Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@Paidinfull:FocusedFire is currently not wanting to read any ones Codex at the moment as to not influence his vision, this is not to say your Codex is bad or wrong just that he wants to finish his before he does. (This statement brought to you by me being the one with internet between us right now he will be on later I'm sure.)

Also I invite you to go back(earlier this thread and the other thread) read some of his posts as allot of the problems you mention he is covering(Krootox and the such) and I invite you to just hold off and wait till he finishes the codex to judge(not that you where maybe) we are spending allot of our time writing this and as mentioned before we have it down and are just typing it up we actually have day jobs sorta and can't just sit and type all day if we could it would be done.

I also have a question for you cause you seem to know (in no demeaning or sarcastic way) but where is the tau codex going in 5th ed cause you seem to know.

(again no offense but 9th/32 is not even in the top 25%)

paidinfull wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I agreee with everything you have

Che-Vito wrote:What GW is doing with their codices in general, is trying to sell more models. They are succeeding, but gladly enough, FocusedFire is free from that economic constraint.

Perhaps I misunderstood the point of the OP
"How would you 'fix' 5th Ed. Tau?"
That's a pretty straight forward question to me... especially in the context that we are referring to a codex that will be played in the current, 5th Edition. I find it odd that you are referring to "free from economic constraint[s]" as that, at least to me, implies that the exercise is all philosophical and not intended to actually come to fruition. Was the intent to create a 5th ed Tau? Also, as I'm sure you are well aware, GW makes models/codex/systems in order to make money. The current trend is pretty obvious, and I highly doubt you will see them NOT lower the cost of units in order to bring in new business. It doesn't make strong business sense to allow current hobbyists to do MORE with less. They want us to continue to buy more, which is why you will see:
Upgrade Special Characters
At least one, maybe, two new units
An old unit that didn't sell well become even better
Cheaper vehicles to sell more kits
Cheaper Basic troops and kits that don't make entire choices

I am not complaining, it's just how the trend is, and frankly I love the hobby so I continue to support GW, as they have beautiful models and a system I enjoy playing with my friends.

Also of note... just because the core units are cheaper, that does NOT necessarily mean that the army size will increase. The Tau, much like IG, are a weapons army. The focus by lowering the cost of units was to permit MORE wargear and powerful units. Tau won't become a horde army, anymore than they are now(i currently have a list with 112 models in it), and will be able to put out more concentrated fire at a count between 50-70 depending on the build.

@Mr.R4nd0m
Hmmm, I didn't take much of that out of context, and I'm certainly not offended, but I will say that I feel you really didn't read through what I had posted. Right off the bat I stated that this wasn't my codex, but rather following GWs changes for Marines, IG and Orks, three codex I have owned, played and very familiar with their changes from 3rd-5th edition, and if "I were to be allowed to edit Codex:Tau Empire #2 this is what you would see"
When I compare my post to the OP, I feel that I've addressed almost everything they were working towards.

1) Methods to avoid and punish, rather than win at, close combat (HIT&RUN, Preferred Enemy at a low Initiative)

2) moderately expensive models: the main difference in opinion here being how much specialisation to grant them. Focused seems to be going towards the eldar route, with expensive, but less numerous, powerful units, whereas I'm going more middle of the road and focusing on point-efficiency at the expense of the higher extremes of ability (ie; more forgiving but less powerful than an aspect). But overall its generally understood we'll be bit less expensive than marines but less powerful, and more powerful than IG but less economical. (Ability to add more Gear)

3) A need for a rework on combined arms as used by the tau: In my case the markerlight system becomes the core for this, making interlocking lines of fire far more effective than just one team of pathfinders plus a single unit using all that up. (Cheaper markerlights across multiple units via drones a whole unit of marker drones, lower markerlight cost)

Units as a whole need to be advantageous to those around them... not as pure dependance; tau should be more self-sufficient than that eldar-like fashion of doing things; but rather as the 'trick' to winning more often: some armies need to know how to maneuver, some need to know just what to pick, some don't really need much thought at all they're so forgiving... with tau, it should be on a shootier dark-eldar level: slightly more forgiving (better survivability), but a little less total-annihilation gamebreaking offensive if used masterfully.

focusedfire wrote:Nova- Before I get into the vehicle secondaries I just wanted to point out a couple of things that seem to be of a concensus.

1)We both have written the XV-8's getting integral targeting arrays for BS4 (i disagree with this but changing the cost appropriately also works)

2)We both have Shas'ui and up integral drone controllers (Free basic drone controller)

3)We both have the Fire Warriors themselves almost identicle. The only difference will be in available drone options.

4)Drones will have a greater position of importance by being scoring units.

There are still others but add this to what you posted earlier and the basic format for a new codex is beginning to shape up.

When I read through the rest of the OP's post I don't see anything in there regarding whether the OP didn't want to read other peoples suggestions... which is essentially what this whole post is about no? Suggestions for how we feel Tau could be tweaked to play in 5th? If the intent wasn't to gleen ideas or opinions... why start a topic about it? I'm more than a little confused as it has come across you know the OP.

About the Tau player in the tournament, I failed to point out that if he had NOT been silly and kept his entire army in reserve for the entire game using Positional Relay, something he did habitually, he would have won the tournament or at least come in second. His minor loss caused him to fall to 9th, incidently. You are correct that top 33% is not competitive, but at the tourney Orks won, DAEMONHUNTERS came in 2nd, the player who the Tau lost to. The codex definitely still has it's punch.

