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.

I think adding Gue'vesa and auxiliaries is good and all, don't over do this is the Tau Empire after all.
Yes, the Tau are arrogant to a degree

codex: Tau Empire 4th edition page 10 wrote:
As the Tau harbour an unquenchable confidence in their own manifest destiny, they are utterly determined that their own methods are the correct methods.

Don't worry Krellnus, The options I just listed are Farsight only. If the Tau Empire gets any Gue'vesa it will be the storms and them only as elites. As things stand though they are farsight only.

Also, read the sentences preceding and following your quote and it is a statement that would be taken as an argument for supporting the three units that I've proposed. The following sentence,"They seek out qualities that best compliment their own.", works with the idea of the Tau incorporating useful bits from other Empires. Deep striking units and scout units are almost a hallmark with the Tau.

Again, as things stand, The Gue'vesa are Farsight only and the way things are being set up is that the Tau player will have to "buy" certain HQs, or Units, to unlock the ability to purchase expanded varieties of the Auxilla(I.E.-Must buy master shaper to be get unrestricted access to all of the types of kindreds mentioned in the Codex).
Gotta get back to writing,Later

As I generally nly get to read this forum at work, on my cell, would you do me a favor and post the markerlight rules from your fandex? Thanks.

Well making them strorm troopers does have some problems...

Look at cadia, born to fight. They are raised to be in the Guard, yet they come in as whiteshields, and their stats suck. Then guardsmen, or their shock troopers, have the ws3 and bs3 stats we are familliar with, and these are hardcore troops, served for years, trained by the best. Then the Elite of the Elite are karskins, with storm trooper traits.

so, I strongly protest giving them storm trooper stats. At the best they should be guardsmen stats, and at the begining level they should have whiteshield stats.

oh and please dont call them storm troopers. These guys would fight the xenos to the last man, they are loyal withont question.

Storm troopers have the same leadership as the rest of the guard. I don't see them being any more loyal due to this.

I ask you to remember that these are the people that the Imperium left behind. No effert to pick them up. They are in the middle of a war and then suddenly a truce is called and the crusade fleet just ups and leaves you behind.

Doesn't matter that they were going off to fight a hive fleet, as a soldier you'd feel betrayed. If a regular soldier feels such then how does a soldier that was raised under the teachings to never treat with the alien feel about such abandonment. IMO, They would start to question everything they have been told.


Well enough of that. Got some questions for you guys. I have run into a bit of a snag on weapon roles/conflicts. The main problem is the Ion family. By all descriptions they should be rending, but this would put 2 rending weapons in the army that is in a gaming system where only 2-3 other armies have them and then it is only one per army. I really want to make them right but don't want to go OP with them

Now, I have some nifty EMP rules that in effect would make the weapons a Tau version of rending but then there is the second issue with the Ion weapon family.
This second issue is that by making the cyclic a blaster they made the weapon type short ranged by nature and the Cannon is long ranged. The Tau weapon progession is from blaster to cannon and it is quite a jump from 18" to 60". Compound this with if I make the Cyclic range 24" it competes against the Plasma rifle and if I shorten the range on the cannon down to the 36" that is required people will howl.

The Ion family really needs a rework and I'm commited to such because of the Demi-Urg. I don't want them in the Codex as units but, they are the ones who give the Tau Ion weaponry according from what I've heard fluff-wise. I'd like for them to get a casual mention. So as such, I am trying to make the Ions a bit more distinctive and have a few of my 15-20-ish variations that I'd like your opinions on.

Currently I'm looking at these profiles for the Ion cannon
Range 36" s 7 ap 3 Heavy 4, Rending or Emp
Range 48" s 8 ap 3 Heavy 3, Rending or Emp
Range 48" s 7 ap 3 Heavy 2, Rending or Emp, Blast

and these for the Cyclic Ion Blaster
Range 18" s 4 ap 4 Assault 4, Rending or EMP(If I do this the the Cannon should only be 36")
Range 24" s 4 ap 4 assault 4, Rending or Emp(This allows cannon to be 48")
Range 24" s 4 ap 4 assault 3, Rending or Emp

I've also toyed with an intermediate version for the broadsides that the player could swap with the Rail guns. I started on the idea from what other people have asked for and because I think the next edition of broadsides will be revamped to be larger.

Now the Ion weapons family is stuck in a tough spot in the Tau army. They are good weapons sitting next to great ones with out enough distinction to make them desirable. I think that they can be revamped into something distinctive enough. I'm thinking a The 36" cannon with my new sms system would be a nice mid-ranged objective clearing Tank that can still handle other vehicles.

What do you guys think? Do you mind the Ion cannon getting shortened to that range if it becomes distinctive enough to have its own seperate viable role?

focusedfire wrote:

What do you guys think? Do you mind the Ion cannon getting shortened to that range if it becomes distinctive enough to have its own seperate viable role?

As for your fluff, I applaud you.

