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.

Nova wrote:Piercing X:Armour saves better than the weapon's AP value are penalised by X when made against wounds caused by a weapon with this attribute. For example, a space marine (save 3+) wounded by an AP5 Piercing 1 weapon successfully saves against the wound on a 4+. The same weapon used against a guardsman (save 5+) would ignore his armour as the weapon's AP value negates the model's Armour save. An AP6 Piercing 1 weapon would still allow the guardsman a 6+ armour save, as AP is measured against the weapon before piercing modifiers are applied.

Piercing weapons have no additional effect against vehicles, cover or invulnerable saves, but never have AP-.

here. that's how I'd explain it in the rules, and it seems clear enough, even though I'm thoroughly inept at writing this stuff up.

Hmmmm. I like this idea when explained to it's fullest with that kind of simplicity. Good work.
I am assuming the weapons that would have this would be few and far in-between, but would allow some counter-balance to the crazy armor saves. (I partiuclarly think of Vespid with this kind of idea.)

Che-Vito wrote:

Nova wrote:Piercing X:Armour saves better than the weapon's AP value are penalised by X when made against wounds caused by a weapon with this attribute. For example, a space marine (save 3+) wounded by an AP5 Piercing 1 weapon successfully saves against the wound on a 4+. The same weapon used against a guardsman (save 5+) would ignore his armour as the weapon's AP value negates the model's Armour save. An AP6 Piercing 1 weapon would still allow the guardsman a 6+ armour save, as AP is measured against the weapon before piercing modifiers are applied.

Piercing weapons have no additional effect against vehicles, cover or invulnerable saves, but never have AP-.

here. that's how I'd explain it in the rules, and it seems clear enough, even though I'm thoroughly inept at writing this stuff up.

Hmmmm. I like this idea when explained to it's fullest with that kind of simplicity. Good work.
I am assuming the weapons that would have this would be few and far in-between, but would allow some counter-balance to the crazy armor saves. (I partiuclarly think of Vespid with this kind of idea.)

Only problem I see is that those type of rules have been phased out of the game. Ork Choppas and Big Choppas Reduced you max save to a 4+ so terminators would be 4+5++ against standard ork boyz. Think Khorne Bezerkers and a few other units had rules like that.

Imo i find cover saves more hurtful to tau's shooting than armor therefore reworking markerlights so they dont effect BS (to compensate Suits of all type and vehicles are BS 4, Comanders base BS 5, 'o BS 6) that way markerlights can do what they do best - remove cover saves.

Actually I like that ability of markerlights. Perhaps it should only be capable of increasing BS by 1, but 90% of counters are used to fire seekers and remove cover already.

Why they phased out such abilities from the game is beyond me: The Choppa rule makes a lot more sense than just "hey let's just make more power weapons" and "AP-, 6 or 5 is MORE effective against Sv2+ than AP3", but more importantly gives a healthy middle ground. its not like its complicated.

My annoyance with cover saves is that when facing MEQ or better, for all except our helios, seekers/ionheads (against most of the army but not all) and single shots from piranhas, we've pretty much got nothing to ignore saves: most cover isn't as good as the armour it protects, and even if it is you're just using 5 markerlight counters (that's 10 markerlights: 120-300 points depending on the sources) to worsen a save from a single volley by 1. Penetrating Flak is one thing, but even with markerlights, against heavily armoured peeps..

@Nova: The thing is, those Suicide Drones gain considerably as more Drones are added, and that's the point. It's something that you can use Tactics to maximize enemy impact while minimizing your risk.

Heck, throw just a half-dozen Suicide Drones at Orks, and you can probably engage most of a 20-strong unit, to score S6 hits on all of them. That's enough to cause like around 17 wounds, which will definitely earn its points back.

Even against a Tac squad of 10 SM, that's 8+ wounds, so you'll kill 2 or 3 guys, probably 1 "special" guy (VS, Heavy, or Special).

As a distraction, they're fantastic unit that causes enemy to reconsider target priority and engagement strategy.

Thus, it makes for a reasonable Tau-like technological counter.

OH, yeah, re: Piercing, this can't happen, as GW got rid of ASMs with 3E, and took next step with "Heavy CCWs" in 5E.