The main uniqueness that the Tau army has is it's Markerlight system. Sure you could say the battle suits, but ultimately the weapons function similarly to Imperial armies. Markerlights, IMO, define the Tau race in 40k. The OP and his confidents recognize that. My post, where you see all the points being cut, is intended to allow you to add MORE markerlights into it by having LESS cost prohibitive units. The Tau NEED more markerlights and as the OP has pointed out, a new and BETTER system.

If the OP requests I'll happily remove my previous post.

@focusedfire

Have you considered allowing pulse carbine FW the ability to "run" in the assault phase?

Move-shoot-run(d6)

It mirrors the ability of crisis suits JSJ, but doesn't steal its place due to being lower powered. It gives the carbine an advantage over the rifle (mobility), allows the rifle to carry its own advantage (firepower), and it furthers the Tau ethos of simultaneous mobility+firepower.

just a thought.

EDIT: it also can blunt the edge of a running assaulty opponent. Yay!

SkyRay
Cost remains the same
Remove 6 shot limit. Think about being able to launch 5/6 Missiles a turn, brings back Alpha Strike from 3rd... definitely much more appealing.
Weapon destroyed result takes out the entire rack

May I ask why to get rid of the 6 shot limit? The model does have only 6, and the Manacore can only shoot 4, though they do seem to be a bit stronger. Can I get your take on this?

Also you Gue'vesa entry. What do you think about lowering the squad points to 55, and give them Lasguns. But give them the option to buy Pulse Rifles. Like the "Off Worlder" you have there. And what do you think about making the Gue'vesa a 0-2 unit?

I liked what I saw in your list.

@Paidinfull: Yah I was sitting in the room with him and asked him if he wanted to read your proposed codex changes and he just asked me to say something, no one says you need to remove your post.

paidinfull wrote:
The main uniqueness that the Tau army has is it's Markerlight system. Sure you could say the battle suits, but ultimately the weapons function similarly to Imperial armies. Markerlights, IMO, define the Tau race in 40k. The OP and his confidents recognize that. My post, where you see all the points being cut, is intended to allow you to add MORE markerlights into it by having LESS cost prohibitive units. The Tau NEED more markerlights and as the OP has pointed out, a new and BETTER system.

If the OP requests I'll happily remove my previous post.

lowering the overall cost does not necessarily encourage a player to take more markerlights(unless the markerlights are significantly cheaper).
it would also encourage players to take more of the cheaper units instead.

I think a better suggestion would be to increase the power and utility of the markerlights.
I recall that markerlights used to affect single models in some old codex and now in this 4th edition codex they now affect units.
I propose that the new markerlights affect the entire army.

I say make the kroot jump infantry and let the tau fire into close combat (without killing their own troops)

@Paidinfull- Sorry, there may have been a bit of mis-communication. Offering suggestions is absolutely welcome. As is the discussion of such.

I am trying to avoid reading other Fan-dices for the reason that I want to write my version as opposed to rewriting someone elses. Since I started this I have had about a half dozen people suggest other fan-dices for me to read.

The point I'm getting at in my primitive way is that, "Discussion Good, Plagerizing Bad".

Now, as to your competitiveness statement.

First, I'm not approaching this with the main thought of tourney application due to that this will be a Fan-dex and therefore not legal. My issues for starting this were with fluff problems and how horrible the wording for the marker, drone, and battlesuit rules were.

Second, I am trying to take all factors into consideration of making the Tau follow their original design concept as a "middle" army. This fan-dex is taking a while because I'm trying to preserve that unique flavor while making the army 5th ed current and still balanced.

Third, I'd like to take this time to state that I have never said that the Tau can't win. Only that they are becoming more limited over time and with the steady releases of updated codices.

Now,personally, I still win more than I loose with my Tau but that doesn't mean that they are "competitive" If the Tau were really competitive they would be showing up in the top three at a few of the larger events on an equal basis with other armies. I also think it is hard to say that he would have won if he hadn't used the Posi-relay. We don't and can't know this. What we do know is Tau performance at the larger Tournies has not been stellar since the release of 5th.


To reply about the approaches to updating the Tau. They are not as simple as everyone wants to make it sound. I never once tried to fool myself that this would be simple, only that I would find it enjoyable(which I have).
Lets take a look at the "simple" approaches.

You simply drop the prices and you get an unbalanced xenos guard.(Note, not a shot anyone reading)

You raise the prices and improve the abilities too much and they are xenos SMs(Also not a shot at anyone reading)

I see the Tau being in the same boat as the SoB in that they are in the middle. There are several army mixes that can represent this.
Lets say that the SoB are in between the SMs(Armour and weapons) and IG(T and I 3).
The Tau are in between IG(Ranged warfare) and Eldar(Mobility).

There are other armies that could be used to describe but instead I'd like to point out that the acts of faith system serves a very similar purpose as that of the markerlights. There seems to be a theme in the "middle" armies of needing force multiplier systems.

Now, your idea of lowering unit costs to allow for more weapons sounds good but there is the limitation that most people equip their suits with as many weapons as they can, so the extra points will go to increasing model count. My quick conservative estimate is that your changes will result in an increased model count of about 20-25%. This, and that several of them would unbalance the army(Removing the SkyRay limit on shots), is why every aspect has to be examined from the point of how it affects the entire army

I would also put a few qualifiers in about your Analysis of the recent codex releases.
1)Improved/updated SC's (This I agree with but would note that some of these have hefty prices and not sure if uberSC's are Tau-like)
2)New units(I agree with this)
3)One Old unit improved(Debatable as to the number of improved old units)
4)Cheaper vehicles(Disagree because this has not been across the board but rather transport oriented and skimmers have stayed pricey)
5)Cheaper troops(The drops have included grenades but become marginalized by army restructuring and some increased equipment costs.)

