An interesting rewrite, though my personal opinion is that the ability should either be:

-The attack just works the same as a shooting attack, using Ballistic Skill, getting the advantages of Marker Lights, etc etc etc, and you CAN NOT use any Crisis weapon in melee that you've already used that player turn to shoot, overwatch, etc.

or

-The attack is counted as a melee attack, using Weapon Skill, and simply changes the weapon to range "melee" rather than what the range normally is, and you CAN use crisis weapons in melee that you've already used that player turn.

One of the two seems to make the most sense to me. personally I still like the first - it achieves the thing that tau cannot currently do, clear models off of objectives and then have their unit standing on that objective, in exchange for exposing their units to the risks inherent in being in engagement range of enemy units, namely, those units get a chance to fight back. And what it DOESNT do is increase the overall firepower of the unit if they charge into melee.

I don't think the problem with Tau is that they lack damage. Their weapons need a slight bump to help deal with the new marine wounds stat, shift some things like missile pods from D3 to 2, make rail weapons more useful/reliable like 3d3 damage rather than d6+maybe a MW, stuff like that, but I don't think the problem with Tau is that Flamers can't fight twice if the crisis suit unit charges in.

At least, looking at current tournament Tau lists that make heavy use of Farsight Enclave flamer crisis suits, it doesnt seem to me like that's the problem tau have atm, the problem is that they can't play the missions well, securing objectives and scoring points is very very very hard.

 the_scotsman wrote:
An interesting rewrite, though my personal opinion is that the ability should either be:

-The attack just works the same as a shooting attack, using Ballistic Skill, getting the advantages of Marker Lights, etc etc etc, and you CAN NOT use any Crisis weapon in melee that you've already used that player turn to shoot, overwatch, etc.

or

-The attack is counted as a melee attack, using Weapon Skill, and simply changes the weapon to range "melee" rather than what the range normally is, and you CAN use crisis weapons in melee that you've already used that player turn.

Yeah, I originally tried writing it up as the second version, but ran into... well, it takes a Fire Warrior with a pulse carbine from one attack at WS5+, S3, to... one attack at WS5+, S5. It's just barely worth mentioning as a buff. It also means you need to rewrite every single T'au mechanic that references shooting attacks, shooting, ranged weapons, or ranged attacks - which is most of them, for obvious reasons. I tried reworking it as "don't use the Attacks characteristic, use the weapon's Type" but it just got insanely awkward.

The reason I went with the first version, but kept the Weapon Skill change, is that I'd personally like to avoid it being a flat "melee buff" for T'au, if that makes sense? It also "feels" more appropriate for T'au to being using Weapon Skill when they're struggling in melee. I'd actually prefer for it to allow shoot-then-charge-then-shoot, honestly, for that extra, fragile dynamism. Hell, I'd be down with using Ballistic Skill, but restricting Crisis weapons to working when charging/performing a HI. You could avoid hinky Crisis Suit interactions by just making them VEHICLES, like they ought to be.

Well, either way, you can use that same wording and just drop the second bullet point (or the third, in my case).

Why not just make battlesuits vehicles? Like that other tread is suggesting. Then they can fire heavy weapons with no penalties and shoot non-blast weapons into close combat.

Battlesuits are piloted after all. They're basically fancy sentinels.

Jarms48 wrote:
Why not just make battlesuits vehicles? Like that other tread is suggesting. Then they can fire heavy weapons with no penalties and shoot non-blast weapons into close combat.

Battlesuits are piloted after all. They're basically fancy sentinels.

the principle problem that's currently plaguing Tau (and any army lacking particularly efficient melee choices, like Guard, Thousand Sons and Eldar to some extent) is that the missions in 9th edition require you to START your turn standing on an objective in order to score. Anyone whose main form of damage is done solely in the shooting phase has to contend with the fact that they have a much harder time flipping objectives and being on them at the start of the turn, and you can see those factions that don't have efficient means to do that are scoring extremely low and generally pulling 35-40% winrates.

The larger tau suits are already MONSTERS, which means they can already shoot guns in melee, that doesn't actually resolve the issue at hand. The suggestion is to remove the army-wide defensive shooting buff (army-wide overwatch) in exchange for allowing the army to participate meaningfully in the Fight phase so that they have the capability to score and so that they move away from the obviously-reviled static gunline playstyle (which is a "Delete Them From The Game!!!111!" level problem for Tau but when Marines blow the enemy off the table from 30" away its fine because some model in that gunline might be holding a sword)

Jarms48 wrote:
Why not just make battlesuits vehicles? Like that other tread is suggesting. Then they can fire heavy weapons with no penalties and shoot non-blast weapons into close combat.

Battlesuits are piloted after all. They're basically fancy sentinels.

By this logic, Space Marines should be vehicles as they "pilot" their Power Armor. :-P

There's currently two "piloted" Battlesuits: the Stormsurge and the Supremacy Armour. Both utilize actual controls and the like for the operators(and have more than one operator!) rather than the neural linkages that the Crisis, Broadside, Riptide, and Ghostkeel suits all use which broadly are equivalent to the Black Carapace->Power Armor interfacing.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Jarms48 wrote:
Why not just make battlesuits vehicles? Like that other tread is suggesting. Then they can fire heavy weapons with no penalties and shoot non-blast weapons into close combat.

Battlesuits are piloted after all. They're basically fancy sentinels.

By this logic, Space Marines should be vehicles as they "pilot" their Power Armor. :-P

There's currently two "piloted" Battlesuits: the Stormsurge and the Supremacy Armour. Both utilize actual controls and the like for the operators(and have more than one operator!) rather than the neural linkages that the Crisis, Broadside, Riptide, and Ghostkeel suits all use which broadly are equivalent to the Black Carapace->Power Armor interfacing.

in game terms, it is a little silly tbh as the only thing that really interacts with them is they get like, immunity to Haywire and Arc weaponry (but dreadnoughts don't, for some reason) but the drukhari can poison them and want to capture them for their arenas.

Yessss, capture that rampaging Riptide for our sinister arenas, bwa ha ha, the wyches will fight it with a knife to prove their skill in conquering such a mighty beast!

Functionally otherwise theyre essentially the same.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Jarms48 wrote:
Why not just make battlesuits vehicles? Like that other tread is suggesting. Then they can fire heavy weapons with no penalties and shoot non-blast weapons into close combat.

Battlesuits are piloted after all. They're basically fancy sentinels.

By this logic, Space Marines should be vehicles as they "pilot" their Power Armor. :-P

By this logic, Sentinels should be INFANTRY, since they walk. :-P

Now that no underlying mechanics separate the two, the line between MONSTER and "big INFANTRY", or VEHICLE and "extremely mechanized INFANTRY", or VEHICLE and "mechanical MONSTER" is one that has to be drawn relative to other mechanics. Is it better/more sensical for that unit to be affected by the things that affect VEHICLES/MONSTERS, or the things that affect INFANTRY? Personally, for example, I'd say Kataphrons should be VEHICLES; they're effectively a tank with a head, so it makes more sense for them to fear Arc Weaponry, Melta Bombs, Haywire Grenades, or Machine Curses than it does for them to be vulnerable to Poisoned Weapons or be able to squeeze their way through cover. My argument's the same for Crisis Suits, which aren't powered armour so much a piloted vehicle, much like a Sentinel.

For a clearer example, it's ridiculous that Necron constructs like Spyders are MONSTERS (or Eldar Wraithlords, for that matter) when Sentinels are VEHICLES. If anything, the Sentinels have more squishy bits! It's a relic of a time when Monsters and Vehicles acted in fundamentally different ways, so you had to model the Spyder as a Monster unless you wanted it to have an AV and facing and etc etc. Back in the day, Canoptek Wraiths were Beasts because Beasts moved and acted differently than Infantry/Jump Packs/Vehicles/Monsters. Now they're Beasts because... they look a bit beastly, I guess?

At the moment, there's definitely an unspoken "lower limit" on what can be a VEHICLE or MONSTER; the "smallest" VEHICLES I'm aware of are still T5/W5 (Penitent Engines, Support Weapons, Reanimators, Kans), T5/W6 (Scout Sentinel, Vyper/Venom, Pirahna, Mek Guns) or T6/W4 (Thunderfire Cannon). There are three T5/W4 VEHICLES I know of, which are the Deffkopta, Grot Tanks, and the Tetra. Crisis Battlesuits and Kataphrons, at T5/W3, and so sit just below the lowest end here. Could always bump them up to T5/W4, but I wouldn't have a problem with them just being VEHICLES at their current stats.

 Kanluwen wrote:

By this logic, Space Marines should be vehicles as they "pilot" their Power Armor. :-P

Power armour is literally a suit of armour. Not a piloted vehicle. That's why I used a sentinel as a comparison. A firewarrior doesn't "put on" a battlesuit. They climb into the suit and pilot it like a vehicle.

Jarms48 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

By this logic, Space Marines should be vehicles as they "pilot" their Power Armor. :-P

Power armour is literally a suit of armour. Not a piloted vehicle. That's why I used a sentinel as a comparison. A firewarrior doesn't "put on" a battlesuit. They climb into the suit and pilot it like a vehicle.

That last bit is getting into some of the lore discrepancies for Tau, but by and large? No, they do not. They are closer to an Elemental from Battletech or an E-Frame out of ExoSquad than they are a vehicle.

@RevildRas:
Agreed. Which is why it probably makes more sense to have "mechanical" and "big thing" keywords than a "vehicle" keyword.

Mechancial basically asks whether you're more scared of the poison rule or the haywire rule. "Big thing" covers all monsters/vehicles and all the contexts in which they're mechanically distinctive from other units but identical to each other (being able to shoot in melee, etc.)

Granted, even then things get a little weird. There's a story where a sister of battle's power pack gets damaged and she can't move. There's another story where a jumbo EMP type effects slows down a bunch of iron hands. Would those units qualify as "mechanical?" Seems like they should, but that gets messy...

 Kanluwen wrote:

That last bit is getting into some of the lore discrepancies for Tau, but by and large? No, they do not. They are closer to an Elemental from Battletech or an E-Frame out of ExoSquad than they are a vehicle.

I remember from the novel Kill Team, a few of the last chancers have a chance to play with a damaged battlesuit. When they look inside they see foot pedals, joysticks, and a neural link.

