Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/09 05:52:46
Subject: Re:40k 2.5 edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
It's based on 2nd Ed and the battle Bible floating around out there so only the official armies that were released under it. I posted some ideas for tau in 2nd above but that would require a bit of work to complete.
So that would be:
Eldar/Harlequins
Marines
Blood angels
Space Wolves
Dark angels
Sisters
Necrons
Inquisition/arbiters/grey knights/ad mech (all limited to a few units not full armies)
Assassin's
Squats
Orks
Tyranids /Stealer cults
Guard
Chaos/daemon worlds/cults
The only truely unique faction 2nd Ed didn't have is the tau, everything else that 40k has now existed then (ok custodes didn't have rules).
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/24 22:30:46
Subject: Re:40k 2.5 edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Since this thread has been risen from the dead, I looked it over and I think I got a bit carried away on aesthetics. If one likes 2nd, its fine to port whatever you want into it, regardless of edition.
I can fully understand wanting to take later changes to fluff/new factions and using them in 2nd, because it's a superior system, and it's not being rewritten every 3 years.
As to the quality of the rules, I don't think I ever played the Tau - not because I disdained them, but it was a new army and my heaviest game play was at the release of 3rd. I recall seeing them on a tabletop, but maybe I was watching someone else play, because I can't recall engaging them.
All of which is to say, sorry about the static, carry on!
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/27 08:27:57
Subject: Re:40k 2.5 edition
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
How bad should Tau suck in close combat in 2nd edition or a 2nd edition-like game?
Having no close combat weapons or pistols and more or less no dedicated close combat weapons is pretty bad in and of itself.
I made Tau rules and just gave them human stats because I thought under 2nd edition rules WS2 would just make them too weak.
With a 4+ save they wouldn't be too vulnerable against Imperial Guard but they'd basically never score any hits. In a close combat system rolling to hit with attacks they'd probably be more powerful in close combat than Guard even with WS2 I2.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/28 21:54:55
Subject: Re:40k 2.5 edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Commissar von Toussaint wrote:Since this thread has been risen from the dead, I looked it over and I think I got a bit carried away on aesthetics. If one likes 2nd, its fine to port whatever you want into it, regardless of edition.
I can fully understand wanting to take later changes to fluff/new factions and using them in 2nd, because it's a superior system, and it's not being rewritten every 3 years.
As to the quality of the rules, I don't think I ever played the Tau - not because I disdained them, but it was a new army and my heaviest game play was at the release of 3rd. I recall seeing them on a tabletop, but maybe I was watching someone else play, because I can't recall engaging them.
All of which is to say, sorry about the static, carry on!
No worries, this is all just headcanon theoryhammering so there's no right answer.
For the tau profile, the 3rd ed 40k profiles were pretty much 1:1 to 2nd ed minus movement - with the condensing of character stats. Guard, marines and eldar all transferred across identically, so it's a good proxy for how the tau would look in 2nd ed.
Which would have them be WS2 I2. But in 2nd ed they'd have 30" range S5 AP-1 rifles which would make them lethal, so being terrible in melee isn't a problem.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/29 01:10:31
Subject: Re:40k 2.5 edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Hellebore wrote:
For the tau profile, the 3rd ed 40k profiles were pretty much 1:1 to 2nd ed minus movement - with the condensing of character stats. Guard, marines and eldar all transferred across identically, so it's a good proxy for how the tau would look in 2nd ed.
Which would have them be WS2 I2. But in 2nd ed they'd have 30" range S5 AP-1 rifles which would make them lethal, so being terrible in melee isn't a problem.
Are they BS 3? Aesthetics aside, I think you can create a design space for them as being heavier than IG, more mobile, but also more vulnerable to close assault, to the point that IG infantry assault squads would have a clear edge.
They're call carapace, no? That's a bit different, with most overlap coming from Eldar.
The difference would be that the Eldar have a much higher top-end range in Aspect Warriors and Exarchs.