I will also say now that I have taken into account the business model and you are wrong in thinking that GW can't sell more models by keepng the model count about the same.

1)Introduce cool new unit(I like the Remora as a Jet-bike)

2)Just change the weapons to where unused ones such as the Pulse Carbine and Ion Cannon become the new rage.

3)Change the army structure to allow for Sky Rays as transports and Squadrons of Hammerheads.

Make it desirable to redo all of your infantry and up the availability of Tanks in a list. That is how GW is making money with the IG.

....And no. You do not need to erase your previous post. I support the expression and exchange of ideas as long as everyone attempts to be polite. Again, I think there was a miscommunication.


@Jcunkle-fun idea but I have an army wide system in place that I prefer.

I may instead drop the pinning and have it make the unit take difficult terrain test. I'm thinking of leaving pinning to the IG for the most part. This is not set in stone. Just want to play test it before I move to sopmething else.

@Sanchez01
To be honest, the intent for making the Sky Ray shoot unlimited SM would be OTT, especially if there are any changes to the SM as I've suggested. Though it really would be contingent on how many markerlights you could fit in your list... that coupled with the lower cost of ML across the board, 5pts basic, 10pts pathfinder, 20pts marker drone and you could easily pump out lists with 20+ marker lights in it. Being able to fire 10x S8 AP3 each turn would be incredibly ridiculous... however that is the build that made it that way. On it's own, being able to move 12" & fire up to 2x S8 shots a turn isn't that OTT... is it?

That being said, let's look at some other interactions in other codex...

Part of my logic for building it that way was looking at what GW did with:
The Valkyrie - permitting 18x BS4 meltaguns + 12x S4 LBT in your opponents face turn 1, combo that with a 97% chance to get a +1 to go first...
Did I mention that the unit Scouts or Outflanks... or that it's Scoring? Cost = 1380

20x Assault Terminators w/ TT + SS @ 800pts - So a 2+ armor with a 3+ invulnerable... essentially confirming that volumes of fire, or LOTS of bullets, is still the best way to kill ANY terminator.

10x Nob Bikers w/ Pain boy & Warboss @ 825pts - Sure, being able to abuse wound allocation can be done much much cheaper by throwing them in a BW, but this is still one of the hardest and nastiest units in the game. Most armies know how to deal with this unit, but it still can win entire games by itself... or lose them...

There are more "uber" units but you guys know em, so I'm sure you get my point.

Even so, after all that... it makes much more sense to have the Sky Ray either be Heavy 6 or function similar to the Exorcist with Heavy D6. I do agree with yourself and FocusedFire that being able to shoot 10+ SM a turn would be pretty broken and there would not be any incentive to take multiple. Its hard to compare the price tags on the Ray vs Manticore as the Ray is 22% cheaper than the Manticore. D3 S10 Ordnance Blast, Barrage is much beefer given the slight cost difference. Another thought would be to create a rule like after the 6 are fired on a 3+ the rack is reloaded, on a 1/2 you have run out of ammo... Though I admit I prefer the simplicity of it just being Heavy 6.

On the subject of the Gue'vesa... 0-2 sounds perfect. There really shouldn't be too many in a standard list, and right fully so, excellent suggestion. I did consciously not give them lasguns as I personally feel that technology is Imperial and as these are meant to represent multiple worlds. I only threw together what I thought would allow a variety of conversions and a new model line. I think that it could make sense as las technology is pretty popular, perhaps instead of Stealth and MTC, they get +1BS and S4 AP- weapons on the roll of a 5/6? I don't want to hijack FocusedFire's thread however.

@Focusedfire
I misunderstood that you were making a Fandex and that this was more of a personal endeavor, rather than speculation on what very well could happen. I was under the impression that you were looking to create a discussion regarding the transition from the current Codex to the one which will be out in what... 2011?

I think you and I have a difference of opinion regarding what it means to be "updating" a codex, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that. What I perceive your concept of "update" to mean, is keeping some of the basic names and types but actually creating entire new rule sets, so that what you get is something that is the same in name but in execution very different.

When I look at Codex:Tau Empire I really don't see a lot of system changes that need to be, for example Orks Double Initiative to Furious Charge, Marines Traits to Combat Tactics, or IG Doctrines to Orders. I feel the core, like Eldar, Tyranids, Daemons and Chaos, is firmly established, appealing and creative with a more High Tech focus. In my opinion the basics of the Markerlight system are sound. Improve shooting, Reduce Cover, Pin easier, launch missile strikes are all great concepts. The biggest drawback is that, unlike Orders, there isn't enough Markerlight application in current lists to be able to really benefit from the flexibility. By reducing the costs of current Markerlights, I mean seriously I think everyone can agree they are not equal in ability to the same cost as a meltagun, a lascannon, an autocannon, or a heavy bolter, you gain more focus on what the Tau currently are designed to do. Combine that by adding in more useful pinning weapons, like making SMS barrage, and allowing rail rifles in squads, (I think suits need something to pin as well), and you actually are able to make use of a very cool game mechanic. An army about shooting, that HAS rules to benefit from an under used BASIC rule set involving shooting, but can't actually make it work because it's too cost prohibitive. At least to me it makes a lot of sense that as a shooting army they would excel at suppressive fire.