The Ion weapons have always been an interesting issue. The option presented that is 36" ST7 AP3 Heavy 4 seems the most viable to me. It is, like you said, an "objective clearer" for MEQs, but also can be effective against light/medium vehicles. Rending...eh...I think the 4 shots make up for that.

focusedfire:

I am currently leaning towards looking at a mid-range weapon that could be added as an alternate weapon for the broadside as you have suggested.

The following are some musings that I have had on this specific train of thought:

When we look at the Tau Empire, we see that they use a variety of weapon types, namely projectile, thermal, and focused electrical burst (ion). I actually catogorize the fusion blaster, flamer, and plasma rifle as a thermal based weaponry for what its worth. Each of the types of weapons has a progression that they follow, from small caliber/focused application to some of the most powerful weapons in 40k. However, there are a couple of notable holes in the progression: Fusion blaster (short range targeted thermal) -> Plasma rifle (mid-range targeted thermal) then nothing. Also, CIB (short-ranged Ion, very high RoF, low general AP) -> "nothing" -> Ion Cannon (Long ranged, good RoF, good AP)

Now, the Tau are an interesting bunch, and it seems that they favor highly directed fire, which is why they do not use many blast templates (2 plus the flamer iirc). This focus on carefully directed fire can seem to be a hinderance - we do not get the fun that could be have with plasma cannon, however, I actually believe that this is a good thing. I believe that this reliance on carefully targeted fire meshes well with the background of the Tau.

These observations can give us some direction for our consideration of the Ion weapon family.

Here is the progression of the Ion weapon family as I see it.
CIB -> Heavy Ion Rifle -> Ion Cannon

I would keep the CIB and Ion Cannon as written. In addition we would add the following weapon to the Tau arsenal. I believe that it would fit nicely in between the light CIB and the heavy cannon. However, designing this weapon is going to be an interesting process. What follows is my attempt at creating a (hopefully) balanced weapon that would be a weapon option for the Broadside battlesuit.

These are the specifications for the Heavy Ion Rifle:
1. Mid ranged (36"-48"
2A. Stationary, Good-High RoF (3-4) OR
2B. Mobile, Medium-Good RoF (2-3)
3. Decent Strength (6-7)
4. Average AP (3-4)
5. Heavy Infantry suit platform

Now, let us look at the weapon profile that I believe would be pretty balanced. (Feedback requested)

Heavy Ion Rifle (Broadside suit main gun option)
Range: 36", Assault 2, Strength 6, AP 4. However, when stationary, the rifle can be fired in a higher power mode:
Range: 36", Heavy 2, Strength 6, AP 3.

I believe that this would fill the void that the Tau have in their arsenal for either a mobile, medium strength weapon, or a medium strength good AP weapon. As normal, the Broadside would be able to use these twin-linked.

Quote for Codex: "These privileged young orphans are raised by the Schola Progenium. Here they are schooled to love the Emperor and are shown the many ways in which they can warn his gratitude."

So, I am going to stand by my previous statement of Storm Troopers would rather die fighting to the last man then join a Xenos Empire. Not to mention how little in numbers they are, they would not have been left behind.

Currently I'm looking at these profiles for the Ion cannon
Range 48" s 7 ap 3 Heavy 2, Rending or Emp, Blast

If that is the small blast marker then this sounds about right.

and these for the Cyclic Ion Blaster

Keep them the same as they are in the Codex. With assault 5 and any roll to wound of 6 equals ap1... you don't just take one, you are meant to take a few and play the numbers game on the high armor target.

Heavy Ion Rifle (Broadside suit main gun option)
Range: 36", Assault 2, Strength 6, AP 4. However, when stationary, the rifle can be fired in a higher power mode:
Range: 36", Heavy 2, Strength 6, AP 3.

I believe there should only be one mode... and more of a mix of what you have here.

Range 48" Str6 AP4 Heavy2, Twinlink

Thank you for the compliment, Che.

Dwerth, Thank you for the input. It helped me to sort out what I am doing through critiquing your idea in contrast. Let me explain:

IMO, The way Tau name their weapons, the term rifle doesn't follow the progression. Might I suggest giving the weapon the Cannon name also.
You could go heavy and light but the term, heavy, hasn't been used by the Tau except for the Heavy railguns and gundrones in the IA books. I am struggling with my heavy burst cannons name for this reason.
It seems, rather, that the Tau go by a generic weapon description and then append that description to the unit they are used with. This is like the Broadside Railgun and the Hammerhead Railgun.

Now as to the weapon profiles. IMO, there isn't enough distinction to make it a favourable choice over the Railgun. With broadsides able to get Slow and Purposeful currently (maybe relentless in my dex) the weapon just wouldn't be worth the sacrifice in anti-armor punch.
The profile you posted is very similar to what I had toyed with for the Broadside Ion Cannon(BIC, need a light). I kept having a problem with the str 6 and number of shots. It just carried the Ion Cannon problem from the Hammerhead over to the Broadsides. It wasn't until looking at your post that I figured out the solution for the Ion family.