That would put Tau in an intermediate space between IG, Marines and Eldar.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/29 01:13:33
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/29 01:27:17
Subject: 40k 2.5 edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I would expect a tau fire warrior to look like this:
M4 WS2 BS3 S3 T3 W1 I2 A1 Ld7
Wargear: Fire warrior armour (4+), pulse rifle with targeter, pulse pistol, photon flash flares
Pulse weapons
Rifle short 0-12" +1 long 12-30" - S5 ASM-1 D1
Pistol short 0-12" +1 long 12-20" - S5 ASM-1 D1
Their high tech would be represented by the gun and the fact that their standard infantry has a targeter, making them great shots, but vulnerable to melee. At close range overwatch would be dangerous from them but it would be the only way they could prevent being wiped out in a charge.
These design choices would create a change in how some armies like guard decided to behave - charging them in melee might actually be a good option, which creates new play styles for different armies.
I've ummed and ahhed over what a battlesuit should be, but given their size and the scale of 2nd ed, I think making them a bike squad would work best. With the number of weapons they can equip they'll be pretty expensive though.
EDIT:
For the battlesuit weapons:
Burst laser short 0-12" +1 long 12-20" - S5 ASM-1 D1 sustained fire 1
Flamer (see flamer)
Fusion gun (see melta gun)
Missile Pod short 0-20" - long 20-60" - - - - - as grenade type* (this is basically the profile of a grenade launcher as I don't think the small launchers on battlesuits would be full missile launchers)
*standard grenade list - frag, krak, plasma, + photon flash flare
Plasma rifle short 0-6" +1 long 6-24" - S6 ASM-2 D1 sustained fire 1 (doesn't need to recharge)
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/29 01:51:59
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/29 01:48:16
Subject: 40k 2.5 edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Hellebore wrote:These design choices would create a change in how some armies like guard decided to behave - charging them in melee might actually be a good option, which creates new play styles for different armies.
Yeah, they'd have quite of a bit of standoff firepower. The longer range would be somewhat mitigated by the crowded terrain of 2nd ed. boards, though.
Which is to say: the 30" range has a nice feel, but isn't overpowering.
I've ummed and ahhed over what a battlesuit should be, but given their size and the scale of 2nd ed, I think making them a bike squad would work best. With the number of weapons they can equip they'll be pretty expensive though.
Light dreadnoughts? War walkers? Wraithguard? There are several ways you could do them.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/29 02:05:24
Subject: 40k 2.5 edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
It's difficult to reconcile because they were released into the game when the scale had increased, so it's not clear what they would have counted as in the previous edition. They are also all different sizes.
The one I'm mainly considering is the elite crisis suit, which is the most common and smaller than the others (excepting the stealth suits).
Based on model comparisons they're bigger than terminators and appear about the equivalent in bulk to a bike.
The broadsides (or at least the NEW ones) are huge, the size of a classic 2nd ed marine dreadnought.
So I think the crisis suits can be in squads of 3-6 with bike scale stats, while the broadsides can be considered light dreadnoughts.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/29 02:17:39
Subject: 40k 2.5 edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Hellebore wrote:It's difficult to reconcile because they were released into the game when the scale had increased, so it's not clear what they would have counted as in the previous edition. They are also all different sizes.
Right, and 2nd targeting rules recognize size classes.
Just throwing this out there, but having bike stats does take longer to resolve hits (because armor location and then penetration) than a higher toughness. Wraithguard kind of split the difference, having a low all facing armor value. You can of course size your squads as you see fit, but unless they have some weird jumping ability, keeping them infantry models with a special rule regarding toughness is a nice approach.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/29 03:11:45
Subject: 40k 2.5 edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Funny you should say that because crisis suits have jetpacks which were described more as manoeuvring thrusters rather than pure distance covering like a jump pack. They used them to move over terrain, react to enemy movements and keep them agile.
I just look at the way they are used when released as a small number squad and look at the 2nd ed scale and they look more like bikes than wraithguard, which could come in squads of 10 and were only slightly more resilient than a normal eldar (and not as tough as they've become in later editions where they're also huge compared to the taller infantry they used to be).