It is possible to make a huge Tau army even now. As I pointed out I have a list that has 112 models in it. If your goal is to provide the ability to have a 40-50 count army, a 70-80 count, and a 90-100 count then I think you are heading in the right direction.

A quick response to your list
3) IG Veterans, Marine Veterans(Stern * Van), Nobs & Lootas... you are welcome to disagree that the trend is to improve an Older unit. If you would like I could list changes from 3rd to 4th as well.
4) Rhino(15pts), Predator(20pts), Vindicator(20pts), Trukk(15pts), Battlewagon(30pts), Looted Wagon(30pts), Valkyrie(went from 170 to 100), Chimera (30pts) that's a considerable number of vehicles across the 3 codex.
5) Across the 3 codex Orks, Marines, IG all have seen both a decrease in model cost, and either the weapons have stayed the same cost or gone down.
Basic ork dropped (2pts) weapons stayed the same cost, lost burna choice.
Basic Marine same cost but gained Combat Tactics, Grenades, 3 Free Weapon upgrades, and Weapon Upgrade Costs decreased
Basic IG trooper dropped (1pt) gained SGT upgrade, Grenades, Orders, while Autocannon, Lascannon, Sniper Weapon Upgrade Costs decreased

I haven't talked about the Daemon codex as there really isn't a counter point to compare to it, however, out of the 4, Orks/Daemons/Marines/IG, that have been released with 5th in mind, I don't think seeing a 100% point break for the basic troops indicates that if Tau Empire #2 was released tomorrow, that we would NOT see a Fire Warrior unit as I've detailed. It's the same thing with Eldar... I would bet money that the basic guardian drops at least 2pts. It seems pretty obvious, but its definitely not in stone.

GW as you know is in business to sell models. My guard army went from being worth 10k points down to 7k points when the new codex was released, and even having a force that size I still went out and bought the new kits and units. From a business perspective it is much easier to increase the demand for your product by requiring more to be purchased.

I completely agree with your ideas:
1) New unit a la Remora
2) Change weapon stats

However I completely disagree with
3) Sky Ray as a transport
In 3rd edition devilfish could have 4 SM... In counter argument, why not just give Devilfish the ability to have 4 SM again and do away with the Ray all together? I strongly disagree with this line of thinking. Keep Devilfish @ 2SM, adjust the rule set on the Sky Ray to make them more appealing, Heavy 6 or Heavy D6 perhaps or S8 AP3 Small blast... there are quite a few options that will make this vehicle much more appealing.

Either way... I've looked over the other fandex and am interested to see what you come up with.

Compared to what the other races get, no, does not look very OTT. Now playing versus Tau for a long, long time, Marker Lights are still nasty as they are now, but keeping the 2 SM limit would, combined with your intent of increasing the marker lights used, would give the Tau a major advantage over Mech armies and other Tank heavy lists. Makes me glad I chose Infantry Guard.

Giving it a 1-2 chance to run out seems to give it a gamble that some would not take... Why not keep this but change it slightly. Something like on a 1-2, play must roll a d6 to check for ammo, on a 4+ the Sky Ray may not fire next turn, but will fire as normal the turn after. On a 1, 2, or 3, the Sky ray is out of ammo. (Reminds me of the ammo check for Necromunda)

Now for the heavy 6 or D6 question, I would leave it as it is, Its own 2 Marker lights give it a 0-4 missile attack and with the suggested ammo change that should be enough.

As an added bonus to the Pathfinders, why not give them a rule that gives them, if a marker Light hits, a twin link rule for rail rifles in that squad. This should give them a side role of heavy infantry suppression.

Now about the Gue'vesa. Well Lasguns are easy to mass produce, every planet past gunpowder has them, and in vast stock too. Plus Autoguns do have the same profile. So giving them a 24" str 3 AP- Rapidfire weapon IMO should be stock. But giving them an option to buy Pulse rifles would be nice.

I see no problem with giving the Gue'vesa team leader a pulse rifle. This goes along with a Kroot shaper being about to upgrade to a pulse rifle for a certain amount of points in the current codex.

The Sky Ray would be good with a Heavy D6 main weapon seeker missile. It would kind of be like a heavy version of the SMS that can be taken throughout the army. To hit with a marker light then to fire D6 missiles a turn is not that hard especially when you have to think that you have a chance to miss with each missile fired as well.

I imagine a few typical builds of the Fire Warriors to be:
6x man Marker Light Support squad @ 105pts. Ui with Marker Light and 2x Marker Drones (3x Marker Lights) (this is 35pts cheaper)
12x man Max Squad @ 133pts. Ui w/ BK, 2x Rail Rifle (S6 AP3 @ 36" pinning)
8x man FoF squad @ 81pts. Ui w/ BK

I also imagine pathfinders and marker drones to be in the majority of lists:
Max Squad 8x Path @ 135pts - Ui w/ BK and 2x Marker Drones (10x Marker Lights) (56pts cheaper)
Min Squad 4x Path @ 50pts (4x Marker Lights)

Min Squad 4x Marker Drones @ 80pts (4x Marker Lights)

Here is a list that I put together based on the changes I've suggested

3x S10 AP1
12x S8 AP3 Pinning
5x S8 melta
8x S7
7xS6 AP2
3x S5 AP3 pinning @18"
20x S5 @18" pinning (16 of which will rarely fire)
30x S5 @30" Rapid Fire
18x S5 @18"
6xS4 @ 24" Small Blast Templates, Pinning
5xS4 AP4 @18" (Rending)
25xML (20 of which are in 2x squads and are Heavy 1 so DoW, not going first, etc. are most likely going to require set up)

In one round of shooting on Turn 1, you should see about 13x Marker Light hits, 10x of which will be spread across 2x squads and the other 3x across 2x other, so 4x total potential targets
You have 8x Units that can benefit from the Marker Lights.