The Blaster is now:
Range 18" S4 Ap4 Assault4,Emp(Is the ap1 rule from cyclic blaster on a roll of a 6. Maybe 5&6 depending upon playtesting)

This is what I now have for the broadsides:
Range 36" S 7 AP3 Heavy 3, Emp

This will let me up the Hammerhead Ion Cannon to:
Range 48" S8 AP3 Heavy 3, Emp


Tell me what you think. Pls, keep in mind that I am going to tread upon sacred ground and by adjusting the rail guns. The Hammerheads are getting a range boost and one or both the broadside & Hammermead may be receiving a new Peircing rule. If the Broadsides get this rule they will drop by a point in strength.

What do you think of this and will there be never ending howls of nerd rage if done?

Why not just leave the current GW Codex stuff alone, and just add your new toys to it...

Power balance. Honestly can't make the great stuff any better without going OP. The rail guns are great. It's just the availability of S 10 multi wound shots has gone through the roof since the last tau codex. I think my peircing rule would be a nice Tau-like counter to this.

Piercing-On a roll of 5-6, the railgun automatically causes an additional penetrating hit against anything with an AV and will ignore any invulnerable saves.

I am looking at this for the Hammerhead only but it may make sense for the broadsides, too. Or I might do away with the twin-linking on the broadsides and at that point S9 AP1 would still be pretty Dantastic.

As for the Ion cannon, it needs the range drop to also help better define its role and distinguish it from the Railgun. Also, The Ion family is being defined as having about half the range of a railgun by the smaller weapons in the family.

Well if you ask me.. the Tau are fine the way they are now... Players tent to make cheese lists and the such...but the Codex is still fine.

I do like the idea of the Ion Cannon rules changes you are implying, however I'd be inclined to do it like this:

Ion Cannon Stream Shot.
Rng:48" Str:6 AP:3 Type: Heavy 4.

Ion Cannon Blast Shot.
Rng:48" Str:8 AP:2 Type Heavy 1 Blast.

FocusedFire:

As to the name of the Heavy Ion Rifle, I was actually having a very hard time coming up with another name. I think I spent something like ten minutes looking up synonyms and synonyms of synonyms...and that was the best I could get.

I like the change to the CIB. The balance between RoF, strength of shot, and AP with the EMP rule fits well. Just doing some thinking on the EMP rule for Ion weaponry, it should probably be limited to a roll of a 6. Or...random idea alert, it just drops the AP value by 1. IE: a roll of a 6 with an Ion Blaster would change the shot from AP 4 to AP 3. Yes it is a weaker form of rending, however, having rending available to large numbers of Tau forces seems to me that it might be a bit unbalanced. This would cement the role of Ion weaponry as the Tau's premier heavy infantry killer, without making it a better choice against armor.

Random thoughts

Sanchez-I, politely will disagree on this point. The current codex is not fine, never was. You can build decent and viable armies from it but the actual written rules are atrocious. The codex was hurried and it shows.

Now, combine this with time. Time meaning, 5th ed, newer codices written to be optimized for 5th Ed, newer weapons that have encroached upon the Tau's flavor/strong points, and wargear that was a strength of the army that has been made obsolete. You combine these things and the Tau are approaching a time where a rewrite is needed if not already there.

It is not a matter of winning. I still win with the Tau. This doesn't mean much because I was able to win against Tau with my friends IG before the new codex was released. I don't think there is a person who would argue the IG getting a new codex just because you could still win with them. They were an army that was hobbled by 5th ed rules and time. I feel the Tau are starting to be hobbled by these same factors.


I think this may be a matter of perspective also. The Tau have always been competitive against IG or IG based armies. If you are an IG Player(Which your sig suggests) you will feel they are fine.

As a Tau player you watch your armies abilities dwindle and you adjust. Because of the adjustment you still win but larger portions of your army are being made less effective and your wins aren't as decisive. If you are a Tau player will feel that it is time for an update.

Yeah, I am an Imperial Guard player, I am also an Eldar, Dark Eldar, Ork, Space Marine, Space Wolf, and Blood Angel player.

But that has nothing to do with it... The Tau are still a viable army and are not in the priority nor needing the priority to be amped up right now... Please state what new 5th ed. rules hurt the Tau.

Dwerth:

Am going to stick to dropping AP down to 1. This helps in the Anti-light vehicle roll as well. I'm probalbly going to leave the rule at a roll of a 6. Also doing this because of the Piercing rule I'm playing around with.

Radiohazard:

The Tau don't run a lot of Blast weaponry and I don't wan't to violate that. If any of them were to get a blast it would be the CIB.

It is funny that the Tau have Blasters that don't Blast. I noticed this and had toyed with the idea of making them all blast weapons but it just didn't fit in any way shape or form. I may even back off of the Vespid Blaster having the Blast template like I originally designed. Will let you know soon.

Sanchez01 wrote:Yeah, I am an Imperial Guard player, I am also an Eldar, Dark Eldar, Ork, Space Marine, Space Wolf, and Blood Angel player.

But that has nothing to do with it... The Tau are still a viable army and are not in the priority nor needing the priority to be amped up right now... Please state what new 5th ed. rules hurt the Tau.