Your choices would be
- Rending
- forcing re-rolls of passed Armor Saves.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Nova: The thing is, those Suicide Drones gain considerably as more Drones are added, and that's the point. It's something that you can use Tactics to maximize enemy impact while minimizing your risk.

Ah but at what cost? And how many CAN you add? Certainly you won't be seeing S6 from the two drones a FW team can take, or the zero drones your kroot squad, sniper drone team or gun drone squadron can take. Even if you DO have S6 because of 6 drones, that's a single-shot S6 blast for what, 60 points? more?, for an AP- submunition? taking up a lot of system space on a single squad that now screams "assault the other ones, except with small half-dead remains, walkers, gundrone pairs or just pieplate'em".

Heck, throw just a half-dozen Suicide Drones at Orks, and you can probably engage most of a 20-strong unit, to score S6 hits on all of them. That's enough to cause like around 17 wounds, which will definitely earn its points back.

As I asked though WHAT's the cost? and how are they deployed/attached? You're making it sound as though they'd be a squadron (in which case where in the FoC are they), which would be better than as a wargear upgrade that's certain, but only if the price is extremely attractive.

Even against a Tac squad of 10 SM, that's 8+ wounds, so you'll kill 2 or 3 guys, probably 1 "special" guy (VS, Heavy, or Special).

And probably your (more expensive and not a bit tougher) battlesuits right along with it, if we keep to the original idea that ALL forces engaged are struck. one dead boomdrone+deathrain out of three deathrains isn't made up by 3 dead tac-marines, most likely not even if one of the three was the melta guy.

As a distraction, they're fantastic unit that causes enemy to reconsider target priority and engagement strategy.

Spore mines too but I've never actually SEEN a biovore. (no really. I've never even seen the box for sale at the nearby store.)

Its not that its necessarily a bad idea, but if they're the same cost as a gun drone and hit our own guys, they're just a small scale ethereal in "take this" value. That's why I'm asking. Less qualitative arguments, more numbers. Make them WORTH taking and you'll have me dead sold on them, potentially.

Mind you we already HAVE self-destruct drones: SMS shots.

edit/cont: As for GW having 'removed' some of those things, doesn't mean they can't put it back in. Forcing rerolls could work instead, mind you, but that struck me as too powerful. I'm talking something more middle of the road after all. more reliable but less powerful than rending, less reliable/powerful than power weapon but ranged.

The few pages of the IG codex I've gotten to actually read this morning though, tell me that there's a LOT of solid-shot railguns with longer range and big blast templates headed our way, including those 30pt basilisks in the command squads. There's also a serious risk of being outshot at 24" with the new orders, by lasguns of all things, against FWs that are twice the cost and no less squishy.

i will probably catch flak for this, but...

get rid of all the non-tau races in the codex, really is it just a buffet style alien party now?

EasyE wrote:i will probably catch flak for this, but...

get rid of all the non-tau races in the codex, really is it just a buffet style alien party now?

The thing is, if you want an army which doesn't have a bunch of different aliens allied and fighting together, you already have the following choices: SM, CSM, IG, Eldar, Orks, Necrons, DE, Nids, and SoB. Do you really need a 10th option?

EasyE wrote:i will probably catch flak for this, but...

get rid of all the non-tau races in the codex, really is it just a buffet style alien party now?

Yes it is, and since the Tau fluff is based around them incorporating alien races, it makes sense to be reflected on the tabletop.
Your statement is comparable to the following:

"Why can't they stop augmenting marines cybernetically? What is it, a TechMarine party?"
"Why can't they make some hippie Orks, that just want peace in such a dark universe?"
"Why do the Tyranids have to be so mean??"

You clearly are not a reader of Tau fluff, or a Tau player for that matter.

Nova wrote:
The few pages of the IG codex I've gotten to actually read this morning though, tell me that there's a LOT of solid-shot railguns with longer range and big blast templates headed our way, including those 30pt basilisks in the command squads. There's also a serious risk of being outshot at 24" with the new orders, by lasguns of all things, against FWs that are twice the cost and no less squishy.

From what I've seen/read/heard of the new IG codex there is no way in hell any Tau army will be able to beat any IG army. We are simply going to get out gunned to pieces at any range. The IGs one weakness (HTH) we can't take advantage of because there is no way in hell our one somewhat decent assault element (Kroot) having a T3 and no armor save will ever reach their lines. Add that the IG have gotten more than one weapon that ignores cover save and the Tau might as well just not show up.