The smallest battlesuit, the stealthsuits, might fit the wraithguard mould.
so I'd probably go:
stealth - wraithguard
Crisis - bike
broadside - sentinel/light dread
larger suits - dreads
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/29 05:28:01
Subject: 40k 2.5 edition
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
Hellebore wrote:I would expect a tau fire warrior to look like this:
M4 WS2 BS3 S3 T3 W1 I2 A1 Ld7
Wargear: Fire warrior armour (4+), pulse rifle with targeter, pulse pistol, photon flash flares
Pulse weapons
Rifle short 0-12" +1 long 12-30" - S5 ASM-1 D1
Pistol short 0-12" +1 long 12-20" - S5 ASM-1 D1
Their high tech would be represented by the gun and the fact that their standard infantry has a targeter, making them great shots, but vulnerable to melee. At close range overwatch would be dangerous from them but it would be the only way they could prevent being wiped out in a charge.
These design choices would create a change in how some armies like guard decided to behave - charging them in melee might actually be a good option, which creates new play styles for different armies.
What would you price them at?
I disagree with them being equipped with a pulse pistol, the only purpose it really serves is to make them better in close combat.
Targeter is an interesting inclusion. It seems like something that would have been done in 2nd edition.
Regarding Fire Warrior vs Guardsmen, I recall in 3rd+ it was common for Fire Warriors to beat Guard in close combat primarily because of the Tau's good armour save. I see much the same happening here because of the armour save and the pulse pistol.
I would put Battlesuits in the same category as Tyranid Warriors for size, targeting, and interaction. They probably would have been modeled as vehicles in 2nd edition though.
I'd stat them at:
M5 WS3 BS4 S5 T5 W1 I3 A1 LD8 3+ 2D6 save, targeters, 12" move jump pack that does not scatter on landing, 1-3 weapon and support systems, 3-6 squad size, somewhere around 85 points each including a Burst Cannon which is like a weak heavy bolter.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/29 13:53:05
Subject: 40k 2.5 edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Oktoglokk wrote:
I disagree with them being equipped with a pulse pistol, the only purpose it really serves is to make them better in close combat.
Targeter is an interesting inclusion. It seems like something that would have been done in 2nd edition.
Do the models have pistols? That would be one reason.
The other is that a lot of troopers came with pistols and could upgrade or add other weapons, so that would be consistent with the edition. Space Marines famously were kitted out that way. If Tau are sort of an intersection of IG, Marines and Eldar, having pistols as standard equipment would make sense.
As far as the IG in close combat, it would depend on the equipment. Tau being WS 2 and having carapace armor is an interesting combination, but remember that in 2nd melee is all or nothing. The winner doesn't get hit at all, so IG troopers with pistol/sword combos will be +3 against Fire Warriors in my streamlined system (+2 with re-roll using the books).
All of which to say is that IG veteran assault squads would be useful against the Tau. (Also Adeptus Arbites allies.) Likewise, even Eldar Guardians would give the Tau fits in close combat.
That does open up some interesting game design space.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/30 00:09:45
Subject: 40k 2.5 edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Pistol as side arm was a funny thing in 2nd.
Marine tacticals came with one, arbites started with one and bought a shotgun or bolter.
Most eldar aspects had a laspistol side arm in addition to their aspect weapon.
Guardians could carry two laspistols for some weird reason (literally, their starting options were lasgun or 2 laspistols...) but could take any assault weapons as well, allowing each model to be all armed with a powerfist, chainsword, shuriken pistol and a shuriken catapult....
Sisters and guardsmen however had no pistol as a sidearm.
Not particularly wedded to the idea, it seemed like a modern military aesthetic that fit with their shooting only style. The whole army would have virtually no assault weapon list to choose from, so they'd be more likely to have just a pistol as an option if at all.