Jarms48 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That last bit is getting into some of the lore discrepancies for Tau, but by and large? No, they do not. They are closer to an Elemental from Battletech or an E-Frame out of ExoSquad than they are a vehicle.

I remember from the novel Kill Team, a few of the last chancers have a chance to play with a damaged battlesuit. When they look inside they see foot pedals, joysticks, and a neural link.

The Tau novels give us a pretty good idea what the inside of a crisis suit looks like. There are joysticks, a chair, enough space to cross your legs if you're so inclined, sensors to read your independent eye movements (that's one of the big parts of operating the suits; independent eyeball movements), multiple screens/readouts, and room for a pulse pistol holster built into the chair. Pretty sure they use the term "cockpit" at various points. The suits are definitely more "piloted" than "worn".

Wyldhunt wrote:

The Tau novels give us a pretty good idea what the inside of a crisis suit looks like. There are joysticks, a chair, enough space to cross your legs if you're so inclined, sensors to read your independent eye movements (that's one of the big parts of operating the suits; independent eyeball movements), multiple screens/readouts, and room for a pulse pistol holster built into the chair. Pretty sure they use the term "cockpit" at various points. The suits are definitely more "piloted" than "worn".

Exactly, basically everything bigger than a stealth suit should be a vehicle, and all those larger battlesuits that are considered monsters should be reclassified as vehicles as well. It just makes rule interactions much simpler.

Jarms48 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

The Tau novels give us a pretty good idea what the inside of a crisis suit looks like. There are joysticks, a chair, enough space to cross your legs if you're so inclined, sensors to read your independent eye movements (that's one of the big parts of operating the suits; independent eyeball movements), multiple screens/readouts, and room for a pulse pistol holster built into the chair. Pretty sure they use the term "cockpit" at various points. The suits are definitely more "piloted" than "worn".

Exactly, basically everything bigger than a stealth suit should be a vehicle, and all those larger battlesuits that are considered monsters should be reclassified as vehicles as well. It just makes rule interactions much simpler.

I kind of disagree with crisis suits being vehicles. Or monsters. Ditto for Commander suits. I do not think they need the ability to shoot in close combat given that they can be armed with 3x flamers, or in the case of commanders, are BS2+ base.

Reviving this topic, as I wanted to review two possible framings:

Crisis - V1 (Ranged Attacks in Fight Phase)
T'au warfare emphasises the flow of combat, using rapid redeployment and combined arms formations to render each squad a potential threat at any range.
When a unit is selected to fight in the Fight phase, models in that unit equipped with any Crisis weapons can shoot with those weapons as if it were the Shooting phase, instead of making any close combat attacks.

Each time a model shoots a Crisis weapon in the Fight phase, it can do so while within Engagement Range of enemy units, and can target enemy units that are within Engagement Range of other friendly units. However, it must target an enemy unit that is within Engagement Range of its own unit.

Each time a model shoots a Crisis weapon in the Fight phase, subtract 1 from hit rolls when resolving that weapon’s attacks.

A model cannot shoot a Crisis weapon in the Fight phase if it made a ranged attack with that weapon in a previous phase that turn.

Crisis - V2 (Ranged Weapons Used As Melee Weapons)
T'au warfare emphasises the flow of combat, using rapid redeployment and combined arms formations to render each squad a potential threat at any range.
Certain T'au weapons have the Crisis ability. Such a weapon will have an ability that reads ‘Crisis’ and then a value, such as (2) or (D6). Each time a model is selected to fight in the Fight phase, you can choose for it to crisis-fire any or all Crisis weapons it is equipped with. If you do so, until the end of the phase, those weapons have the Melee type instead of their normal type. In addition, do not use that model's Attacks characteristic to determine how many attacks it makes; instead, for each weapon it is crisis-firing, it makes a number of attacks equal to the value listed after the Crisis ability. A model cannot crisis-fire a weapon if it made a ranged attack with that weapon in the same turn.

Version 1 means you can shoot Crisis weapons as if it were the Shooting phase, but in the Fight phase, at -1 to hit. Upsides are that these count as ranged attacks, so no need to rewrite ranged buffs to be broader, and these use existing rules for those weapons, so no need to introduce new ones. Downside is that the -1 to hit won't stack with other penalties, and it's out-of-phase activity, which always feels a little odd.

Version 2 means you can attack with Crisis weapons as if they were Melee weapons in the Fight phase. Upside is that this follows all the existing rules for the Fight phase, and still imposes an effective -1 to hit that will stack with other penalties, since T'au WS is usually -1 from BS. Downside is that this means introducing a new value to ensure you can attack twice with pulse carbines, D6 times with flamers, etc. They also don't count as ranged attacks, so any ranged buffs meant for Crisis weapons would need to be broader. Technically this could just be an alternate profile, but this is simpler for, e.g. Strats that grant Crisis (X) to weapons.

they had it in previous editions with JSJ, then it was removed, so its all statics shooting now, along with a smaller board, they have no chance.

RevlidRas wrote:
Reviving this topic, as I wanted to review two possible framings:

Crisis - V1 (Ranged Attacks in Fight Phase)
T'au warfare emphasises the flow of combat, using rapid redeployment and combined arms formations to render each squad a potential threat at any range.
When a unit is selected to fight in the Fight phase, models in that unit equipped with any Crisis weapons can shoot with those weapons as if it were the Shooting phase, instead of making any close combat attacks.

Each time a model shoots a Crisis weapon in the Fight phase, it can do so while within Engagement Range of enemy units, and can target enemy units that are within Engagement Range of other friendly units. However, it must target an enemy unit that is within Engagement Range of its own unit.

Each time a model shoots a Crisis weapon in the Fight phase, subtract 1 from hit rolls when resolving that weapon’s attacks.

A model cannot shoot a Crisis weapon in the Fight phase if it made a ranged attack with that weapon in a previous phase that turn.

Crisis - V2 (Ranged Weapons Used As Melee Weapons)
T'au warfare emphasises the flow of combat, using rapid redeployment and combined arms formations to render each squad a potential threat at any range.
Certain T'au weapons have the Crisis ability. Such a weapon will have an ability that reads ‘Crisis’ and then a value, such as (2) or (D6). Each time a model is selected to fight in the Fight phase, you can choose for it to crisis-fire any or all Crisis weapons it is equipped with. If you do so, until the end of the phase, those weapons have the Melee type instead of their normal type. In addition, do not use that model's Attacks characteristic to determine how many attacks it makes; instead, for each weapon it is crisis-firing, it makes a number of attacks equal to the value listed after the Crisis ability. A model cannot crisis-fire a weapon if it made a ranged attack with that weapon in the same turn.

Version 1 means you can shoot Crisis weapons as if it were the Shooting phase, but in the Fight phase, at -1 to hit. Upsides are that these count as ranged attacks, so no need to rewrite ranged buffs to be broader, and these use existing rules for those weapons, so no need to introduce new ones. Downside is that the -1 to hit won't stack with other penalties, and it's out-of-phase activity, which always feels a little odd.

Version 2 means you can attack with Crisis weapons as if they were Melee weapons in the Fight phase. Upside is that this follows all the existing rules for the Fight phase, and still imposes an effective -1 to hit that will stack with other penalties, since T'au WS is usually -1 from BS. Downside is that this means introducing a new value to ensure you can attack twice with pulse carbines, D6 times with flamers, etc. They also don't count as ranged attacks, so any ranged buffs meant for Crisis weapons would need to be broader. Technically this could just be an alternate profile, but this is simpler for, e.g. Strats that grant Crisis (X) to weapons.

Between the two options presented here, I would prefer Version 1.

However, i think the best way to represent this sort of thing would be to give Crisis suits either the vehicle or monster keyword. This way they would benefit from the "big guns never tire" rule. admittedly, the crisis suit wouldn't be able to fight in the fight phase, but if it was locked in combat in the shooting phase, it could fire at the units it is engaged with.

In addition I would like to see some sort of JSJ return.

Aash wrote:

RevlidRas wrote:
Reviving this topic, as I wanted to review two possible framings:

Crisis - V1 (Ranged Attacks in Fight Phase)
T'au warfare emphasises the flow of combat, using rapid redeployment and combined arms formations to render each squad a potential threat at any range.
When a unit is selected to fight in the Fight phase, models in that unit equipped with any Crisis weapons can shoot with those weapons as if it were the Shooting phase, instead of making any close combat attacks.

Each time a model shoots a Crisis weapon in the Fight phase, it can do so while within Engagement Range of enemy units, and can target enemy units that are within Engagement Range of other friendly units. However, it must target an enemy unit that is within Engagement Range of its own unit.

Each time a model shoots a Crisis weapon in the Fight phase, subtract 1 from hit rolls when resolving that weapon’s attacks.

A model cannot shoot a Crisis weapon in the Fight phase if it made a ranged attack with that weapon in a previous phase that turn.

Crisis - V2 (Ranged Weapons Used As Melee Weapons)
T'au warfare emphasises the flow of combat, using rapid redeployment and combined arms formations to render each squad a potential threat at any range.
Certain T'au weapons have the Crisis ability. Such a weapon will have an ability that reads ‘Crisis’ and then a value, such as (2) or (D6). Each time a model is selected to fight in the Fight phase, you can choose for it to crisis-fire any or all Crisis weapons it is equipped with. If you do so, until the end of the phase, those weapons have the Melee type instead of their normal type. In addition, do not use that model's Attacks characteristic to determine how many attacks it makes; instead, for each weapon it is crisis-firing, it makes a number of attacks equal to the value listed after the Crisis ability. A model cannot crisis-fire a weapon if it made a ranged attack with that weapon in the same turn.

Version 1 means you can shoot Crisis weapons as if it were the Shooting phase, but in the Fight phase, at -1 to hit. Upsides are that these count as ranged attacks, so no need to rewrite ranged buffs to be broader, and these use existing rules for those weapons, so no need to introduce new ones. Downside is that the -1 to hit won't stack with other penalties, and it's out-of-phase activity, which always feels a little odd.