So when guys are saying they don't want to see something too over powered, just remember this. Codex creep is alive and well in 5th edition. No matter how OTT you think something might be now, the next codex to come after it will topple it. If you want to make Tau uber shooty, then they need something equivalent or better to guard shooting plus all their special orders. Especially if you still want them to be the HTH wimps that they currently are.

Jayden63 wrote:

Nova wrote:
The few pages of the IG codex I've gotten to actually read this morning though, tell me that there's a LOT of solid-shot railguns with longer range and big blast templates headed our way, including those 30pt basilisks in the command squads. There's also a serious risk of being outshot at 24" with the new orders, by lasguns of all things, against FWs that are twice the cost and no less squishy.

From what I've seen/read/heard of the new IG codex there is no way in hell any Tau army will be able to beat any IG army. We are simply going to get out gunned to pieces at any range. The IGs one weakness (HTH) we can't take advantage of because there is no way in hell our one somewhat decent assault element (Kroot) having a T3 and no armor save will ever reach their lines. Add that the IG have gotten more than one weapon that ignores cover save and the Tau might as well just not show up.

So when guys are saying they don't want to see something too over powered, just remember this. Codex creep is alive and well in 5th edition. No matter how OTT you think something might be now, the next codex to come after it will topple it. If you want to make Tau uber shooty, then they need something equivalent or better to guard shooting plus all their special orders. Especially if you still want them to be the HTH wimps that they currently are.

QFT, I will be looking at the guard dex when it comes out, egerly trying to figure out what they could give Tau to try to equal their shooting.

Tau will still be able to win against IG. It's just that things have come 180 degrees of what will be the full circle. The Tau will now be forced to run the Ninja Tau deep-strike build thats similar in playstyle to the outgoing IG doctrine grenadiers, dropstroops, stromtrooper builds.


@Nova and John- How are these newer drone concepts simpler or more balanced than my original fail-safe shield drone idea?
Not complaining, just looking for simplicity and ease of application. After this last Codex and its wargear wording I find myself looking forward to the "Dumbed down" clearcut unit entries of 5th ed.(I know, you don't have to say it, John) Just would like some clear cut wording.


As for markerlight hits. How about this:

Every marker hit scored upon a unit reduces its cover by -1, the effect is cumaltive and lasts until the end of the turn. Marker light hits can only reduce cover down to 6+. This is an automatic ability that does not cost any counter to expend and is not affected by such expenditures.

focusedfire wrote:@Nova and John- How are these newer drone concepts simpler or more balanced than my original fail-safe shield drone idea?

Hell if I know, I'm afraid. The current one I'm arguing against is pretty ambiguous (and moreso in its usefulness), and I even found your idea a bit too confusing and un-tau.

As for markerlight hits.

Let's stop ourselves right there and hit the whole subject at once. Markerlights need work, but we've got to figure out a lot more than just that effect, ESPECIALLY given their cost and available numbers (which as is vary between way too many and nowhere near enough, with nothing actually in between).

The Markerlight network is supposed to be one of the big targetting/telemetry/combined arms systems of the Tau. Sources of it are moderately numerous but vary to quite the extreme in their actual per-marker-hit cost.

Pathfinders come in cheapest (other than the Armoured Interdiction Cadre bonus hits) at 24pts per hit on average, but requires a devilfish taken seperately. Everything else comes in at 50 or worse. The Tetra (100 per hit), Marker Drone (60 per hit) are particularly blatant abusers of our dwindling points pool, despite being dedicated vehicle and wargear for this express purpose.

The differential, I believe is part of the problem. Its not a bad deal for a squad of 8 pathfinders to light up the target and drop its save from 3+ to... whatever its armour save actually is (uh oh, but getting to that in a minute). The BS boosting compensates for the fact that carapace guard, MEQ and friends see maybe a 16% reduction in their saves if they were in cover, but not really anything else. We also need a counter to fire a seeker, and someone with way too many counters on a target might decide to try and pin them (I dunno maybe he thought taking 3 full pathfinder squads and firing them all at a single squad was a good idea.) Obviously target priority is a non-issue nowadays. Ah but there's also night fighting, and I gotta say that's actually come in handy for me twice in my life so far.