The WS/I2 double whammy is particularly bad for melee, because a guardsman will win any ties and have a higher chance of winning the combat.
ie if both roll the same number, the guardsman wins, if the guardsman rolls 1 less than the tau, the guardsman wins. The tau needs to roll higher than the guardsman to beat him.
The crisis battlesuits could only come in squads of 1-3 when they were first introduced and as 3rd ed was the closest in size to 2nd ed (with subsequent editions increasing game scale), I'd go with that as the unit size. Technically even in 10th ed you can't have more than 3 in a squad.
For broadsides I'd go with them as 1 man units given their equipment (remembering that weapons in 2nd ed didn't have scales, so an autocannon was identical whether mounted on a predator or a marine - the railguns would be the same).
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/30 01:20:02
Subject: Re:40k 2.5 edition
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
I don't think Firewarrior or Pathfinder models ever had pistols and I don't think the Pulse Pistol existed as a stat line until a couple iterations of Tau codex.
Having a quick look at the 2nd edition Imperial Guard codex, Guardsmen don't have pistols either, just Lasgun and Frag Grenades, except for the Sergeant who has a Laspistol and Sword as default weapons.
I always though it was particularly cruel that Battle Sisters went from 25 points per model including a Bolt Pistol in the Codex Army Lists book, to 28 points per model with no Bolt Pistol in their codex. You'd have to get a 9 on the Sacred Rites table to come close to making up for it.
I'm thinking just in terms of regular Guardsman with Lasgun vs regular Firewarrior with Pulserifle, they're both fighting with just a knife and rolling 1 Attack each; it comes down to the D6 roll. A rare match-up where ties and Initiative might matter regularly. The Guardsman is more likely to win and score hits but it would take an average of 4 hits for a Guardsman to kill a Firewarrior, whereas it would take the Firewarrior an average of 2.4 hits to kill a Guardsman.
I love the idea of Imperial Guard assault squads with pairs of Laspistols.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/01/31 03:56:55
Subject: 40k 2.5 edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
For cost, arbites have guardsman stats + carapace and bolter for 17pts each. so I would be costing them around that value.
The targeter and better gun offsets the worse stats, so they'd sit in the 16-20pt range I would think.
A war walker costs 80pts per model + weapons (with the 2+ power field though, I think this would drop down - the wargear card is 35pts) and its armour is way too high for a battlesuit.
So I that would make the basic crisis suit around the 40-45 pt mark with the following stats:
Crisis Suit Team (1-3) 40 points each
S5 Dmg D3 ASM -2 M5 WS3 BS4 S5 I3 A2 Ld8
Equipment: choose two battlesuit weapons from the list. Targeter and jump pack.
D6
1-2 legs 12/10
3-4 weapon 10/10
5-6 chassis 13/10
The sentinel has armour 15, the war walker 18. A marine bike 10.
A marine bike was immune to lasguns, and then in 3rd was killable on a 5+ by lasguns, so the gameplay will definitely change for battlesuits. But that's part of the point of using 2nd ed.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/31 03:58:08
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/02/01 00:35:05
Subject: Re:40k 2.5 edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Oktoglokk wrote:
I love the idea of Imperial Guard assault squads with pairs of Laspistols.
Swords give a parry, so a much better option. IG command squads can issue troopers assault weapons, and veterans get additional abilities, you you could really have an effect IG close assault unit against Tau.
Adeptus Arbites with storm shield and pistol or sword would also be very effective.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/02/01 08:52:42
Subject: 40k 2.5 edition
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
Hellebore wrote:The targeter and better gun offsets the worse stats, so they'd sit in the 16-20pt range I would think.
Yeah. I priced them at 16, not including a targeter.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote:Swords give a parry, so a much better option. IG command squads can issue troopers assault weapons, and veterans get additional abilities, you you could really have an effect IG close assault unit against Tau.
And you can't even shoot with two pistols in 2nd edition unless you're Cypher, but I like the idea of a brace of Laspistols.
I wrote some alternative close combat rules that give a bit of an advantage to paired pistols, and omit parries. I might post them.
|
|
 |
 |
|