Version 2 means you can attack with Crisis weapons as if they were Melee weapons in the Fight phase. Upside is that this follows all the existing rules for the Fight phase, and still imposes an effective -1 to hit that will stack with other penalties, since T'au WS is usually -1 from BS. Downside is that this means introducing a new value to ensure you can attack twice with pulse carbines, D6 times with flamers, etc. They also don't count as ranged attacks, so any ranged buffs meant for Crisis weapons would need to be broader. Technically this could just be an alternate profile, but this is simpler for, e.g. Strats that grant Crisis (X) to weapons.

Between the two options presented here, I would prefer Version 1.

However, i think the best way to represent this sort of thing would be to give Crisis suits either the vehicle or monster keyword. This way they would benefit from the "big guns never tire" rule. admittedly, the crisis suit wouldn't be able to fight in the fight phase, but if it was locked in combat in the shooting phase, it could fire at the units it is engaged with.

In addition I would like to see some sort of JSJ return.

The reason I think I personally would prefer framing #1 to just giving them big guns never tire is that there's no real reason to use big guns never tire offensively. The primary complaint about tau tends to boil down to the fact that theyre a static, reactive army that just prevents you from doing your stuff long enough for the tau stuff to just steadily shoot you to death.

People get annoyed at Tau for the same reason people get annoyed when people pick the super long range sniper character in video games who just sits in one spot waiting for someone a million miles away to pop their head up, and clicks on the head.

That playstyle doesnt change unless Tau are given some way to take initiative in the game and just slapping more mobility or defensive shooting ability on them doesn't do that, it just increases their defensive nature.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Aash wrote:

RevlidRas wrote:
Reviving this topic, as I wanted to review two possible framings:

Crisis - V1 (Ranged Attacks in Fight Phase)
T'au warfare emphasises the flow of combat, using rapid redeployment and combined arms formations to render each squad a potential threat at any range.
When a unit is selected to fight in the Fight phase, models in that unit equipped with any Crisis weapons can shoot with those weapons as if it were the Shooting phase, instead of making any close combat attacks.

Each time a model shoots a Crisis weapon in the Fight phase, it can do so while within Engagement Range of enemy units, and can target enemy units that are within Engagement Range of other friendly units. However, it must target an enemy unit that is within Engagement Range of its own unit.

Each time a model shoots a Crisis weapon in the Fight phase, subtract 1 from hit rolls when resolving that weapon’s attacks.

A model cannot shoot a Crisis weapon in the Fight phase if it made a ranged attack with that weapon in a previous phase that turn.

Crisis - V2 (Ranged Weapons Used As Melee Weapons)
T'au warfare emphasises the flow of combat, using rapid redeployment and combined arms formations to render each squad a potential threat at any range.
Certain T'au weapons have the Crisis ability. Such a weapon will have an ability that reads ‘Crisis’ and then a value, such as (2) or (D6). Each time a model is selected to fight in the Fight phase, you can choose for it to crisis-fire any or all Crisis weapons it is equipped with. If you do so, until the end of the phase, those weapons have the Melee type instead of their normal type. In addition, do not use that model's Attacks characteristic to determine how many attacks it makes; instead, for each weapon it is crisis-firing, it makes a number of attacks equal to the value listed after the Crisis ability. A model cannot crisis-fire a weapon if it made a ranged attack with that weapon in the same turn.

Version 1 means you can shoot Crisis weapons as if it were the Shooting phase, but in the Fight phase, at -1 to hit. Upsides are that these count as ranged attacks, so no need to rewrite ranged buffs to be broader, and these use existing rules for those weapons, so no need to introduce new ones. Downside is that the -1 to hit won't stack with other penalties, and it's out-of-phase activity, which always feels a little odd.

Version 2 means you can attack with Crisis weapons as if they were Melee weapons in the Fight phase. Upside is that this follows all the existing rules for the Fight phase, and still imposes an effective -1 to hit that will stack with other penalties, since T'au WS is usually -1 from BS. Downside is that this means introducing a new value to ensure you can attack twice with pulse carbines, D6 times with flamers, etc. They also don't count as ranged attacks, so any ranged buffs meant for Crisis weapons would need to be broader. Technically this could just be an alternate profile, but this is simpler for, e.g. Strats that grant Crisis (X) to weapons.

Between the two options presented here, I would prefer Version 1.

However, i think the best way to represent this sort of thing would be to give Crisis suits either the vehicle or monster keyword. This way they would benefit from the "big guns never tire" rule. admittedly, the crisis suit wouldn't be able to fight in the fight phase, but if it was locked in combat in the shooting phase, it could fire at the units it is engaged with.

In addition I would like to see some sort of JSJ return.

The reason I think I personally would prefer framing #1 to just giving them big guns never tire is that there's no real reason to use big guns never tire offensively. The primary complaint about tau tends to boil down to the fact that theyre a static, reactive army that just prevents you from doing your stuff long enough for the tau stuff to just steadily shoot you to death.

People get annoyed at Tau for the same reason people get annoyed when people pick the super long range sniper character in video games who just sits in one spot waiting for someone a million miles away to pop their head up, and clicks on the head.

That playstyle doesnt change unless Tau are given some way to take initiative in the game and just slapping more mobility or defensive shooting ability on them doesn't do that, it just increases their defensive nature.

I think this is fair, but I’d prefer to see auxiliaries such as Kroot and Vespid as well as others that don’t have models being better used to fill the niche for an offensive melee option for Tau.

I really hate the Greater Good ability. Directly patching Tau's one weakness (melee) with their great strength (shooting) feels super lame.
Letting Tau just shoot in melee for free will feel just the same.

I agree with Scotsman that Tau need to be given different ways to play. You can't just buff their gunline until it becomes viable, that's super lame.
I honestly think JSP is the best solution.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I really hate the Greater Good ability. Directly patching Tau's one weakness (melee) with their great strength (shooting) feels super lame.
Letting Tau just shoot in melee for free will feel just the same.

Okay, but surely "Tau have a strong offensive shooting statline" produces very different outcomes from "Tau have a strong offensive melee statline"?

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I really hate the Greater Good ability. Directly patching Tau's one weakness (melee) with their great strength (shooting) feels super lame.
Letting Tau just shoot in melee for free will feel just the same.

I agree with Scotsman that Tau need to be given different ways to play. You can't just buff their gunline until it becomes viable, that's super lame.
I honestly think JSP is the best solution.

the problem with JSJ is it encourages that annoying defensive 'nyah nyah you cant touch me' defensive gameplay that people hate about the tau.

Fundamentally I think it's generally bad game design to design a faction's identity around 'I make some element the other player included in their list useless.' It's the reason I'm not a fan of knights, or of stuff like SM infiltrators where you can very easily lock out basically all deep strike elements your opponent included, or when sisters used to (i dont know if they still do this) have the ability to all deny psychic powers at like d6+4, stuff like that.

If tau are 'oh, you included melee units? Sucks to be you I guess' then that's when they become obnoxious. Whenever tau have been the army of 'this game will take place in the shooting phase, the shooting phase is the only phase in which this game is allowed to take place' that's when theyve been despised.

My thoughts were that the now objective focused missions would limit that "can't catch me" aspect of JSJ.
But I do follow that it is a serious concern.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
My thoughts were that the now objective focused missions would limit that "can't catch me" aspect of JSJ.

Yeah, it would, but the issue then remains "how do T'au win in an objective-focused game"? Objectives make JSJ less effective, because objectives mean you can't just constantly play keepaway. They do the same thing for All Deep Strike tactics, because no-turn-1 Deep Strike means you can't claim objectives with reserve units until round 3, which is a massive chunk of potential points gone. That doesn't make JSJ any more fun, though, for either player. For T'au, JSJ becomes a consolation prize to help you harass your enemy without any real way to push onto objectives, and for non-T'au JSJ becomes a boring "nope" response to any attempt to get them to play in melee.

If you're giving T'au a close-assault answer of some kind, a way to engage with melee, then they can stay a shooting-focused faction – but it means they can/have to use a dynamic, counter-attack style to push the enemy off objectives and claim them for themselves. That works with their portrayal in the lore, which isn't just about running away and shooting, but involves ambushes, counter-assaults, staggered battle-plans, etc. It also means T'au get to engage with the game in ways other than "run away and shoot" and other players get to engage with T'au enemies in ways that aren't "chase them down until either of you die".

Aash wrote:
Between the two options presented here, I would prefer Version 1.

However, i think the best way to represent this sort of thing would be to give Crisis suits either the vehicle or monster keyword. This way they would benefit from the "big guns never tire" rule. admittedly, the crisis suit wouldn't be able to fight in the fight phase, but if it was locked in combat in the shooting phase, it could fire at the units it is engaged with.

I'd actually do both; introduce Crisis weapons and make Battlesuits (other than the Stealth Battlesuits) into VEHICLES. However, there is a crucial difference between Crisis and Pistol/Big Guns Never Tire – Crisis applies when the unit fights, which can happen in either or both players' Fight phases, while BGNT/Pistols apply when the unit shoots, which you can only do in your Shooting phase (or with Overwatch). In other words, if you charge to contest an objective, Crisis weapons will remain useful in the next turn of combat.

Honestly, I'd consider removing the "you can't do this if you already fired this weapon" clause, if not for Flamers existing. It'd mean that charge-and-shoot for Breachers/Carbines would become a serious melee threat (equivalent of +1 shot, possibly at a better statline), because you could fire 2x 4+ shots, then charge and fire 2x 5+ shots. Overwatch would be a problem (since you could shoot again at 5+ after the enemy fought, which is annoyingly passive as a tactic), but you could just ban it with Overwatch specifically. The problem I have with Flamers is that they ignore the -1 to hit (or using Weapon Skill, or Overwatch), meaning shoot-charge-shoot for a 3-flamer Crisis suit would be 6d6 S4 hits, with a further 3d6 s4 hits on the enemy turn. Overwatch-shoot would be even worse. Could always just not give Flamers the Crisis keyword, but they Flamers feel so suited to it that it'd be weird.

Or if it's the melee version, could always limit the number of Crisis shots on flamers. Or make it one Crisis weapon per model, or per Attack? Hm.

Going to second a vote for not bringing back JSJ. In theory it helps the Tau shoot a unit off an objective and move up to it. In reality, it will just be used to hide your units after shooting.

