throw out all my medal and certs. Maybe even some of my models since those were rewards for my various tourney wins. (I can act self important too)

The term worthless was used once, and in a situation that applied. I still stand on my idea that any unit, no matter how good or bad, used inappropriately becomes worthless for the situation. Never did I say any one unit was worthless. Please read deeper. I'd like to have a discussion and from those I do learn things but you guys don't give me anything to work with.

I also make the habit of playing with every unit I can in a codex multiple times to get a feel for their ability and usefullness. Over time i find which units I like and tend to stick to them, they might not be what most people like, but they work for my play style and I find them efficient and effective. I guess the same is true for each person, therefore they can choose to use whatever units they want. i'm just trying to give them hard evidence in comparing one unti to another.

@Jancoran If you don't have anything to discuss other then acting self important and telling me to learn someting about tactics. (Even though you have no background on me) Please refrain from responding to my threads so I can have a real discussion on stealthsuits and their merits.

You dont want to have a real discussion about stealth suits and their merits. You want someone to agree with you that they aren't as good as the alternatives and Savageconvoy would have us beleive Kroot are better at the job! Literally said so. That is what you want. and any less than total capitulation on the point will not satisfy you. All i want is for folks to TRY them, as they, aLONG WITH Cirsis Teams and Riptides are valuable Elite selections. I dont NEED to villify the other selections to find value in this one, as you have sort of taken the tact of doing.

So I dont think you have any intention of a good faith discourse. That train came off the rails a long time ago. I can requote all the superlatives and glittering generalities I've heard thus far, if you'd like (they are right there after all) and condense them into one post. Or you can agree that MAYBE you overstated things a bit. Words like "worthless", and "inefficient" and "Overcosted" and so on have no meaning. They just SOUND good to someone...Until they see the devastation those can do. And then...well... You starty to come around after seeing it a few times.

All I've attempted here is to both explain and even give an example, of how it works and why a "shooting range" isn't the game we're playing.

I've attempted on a thread that ISNT about stealth suits, on a tactics thread, to show you that the codex isn't a steaming pile as the OP says it is. It is posessed of a lot of ways to win and play now. Heres ONE.

That was the premise ALL ALONG. Stealthsuits were one example.

Do not PRETEND to be a voice of reason here. You've taken evidence of succcess and essentially ignored it. That is not the sign of a good faith discussion. Not at all.

I dunno, Mandrakes, Flayed Ones,... I can think of plenty worthless units, so overshadowed by other options (and the cost of the models!) that taking them would be a fool's decision.

I don't think anything like that exists in the new Tau dex save maybe Vespids. They might still work... but they seem worthless to me.

Gun drone squadrons, re-fitted with shield generators. Why bury an IC in a unit when you can get a whole other unit to bury him in, that takes a FA slot, and costs more than simply buying shield drones as wargear?

Now THAT is worthless.

uberjoras wrote:
Gun drone squadrons, re-fitted with shield generators. Why bury an IC in a unit when you can get a whole other unit to bury him in, that takes a FA slot, and costs more than simply buying shield drones as wargear?

Now THAT is worthless.

Well yeah if the entire squad was shield drones,

that would be like taking a crisis suit team with only EWO. you can do it but whats the point

I think that's what I'm going to use in every army from now on. 36 shield drones and 9 crisis suits + commander with 2 shield drones each. Everyone will chill out on a skyshield landing pad, while skyrays and aun'va charge ahead for the greater good, supported on the flanks with min-sized carbine FW's.


... And if I win, then it just proves those units are optimal, and you're all wrong

9 Broadsides and 12 Missile Drones. It is so disgustingly powerful. I played against Nids and killed 4 MCs in one turn (they all had either IA or Endurance).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I used:
Ethereal
Ethereal
2x 20 Kroot - 1 Hound
20 Kroot
19 Kroot
2x 10 Kroot
7 Pathfinder
7 Pathfinder
7 Pathfinder
3x 3 Broadside - HYMP, 4 Drones Each Squad
2x Riptide with HBC and SMS

LValx wrote:
9 Broadsides and 12 Missile Drones. It is so disgustingly powerful. I played against Nids and killed 4 MCs in one turn (they all had either IA or Endurance).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I used:
Ethereal
Ethereal
2x 20 Kroot - 1 Hound
20 Kroot
19 Kroot
2x 10 Kroot
7 Pathfinder
7 Pathfinder
7 Pathfinder
3x 3 Broadside - HYMP, 4 Drones Each Squad
2x Riptide with HBC and SMS

Interesting composition, but it looks awfully unbalanced to me. Are there other upgrades that I'm missing on some of those units?