1x unit of Fire warriors using 5x Marker lights (2x hit + 3x negative to pin) firing @ a squad in cover have a 40% chance to pin the unit @ LD 9 and did not "go to ground", inflict 2.54 casualties, maybe forcing a Morale Check as well.

1x unit of Crisis Suits w/ Plasma using 5x Marker lights (2x hit + 3x negative to cover) firing @ a squad in cover inflict 2.78 casualties, maybe forcing a Morale Check

3x SM are fired @ 2x AV 12 Vehicles w/ a 28% chance to destroy 1x

No More Marker Lights

4x Crisis Suits w/ MP shoot @ AV 12 w/ 44% Chance to destroy no cover

1x Unit of Broadsides split fire, 2x @ AV13, 1x @ AV12. 41% chance to destroy vs AV13 w/ no cover & 28% chance to destroy vehicle #2 AV12 w/ no cover

2x Unit of Fire warriors fire @ 1x unit of MEQ in cover, inflict 3 casualties, cause a pin & morale check @ LD9

HQ
Shas'el 1x - 90
Cyclonic Ion Blaster, Gatling Rifle, On-board Marker Light, MT

So 5x S4 AP4 shots at @ 18" + 3x S5 AP3 pinning(change), all @ BS4 + 1 Marker Light Shot @ BS3

TROOPS
Fire Warriors 12x - 133
2x Rail Rifle, BK, Defensive Grenades

LD 8, 4+ SV, can regroup below 50%, 2x S6 AP3 pinning weapons

Fire Warriors 12x - 133
2x Rail Rifle, BK, Defensive Grenades

Rinse

Fire Warriors 12x - 133
2x Rail Rifle, BK, Defensive Grenades

Repeat

ELITES
Crisis 4x - 233
BK, Plasma, Fusion Blaster, MT

Anti-Heavy Infantry.
4x S6 AP2 shots @ 24" or 8x S6 AP2 shots + 4x S8 AP1 shots @ 12"

Crisis 4x - 185
BK, Burst Cannon, Missile Pod, MT

Anti-Infantry or Anti-Medium Tank.
12x S5 AP5 shots @ 18" + 8x S7 AP4 shots @ 36"

Monat 1x - 48
TL Fusion Blaster TA

Suicide AT. 1x BS4 TL Fusion Gun

FAST
Pathfinders 8x - 135
BK, 2x MD
Devilfish 1x- 75
DP

10x Marker Lights w/ Stealth.
Transport with 4+ Cover Save

Pathfinders 8x - 135
BK, 2x MD
Devilfish 1x- 75
DP

10x Marker Lights.
Transport with 4+ Cover Save

HEAVY
Sky Ray 1x - 180
Targeting Array, Disruption Pod, Multi-Tracker, ASMS, Target lock

6x S8 AP3 shots, 3x S4 AP5 SMBT, 2x Marker Lights, Fire like a Fast Vehicle, 4+ Cover, BS4, Engage Multiple Units

Sky Ray 1x - 180
Targeting Array, Disruption Pod, Multi-Tracker, ASMS, Target lock

Same

Broadside 3x - 265
TLDR w/ HWTL TL Plas, MT

3x TL S10 AP1 @ 72" + 3x TL S6 AP2 @ 24"

69 Models
2000 Total Points
3x Scoring Units
16x KP

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rogueeyes wrote:I see no problem with giving the Gue'vesa team leader a pulse rifle.

The SGT would come standard with a Pulse Rifle/Pulse Carbine


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I realize this is all "What if's" and "Pretty ladies"... but for S&G's I did a direct comparison of the list with "my edits" and the current:
3x S10 AP1 VS 3x S10 AP1 - so no difference
12x S8 AP3 Pinning VS 12x S8 AP3 Pinning - difference is current is limited to only 12x shots total not each turn
5x S8 melta VS 4x S8 melta - 1x less melta
8x S7 VS 6x S7 - 1x less Missile Pod
7xS6 AP2 VS 4x S6 AP2 - so 3x less Plasma rounds a turn
6x S6 AP3 Pinning @36" VS (none) - not available, 60pts to get at cost of 6x Marker Lights
3x S5 AP3 Pinning @18" VS (none) - not available, replaced with 1x S6 AP2 @ 24" - 2x Less shots for further range higher strength, no pinning
20x S5 @18" Pinning (16x of which will rarely fire) VS 20x S5 @18" Pinning (16x of which will rarely fire) - Identical
30x S5 @30" Rapid Fire VS 36x S5 @ 30" - 6x more
18x S5 @18" VS 15x S5 @ 18" - 1x less Burst Cannon
6xS4 @ 24" Small Blast Templates, Pinning VS 16x S5 @ 24" (8x will probably never fire) - 2x more shots @ +1S, no Pinning or Small Blast Template
5xS4 AP4 (Rending) VS 5x S3 AP4 (roll of 6's are AP1) - Less +1S, no Rending vs MC or D3 vs Vehicles
25xML VS 24x ML - 1x less Marker Light or 7x Less Marker Lights if you took the Rail Rifles
2000 points VS 2062 points - 62 points more or 112 if you took the Rail Rifles
69 Models VS 67 Models

In 3rd Ed, Tau were the most dangerous army at shooting. In 4th, they were still dangerous. In 5th they are no where near as deadly and need fixing.

