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.

As a Tau player, I would like to try out some different tactics and builds. I heard about the Fish of Fury tactic from 4th that was much hated by non-Tau players (something that annoys my enemies more than JSJ? Can it be?) but I notice that it is barely mentioned now in the days of 5th edition, after considering it I can see problems it can face in 5th edition such as:

-Shooting under the Devilfish would count as shooting through a unit hence give the enemy a 4+ cover save, while this is of little consequence against MEQ players if I was trying to shoot down a ork horde it would be quite tedious.
-The general metagame of transports for your troops. To help alleviate the problem more Crisis suits would need to be added to the list to pop the transports before the devilfish close in.
-Widespread use of Melta, these can easily pop the devilfish, while they wouldn't be able to assault the fire warriors if they had already disembarked the tau would be quite helpless the next turn. This is especially dangerous with MEQ armies who generally have the most melta.

So do you think it's possible to keep the Fish of Fury viable in 5th edition? Is there anything I've missed in my analysis of the problems?

The addition of True Line of Sight (TLOS) in 5th edition and the removal of the 4th edition rule which said that skimmers do not block LOS killed fish of fury. You can't do it because the Firewarriors cannot draw LOS on the target. You can't shoot what you can't see in 5th edition.

Chaplain Sluder is right here. You need to be able to draw LOS to the enemy unit.

Skimmer is on a flight stand, Tau models can see under the thing and shoot at the squad. Skimmers not blocking LOS explicitly doesn't have much to do with it if the FireWarriors can still see the target, no?

Indeed, on a flight stand tall enough the fire warriors can easily see underneath the Devilfish, I know mine can.

"Indeed, on a flight stand tall enough the fire warriors can easily see underneath the Devilfish, I know mine can."

Do you mean to say your not using the flying stand that came with it?

I have had a tau player using the standard stands try to shoot under 3 devil fish in a tight group to hit some of my marines before.... his feet could see mine.... (there wer squads on the opposite side of each devil fish and the closest squadsknees could see my squads knees)

I'm using the taller of the two stands, I'll need to check but I didn't realise it was completely impossible now. It's a shame, it looked liked fun

The longest stand does allow FWs to see to me, but barely, and by barely I mean about 1-2mm lower and it'd cover his eyes (well, the lens he uses to see). Only the crouching FW has unquestionable sight beneath the Devilfish.

Do you mean to say your not using the flying stand that came with it?

Skimmers usually come with a mini-sprue of two stands, one short and one long, both of them can be classed as 'standard'.

It still works. It never really worked well against MEQs. Against others, it still works great. 12 rapid fire rounds (24 shots) will do wonders against anything softer than a MEQ. The big deal in 5th edition is that fire warriors are troops. Troops are the only thing that can take objectives so the fire warriors are not as expendable as they used to be. They are better used by staying inside the devilfish and babysitting an objective.

Drones and Crisis Suits also come with a longer set of stands than the tanks do, IIRC.

But then you're into the whole modelling for advantage issue.

Jefffar wrote:Drones and Crisis Suits also come with a longer set of stands than the tanks do, IIRC.

But then you're into the whole modelling for advantage issue.

If you use a GW height flying stand, you're good.
I had bought my tau in army bundles.
I open the box, and I've got a devil fish, some crisis suits, and drones, and loose in the box is a bunch of flying stands.

Are you going to say it's cheating to use one stand of the other?
Really people, we're talking about tau here, throw them the bone.

-Matt

Jefffar wrote:Drones and Crisis Suits also come with a longer set of stands than the tanks do, IIRC.

But then you're into the whole modelling for advantage issue.

Nope, crisis suit and drone stands are same set that the vehicles get, and for further comparison, also the same that eldar skimmers get.

Really? Huh, then where do I keep getting those pairs of really short stands from?

Actually, upon further inspection, it seems that some of my drones and suits have a third stand that is even longer than the largest vehicle stand.

I'd argue that using that stand might be iffy (since it came with a different kit) but firing under a devilfish only requires the taller vehicle stand anyway, so I don't see why anyone would want to risk credibility for an extra mm or two of raised height they don't need.

EDIT: Photobucket is being annoying and won't load the sign-in page, so i'm going to temporarily host this picture here (it is wargaming related I guess, but it's shaky, in any case i'll find another hosting site tomorrow and take it down in favour of IMG tags when I do).

Attached is a rushed picture showing the 3 sizes of stand I have. The first two are the ones that come with the vehicle kits, the third is what i've found on a few drones and crisis suits. The middle stand is sufficient for firing underneath a devilfish (but only just) and comes with the kit.

I blended all sized flight stands for use with my tau army on all flying models be they the extra short or extra long (there are 4 sizes, btw) just the have a more realistic appearance of gundrones and vehicles hovering at differentiated heights.

Due to the fragile nature of the flying bases, I sometimes left them off. Even with the varying sizes, since my opponants could see that official GW bases allowed for tlos, no one has ever quibbled about varying base sizes, preferring the Rule of Cool to model to model precision.

Either way; fish of fury dies a horrible, gruesome death against many of todays lists

It works well enough with Dire Avengers Bladestorming and being guided.

It is also good for shooting at Vehicles with Fire Dragons, giving the Exarch a Fire Pike and Tank Hunter and Crack Shot and not allowing the Vehicle he's shooting a cover save. All he has to do is see the tracks of your tank. Easy enough with medium bases.

Flavius lays out a movement formation for this in an article in his user profile. His is actually specifically written for Fire Dragons, but you may still find it of use.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/User:Flavius%20Infernus

One of the other holes 5th edition poked into Fish of Fury is assaulting skimmers. I don't remember the exact ruling from 4th but it was either difficult or impossible for foot soldiers to assault a skimmer. Spo, enemies had no choice but to walk around the Devilfish to get to the FW. In 5th its as simple as bringing a meltabomb or PF Pk etc and smaking the devilfish a couple times. The rule on AV in HtH combat is you use the rear AV to reflect the chance of hitting a critical area on the tank, so AV 10 Devilfish dont fare well against Meltabombs and the lot.

One more thing, i havent read the codex in awhile. Some one on a simlar thread said that the Landing Gear rule was automatic, that the Devilfish had to land if unmoved for a whole turn. this would obviously block LOS for the FW. anyone know if this is true?i had thought it was an optional thing.

Nagashek wrote:Due to the fragile nature of the flying bases, I sometimes left them off. Even with the varying sizes, since my opponants could see that official GW bases allowed for tlos, no one has ever quibbled about varying base sizes, preferring the Rule of Cool to model to model precision.

Note that the smallest base does not allow for LoS beneath a skimmer unless using the crouching FWs. The middle base on my photo (since I don't own a 4th size) only just allows for it with Tau FWs (i've got a few varying poses of FW next to a few Dire Avengers here, and the Avengers' eyes are significantly higher up than the FWs, so i'd go as far to say that they'd need the even longer size, which does not come with the skimmer and thus can be seen as MfA) and their eyes would be blocked by the hull on the smallest base.

Some one on a simlar thread said that the Landing Gear rule was automatic, that the Devilfish had to land if unmoved for a whole turn. this would obviously block LOS for the FW. anyone know if this is true?i had thought it was an optional thing.

Page 30 of the Tau Codex under 'Landing Gear' confirms that its use is indeed a choice and completely optional.