Run and fleet:

Tau's greatest weakness is CC, something they must avoid at all costs. The run rule allows all armies (especially CC oriented ones) to move and close in faster, the changes to fleet that allow some units to run then assault only makes this worse.

Outflank:

Allows CC oriented armies to close in faster (Korsharo Khans all outflanking army is nasty) and it becomes extremelly hard for tau to maneuver when all units are on your doorstep without some weakening.

The much more brutal assault phase, that simply means that Tau die that much faster.

Remember the Tau's strength lies in their firepower and their ability to keep the enemy at bay, in 5th edition this became extremelly hard to not say impossible and the fact that once Tau (even kroot) get into close combat they are pretty much done for.

The Tau need an unpgrade, because they are a high mobility army, and their codex does not take advantage of the changes in 5th edition that would allow players to take advantage of these changes in the way the Tau can.

Off-Topic:
Sanchez- This has been covered in several other threads and I don't want to derail this one. So I will try to keep it short.

The same things that hurt the IG but in different ways. Here is the list:

KPs making drones on devilfish a liability
Run rule removing a turn of Tau shooting that doesn't get returned by if the Tau use the same rule.
Prevalent 4+ Cover has reduced Tau high strength/ranged punch without any rule to help compensate for this loss.(We already had markers and the Tau standard bs 3 was based off of the thought that they would be used to up BS but now you spend all the marker hits dropping cover saves for your ap 3 and down weapons.)
No more negative morale modifiers from shooting hurt Tau more than it helped.
Ther are a few more but these were the quick ones.

So are you saying that the IG did not need this last codex?
Tau and IG codices were about the same age and suffered from the same rules changes. Tau and IG were performing at about the same level tourney wise before the new IG codex came out.
So why the double standard?

On-topic:
Your statement is probably a good reflection of GWs attitude right now. So I am writing a Fan-dex to test out ideas until they do. If any of the ideas become a prevalent enough thought that it becomes a given that it should be included in the next codex I will be happy. If not, I will still be happy. Doing this while trying to take in all of the factors has been fun and challenging. It helps me keep perspective on what actually goes into the creation of one of these.

Run and fleet:

Tau's greatest weakness is CC, something they must avoid at all costs. The run rule allows all armies (especially CC oriented ones) to move and close in faster, the changes to fleet that allow some units to run then assault only makes this worse.

Then get kroot in your army to slow them down. Or use that firepower you all have... My dark Eldar are every black and white, no grey... meaning they either slaughter the Tau in CC or get slaughted on their way... It all depends on how you set up and who goes first... so use tactics and this problem is solved.

Problem Unrecognized.

Outflank:

Allows CC oriented armies to close in faster (Korsharo Khans all outflanking army is nasty) and it becomes extremelly hard for tau to maneuver when all units are on your doorstep without some weakening.

This affects all armies, not just Tau... You, the player, must counter this with your tactics and how you play your army.

Problem Unrecognized

KPs making drones on devilfish a liability
Run rule removing a turn of Tau shooting that doesn't get returned by if the Tau use the same rule.
Prevalent 4+ Cover has reduced Tau high strength/ranged punch without any rule to help compensate for this loss.(We already had markers and the Tau standard bs 3 was based off of the thought that they would be used to up BS but now you spend all the marker hits dropping cover saves for your ap 3 and down weapons.)
No more negative morale modifiers from shooting hurt Tau more than it helped.
Ther are a few more but these were the quick ones.

You think Tau are the only one having problems with Kill Points? And to be frank, I don't see a problem with them.

Problem Unrecognized

Run? Tau can make use of this just as effectively as any other race, use tactics and there is no problem.

Problem Unrecognized

4+ Cover save? well you can do the same thing, so be a pot that call the kettle black.

Problem Unrecognized

Shooting modifiers go both ways, and it helps you just the same as it help your opponent.

Problem Unrecognized

So are you saying that the IG did not need this last codex?
Tau and IG codices were about the same age and suffered from the same rules changes. Tau and IG were performing at about the same level tourney wise before the new IG codex came out.
So why the double standard?

I was happy with the old codex, this new one just gives us new toys, but the big change is now how do you play your guard army. The new codex was not "Needed" but it is a welcome change as it offers more, but it did not really change the old... If the Tau were to get a new codex, they would get new toys, but keep the old rules, much like the IG did. So when the Tau get their new Codex it should be much the same as the old one but with more options, not changes like you are proposing.

Sanchez:

The defining charactaristic of the Tau army is that they are horribad in CC. We have 1 speed bump unit for CC, and that is all. The items that you seem to cavalierly dismiss are actually enormously difficult for a Tau player in the current metagame to combat. We are very good shooters...but when the game rules have changed the balance of the game very heavily towards CC, then this change significantly, and adversely, affects the Tau army at a disproportionate rate compared to other armies.

In addition, the change to true LoS also adversely affects the Tau more than other armies due to our prior reliance on the JsJ tactic for suits.


FocusedFire:

The reason I specifically went away from the AP 1 rule was to make sure to ensure that there is an actual choice to be made when constructing army lists. I was trying to enforce (via the weapon design) the fact that Tau commanders must properly design a force that can take all comers, without having a single weapon that can do everything: light vehicle elimination and heavy infantry destruction for example.