Let's start with the fluff. Right now, markerlights are mostly there just to fire seekers and remove a bit of cover. There's no real point to removing all the cover save for helios and friends, because pulse on 3+ armour is just as good as pulse on 3+ cover (that is, not all that much). Its also decent against vehicle saves. But is that all there is to it? The big tau command system (let's compare this to orders for a bit) is nothing but "spend a ton of points, and someone loses 1 to their cover save"?

What we need is a full overhaul. Tau's about the Greater good though, so we want to flavor things. Combined arms, not just 'heiarchy'. Commanders and elites bring bonuses to their underlings, yes, but the troops support everyone in a more proper fashion. Fun goes up, Fun goes down, Glory shared by all. Well, ideally we'll work for that, anyways.

For the sake of cleanliness, I'll put the rest up in a second post: sorry for the annoyance (I myself dislike it so I feel kinda bad doing so, but I figure; for the greater good).

@Nova- Please to understand that the aforementioned idea was just a starting point. Making the effect an included ability that doesn't burn through any of the counters and has an army wide effect.


No, the markers require a fair bit of reworking. This was just to give a beginning idea of where I'd like for it to go.

@Nova: I'm assuming that Drone Squadrons would be generally available as non-FOC units.

Secondly, a Tau player could always multi-charge Suicide drones from multiple sources into a single enemy unit.

@FF: Tau don't do one-offs, so splitting off a single model doesn't make sense from the way Tau fight - it didn't feel right.

Markerlight Overhaul:

-First, let's address the numbers. The system needs to be more widespread, but reduced in number from what are currently its main sources. Depending on the power, cost adjustments might be up or down (probably up for pathfinders, WAY down for everything else). Squad Leaders with Markerlights will become the standard, Marker drones a specialisation, and pathfinders, while still the extreme, well, I'll figure it out as I pull this stuff out my "non-CC-vehicle armour facing".

Combined Arms: Markerlight counters, as you suggested, Focusedfire, will be 'till end of shooting phase' on the struck target. Its just less of a headache that way, and we can call it our primary form of codex creep. Markerlights now come in two MODES instead of flavors. Most, if not all, squads with a markerlight will be able to fire it in one of two ways: Designation or Illumination. (names could use work, I know)

* Designation sweeps take advantage of more sophisticated and sensitive processing and sensory systems, and pass this data down the chain of command for those targetting its "recipient" afterwards, granting such bonuses to the regular troop on the ground.

* Illumination spots the target for the simpler units and systems, and place a penalty on the targetted unit (most commonly being a certain cover-dropper we all know and love), painting a bright "please kill here" sign of what the regulars need crisis'd off the board but soon.
We can figure out who gets what a little later.

Function: Markerlights may now fire in addition to any other weapons the model may fire that turn. It IS, however, nevertheless still a "heavy 1" weapon and therefore cannot be fired if your Fire Warriors moved. But whatever the Shas'Ui is shooting at, if he hasn't moved, he can try and markerlight it.

On a hit, declare which of the functions available to the unit is now being applied. Markerlight counters remain on the target until the end of the shooting phase, but the EFFECT only functions (a big part of the reason is to avoid confusion, you forgetting, or your opponent forgetting (aka so no one cheats anyone and we have less arguments) for the next unit to fire at that target.

In other words, the more dakka you aim at that enemy, the better (in addition to the self-obvious more) the dakka gets.

Example: A Shas'El opens up on a squad of Ork Boyz with his Burst and Missile Pods. He's equipped with a Markerlight and manages to hit. The Shas'El's player puts a counter next to the Boyz and declares he's illuminating the target to drop its cover. Say the Boyz had 5+ cover at that moment.
-A Fire Warrior squad targets it next, and fire, reducing that 5+ to a 6+, which helps a little and allows them to kill 6. The Shas'Ui successfully hits with his markerlight (lucky!) A second counter goes on, and the player declares he's designating them for ballistic skill.
-The Second FW team aims, this time having +2BS. There's no effect on the cover though. 18 of their 20 shots hit, 12 wound, and 9 of them make it through the 5+ cover to kill some more orks. His own markerlight misses though, so the orks are left with 2 counters, but the next group of Fire Warriors can't put it to any immediate use.
So the player decides "screw it", and decides to call in what I'm getting to next:

Seeker Missiles. Want to burn counters the old fashion way? Missed the chain and figured 'what the hell'? Just felt like an excuse to mumble "c-c-combo breaker"? Call in the cruise missiles. Remove as many counters as you want from the target unit right now. Pick your nukey flavors, and fire as many missiles as you gave up counters at the unit. In this case, two incindiary seekers, that plop a flamer teardrop on the orks like you'd fired off a hellhound (with the 'big end must be away from the firing vehicle' of course using the direction of the carrier that fired them).