I've been running some tests with various things in the Tau army and this is what i've found:

BS4

BS 4 Tau units are not that OTT. Does it help?: yes, but this is balanced out with how bad Tau are at CC. If Tau units were BS4 as Standard (with the Shas'o and Shas'el being BS5 and Kroot being BS3) it does balance everything out nicely. OFC the codex would need to drop the targeting array for vehicles (BS5 Vehicles are waaaaay OTT).

Markerlights

A standard 4+ to hit on all rolls for Markerlights is very fair. And in response to this, I made Markerlights do the following:

+1 BS, -1 Cover Save, Target unit must take a pinning check at -1 Ld if they take any casualties this turn, fire a Seeker Missile at BS5.

Other Markerlights do not gain the +1 BS from another ML.

Nice and simple and again balanced.

Close Combat

Tau are bad at CC, get over it. I made a ruling where all Tau units (Not Kroot) ALWAYS strike last.

Tau Weapons:

Plasma Rifle - Unchanged.

Fusion Blaster - Unchanged.

Flamer - Upgraded to Heavy Flamer.

Burst Cannon - Assault 4.

Kroot Rifle - 18" Str 4, AP 6, Assault 2.

Kroot Gun - 36" Str 7, AP 4, Assault 2.

Missile Pod - Unchanged.

Pulse Rifle - Unchanged.

Pulse Carbine - can also fire a grenade that doesn't allow target unit to charge in their next assault phase. Grenade does no dmg. They no longer cause pinning.

Railgun - Unchanged.

Hammerhead Railgun - Unchanged.

Ion Cannon - Two types of shot:
Focussed Beam: 48" str 6, Ap 3, Heavy 4, Rending.
Blast Shot: 48" str 7, Ap 2, Heavy 1 Blast.

SMS - Twin-Linked.

Vespid Blaster - Unchanged.

AFP - Unchanged.

CIB - 18" Str 4, Ap 4, Assault 4, Rending.

Rail Rifle - No change.

All of these have been tested and I think they are balanced.

Points changes:

HQ
1+ Commander
Shas'o - 65pts, Shas'el - 50 pts. Option to have any of the XV suits (22, 8, 81, 84, 88, 89)

Aun - 50 pts. All Tau units gain +1 Ld, Fearless, 4+ save.

Honour Guard - as FW but 15 pts per model and fearless.

XV8 Bodyguard - 30 pts.

Elites
XV8 - 20 pts.

XV25/15 - 25 pts.

Troops
1+ FW - 12 pts, come with Photon and EMP 'nades. Loses option for Pulse Carbines.

All Kroot - +1 pt, 6+ armour save, can infiltrate and gain stealth.

New Unit - FW supression team.
Stats as FW. Armed with Pulse Carbine. 12 pts.

0-2 Pathfinders - 14 pts. Lose Devilfish as compulsory (but they do have the option) and gain infiltrate and stealth.

0-2 Gun Drones - No change.

Devilfish - 70 pts.

Fast Attack
Tetras - See IA Volume 3.

Piranha - can take SMS or Twin Linked Rail Rifles instead of Drones.

Vespid - No change.

Heavy Support
Broadsides - 75 pts, relentless.

Sniper Drones - No change.

Hammerhead - 100 pts. No Ion Cannon Option. Other options as normal.

New unit - Mako.
Stats as Hammerhead. 85 pts.
Is armed with Ion Cannon and Burst Cannon (chin mounted). Has same options as Hammerhead.

Skyray - 100 pts.

Heavy Gun Drones - see IA Volume 3.

Special Characters

O'shovah - 150 pts.
Tau units gain +1ws, but have -1bs.
No Kroot, No Vespid, No Aun, No other restrictions.
All units lose always strike last.
All other rules unchanged.

Shadowsun - 150.

Aun'va - Dropped.

Aun'shi - 75 Pts.
Doesn't strike last. All Tau are stubborn and gain +1 Ld.
WS5, Rending.
Cannot have honour guard.

Tell me what you think.

@ RadioHazard and Paidinfull, please just post a PDF version of your listing...it clutters up the threat terribly, and makes it as unreadable as the last one.

@radiohazard: A rule that Tau always strike last in CC? Even if the enemy is assaulting the Tau through cover? Even if the army is a Farsight army? I think it would be quite broken to have a IG trooper squad be able to assault through cover, and still strike first (mind you, the frag grenades would allow them to anyways, but the point here is clear)

radiohazard wrote:

New unit - Mako.
Stats as Hammerhead. 85 pts.
Is armed with Ion Cannon and Burst Cannon (chin mounted). Has same options as Hammerhead.

so, this thing could have 3 burst cannons AND an Ion Cannon?

I think for O'Shova his retinue should be close combat orientated. I don't like that he is good at close combat while the rest aren't.

They should each have a sword of some fashion and a ballistic weapon of their choice.