Battle suits aren’t really ideal for grabbing objectives right now. Unless they move to troops, they don’t have obsec and generally they’ll be outnumbered on model count. JSJ most likely will just be used to jump back behind LOS blocking terrain most of the time.

I like the concept of shooting in CC, but with your WS rather than BS.

You could exclude flamers from the rule to stop them being an auto-take. I personally wouldn't want to be setting opponents on fire whilst they're at arm's reach because I would be extremely vulnerable to being set on fire myself.

You could then have a battle suit exclusive strat that allows flamers to be used as crisis weapons for one phase.

Or you could do flamers = mortal wounds on some particular criteria as the burning enemy is a huge fire hazard to your own troops.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
I like the concept of shooting in CC, but with your WS rather than BS.

You could exclude flamers from the rule to stop them being an auto-take. I personally wouldn't want to be setting opponents on fire whilst they're at arm's reach because I would be extremely vulnerable to being set on fire myself.

You could then have a battle suit exclusive strat that allows flamers to be used as crisis weapons for one phase.

Or you could do flamers = mortal wounds on some particular criteria as the burning enemy is a huge fire hazard to your own troops.

How about something like...

Crisis: Certain T'au weapons have the Crisis ability. Such a weapon will have an ability that reads ‘Crisis’ and then a value, such as (2) or (D3). In the Fight phase, these weapons have the Melee type instead of their normal type. Each time a model fights, no more than one attack can be made with each Crisis weapon it is equipped with. Each time an attack is made with a Crisis weapon, make a number of hit rolls equal to the value listed after the Crisis ability. A model cannot make melee attacks with a Crisis weapon that it used to fire Overwatch this turn.

Pulse Carbine: Range 18"; Type Assault 2; Strength 5; AP 0; Damage 1; Abilities: Crisis (2)

Burst Cannon: Range 18"; Type Assault 4; Strength 5; AP 0; Damage 1; Abilities: Crisis (4)

Flamer: Range 12"; Type Assault D6; Strength 4; AP 0; Damage 1; Abilities: Crisis (D3). Each time an attack is made with this weapon, that attack automatically hits the target.

A Burst Cannon hitting on a 4+ is 2 hits, hitting on a 5+ is 1.33 hits. D6 autohits is 3.5 hits, D3 autohits is 2 hits. So that's 4:7 vs 4:6, about the same relative effectiveness.

I like the general idea.

I would prefer to use the WS for shooting into melee version. I think creating new classes of weapons for one faction only (like dakka weapons) only leads to more bloat.

As for flamers: sure you get a boatload of low ap/ low str/ dmg 1 attacks in close range. But for every flamer you sacrifice the long range/ heavy hitting potential of your army. So its a fair trade. Especially considering that Tau basic Troops dont have access to flamers.

Just spitballing here, but what if we allowed Drones to be "detonated"? Ala Horde of boys charges into a squad of drones. They can either do nothing, or for 1/3 CP explode, causing normal vehicle explosion mortals. It would be an interesting way to avoid charges.

If you choose to play The gun line race then I think you need to live with it. This whole getting to have two shooting phases idea is wayyyy too much.

warpedpig wrote:
If you choose to play The gun line race then I think you need to live with it. This whole getting to have two shooting phases idea is wayyyy too much.

I agree, I really don't like the idea of Tau shooting in melee.

Especially since I think Tau should lean on their Allies for support. Buff kroot to be proper melee fighters for example.

warpedpig wrote:
If you choose to play The gun line race then I think you need to live with it. This whole getting to have two shooting phases idea is wayyyy too much.

The idea of Tau being "the gun line race" is the entire problem. A gun line is the most boring, least interactive way to play this game for either side of the board. It's not especially fun for the Tau (point and click until the enemy reaches you, and then die) or for the opponent (get shot to ribbons until you reach the Tau, then clean up). It locks Tau out of half the phases in the game, and the behaviours it encourages (move away from the enemy, stay away from the enemy, avoid the enemy) are entirely centred around denying those phases to your opponent as well.

It's also not how Tau are meant to be played according to their lore. According to their lore, Tau are constantly repositioning, setting up ambushes and new lines of fire, moving in close to unleash a blitz of firepower before sending in Kroot or Crisis suits to guard a retreat, etc. They're not a gunline race.

The purpose of "Crisis" weapons - and similar proposals, because boy there have been a lot of them - isn't to give Tau a "second Shooting phase", where they play the exact same but get to shoot more often. It's to give Tau the tools and incentives to play differently, in a more aggressive and dynamic and close-mid-range way that actually engages with the other player, rather than just avoiding them. Making Pulse Blasters into Crisis weapons doesn't make Breachers just generally better; in fact, if you continue to use them as they're currently used, you won't even notice the change. Instead, it encourages Breachers to actually breach, by charging in to claim an objective. It gives Tau the ability to counter-attack and make aggressive moves, the way they do in the lore.

RevlidRas wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
My thoughts were that the now objective focused missions would limit that "can't catch me" aspect of JSJ.

Yeah, it would, but the issue then remains "how do T'au win in an objective-focused game"? Objectives make JSJ less effective, because objectives mean you can't just constantly play keepaway. They do the same thing for All Deep Strike tactics, because no-turn-1 Deep Strike means you can't claim objectives with reserve units until round 3, which is a massive chunk of potential points gone. That doesn't make JSJ any more fun, though, for either player. For T'au, JSJ becomes a consolation prize to help you harass your enemy without any real way to push onto objectives, and for non-T'au JSJ becomes a boring "nope" response to any attempt to get them to play in melee.

I feel you might be overlooking JSJ's utility as a means of getting onto objectives. Currently, enemy spacing might make it impossible for you to contest an objective. If Tau could move near the objective, clear out a bunch of enemy models (or even wipe the unit), and then use JSJ to move again in the charge phase, they'd have a much easier time pushing forward onto objectives. And if JSJ remained limited to the smaller suits (bigger suits could do it with a stratagem or something), then units like crisis suits suddenly make a lot more sense; they can either be cagey enough to use terrain to stay alive or agile enough to take key positions as soon as they've been cleared of an enemy presence.

I do like your Crisis Weapon idea, Ras. I wouldn't want to lean on it as the primary fix for tau though. It seems like a thematic, reasonable tool for crisis suits to have, but I feel it's important that it doesn't suddenly make tau feel like they're "good in melee."

Let me throw out a probably too complicated idea:
* Get rid of the free overwatch mechanics tau have at the moment.
* Tau units that don't shoot in the Shooting phase (including units that fell back, advanced, etc.) can instead place an Ambush token anywhere within line of sight to at least one of their models. When they do so, place a Readied token on the tau unit. (So 2 tokens get placed; one on the tau unit and one anywhere on the table.)
* If and when an enemy unit completes a move that takes them within 3" of an Ambush token during the following Movement phase, you can immediately spend any number of Readied tokens.
* Any Tau units who have their Readied tokens spent may immediately shoot as though it were their Shooting phase.
* All Ambush and Readied tokens are removed from the table at the end of the enemy Movement phase.

So basically, Tau that aren't shooting at the enemy can instead set up a sort of off-brand overwatch/ambush for the enemy. Your opponent can always simply choose to not wander into one of the threatened areas to avoid getting shot. The idea is that, combined with JSJ mechanics, this allows you to play defensively with your tau. Tau could thus be designed to lose straight up fire fights but win by predicting where your opponent wants to move and whittling them down with turn-interrupting fire before they get to attack. In theory, this forces tau to be more about angles and movement than raw firepower.

If holding back your own shooting is too big a price, you can make the "ambush" attacks stronger in some way. Maybe simply making them +1 to hit or allow various strategies and character abilities to grant benefits when resolving ambush attacks.

So combined with JSJ, the end goal is to have tau be an army that can push forward onto objectives with their more mobile (JSJ) units. However, they don't have the raw firepower to stat check most opponents into the ground; they should lose a game that boils down to two armies running straight at each other. So to win games, they have to working cagey fighting retreats into their tactics that make the most of ambush attacks.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I feel you might be overlooking JSJ's utility as a means of getting onto objectives. Currently, enemy spacing might make it impossible for you to contest an objective. If Tau could move near the objective, clear out a bunch of enemy models (or even wipe the unit), and then use JSJ to move again in the charge phase, they'd have a much easier time pushing forward onto objectives. And if JSJ remained limited to the smaller suits (bigger suits could do it with a stratagem or something), then units like crisis suits suddenly make a lot more sense; they can either be cagey enough to use terrain to stay alive or agile enough to take key positions as soon as they've been cleared of an enemy presence.

That's definitely fair, yeah. I don't have a problem with JSJ, it's a very Tau-appropriate tool (and I miss it on Eldar). I'd like to bring it back, in combination with adding lots of benefits for shooting within half range (or closer), in the style of Fusion Blasters and Pulse Blasters. That way, Tau jet pack units have to choose between moving in, shooting, and then leaping back to a safe distance, or moving in, moving further in, and blazing away at full power. Risk-reward. For example:

Jet Thrust
Skilled pilots use their jet packs to dart around the battlefield, delivering devastating shots at close range before withdrawing to evade reprisal.
In your Shooting phase, either before or after it is selected to shoot, this unit can use its jet thrusters to make a Normal Move a number of inches up to half its Move characteristic, as if it were your Movement phase.

Wargear:

Burst Cannon: Range 18”; Type Assault 5; Strength 5; AP 0; Damage 1; Abilities: Crisis (4). Each time an attack made with this weapon targets a unit within half range, an unmodified hit roll of 6 scores 1 additional hit.

Plasma Rifle: Range 30”; Type Rapid Fire 1; Strength 6; AP -3; Damage 1; Abilities: Each time an attack made with this weapon targets a unit within half range, that attack has a Damage characteristic of 2.

Fusion Blaster: Range 18"; Type Assault 1; Strength 8; AP -4; Damage D3; Abilities: Each time an attack made with this weapon targets a unit within half range, that attack has a Damage characteristic of D3+4.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I do like your Crisis Weapon idea, Ras. I wouldn't want to lean on it as the primary fix for tau though. It seems like a thematic, reasonable tool for crisis suits to have, but I feel it's important that it doesn't suddenly make tau feel like they're "good in melee."