Edit: for comment to FF.

So you are mad that the JSJ tactic isn't as cheesy as it used to be? You can cry me a river over that, because that one works both ways, you can now shoot an entire squad up if only 1 member is showing.

That 4+ armor save in CC is not as bad as you think, they may suck in CC but they last a whole lot longer then some other infantry in the game. And now that I cannot jump from squad to squad you can shoot the hell out of who ever just wiped one squad, putting a major damper on the CC army lists.

Everything you guys are complaining about are due to your lack of adjusting tactics... I have even lost my Archon to a Shas'O with body guards... in CC, I fell for one of his tricks and lost most of my retinue and I was unable to kill him, he then killed my HQ... Smart move on his part... so don't say you are helpless in combat, you have tricks and units w/ tactics that can ruin anyone's day.

I am not complaining that the JsJ tactic was nerfed. You merely wanted examples, and I gave you one.

Sanchez, I feel that your comments towards Tau players are franky insulting. I have adjusted my tactics, several times since the release of 5th edition. I have adapted to being more cautious with deployment, thinking more and more carefully about movement, fire priority, and any number of other items. I am not saying we are completely helpless in CC, merely that every other army has dedicated CC units that can easily dismember our forces. And their normal forces can also easily destroy our troops!

Now, we do have counters (expensive, and only defensive) ie the shield drone/generator, but those only affect our troops. We are slower, badly skilled guardsmen in CC. And we cost more! The only benefit we have is our slightly above average armor saves.

CC army lists have been greatly improved in the current ruleset via the changes to deployment and movement options. They have been hurt slightly due to the not being able to constantly charge into fresh combat thereby avoiding all possible fire. However, on balance, the changes to the ruleset in 5th edition are significantly in other armies favor.

In addition, you simply dismiss the KP issue off-hand. No other army has the problem with the KP rule that we do. Period. This issue cannot be dismissed so lightly. When anyone else takes a transport, they are putting out 1 KP on the board. We put 2. THAT is not equitable.

Since this is how to fix tau, Only thing I want from GW is to let me put my Kroot in a devil fish please!

Since this is how to fix tau, Only thing I want from GW is to let me put my Kroot in a devil fish please!

The Codex says "Transport: The Devilfish can carry up to 12 models. It may not carry any troops in VX Battlesuits."
Now in 5th ed. Transports can carry any of your troops, staying within their rules, after deployment to their attacked squad.
So you should be able to take the kroot in them, Unless I am missing something inside the Codex saying otherwise.

Now... @ Dwerth. I have a 50/50 chance of getting my but wooped by my friend with his Tau... Even after my new Codex. It all matters on who takes advantage first and is lucky enough for it to work. Your dedicated CC Units will get eaten up in shooting, so you have to get them in... Sacrificing 1 Fire Warrior squad tends to be the trap I fall for the most, He gets them into cc with my guys, their armor has always ensured to last a few rounds, and bam! his kroot arrive and wreak havoc on my troops.

So saying the Tau need more CC units is like Crying because you got Chocolate Ice Cream when you wanted Vanilla or Neapolitan ice cream... Tau are shooty, and very good at it... and to be honest, they are better at shooting then my NEW guardsmen.

You guys have the most powerful shooting weapons in the game, Focus on that and not CC... shoot them up and then finish them off with kroot. Works every time, and I have to play dirty to beat my buddy.

In addition, you simply dismiss the KP issue off-hand. No other army has the problem with the KP rule that we do. Period. This issue cannot be dismissed so lightly. When anyone else takes a transport, they are putting out 1 KP on the board. We put 2. THAT is not equitable.

Well can any of my transports do what yours can? No.
Can I get landing gear for my eldar/dark eldar skimmers? No
Can my transport shoot at one target and have my drones... oh wait I dont have drones on any of my armies...
Your transports can do stuff ours cant, are we complaing no... it is a small price to pay for a transport.


EDIT: And where does it say they are worth 2 points? Codex says the Drones are apart of the Vehicle and do not count separate unless you detach them.

So saying the Tau need more CC units is like Crying because you got Chocolate Ice Cream when you wanted Vanilla or Neapolitan ice cream... Tau are shooty, and very good at it... and to be honest, they are better at shooting then my NEW guardsmen.

I do not believe any serious Tau player is asking for more CC, I know I am not. I am just trying to make a point that because we are a very shooty army, we are disproportionally negatively impacted by the changes in 5th edition.

Well can any of my transports do what yours can? No.
Can I get landing gear for my eldar/dark eldar skimmers? No
Can my transport shoot at one target and have my drones... oh wait I dont have drones on any of my armies...
Your transports can do stuff ours cant, are we complaing no... it is a small price to pay for a transport.

EDIT: And where does it say they are worth 2 points? Codex says the Drones are apart of the Vehicle and do not count separate unless you detach them.