To me this represents suits who he has taught himself to be able to help him when he gets into combat having a reliable bodyguard and not just armatures who can only shoot.

Give them WS 4 and I 4 to represent this, make their swords power weapons and possibly fearless (to represent they will die before leaving his side).

I think Tau should have some sort of bomb drone (like the squid) which move into base contact with an enemy and explodes using the small blast template or S8 against vehicles.

An attack drone would be good also, this would be used to help the Tau out in combat seeing as they don't like it they make drones/robots that can fight very well in close combat.

Drones should be fearless as they're robots and don't have feelings.

Through in a few forgeworld tanks.

I can go on and on with loads of ideas but this will suffice for now.

I'd like to see the progression of the "experimental" units. Make Shadowsun's suit available for elites with the option of deepstrike w/ twin linked plasma or fusion. Make all the experimental wargear/ suit systems available

for the army. Iridium armor for all! Also include some new "expeiremental items", maybe a few kinky weapons and wargear. One thing i also want to change back is Farsight's bonus. If i remember correctly, in the 1st codex

he raised everyones WS +1, which makes the army a little survivable, for such a restriction he puts on the army, he has to at least give us back the +1 Ws to all. Keep all the stats for the firewarriors the same and maybe

add another race or boost the kroot.

@Paidinfull- No problem. I do want to continue the dialogue but also want to focus on the Fan-dex.

What I am trying to do with this fan-dex.

First, I am attempting a cover to cover rewrite. Not to change all of the units but to correct the problematic wording and rules issues in the codex. I am also attempting to update to the new codex format.

Second, Some of the key systems to the Tau theme have lost some of their effectiveness so I am attempting to return the balance to the army. The big one here is the markerlight system and I have run into no argument about stream-lining the system.

Third, Some of the systems/units as introduced did not make sense in that there were more logical pairings for the equipment. This is about some units needing to make more sense from a tactical standpoint and to actually fit with the Tau style of war(SniperDrones and Rail Rifle Pathfinders).

Fourth, The Tau are still relatively new and some of the current units were stretched into filling FOC slots just to make the army seem like it had more to it than it did. I'm reworking these units to have more distinction and purpose along with a FOC shake-up that leaves room for new units.

Fifth, I'm attempting to guess at what GW may give us in new units and options based off of recent codex releases.

So far the changes that I have set for this fan-dex do not exceed the changes for the guard.

Now about your post(Please remember that all of these are only, IMO):
1)As things stand what I've come up with so far do not exceed the changes made to any armies released for 5th ed.
2)Sytems that need to be reworked are markerlights, drones, and there needs to be an army wide rule just to fit into 5th ed(Not saying I agree with this philosophy just noting and including the trend). Units that needed rework/repurposing were vespids, stealths, drones, and the sky ray. Parts that need some expansion are alien allies.

In response to your responses

3)About the older units. I was disagreeing about it being only one unit. Not that it happened but that there were more than just one improved older unit.
4)Vendettas/Valks went from fliers to skimmers and the vendetta is still 130 pts and though it may out shoot it is not as tough as a wave serp. LRBT went up in price. LR stayed about the same. The units you mentioned did all go down in price but their options went up to where moderately kitted versions ended up being the same price as before.
5)Some basic units did go down in price but other units went up. I'm following the SM model for not really dropping the price but including grenades and bonding knife. FW may go up to 12pt ea but you will see it in their abilities.

Now to your comments about the Sky Ray as a Transport.
First, I thought about the old 4 seekers per vehicle rule and two things stopped me. The piranhas would be over burdened weight wise and it would remove the reason for the SkyRay.
Second,I will admit to having never liked the Sky Ray model(Think the wing is too much and would have perfered smaller/lower profile launching hard point) but I know GW will not abandon it after having just released it.
Third, It just doens't work in the Tau list as a Heavy Support. There are other units that are more effective and it was dependent upon marker hits to fire from any area but didn't get any real tactical bonus for doing such.
These were the reasons why I kept it around and repurposed it to a transport for the pathfinders. It will be dropped in price and to devilfish armour values. Trasports will not be able to take the sms system because of wieght concerns. They now take drones only in the recesses. I think a transport equipped with 2 marker lights, 6 seekers, and able to carry 2 marker drones in the recesses actually fits nicely as the pathfinder dedicated transport. It functions to support the unit in its role especially with the pathfinders still having scout.


I would also take this moment to address why I am not moving to BS4 across the board and why I am not in favour of a huge price break for fire warriors.

Raising everything to BS4 removes the need for markerlights thus also removing a major theme of the Tau. I am not inclined to remove the combined arms mentality of the Tau. I actually want to push the concept of Tau are stronger through team work.

I feel that a price break will in some ways do the same thing. That doing so will push the Tau towards overwhelming their opponents through numbers as opposed to team work.

I also want to return to Fire Caste doctrine of most units being all equipped with the same weapon. This is because, giving a few other squad members better weapons is elevating the individual in a way that is Un-Tau. The exception to this rule is of course the Crisis Suits. This is one of the reasons they stand out in the current codex.

Taking the pathfinders back to being homogenous allows for the creation of an elite rail rifle squad. Returning this theme will also help to define the various units.


I gotta get back to writing. Keep up the conversation.

Lacross wrote:

radiohazard wrote:

New unit - Mako.
Stats as Hammerhead. 85 pts.
Is armed with Ion Cannon and Burst Cannon (chin mounted). Has same options as Hammerhead.

so, this thing could have 3 burst cannons AND an Ion Cannon?