100%; it should be a way to actively respond to the enemy's approach, one with its own risks and downsides, rather than something that sends Tau hurtling into melee like berserkers. It's something you use in, well, a Crisis.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Let me throw out a probably too complicated idea:

This is very complicated, and could end up requiring a staggering number of tokens, but I absolutely love it as an idea. Perhaps it could be tied to Kauyon, somehow, as opposed to Mont'ka? God knows the "Art of War" rules need a massive glow-up.

I don't see why you're all trying to get Battlesuits a function in the assault phase when Tau should be using auxiliaries as melee forces.
Just make Kroot and Vespid useful in the assault phase. T'au are supposed to be a multi-species Empire, the fact GW forgot that in favor of "bigger suits lol" isn't a good thing.

JSJ was a cool rule but it was really easy to abuse. You would move out of cover, shoot and then retreat back out of LoS to avoid incoming fire.
If you want an idea of bloody annoying it was go play xenonauts, especially if the AI has access to a door.

warpedpig wrote:
If you choose to play The gun line race then I think you need to live with it. This whole getting to have two shooting phases idea is wayyyy too much.

Daily reminder that space marines have vastly, vastly more long-ranged static weapon options than Tau at this point....in order to shoot as many times as a Space marine intercessor shoots at 30" a tau fire warrior has to be 15" away.

Tau are 'the shooty race' but theyve got a ton of extremely close-range and mobile options. People just don't use them because getting locked in combat as tau is an instant death sentence that turns off 100% of your damage output.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I don't see why you're all trying to get Battlesuits a function in the assault phase when Tau should be using auxiliaries as melee forces.
Just make Kroot and Vespid useful in the assault phase. T'au are supposed to be a multi-species Empire, the fact GW forgot that in favor of "bigger suits lol" isn't a good thing.

JSJ was a cool rule but it was really easy to abuse. You would move out of cover, shoot and then retreat back out of LoS to avoid incoming fire.
If you want an idea of bloody annoying it was go play xenonauts, especially if the AI has access to a door.

Because suggestions that make the army function as it actually exists tend to be more useful than suggestions that require GW to completely relaunch the faction.

"Tau shouldn't exist because they only operate in one phase, only play reactively and run away, it's anti-fun bad game design!"

"Ok, let's give them rules so that they don't only operate in one phase and which reward them for playing actively rather than running away."

"No!!! That's not allowed! Tau units all have to be punitively bad in melee, the only way tau are allowed to exist in the game is if I instantly win if any of my models ever touch melee range!"

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I don't see why you're all trying to get Battlesuits a function in the assault phase when Tau should be using auxiliaries as melee forces.
Just make Kroot and Vespid useful in the assault phase. T'au are supposed to be a multi-species Empire, the fact GW forgot that in favor of "bigger suits lol" isn't a good thing.

I'm all for auxiliaries getting some love and being the main source of melee power in tau armies. However, that isn't mutually exclusive with making battlesuits more interesting or crisis suits more flexible. Crisis suits shooting the enemy in melee is a pretty common sight in novels. (Granted, said novels tend to feature Farsight and his up-close style of fighting quite a bit.)

JSJ was a cool rule but it was really easy to abuse. You would move out of cover, shoot and then retreat back out of LoS to avoid incoming fire.
If you want an idea of bloody annoying it was go play xenonauts, especially if the AI has access to a door.

Several of us have made the argument multiple times in this thread that JSJ, though a problem in the past, might be fine now because the board is smaller, modern missions punish you for not standing on objectives, and many factions have more speed and/or mobility than before. Do you disagree with this take?

I'm in the camp that Tau should have a useful way to interact in the fight phase, but I would prefer to see auxiliaries rather than battlesuits fill that role.

That being said, as I've mentioned above, I would like to see battlesuits get the vehicle or monster keyword so that they benefit from the "big guns never tire" rule, giving them some ability to retaliate if they survive a round of combat having been charged.

As for JSJ, I would like to see this come back in some form, but i think the worry that it can be abused is a valid one. I'm not convinced that the current rules regarding objectives is sufficient to discourage jumping into and out of LOS/cover and making it a feel-bad rule.

One option would be to allow a second move after shooting that doesn't gain the benefits of "FLY" in the same way that charge moves don't.
Alternatively, an optional move in the charge phase similar to heroic interventions, where rather than having to end the move closer to the nearest enemy model, you have to end the move closer to the nearest objective marker?

 the_scotsman wrote:

warpedpig wrote:
If you choose to play The gun line race then I think you need to live with it. This whole getting to have two shooting phases idea is wayyyy too much.

Daily reminder that space marines have vastly, vastly more long-ranged static weapon options than Tau at this point....in order to shoot as many times as a Space marine intercessor shoots at 30" a tau fire warrior has to be 15" away.

Tau are 'the shooty race' but theyve got a ton of extremely close-range and mobile options. People just don't use them because getting locked in combat as tau is an instant death sentence that turns off 100% of your damage output.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I don't see why you're all trying to get Battlesuits a function in the assault phase when Tau should be using auxiliaries as melee forces.
Just make Kroot and Vespid useful in the assault phase. T'au are supposed to be a multi-species Empire, the fact GW forgot that in favor of "bigger suits lol" isn't a good thing.

JSJ was a cool rule but it was really easy to abuse. You would move out of cover, shoot and then retreat back out of LoS to avoid incoming fire.
If you want an idea of bloody annoying it was go play xenonauts, especially if the AI has access to a door.

Because suggestions that make the army function as it actually exists tend to be more useful than suggestions that require GW to completely relaunch the faction.

But auxiliaries already exist though? How is giving better rules to existing units completely relaunching the faction?
It's not as if GW doesn't change rules anyway when making a codex update, so I don't quite understand how the notion of making existing units better is revolutionary, especially when you are essentially suggesting that with Crisis suits, which are also existing units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Several of us have made the argument multiple times in this thread that JSJ, though a problem in the past, might be fine now because the board is smaller, modern missions punish you for not standing on objectives, and many factions have more speed and/or mobility than before. Do you disagree with this take?

Yes, because with the changes to how charges work it is still possible to play keep away pretty effectively from charging units as well as ducking behind BLOS to avoid shooting, especially when it's encouraged to use more terrain.
If it were an Alternate Activation system it wouldn't be so bad as you can react to a kiting battlesuit, but with IGOUGO you have to commit with your entire army which limits your ability to respond to such tactics.
Also, aren't Battlesuits capable of flight? Can't they effectively jump "through" a wall, forcing an enemy unit to take the long way around to get them?
I could be mistaken, but the potential for annoyance is still pretty high.

The fundemental problem with making sept units good in melee is that it makes Kroot completely useless.

Kroot's shtick is (or at least is meant to be) the melee threat/defence for Tau.
If you give battlesuits that ability, suddenly Kroot no longer occupy any niche, because Battlesuits cover that along with having more firepower, staying power, and mobility.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The fundemental problem with making sept units good in melee is that it makes Kroot completely useless.

Kroot's shtick is (or at least is meant to be) the melee threat/defence for Tau.
If you give battlesuits that ability, suddenly Kroot no longer occupy any niche, because Battlesuits cover that along with having more firepower, staying power, and mobility.

Don't vespids have a similar issue, where anything they could do battlesuits could do better?
The solution therefore would be to improve kroot and vespids, not buff battlesuits.

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
Going to second a vote for not bringing back JSJ. In theory it helps the Tau shoot a unit off an objective and move up to it. In reality, it will just be used to hide your units after shooting.

Battle suits aren’t really ideal for grabbing objectives right now. Unless they move to troops, they don’t have obsec and generally they’ll be outnumbered on model count. JSJ most likely will just be used to jump back behind LOS blocking terrain most of the time.

So flank the terrain. Seriously, this is not an argument against JSJ. An army having an ability which actually requires the opponent to make use of movement and planning to counter? That is how armies should work! How many times do we see people complaining about how the game had just become about clustering up around characters with auras and shooting until the opponent was dead? Units which punish that style of play by requiring the use of movement to counter are a good thing!

Crisis suits could move a maximum of 12" with JSJ in 4th and 5th edition. If you couldn't pin them down then you either built an army with zero mobility or you refused to use that mobility to deny a safe harbour for the suits to retreat to.

You want to know who the real culprits of JSJ were? Jetbikes, because it was literally impossible to pin them down because they could turboboost away across the board, on top of them being more mobile than jet pack units at a base level (12" normal move vs 6").

Riptides were also a problem with JSP, they had long range guns so could be jumping around behind buildings in the Tau's deployment zone making flanking some pretty much impossible.
And of course they had the nova charged jump if you ever did get close.

Crisis suits with 24" range guns max (often ~12" optimum), much less of a problem - especially with the firepower mobility we have at the moment.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Riptides were also a problem with JSP, they had long range guns so could be jumping around behind buildings in the Tau's deployment zone making flanking some pretty much impossible.
And of course they had the nova charged jump if you ever did get close.

Crisis suits with 24" range guns max (often ~12" optimum), much less of a problem - especially with the firepower mobility we have at the moment.

Which is why I loathe the Riptide with a passion. It butchered the lore and was stupidly overpowered and overdurable for its cost. No model should have ever had a 72" AP2 pie plate weapon it could move and fire paired with a 2+ save, with a 5++/3++ save, stims for FNP, and have the option to jump further than 6" to escape from danger. The non-NOVA overcharge for the Ion Accelerator should have been removed and the range for the IA dropped drastically (24" in my opinion and down to 12" on NOVA profile). You want to drop a large blast with the strength to vaporise entire units of elite infantry? Then you have to stand still to do it thanks to the Ordnance rule, forgo your 3++, and you gotta get close. Then again, in my ideal world the Riptide wouldn't exist, we wouldn't have had a load of special rules which required us to stand still to utilise (looking at you, Fireblade and your dumb Volley Fire rule) and the Tau would have remained the mobile mechanised combined arms army they were originally envisioned as.

Also, technically, Crisis have a max range of 36" (Missile Pods). Though they are very expensive points wise to kit out a squad with.

I totally agree.

As a unit rule the Riptide really doubled down the monster creep of that era, that had all started with the GK Baby Carrier.

The Riptide is a huge part of why I dropped Tau as an army and moved to Blood Angels. I want mobility of play and 6th ed Tau weren't that.