As to when the fish is destroyed, there is not only 1 KP on the table, there is the second, very soft KP in the drones. Two kills for an easy KP? If I were facing Tau, thats just like candy. I will not deny that killing a 'fish at range is a slightly more difficult proposition, with the 4+ cover save over 12", a slight increase in survivability due to the slightly increased armor (1 pt. over a rhino, or 2 pts. over a chimera), and the value that mobility brings. However, the Tau pay for this with a very expensive transport. A standard, basic 'fish with only the requisite protection upgrades runs 85-95 points. It does have the option to become slightly beefier in combat, but this is beside the point.

Currently, the IG is the best opponent for the Tau to face, even with their new codex. Killing tanks is just what we do.

Why not pay the 20 points and get the SMS then "detach" them at the begining... Them SMS are very powerful if you ask me and can be cheesy at time, but it is fair.

+if the transport dies, with drones attached don't the drones die? and being apart of the transport they are not a separate unit thus counting as 1 kp overall.

OK, Time to feed the troll.

I really want to continue with the fan-dex but then there come some statements that have to be addressed.

@Sanchez- First, I'd like to point out that you by your own admission don't play Tau. As such it makes me question your presence and attitude on this thread. I have played both sides of each of the armies you've mentioned except DE. As such I can see both sides of this issue where you apparently refuse to. Now to your posts:

Sanchez01 wrote:Then get kroot in your army to slow them down. Or use that firepower you all have... My dark Eldar are every black and white, no grey... meaning they either slaughter the Tau in CC or get slaughted on their way... It all depends on how you set up and who goes first... so use tactics and this problem is solved

Problem Unrecognized.

We were using kroot before as speed bumps, Run allows other armies to run around the kroot. Tau never get to stand in one place and fire at their opponent unless your opponent is mentally challenged or SMs. Run took away the time it took for the Tau to create windows to run through when the enemy got close.

If your are getting beat so badly, even with a new codex, by the Tau that it makes you unable to see the shared attribute and problems of the IG and Tau then maybe "you" should learn to use tactics.

(Hint*)Problem recogintion is a vital part of tactics.

Sanchez01 wrote: This affects all armies, not just Tau... You, the player, must counter this with your tactics and how you play your army.

Problem Unrecognized

*Failure to recognize problem.

Problem is that only a few armies in are really scared of outflankers in the backfield due to superior HtH ability. For the Tau and Gaurd theis is a bigger problem than for most other armies and failure to recognize such would make me question any tactics you might offer as a solution.

Sanchez01 wrote:You think Tau are the only one having problems with Kill Points? And to be frank, I don't see a problem with them.

Problem Unrecognized

Might I suggest that you reread my post at this point. I said the problems listed were the ones that the Tau shared with the IG. Not that the IG has drones but that the KP issue comes into play where they are concerned.

Sanchez01 wrote:Run? Tau can make use of this just as effectively as any other race, use tactics and there is no problem.

Problem Unrecognized

No, the Tau don't make use of such just as effectively. Assault units generally either don,t have ranged weaons or they are limited to 12". When the assault units run they lose none of their effectiveness, where as shooty armies lose their only ability to kill.

Failure to recognize such discredits your analysis

Sanchez01 wrote:4+ Cover save? well you can do the same thing, so be a pot that call the kettle black.

Problem Unrecognized

No pot here. Tau have a bunch of AP5 infantry rifles and just a few higher powered units. Orks in general, IG in general , Tyranids in general, Eldar guardians, DE warriors were armies or units that feared the Tau infantry gun. The Tau infantries base sv of 4+ set them above the base units of these armies. 4+ cover changed that.

These guns aren't 12" range or AP- strength 3. They are s5 ap 5 range 30" that no longer gets to use its range or strength to any real advantage. The Tau were designed some what Fire Warior-centric with fire warrios as the backbone of the army and 5th ed broke the Tau's back.

Sanchez01 wrote:Shooting modifiers go both ways, and it helps you just the same as it help your opponent.

Problem Unrecognized

Yeah that would be good if the Tau didn't rely so much upon shooting. This hurt the Tau more than any other army, to say other wise would be to discredit yourself. The Tau don't have the ability to slow the assault units due to limited pinning weapons and those weapons would have to wound first. So you as a Tau player burn through your marker hits to get the wounds by uping bs and dropping cover. Then the LD 10 unit takes its morale chk unmodified. You don't use the marker hits so you can drop the leadership and you don't get enough wounds to make them take a test.

But you can't recognize this because to do so, you would first have to open you eyes.

Sanchez01 wrote:I was happy with the old codex, this new one just gives us new toys, but the big change is now how do you play your guard army. The new codex was not "Needed" but it is a welcome change as it offers more, but it did not really change the old... If the Tau were to get a new codex, they would get new toys, but keep the old rules, much like the IG did. So when the Tau get their new Codex it should be much the same as the old one but with more options, not changes like you are proposing.

Not like changes the IG got? There seems to be a double standard that approaches the edge of hippocracy hidden in this statement.

As to the New IG codex not being needed, GW differed with you on this as well as the majority of IG players.

Your statement about the new IG not really changing the old forces me to ask you this question. Have you read the new codex?