Yup. It isn't as broken as you might think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Che-Vito wrote:@ RadioHazard and Paidinfull, please just post a PDF version of your listing...it clutters up the threat terribly, and makes it as unreadable as the last one.

@radiohazard: A rule that Tau always strike last in CC? Even if the enemy is assaulting the Tau through cover? Even if the army is a Farsight army? I think it would be quite broken to have a IG trooper squad be able to assault through cover, and still strike first (mind you, the frag grenades would allow them to anyways, but the point here is clear)

Basically, if Tau are in the open, they will ALWAYS strike last. If in cover and the charging unit doesn't have frag 'nades the Tau strike first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
sorry - i'm not all that gr8 with PDF's.

I know this is off topic - but I have to know, WHAT IS OP? It is the only term ever which meaning I can't figure out through context.

Over Powered or Original Poster.

OK, got a question for you guys.

I would like for your to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun

And then tell me if the sub-munition on the HH Railgun still makes sense or would it make more sense for the railgun to fire a stack of shorter/lighter sections and to make the profile like Range 72" Str 6 AP 3-4ish? Heavy 6.
I like the blast template but the thing just doesn't make sense coming out of a railgun. GW gave the HH the blast to make it a viable choice when compared to the broadsides. I was wondering if substituing a lower powered multi-shot would disturb too many players or not.

So question is, "Would you guys have a problem with changing the large blast on the HH railgun?".

If not, "What would you substitute in its place?"

Please keep in mind that I have already improved the HH Railgun with the piercing rule from a sabot shot that lets you roll two dice on on the vehicle damage table on any penning roll of a 4+. Note, if the penetration roll of a 4 is still a glance then both damage dice are considered as glancing. Both damage dice will apply towards damage recieved by the vehicle.

Also, if I remove the blast template then I have better reasons for giving blast temps to the Ion cannon which fits the fluff better.


Input will be appreciated, Thanks

Keep the old profile. GW's writers don't have any sort of idea how real weapons function, hence the nonsense descriptions of wargear. Don't try to rationalize it, you'll go crazy.

Examples:

Bolters having shell ejection ports when Bolts are supposedly caseless.
Railguns firing "submunitions"
Gauss Flayers "molecular flaying"

None of this makes sense.

Actually you can make sense of it. If there is an explosive shell then you can fire and hit a target. When the target is hit the shell explodes and detonates. Just because it is fired at high speed by magnets does not make it an invalid option to use a "submunition" that explodes on impact. The lower AP account for this since the explosive loses a lot of the speed from the high speed shot out of the gun.

Rogue eyes-Please reread the article. Railguns are being developed primarily to get away from carrying munitions. This helps unit survivability by not have explosives within the vehicle which might be set off by an enemy hit.

Also, a submunition using the railgun as a launcher would be moving so fast that it would use more of an apoc sized flame template rather than a Large Blast.


Keezus-Thanks for your input and you are right, it does drive me crazy.

I still want to discuss this because, IMO, the multi-segmented shot would fit the Tau more appropriately.

I believe that the current railgun rules are perfect. I think the Hammerhead and the broadside are the two units that don't need changing. And with the whole railgun 40k concept, its 40k....half the gak doesnt make sense. 40k is full of crap like that, and you'll also have to recognize is that we are trying to rationalize alien technology.

rogueeyes wrote:Actually you can make sense of it. If there is an explosive shell then you can fire and hit a target. When the target is hit the shell explodes and detonates. Just because it is fired at high speed by magnets does not make it an invalid option to use a "submunition" that explodes on impact. The lower AP account for this since the explosive loses a lot of the speed from the high speed shot out of the gun.

Totally correct.

radiohazard wrote:

rogueeyes wrote:Actually you can make sense of it. If there is an explosive shell then you can fire and hit a target. When the target is hit the shell explodes and detonates. Just because it is fired at high speed by magnets does not make it an invalid option to use a "submunition" that explodes on impact. The lower AP account for this since the explosive loses a lot of the speed from the high speed shot out of the gun.

Totally correct.

"You can drive a car with your feet if you wanted to, but that don't make it a good idea." - Chris Rock

Having a submunition option for a railgun is a poor idea as Railguns are in the business of long range precision strikes via delivering massive KE to the target. Submunitions by definition are smaller ordinance contained within a larger transporting munition and NOT a high explosive shell. As such, they are at odds with both of the railgun's primary roles, as submunitions are by their nature, designed to saturate the target (i.e. NOT precise) and the smaller submunitions offer less kinetic penetration.

While it is possible to fire this sort of shell from a railgun, there seems to be little point. Even if it were employed against soft targets, the dispersion pattern due to the core-munition's high speed is wholly dependent on how (and more importantly) when the submunitions are released during flight. Unreliable at best, and ill concieved at worst.

Tau Railguns work great as a game mechanic, but trying to rationalize GW's nonsensical nomenclature is a fool's errand. In real life, any role an explosive type railgun munition has is better filled by missiles loaded with high explosive.

Focusedfire says that's dead on, thanks Keezus.

Focus has rationalized it by using flechette's and a reversible polarity core. Its now using a template at range that is in a strait line with the barrel thus it cannot scatter, which at mach 7 you don't scatter. The flechette's lose momentum due to their smaller size and thus spread in the flame template manner. We are debating if you still have to roll to hit but this lets us get closer to original non-drifting shot.