I was young and my local GW suckered me into buying 3 Riptides, it just wasn't fun to play and it was pretty obvious it wasn't fun to play against either.
I don't think I ever actually used the 3rd one in a game.

Were missile pods always 36"? I thought that was just SMS and missile pods were 24"? Maybe I am wrong, it's been years.
Missile pods weren't that popular though as they were only AP4. In 5th it was AP3 or bust.

The Riptide was indeed pretty bad and did set an unfortunate precedent for T'au, but I think the Stormsurge is even worse.
At least the Riptide looks cool aesthetically. The Stormsurge is just badly designed in multiple ways.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Were missile pods always 36"? I thought that was just SMS and missile pods were 24"? Maybe I am wrong, it's been years.
Missile pods weren't that popular though as they were only AP4. In 5th it was AP3 or bust.

Missile Pods have always been 36" and until the 6th edition codex SMS were 24" range.

But in 3rd-5th, you also couldn't double up on battlesuit weapons and needed one of your three hardpoints for the multi-tracker to allow you to fire two weapons in one turn (except for shas'vre team leaders who could take a multi-tracker as wargear in the 4th edition codex, freeing them up to take the targeting array on their spare hardpoint for +1BS). You could then either twin-link a plasma rifle or take a plasma rifle and another gun. Seeing as you'd be using markerlights to buff your BS, re-rolling to hit wasn't very useful so you'd take a second weapon to increase your maximum damage potential. The only other source of AP3 or better was the Fusion Blaster, which was 12" range, meaning you could be charged by any unit you shot at and didn't kill. Your other options were Burst Cannons or Missile Pods. You already had a lot of S5 shooting from your fire warriors so the missile pod was the clear choice there as it gave you some longer ranged punch for your suits to utilise as they closed to plasma range and made them a threat to light vehicles, especially if they could get to the sides or rear.

The problem with Vespid has always been that they're a unit of highly mobile flying infantry with powerful mid-range guns. That is to say, they do absolutely nothing that Tau don't already do. Kroot at least have the "close assault vs ranged shooting" niche locked down, in theory, but Vespid could be reskinned as a unit of Fire Warriors with jet packs or a new Drone unit and change absolutely nothing.

I love alien auxiliaries, and the Vespid have cool visuals – and in the lore, they have diamond-hard claws capable of stripping open power armour – but they have even less of a theoretical place than Kroot unless you do something weird with their mechanics. I dunno, make them a support unit; the Communion Helmet doubles as a Drone Controller, and their guns inflict a -1T penalty on whatever they shoot due to neutron radiation. Something like that.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The fundemental problem with making sept units good in melee is that it makes Kroot completely useless.

Kroot's shtick is (or at least is meant to be) the melee threat/defence for Tau.
If you give battlesuits that ability, suddenly Kroot no longer occupy any niche, because Battlesuits cover that along with having more firepower, staying power, and mobility.

Kroot have never purely been "the melee units", though. Even as far back as 3e they were designed to be versatile, mid-range screeners who could outshoot a fair few enemies while also being as melee-formidable as Space Marines, and Krootox are similarly versatile, being big punch-apes with an autocannon strapped on.

Unfortunately, power creep has taken them from being as strong as Marines in close combat to... uh, significantly less impactful. And jacking them up to be stronger would come with a hefty cost, until they're too expensive to be viable "chaff" (which they're not really meant to be), but their durability also isn't high enough to keep them alive for. To my mind, Kroot aren't the "melee units" so much as the "counterattack" or "interdiction" units; they're not meant to go toe-to-toe with Berserkers, they're meant to harass and threaten and obstruct and provide an escape route for your Tau. Be just strong enough in each arena of the game that they can't be ignored by the opponent. I'd definitely give them something like universal Heroic Intervention.

Or just make Vespid heavy assault specialists, akin to assault marines but more geared towards dealing with heavy infantry.
If they have claws that can rip through armor than that's a clear indicator as to what their role should be.

Also they are based on wasps, which are bloody scary apex predators.

Vespid are a difficult one.

Back in 5th edition there arguably a little more mobile than Crisis suits, as they had Move Through Cover (allowing them to safely jump around terrain). They also moved 12" in the movement phase, rather than 6" then 6" again.

But yeah, they fly so close to Crisis Suits they really struggle to distinguish themselves.

Hence why I really think they should be the true assault specialists of a T'au list.
If you want to shoot stuff get battlesuits.
If you want to take an objective quickly and kill heavy infantry in the assault phase, take vespids.
Maybe give them a stratagem that basically rips off the Chyrsallids from XCOM, where they lay eggs in the enemy and it replenishes vespid losses after they burst out of the poor git or something.

Kroot would be assault specialists more geared with dealing with chaff, similar to how Necron Flayed Ones work. They'd have more attacks than vespids, but not much AP, strength or damage.
Maybe give them some sort of ability that gives them buffs if they wipe out an enemy unit, to represent them adapting after eating an enemy.

Giving Vespid sharp claws is a good idea. AP2, would D2 be too far?

I don't like the idea of giving Kroot buffs for killing people. I know they can integrate some of their food's DNA but it's a really slow process. That's the whole point of shapers, so they have a wise leader to guide their diet and adaptations over potentially many generations needed to see proper effects.
But making them a chaff killer should definitely be the case.

Yeah AP-2 D2 seems right. Question is though how many attacks they should have. 3 I guess? That seems pretty standard among assault specialists.
The neutron blaster would probably have to nerfed though, since their killing power would ideally come from melee and not shooting.

Fair point about the Kroot, maybe it should be more of a beginning of game stratagem.

It doesn't help that the people writing the Tau codexes haven't understood the role of Kroot for quite some time.

Just look at the changes they made to them in the 6th edition codex. They dropped them to strength 3 from strength 4, took away Kroot Rifles counting as two weapons and so giving an extra attack, and then gave them an upgrade which gives them a Heavy 1 Sniper Rifle.

It was basically a complete 180 degree turn in terms of what the unit was meant to do. Take the auxiliary which the Tau use for close quarters combat and ambushes in dense forest and jungle terrain and make them worse at close combat and less mobile if you want them to use the one upgrade they have access to. It was obvious that Vetock was probably given a crib sheet which said "Tau shoot stuff" and approached it with the view that meant everything in the book should be oriented towards that. We should probably just count ourselves lucky that Kroot Hounds didn't lose their I5 and 2 attacks in exchange for a 6" heavy 1 S3 AP0 spit attack.

The Kroot should be guerrilla forces, utilising hit and run attacks to target weaker elements of the enemy force and harassing the enemy vanguard while the main Tau forces set up a killzone to eliminate the main enemy force. How you'd go about representing this in modern 40K? I have no idea, honestly. It's the kind of warfare that you cannot recreate without having a real morale system, some level of a simulation of command systems, using your vanguard to locate the enemy etc.

Yeah those were weird changes.
They went from sneaky assault units to snipers in an army that isn't hurting for ranged attacks.
Wasn't the change to give them a sniper rifle in the same edition rail rifles made an appearance? That was backwards.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah those were weird changes.
They went from sneaky assault units to snipers in an army that isn't hurting for ranged attacks.
Wasn't the change to give them a sniper rifle in the same edition rail rifles made an appearance? That was backwards.

Nah, Rail Rifles were a thing in the 4th edition codex. They just weren't used much as you needed your squishy pathfinders to paint stuff with markerlights as marker drones were very expensive and could only accompany battlesuits (where you wanted Shield Drones) and the only other markerlight source in the book other than Pathfinders or Drones was the Skyray, which was a heavy support slot not used on Broadsides or a Hammerhead. Almost doubling the costs of a 1w infantry model with a 5+ save for a single Heavy S6 AP1 shot at 36" while removing its main role of supporting other units wasn't a great trade.

Plus the rail rifle pathfinder models were metal/resin and had the same issues you had with bendy railguns found on the Broadside, but in miniature.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

So flank the terrain. Seriously, this is not an argument against JSJ. An army having an ability which actually requires the opponent to make use of movement and planning to counter? That is how armies should work! How many times do we see people complaining about how the game had just become about clustering up around characters with auras and shooting until the opponent was dead? Units which punish that style of play by requiring the use of movement to counter are a good thing!

Crisis suits could move a maximum of 12" with JSJ in 4th and 5th edition. If you couldn't pin them down then you either built an army with zero mobility or you refused to use that mobility to deny a safe harbour for the suits to retreat to.

You want to know who the real culprits of JSJ were? Jetbikes, because it was literally impossible to pin them down because they could turboboost away across the board, on top of them being more mobile than jet pack units at a base level (12" normal move vs 6").

It’s a very different game from 4th and 5th edition. JSJ now gives the ability to touch into terrain with one model, shoot, and then shuffle back to become ineligible for targeting. Eventually you can flank the terrain but that will be at least two turns for the Tau to shoot you without punishment. You could flank them easier with deepstrike but I don’t think I have to tell you why deepstriking near a Tau gun line is a terrible thing. Run the gauntlet of Tau shooting is not a great strategy.

The real elephant for JSJ is the broadside of course. Regardless of you feelings on it, it has all the relevant keywords right now. It would be even more abusive with the ability to move from shooting to being out of line of sight. Fundamentally it’s just not a fun mechanic to have units that can target your army while remaining safe themselves. It was bad on eliminators, it’s bad on hive guard, and will be bad on battlesuits.

For the record though. I think they will get it. They handed a similar ability to the grey knights so I think the writing is on the wall. I just hope it’s a 1/3 stratagem so 1 for a 5 man unit of crisis suits or stealth suits and 3 for the riptide, ghostkeel, characters, and larger units of crisis suits.

The Broadside doesn't have the Jet Pack keyword.

I also strongly disagree with turning key and iconic abilities or wargear of units into stratagems. Either a unit should be able to do a thing, or it shouldn't. Stratagems which replace abilities or wargear just create stupid situations where only one of your crisis teams know how to use their jet packs, or only one of your rhinos knows how to use its smoke launchers, or only one of your units of grots knows how to get in the way of bullets etc.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The Broadside doesn't have the Jet Pack keyword.