From there, it would simply be a matter of deciding which units get to grant which options, and how many damn seeker warheads do we want to come up with (for differentiating them a simple color code would be easy enough on their tips. Just mark it down on the army list. "Red ones are flamers, Green ones are Blast, Blues are EMPs and the grey ones are standard" or the like. Easy enough for both to remember).

system examples: -1 cover save x counters is a good example of one, +BS to following unit, with of course a max of 5 (4 for gun drones feels right though since they're so cheap and already twinlinked unlike other infantry), -leadership, "reroll any saves" (probably a number of models equal to the number of counters, OR "armour if 1-2, cover or armour if 3, invulnerable if 4-5" or whatever we want), hell maybe even blind the buggers and force'em to spend their next turn using night fighting, as a counter dunk when you're out of missiles!

You people come up with something!

What about price? Well, all of a sudden we're seeing a damn good reason for a marker drone to be 30 points. A Pathfinder will probably have to jump up to 20, elite, but not require the devilfish; though the path will probably be pretty accurate with the thing. The squad itself will likely have to shrink, given the added power of this thing. Its a good reason, if you twin-link the thing, for the Tetra to be 40 points (50 was still too expensive), and the skyray, well, its definitely gonna gain some usefulness, but it may need its own individual looking at and I'm sleepy.

A limit can also be imposed, so that while the designation or illumination can continue being chained, a max of perhaps 4 counters can be stacked on a unit at any one time (which will lead to people throwing in seekers as a way to keep it at 3-4 without wasting good lights). Its more a matter of the overall markerlight system

@JohnHwang-Should I take this to mean that you also disagree with the concept of the Fail-safe detonator in general?

Not trying to argue but getting a feel for how you percieve the Tau and what direction your heading philosophically. How do you see the Tau fitting into the 5th-6th ed 40K future as a completely unique army?

I ask because a friend thats been playing Eldar since 2nd ed thinks that the Tau will become less distinctive over time and will just get renamed generic equipment as the "young race learns how to make war".

To put it another way:

The burst cannon will improve and = assault cannon or the scatter laser
Tau will get multi melta eqivalent for their vehicles.
Tau will get greater variety of units/tanks
Tau will get power weapons
..........and so on.

Some of this stuff I agree with. Some I don't.

Whats your take?

after much research I have come to the conclusion that tau are fine in 5th ed. If you disagree, you are an idiot. Codex: Tau, if played well, will win most any game. Most tau players I know are of the same oppinion. Sure, I'll admit, oppinions are like gakholes... but Tau are a really good army and you guys all know that. Sure, they could be a little better, but you can break nob bikers! You can deal with the lash of submission! You can shoot the piss out of the guard! (as a note I have refused every game against tau for 3 months, I play mech guard, and am ready to try with my new dex) but really, you guys are fine. you kill stuff good. I would change very little.

Ignoring the "Its fine, I haven't read the new rules but you all just need to Learn to Play, I know it cuz of my learnings" just up there, I'd say my biggest worry about where Tau are headed is 'oblivion'.

You can't just up the mobility and shootiness of every other army without increasing the board size. If the tau's shootiness is made more 'generic' as you say, over time, we all know their CC ineptitude wouldn't actually change. Nerf by Neglect, in other words.

Tau need to be the most inter-unit-support army out there. Given their ideology and weakness, "Unit A helps Unit B helps Unit C+D Unit C protects Unit B Unit D helps Unit A" should be the core of their future development: as a small empire, and only moderately sized not 'galactic-elite' army, they should be watching out for eachother.

