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.

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.