I also strongly disagree with turning key and iconic abilities or wargear of units into stratagems. Either a unit should be able to do a thing, or it shouldn't. Stratagems which replace abilities or wargear just create stupid situations where only one of your crisis teams know how to use their jet packs, or only one of your rhinos knows how to use its smoke launchers, or only one of your units of grots knows how to get in the way of bullets etc.

That's my mistake, I was thinking of the riptide but broadside was what leapt to mind. I'm two battle suits outdated for what I remember the heavy suit being . That thing being able to fire and fall back behind obscuring terrain is a bid absurd. For that matter letting a cold star commander use that with a 20" move sounds miserable as well. Letting the Tau player pick one unit to use it on sees like a good compromise between letting no unit or every single stealth suit, crisis suit, commander, ghostkeel, and riptide do it.

I mean, there's no reason that a second jump has to use the same Movement as the first jump. Limiting it to 6" gives you a lot of flexibility.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I mean, there's no reason that a second jump has to use the same Movement as the first jump. Limiting it to 6" gives you a lot of flexibility.

I'd personally be fine with a 1:1 or 2:1 split. That is to say, if Space Marine Jump Packs give a 12" move, make Tau Jet Packs into a 6"/6" move, or an 8"/4" move. That'd make Riptides and Ghostkeels into 9"/9" or 12"/6" (or bump them down to 8"/8" or 10"/5"), and you could handle Coldstar by turning into a Crisis Suit-sized AIRCRAFT that can only use its jet pack while "hovering" at normal move.

How you actually "split up" that move comes down to how the second move actually works, and what you want out of it. In 7e, it was effectively an Advance that took place after your Shooting; I'd prefer for it to take place before or after your shooting, because that means you're more likely to see Crisis Suits or Stealth Suits moving the full distance in order to take advantage of Rapid Fire plasma rifles or extra damage on fusion blasters. It could be an Advance; I'd personally prefer it to be a Normal Move, just because the only thing making it an Advance really does is penalise getting in close with plasma rifles, which... I mean, you could make them stronger and that'd be a worthwhile trade, but right now it probably isn't.

So for me, 8"/4" makes sense; it's effectively an extra Advance (4" instead of 3.5") and it's just enough to juke out of line of sight or out of easy charge range while still firing at half-range, without allowing the unit to leap over whole terrain features.

I'd just go back to 6/6 for all jet pack equipped troops. It is easy to remember.

As for how it works, again go back to the basics. "In the charge subphase of the assault phase, a model with the jet pack keyword which is not already engaged in close combat can forgo making a charge move to instead move 6" using its normal rules for moving in the movement phase (may not end within 1" of an enemy model, can go over terrain etc. etc.)" or whatever terms GW currently uses to describe all these things.

Simple and clean.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

As for how it works, again go back to the basics. "In the charge subphase of the assault phase, a model with the jet pack keyword which is not engaged in close combat can forgo making a charge move to move 6" using its normal rules for moving in the movement phase (may not end within 1" of an enemy model, can go over terrain etc. etc.)"

Might as well just say "...a normal move as if were the movement phase". Consistent with other wording and addresses all of that other stuff.

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The Broadside doesn't have the Jet Pack keyword.

I also strongly disagree with turning key and iconic abilities or wargear of units into stratagems. Either a unit should be able to do a thing, or it shouldn't. Stratagems which replace abilities or wargear just create stupid situations where only one of your crisis teams know how to use their jet packs, or only one of your rhinos knows how to use its smoke launchers, or only one of your units of grots knows how to get in the way of bullets etc.

That's my mistake, I was thinking of the riptide but broadside was what leapt to mind. I'm two battle suits outdated for what I remember the heavy suit being . That thing being able to fire and fall back behind obscuring terrain is a bid absurd. For that matter letting a cold star commander use that with a 20" move sounds miserable as well. Letting the Tau player pick one unit to use it on sees like a good compromise between letting no unit or every single stealth suit, crisis suit, commander, ghostkeel, and riptide do it.

Ah, fair enough! Well, my thoughts on the Riptide were made quite obvious in a previous post and if I'd designed it then it would be a lot harder for it to do so due to having much shorter range weaponry. It is a lot easier to get LOS on a unit trying to hide behind a building in the centre of the table than one doing the same thing in the enemy deployment zone.

And yes, the Coldstar shouldn't be able to JSJ when moving flat out. JSJ represents using the jetpack to make small manoeuvres, whereas the coldstar is more like flooring it.

So I'd have the Coldstar have two movement profiles which it can switch between at the beginning of the controlling players turn. If it is using the 20" move profile, it loses the Jet pack keyword. If using a standard crisis suit move profile, it has the jet pack keyword.

Or just say that the Coldstar suit has been modified to allow for faster flight but that such modifications resulted in a trade off of agility, with the jet pack thrusters being less capable of sudden changes in direction in order to protect the pilot from sudden changes in g-forces. As such the Coldstar cannot JSJ and loses the jet pack keyword, instead gaining the flight pack and/or aircraft keywords.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

As for how it works, again go back to the basics. "In the charge subphase of the assault phase, a model with the jet pack keyword which is not engaged in close combat can forgo making a charge move to move 6" using its normal rules for moving in the movement phase (may not end within 1" of an enemy model, can go over terrain etc. etc.)"

Might as well just say "...a normal move as if were the movement phase". Consistent with other wording and addresses all of that other stuff.

Fair enough!

there is absolutely no way in the entire universe that anyone who plays the various melee-oriented armies (Marines being the main one, but also Ork players, daemon players, etc) would accept Kroot and Krootox being made enough of a melee threat that they would fill the hole in Tau's current paradigm (i.e. the inability to push an enemy off of an objective and seize that objective.)

Kroot are in essence slightly melee-oriented Guardsmen. The absolute maximum level of effectiveness I can see people accepting the blades on the end of a kroot rifle being would be roughly the power level of a Tzaangor (so about 2A, S4, Ap-1 D1) which would be nowhere near enough to push a unit of intercessors or plague marines or custodes or necron immortals off of an objective.

JSJ could work for this, the main problem I see making it the signature mechanic to address the need to seize objectives is just how vehemently hated it is and always has been whenever it crops up. It's like if you wanted to base an army's identity around sniping out enemy characters: it simply would not be allowed to ever approach an average power level, the deluge of tears from the people that get so incredibly butthurt and mad any time they lose a character would inevitably force them back down. Every sniper unit in the game is kept at an INSANELY artificially low power level for their cost for exactly that reason, because emotionally players cannot cope with losing a character before all their surrounding units are wiped out, that is the only acceptable way for a character to die.

People do not like:

-when an army has mechanics that deny too many of the rules their army has
-when characters do die
-when non-character units, especially vehicles, don't die when they do all their special offensive stuff
-when rules make it so they cannot target a unit

JSJ causes #1 and #4 all the time - JSJ away from an enemy charge, JSJ behind obscuring terrain after you shoot, etc. the only way I can see JSJ being a mechanic people accept is if it is a special thing that ONLY allows consolidation onto an objective after destroying an enemy unit, ala a consolidation move after a charge.

As an example, let's say Tau have two Universal Army-wide Rules:

Mont'ka and Kau'yon: All Tau units can either employ the Mont'ka or Kau'yon doctrine during their turn. If Mont'ka is declared for a unit, if it destroys an enemy unit with an attack, it may make an immediate 6" move as if it were the movement phase, and it must end that move closer to the closest Objective marker on the battlefield. If Kau'yon is declared for a unit, that unit can Overwatch as if it had used the Overwatch stratagem any time an enemy unit declares a charge against them.

I think that is almost entirely a Space Marine mindset, especially regarding the characters dying.

No other army (apart from Eldar who invented the rule for their phoenix lords, if I remember right) got the glut of characters with Eternal Warrior, or wargear that granted the rule, that Space Marines got. So we had to put up with all of our characters, even our most iconic special characters, being able to be killed by a single krak missile from a tactical marine while the generic Space Marine captain opposite could tank railgun shots all game thanks to a 3++ save and immunity to instant death which cost the same points as a 4++ save for the Tau.

Can we have some of that sweet homogenization, where kroot get basically the same stats as like costed units? Tau get equal or better shooting than like costed units, leaning towards better as that's their entire schtick. I'd also really love it if krootox became basically bullgryn.

Tau in Killteam are still BS4+.
I know it doesn't necessarily translate but I wouldn't expect Tau shooting to actually improve.

 the_scotsman wrote:
there is absolutely no way in the entire universe that anyone who plays the various melee-oriented armies (Marines being the main one, but also Ork players, daemon players, etc) would accept Kroot and Krootox being made enough of a melee threat that they would fill the hole in Tau's current paradigm (i.e. the inability to push an enemy off of an objective and seize that objective.)

Players will gripe about any change that takes the advantage away from them, that's nothing new.. If they don't like it and they can't deal with a S3 / T3 unit, then they should get good. An army shouldn't suffer because of marine players' inability to adapt.

 the_scotsman wrote:


Kroot are in essence slightly melee-oriented Guardsmen. The absolute maximum level of effectiveness I can see people accepting the blades on the end of a kroot rifle being would be roughly the power level of a Tzaangor (so about 2A, S4, Ap-1 D1) which would be nowhere near enough to push a unit of intercessors or plague marines or custodes or necron immortals off of an objective.

No was suggesting them to be able to dominate heavy infantry, the suggestion was for them to be chaff clearers. Are marines and immortals chaff?
So kroot would have 3-4 attacks, but only at S4, D1 with probably AP-1.
Vespids were suggested as heavy melee infantry, and they have the fluff to back them up.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Kroot are in essence slightly melee-oriented Guardsmen. The absolute maximum level of effectiveness I can see people accepting the blades on the end of a kroot rifle being would be roughly the power level of a Tzaangor (so about 2A, S4, Ap-1 D1) which would be nowhere near enough to push a unit of intercessors or plague marines or custodes or necron immortals off of an objective.

Back in the day they were actually closer to squishy Marines; identical to Assault Marines in melee (2 WS4 S4 attacks) with a worse bolter (AP6 vs AP5) at -1BS. They had a worse Save, obviously (3+ vs 6+/5+), but they moved faster and shot better in terrain, and had an extra +1 to cover saves, and could infiltrate. Probably the most direct translation would b=have been Space Marine Scouts with camo cloaks and bolters who also got to have a combat knife, but traded -1BS/AP at range and -1Sv for being half the cost.