As I've (badly) elaborated on above with my markerlight overhaul idea, the Tau army should reward planification and thinking on the field as much, if not more, than on the drawing board. Stacking up fire against the enemy that needs to be destroyed, in effect forming the "killing field" (it got in between those 3? that was the 'lure' part). Spreading fire around to disrupt formations and perhaps slow down incoming assaults. Making elites a real 'crisis' unit; made to intervene and grant/use the abilities and equipment most needed on the moment, shattering a counter-attack against a failed spearhead or stroke of bad luck, instead of being pure "this be your special weapons team. Except you don't get 0-2 per troops choice, you get 1 per elites choice. and they ARE the elites choice". This isn't so much a matter of changing their equipment as changing their purpose and performance a little.

Yes, the heavy support, the guns, definitely should remain feared. But what should really be wrecking units off the table is when a good commander takes all these barely-upgraded/down-pointed-despite-everyone's-codex-creep units, and creates a crescendo of sequential destruction right where he wanted it least: Opened with a volley of armor-slaying rail shot, and culminating in a rain of fiery seeker death upon the troops.

A big point that needs working due to this is how allied armies work with the Tau. They need to be part of this music, but cannot do so identically. What will they bring that adds just the right amount of dissonance, marring the perfection but making it the masterpiece?

Off-Topic

Nova wrote: "the Tau army should reward planification and thinking on the field as much"

I know that word is a legitmate word from either the French or swiss languages but reading it makes me think of Pres. Bush. and some of his famous verbal gaffs.

Not teasing, Just getting this amusing mental image of Pres "W" Bush fitting in and partying naturally in the Swiss Alps wearing Leder Hosen.


On-topic

@Kung-fu- Your statement is the equivalent of a Tau player saying that the Guard don't need the new Codex that they are getting. No Army in 40K "needs" anything because the entire game is a luxury. But there is nothing wrong with wishing for an update that more accurately reflects the flavour and style of the army. I, also, invite you to really read the Tau Battlesuit wargear section. The wording is horrendous and makes the Tau deserving of a clearer udated book just for this issue alone.


@Nova-I've commented repeatedly about how GW effectively reduced the board size in 5th ed..
I, also, think that the rest of us have been saying something very similar as to the army design. Now if you add something about having the option of a greater variety of effective builds would be nice, too.

I'll admit that it's not a good idea to look at a single new codex and immediately use it as both a mandate and template for an updated book. But a new BRB and several dominating Codices does set a trend. From this trend we can work towards how GW may update the army to more effectively fit into the 5th/6th ed 40K game. Using the a single codex(IG) towards your possible Codex(TAU) update becomes more acceptable when a trend has been set and if said Codex(IG) has a strong corralation to your armies style.

My bad, I *am* sorta french so a few of the words sometimes...

Way I'm seeing it though, there is somewhat of a trend. The recent Eldar codex was "with 5th in mind" but if I recall came out before it. 5th ed Space Marines take the armylist style further though I really dislike the layout; constantly flipping back and forth for each unit, but not really saving any time once you know it well enough and just need to recall the points cost; at least they could've kept the rules/weapons sections together with the point/armylist section, if they wanted the fluff seperate.

1) "Something as troops". Seems to be one somewhere in the newer armies
2) Extra army rules. Chapter tactics, IG Orders; looks like since 5th came out they're starting to put a command style difference as a source of uniqueness in the armies; thus my block of markerlight text up there.
3) Less 'special weapon' and heavy weapon options available for tactical squads and the like, but the ability to grab more in the other force slots. Exception being the IG HWS of course
4) SLIGHTLY better look at point efficiency this time, and a few somewhat less blatant "this is crap and overpriced so you don't take it but can't complain you lack options". (see:vespid)
5) extra integrated abilities, for only slightly higher point cost. Alternatively, lower point costs: They do want to sell more models after all.
and of course 6) Codex creep. I'm not big on it mind you and would want to equal, not top, the IG's changes.

Either way, Its fun and constructive to try and come up with ways to better the army; not like GW's any less human than we, and brainstorms are a good thing. I almost feel like writing the damn thing from scratch just to see if I can come up with something balanced and fun. In the meantime we should probably clean up a bit on what ideas we prefer, though I'd like to see more suggestions as to how to make the army unique; not just 'stat changes'.

One thing to help Tau be equal to their points without having to upgrade them stat wise and would follow the current GW model would be something like this.

Firewarriors 60 points.
Squad size 6, 5 firewarriors and Shas'ui
Add 1 firewarrior for 10 points. If the squad equals 12, the shas'ui gains a bonding kinfe and networked markerlight for free.