The changes I'm making aren't any where near the level of what the IG got. I can say this because I'm writing this fan-dex. Any statement you make has no basis because you haven't read it as of yet.

Sanchez01 wrote:So you are mad that the JSJ tactic isn't as cheesy as it used to be? You can cry me a river over that, because that one works both ways, you can now shoot an entire squad up if only 1 member is showing.

That 4+ armor save in CC is not as bad as you think, they may suck in CC but they last a whole lot longer then some other infantry in the game. And now that I cannot jump from squad to squad you can shoot the hell out of who ever just wiped one squad, putting a major damper on the CC army lists.

Everything you guys are complaining about are due to your lack of adjusting tactics... I have even lost my Archon to a Shas'O with body guards... in CC, I fell for one of his tricks and lost most of my retinue and I was unable to kill him, he then killed my HQ... Smart move on his part... so don't say you are helpless in combat, you have tricks and units w/ tactics that can ruin anyone's day.

Easy to say until you get your own Tau army. Get yourself one and then back up your words. You might gain some respect for the players that play and win with the Tau. But then again, maybe it is all about you.

Sanchez01 wrote:Now... @ Dwerth. I have a 50/50 chance of getting my but wooped by my friend with his Tau... Even after my new Codex. It all matters on who takes advantage first and is lucky enough for it to work. Your dedicated CC Units will get eaten up in shooting, so you have to get them in... Sacrificing 1 Fire Warrior squad tends to be the trap I fall for the most, He gets them into cc with my guys, their armor has always ensured to last a few rounds, and bam! his kroot arrive and wreak havoc on my troops.

So it is all luck? You do a disservice to yourself and anyone who plays you and wins.

The tactic that your friend employs and you fall for tend to support my opinion of your play level. The Tau don't engage in attrition warfare if the can help it. Doing such reduces available
fire power. Using them as bait is one thing, using them as a sacrificial unit is something else.

Sanchez01 wrote:So saying the Tau need more CC units is like Crying because you got Chocolate Ice Cream when you wanted Vanilla or Neapolitan ice cream... Tau are shooty, and very good at it... and to be honest, they are better at shooting then my NEW guardsmen.

Never once asked for more or better CC, as a matter of fact I've been on record as to saying that the Tau in this fan-dex will be weaker in cc.

Sanchez01 wrote:You guys have the most powerful shooting weapons in the game, Focus on that and not CC... shoot them up and then finish them off with kroot. Works every time, and I have to play dirty to beat my buddy.

Again, bold talk but seeing as you don't play Tau that is all it is...Isn't it?

Sanchez01 wrote:Well can any of my transports do what yours can? No.
Can I get landing gear for my eldar/dark eldar skimmers? No
Can my transport shoot at one target and have my drones... oh wait I dont have drones on any of my armies...
Your transports can do stuff ours cant, are we complaing no... it is a small price to pay for a transport.

EDIT: And where does it say they are worth 2 points? Codex says the Drones are apart of the Vehicle and do not count separate unless you detach them.

1)Chimeras are 55 points and come with a range 36" multi las. I'd say a S6 Ap6 Heay 3 is something that the Tau transports cannot do.
2)The Eldar get vectored engines and are fast. Things the Tau transports cannot do.
3)Passengers from inside the chimera can shoot at differing targets with their mealtas, Something Tau transports don't allow.
4)Sounds like you complaing about having a cheaper better armed transport, yes it sounds just like that.

And to answer your question. The drones are treated as passsengers, so when the vehicle goes up they disembark. If they die in the process then they count as a KP. If they die after such They count as a KP. The only way for the drones to not count as a seperate KP is for the Vehicle to never get destroyed.

you by your own admission don't play Tau

I have a Tau fleet, but not a 40k army.

If your are getting beat so badly, even with a new codex, by the Tau that it makes you unable to see the shared attribute and problems of the IG and Tau then maybe "you" should learn to use tactics.

It depends on the match, and I believe we are more evenly matched and no side has the greater upper hand. The player makes the army great, not the codex. Remember that.

Problem is that only a few armies in are really scared of outflankers in the backfield due to superior HtH ability. For the Tau and Gaurd theis is a bigger problem than for most other armies and failure to recognize such would make me question any tactics you might offer as a solution.

Then adjust your playstyle if you think your opponent might do this. Blaming any loss because of this rule is just wrong, you should have prepared for it.

No, the Tau don't make use of such just as effectively. Assault units generally either don,t have ranged weaons or they are limited to 12". When the assault units run they lose none of their effectiveness, where as shooty armies lose their only ability to kill.

You don't hear me complaining and Guardsmen are easier to kill then your fire warrioirs, learn to deal with it, and keep playing.

These guns aren't 12" range or AP- strength 3. They are s5 ap 5 range 30" that no longer gets to use its range or strength to any real advantage. The Tau were designed some what Fire Warior-centric with fire warrios as the backbone of the army and 5th ed broke the Tau's back.

Then quite playing in city scape... play or maneuver your troops so they can use their weapons effectivly... and this cover save. you can get it too... Your army is so much better then you are giving it credit for.