Power creep has taken 2 S4 attacks far below the acceptable threshold for "melee threat". A direct 1:1 match after power creep would place Kroot at 2 S4 AP-1 attacks, with a conditional +1A... and even then they definitely need something to make them more attractive.

The way I see it, there are two elements that need to be considered: What Tau want out of Kroot, and how Kroot are meant to behave. Tau want a melee contingent that can push enemies off objectives with Objective Secured, and intervene to keep their shooters shooting and not tied up or dead in combat. Kroot are meant to behave as skirmishers, guerillas, and vicious ambush units. They're meant to be good at lurking in cover, covering T'au positions, and disrupting the enemy's advance. They're meant to be relatively scary melee combatants, especially on the ambush, but they're never depicted as being tough enough for a drawn-out fight, and they're certainly not Berserker-tier killing machines.

So Kroot as a unit that lurks around in cover (preferably cover that an objective is in) and takes pot-shots at enemy units, before rushing out to help their Tau buddies, seems like it'd fit the bill? Something like:

That seems pretty fair, I like that write up.

Depleted Ion rounds is too strong for a unit that can be 20 strong and so could potentially be throwing out 40 shooting attacks. 3 mortal wounds on average rolls on top of normal damage from a basic infantry squad with no targeting limitation other than 12" range? Nope!

It also makes the Pulse rifle look pointless next to a Kroot rifle and its scavenged rounds. Especially when the Kroot rifle is firing pulse rounds as standard.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Depleted Ion rounds is too strong for a unit that can be 20 strong and so could potentially be throwing out 40 shooting attacks. 3 mortal wounds on average rolls on top of normal damage from a basic infantry squad with no targeting limitation other than 12" range? Nope!

It also makes the Pulse rifle look pointless next to a Kroot rifle and its scavenged rounds. Especially when the Kroot rifle is firing pulse rounds as standard.

Yeah they don't really need that strat. They are supposed to be melee, not shooty. Being able to snipe is already strong enough.
The base stats and rules seem fine to me though.

Why not just make Ethereals psykers?

 Nurglitch wrote:
Why not just make Ethereals psykers?

Because they aren't psykers?
That's more role for auxiliary units anyway.

Covered Retreat is really cool, I like that.

I think Fieldcraft is too much, an additional +2 (so +3 in total) armour save is too much. Camo cloaks are only an extra +1.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Covered Retreat is really cool, I like that.

I think Fieldcraft is too much, an additional +2 (so +3 in total) armour save is too much. Camo cloaks are only an extra +1.

Kommados set the precedent in the new Ork book; they get +2 (so +3 total) from cover. That makes sense, because they, like Kroot, start with Save 6+. +1 from cover is 5+, and even +2 would only be Save 4+; equivalent to basic Fire Warriors outside of cover.

Camo cloaks are fine because they turn Scouts into Terminators within cover, but when you're starting at Save 6+, any cover boost needs an extra something to be really worthwhile; I'm happy to steal the Kommando version, but another that came to mind was giving Kroot a 4+ or 5+ invulnerable save while in cover.

Depleted Ion Rounds is too much, yeah. Or at least, it's too easy to use; I'd like some way for Kroot to be able to become a genuine sniping threat, but stealing the Mars/Storm Bolter Stratagem within 12" probably isn't it.

I mean, 40 shots against a character is probably enough to kill or badly wound him without mortal wounds. I don't think they need a buff to their ability to snipe.
Deathmarks also had rapid fire sniper rifles and their problem was that they were expensive and had small squad sizes, not that rapid fire sniper rifles were inherently weak.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Ah, fair enough! Well, my thoughts on the Riptide were made quite obvious in a previous post and if I'd designed it then it would be a lot harder for it to do so due to having much shorter range weaponry. It is a lot easier to get LOS on a unit trying to hide behind a building in the centre of the table than one doing the same thing in the enemy deployment zone.

And yes, the Coldstar shouldn't be able to JSJ when moving flat out. JSJ represents using the jetpack to make small manoeuvres, whereas the coldstar is more like flooring it.

So I'd have the Coldstar have two movement profiles which it can switch between at the beginning of the controlling players turn. If it is using the 20" move profile, it loses the Jet pack keyword. If using a standard crisis suit move profile, it has the jet pack keyword.

Or just say that the Coldstar suit has been modified to allow for faster flight but that such modifications resulted in a trade off of agility, with the jet pack thrusters being less capable of sudden changes in direction in order to protect the pilot from sudden changes in g-forces. As such the Coldstar cannot JSJ and loses the jet pack keyword, instead gaining the flight pack and/or aircraft keywords.

As it stands though, the riptide can hide in the deployment zone and lock down most of the board with impunity. A similar concern to the cold star is the ghostkeel. With their infiltration, they can hide anywhere on the mid board, get an early kick to the opponent’s teeth, and hide again. That’s even more obnoxious then the Invictor. Then there’s also the forge world suits to consider as well. If JSJ is going to a universal battlesuit rule then a lot of those units need to be re-examined with it.

On the kroot note, is there any reason not to bump them to T4 without a points increase at this point? If poxwalkers are T4, I see no reason for kroot to be T3.

Literally just that Kroot fall under the same category as guard melee units/troops, gretchin units, everything ork, everything nid, and everything gsc - if they get any stat boost that makes them stronger than any obscure unit with "Elite Lore" people will come out of the woodwork crying because theyre supposed to be the designated losers that make the elite doods look cool.

Kroot should probably be T4, 3+sv in cover, and have a couple S4 melee attacks in order to be a useful chaff-clearing melee unit. Roughly similar to a Tzaangor in terms of capability, maybe a little better due to the fact that tzaangors can get 5,321 buffs and kroot are subfaction trait-less.

....Vespids have lore as a heavy melee unit? Is that right? Huh.

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:


On the kroot note, is there any reason not to bump them to T4 without a points increase at this point? If poxwalkers are T4, I see no reason for kroot to be T3.

Pox walkers are T4 because they are humans (T3) infected by Nurgle (+1T). Nurgle units tend to be tougher than normal.
Kroot are T3 because whilst they are supposed to be strong, they aren't that robust due to having hollow bones.
In the past they used to be S4 T3 for that reason; per the fluff they have really dense musculature that can allow them to inflict powerful blows quickly, but because they are still basically birds they aren't all that tough.
Then GW made them S3 T3 for some reason.

One other consideration would be an anti psyker drone option. Just give it a denial and let it be a 0-1 option for HQ choices. Not sure on the points but I’d lean about 10 for each one.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Literally just that Kroot fall under the same category as guard melee units/troops, gretchin units, everything ork, everything nid, and everything gsc - if they get any stat boost that makes them stronger than any obscure unit with "Elite Lore" people will come out of the woodwork crying because theyre supposed to be the designated losers that make the elite doods look cool.

Kroot should probably be T4, 3+sv in cover, and have a couple S4 melee attacks in order to be a useful chaff-clearing melee unit. Roughly similar to a Tzaangor in terms of capability, maybe a little better due to the fact that tzaangors can get 5,321 buffs and kroot are subfaction trait-less.

....Vespids have lore as a heavy melee unit? Is that right? Huh.

They are described has having diamond hard claws which they use to harass the enemy, iirc. Making them into a melee unit wouldn't be that much of a stretch.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Literally just that Kroot fall under the same category as guard melee units/troops, gretchin units, everything ork, everything nid, and everything gsc - if they get any stat boost that makes them stronger than any obscure unit with "Elite Lore" people will come out of the woodwork crying because theyre supposed to be the designated losers that make the elite doods look cool.

Kroot should probably be T4, 3+sv in cover, and have a couple S4 melee attacks in order to be a useful chaff-clearing melee unit. Roughly similar to a Tzaangor in terms of capability, maybe a little better due to the fact that tzaangors can get 5,321 buffs and kroot are subfaction trait-less.

....Vespids have lore as a heavy melee unit? Is that right? Huh.

They are described has having diamond hard claws. Making them into a melee unit wouldn't be that much of a stretch.

...I mean, OK, but Eldar fight with monomolecular diamond-hard teeth on their chainswords (Ap-)....

 the_scotsman wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Literally just that Kroot fall under the same category as guard melee units/troops, gretchin units, everything ork, everything nid, and everything gsc - if they get any stat boost that makes them stronger than any obscure unit with "Elite Lore" people will come out of the woodwork crying because theyre supposed to be the designated losers that make the elite doods look cool.

Kroot should probably be T4, 3+sv in cover, and have a couple S4 melee attacks in order to be a useful chaff-clearing melee unit. Roughly similar to a Tzaangor in terms of capability, maybe a little better due to the fact that tzaangors can get 5,321 buffs and kroot are subfaction trait-less.

....Vespids have lore as a heavy melee unit? Is that right? Huh.

They are described has having diamond hard claws. Making them into a melee unit wouldn't be that much of a stretch.

...I mean, OK, but Eldar fight with monomolecular diamond-hard teeth on their chainswords (Ap-)....

Given the recent drukhari changes, I suspect pretty much all craftworld melee weapons that are currently AP 0 will become AP-1.

Kroot as sneaky Tzaangors feels like a pretty good fit to me. No one is expecting them to wipe out an intercessor squad on an objective on their own, but they'd be killy enough to finish off a unit softened up during the shooting phase. Vespid at S5 AP-1 or -2 with about 3 attacks feels like a good fit too. Between t heir claws and guns, they'd be moderately good against heavy infantry. Their closest competitors (the crisis suits) would have more shooting flexibility, more raw dakka against heavy infantry, and more durability, but they wouldn't be a unit you want to charge something with.

If we bring back JSJ, it might be fitting to give vespid a high Move stat, but NOT JSJ. Let them be the unit that wants to zoom forward and get into the thick of things compared to the slower, more cautious, more agile crisis suits.

In general, I think what I'd like to see is tau auxiliaries that will lose in melee versus other factions' dedicated melee units but which are good enough at their jobs to bully non-melee-specialists. Kroot should be able to win melee handily against guardsmen and give tactical marines a rough time, but they should be reluctant to charge assault intercessors. Vespid should be able to take down an eradicator or two in melee, but be out of their element against a squad of blood letters.