So for 120 points we have 12 firewarriors LD 8 and a networked markerlight.

Also in my world you don't roll to hit with markerlights. They auto hit. AFter all your just putting a little green dot on a target area, how the hell can you possibly miss? However the firer gives up any other weapon shots that turn. Now if you use the BS upgrade, your effectivly giving the unit BS4 without having to actually raise the stat and incorporating it into their points cost. Its a wash. The firewarrior squad is now probably worth its points, it just may not look that way on paper. (however people will bitch about the auto hit markerlight, but wouldn't care if the stat was just BS4 on the profile even though the end result is the same.)

I also agree that once a marked unit is marked the marker doesn't go away. Since technically all shooting is simultaneous I see no reason why two units could not use the same marker dot. I have not given the whole markerlight thing a lot of thought, so its incomplete in my mind, but I'm sure everyone has their own ideas on how it should work.

New Pulse Rifle Firing Mode:

Empty Clip: S:3 AP:5 Assault 6* Range: 12"

*After using this firing mode the unit which did so may NOT fire in the next shooting phase as they are reloading their weapons

What do you think? Allows FWs to fight hordes better I think.

assault 6, you're kidding right?

Nah, not really worth the extra cost that would be attached: BS3 S3 AP5 Assault 6 would average 1 wound against a T4 target at BS3, while a double-tap of regular pulse at BS3 is .667 of a wound.

a Heavy 4 "bladestorm" of regular pulse fire at that range could be exceptionally deadly, but not really sure it fits in flavorwise (burst cannons on the other hand...)

edit: right, that's it, I'm both bored enough AND convinced enough to just write a frickin codex (well the rules parts anyways) just for fun and see if I can integrate some of these ideas into something workable, unique and not just "more powerful than the other codexes" (codexi?)

Its Codices

What if GW made rules for these?
http://www.tauonline.org/Article/43/Crayfish/
http://www.tauonline.org/Article/51/Lobster/[url]
http://www.tauonline.org/Article/182/PathfinderSquidWalkers/
http://www.tauonline.org/Article/49/Ethereal%22Archangel%22/

The thing about walkers though is similar to the thing about titans: Tau like their skimmers. Its simpler, and quite possibly LOWER tech if you have reliable-enough antigrav technology that its commonly used (see: drones, piranhas being a civilian vehicle) than a walker. Less moving parts and maintnence, and even better than walking for crossing terrain. Granted 3+leg variants look pretty sweet (not a big fan of most biped types), but when you can save on maintnence, complexity, weak points and control by just making the thing faster more maneverable and hovery...

However, its possible the thing needs to anchor itself when firing: Perhaps that quad-railgun monstrosity has to land or entrench DoW style in order to fire.

Nova wrote:The thing about walkers though is similar to the thing about titans: Tau like their skimmers. Its simpler, and quite possibly LOWER tech if you have reliable-enough antigrav technology that its commonly used (see: drones, piranhas being a civilian vehicle) than a walker. Less moving parts and maintnence, and even better than walking for crossing terrain. Granted 3+leg variants look pretty sweet (not a big fan of most biped types), but when you can save on maintnence, complexity, weak points and control by just making the thing faster more maneverable and hovery...

However, its possible the thing needs to anchor itself when firing: Perhaps that quad-railgun monstrosity has to land or entrench DoW style in order to fire.

Sorry, I personally could never play with a model called "the lobster".

Nova wrote: right, that's it, I'm both bored enough AND convinced enough to just write a frickin codex (well the rules parts anyways) just for fun and see if I can integrate some of these ideas into something workable, unique and not just "more powerful than the other codexes" (codexi?)

Was thinking something similar myself about 2 pages back. Would you like to possibly work together or seperate and then compare?



@Krellnus- Those models are absolutely incredible. But, IMO, I feel that walkers are too common and personally dislike the idea of the Tau growing more like the Imperium or necrons.

What the Tau really need is an enlarged back story to firmly set the Tau philosophy.

Now those Quad Railguns on a heavy Tank chassis (Maybe use an Orca as the hull), that would be something I'd jump all over. The little crayfish with standard crisis suit weapons is a nice starting point but no railguns on them. Just my opinion.