Yeah that would be good if the Tau didn't rely so much upon shooting.

That is what tau is about, and in 4th ed they were a bit OP, now they are equaled out and doing quite well.

Not like changes the IG got? There seems to be a double standard that approaches the edge of hippocracy hidden in this statement.

As to the New IG codex not being needed, GW differed with you on this as well as the majority of IG players.

Your statement about the new IG not really changing the old forces me to ask you this question. Have you read the new codex? ?

Yeah I have it, I got it the day it came out... I love the toys, but does that mean I am going to play with a deathstrike? all three types of hellhounds, or 7 russ tanks? No, I use Infantry... heavy weapons changes made me happy, but I am still fielding the same amount... the only thing that changed for me is that I field on averaged 2 basilisks and 2 russ tanks now... the old list was 2-1 or 1-2... So there are some good to it... but I would say my Wolves need one more, My Dark Eldar need one more... But I am grateful for the Guard Codex, it has, in truth, made games a bit more fun. But the Tau... well they could use one, but not a priority like poeple seem to make it out to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

And to answer your question. The drones are treated as passsengers, so when the vehicle goes up they disembark. If they die in the process then they count as a KP. If they die after such They count as a KP. The only way for the drones to not count as a seperate KP is for the Vehicle to never get destroyed.

I fail to see how this is such a downfall... it sounds fair... take better care of your transports in game

Sanchez01 wrote: I have a Tau fleet, but not a 40k army.

This explains much.

Sanchez01 wrote:It depends on the match, and I believe we are more evenly matched and no side has the greater upper hand. The player makes the army great, not the codex. Remember that. .

Not what you said before. You said it was up to luck. Again it is easy to say things. Doing is much more difficult. This is because the Tau are running out of Tactics to"adjust" with.

Sanchez dude, your coming off as failrly arrogant with the, well if they can beat me then they must be ok statements. You sound like this to those of us that have been playing tau ever since they came out: Behold, the Mighty Sanchez, if an army wins against him it must be fine....Priceless.

Sanchez01 wrote:Then adjust your playstyle if you think your opponent might do this. Blaming any loss because of this rule is just wrong, you should have prepared for it..

You realise that your talking to the guy that before the old tactics stop working that he starts working on the next set of tactics as apposed to just shifting to another army. The number of armies that you claim would tend to support that you are the latter. I only have Tau and Eldar. I've borrowed other peoples armies and when I do I usually win. When I stick to my Tau, I usually win.

BTW, Never blamed a loss on the rule. That is something that you have tried to assert, incorrectly, into a conversation where I never mentioned winning or losing due to a rule. All I have said is that the list of available builds and tactics that are effective fot the Tau have been steadily shrinking. As an experieneced Tau player talking to someone who apperently knows nothing about them, Maybe you would have a better track record against the Tau if you took the time to learn what you are trying to talk about.

Oh yeah, calling something cheesy tends to lead us to believe that you "are" the Type to blame the rules. That is because if the"MIGHTY SANCHEZ" loses it must be cheese. Your way of blaming a rule. Seriously dude, to me, you are coming off as that arrogant.

Sanchez01 wrote:You don't hear me complaining and Guardsmen are easier to kill then your fire warrioirs, learn to deal with it, and keep playing.

Funny, sure sounded that way when your stating how your friend can beat your IG.

Sanchez01 wrote:Then quite playing in city scape... play or maneuver your troops so they can use their weapons effectivly... and this cover save. you can get it too... Your army is so much better then you are giving it credit for.

Swing and a miss, Not playing in city scape. You don't even realise thet there are five armies that statistically outshoot the Tau out in the open.

We already had the 4+ save unlike the IG and others I mentioned. Their was no real benefit to the 4+ cover other that when facing ordinance. Your inability to understand the concept shows a certain lack of experience.

Sanchez01 wrote:That is what tau is about, and in 4th ed they were a bit OP, now they are equaled out and doing quite well.

The Tau had one year where they were competitive, so they must have been OP.

Sanchez01 wrote:Yeah I have it, I got it the day it came out... I love the toys, but does that mean I am going to play with a deathstrike? all three types of hellhounds, or 7 russ tanks? No, I use Infantry... heavy weapons changes made me happy, but I am still fielding the same amount... the only thing that changed for me is that I field on averaged 2 basilisks and 2 russ tanks now... the old list was 2-1 or 1-2... So there are some good to it... but I would say my Wolves need one more, My Dark Eldar need one more... But I am grateful for the Guard Codex, it has, in truth, made games a bit more fun. But the Tau... well they could use one, but not a priority like poeple seem to make it out to be.

Nice way to try and doge the point. The point was that the IG underwent a major overhaul from the command structure dowm and you can't even admit such. This is where I know that you are no longer worth the effort.


You have by now appended your last with another in the long list od learn to play better with the comment about taking care of you transports.

You keep throwing line about tactics that have never been discussed here. Do you know why that is?

It is because this is the proposed rules forum. If you want to talk tactics I have a Tau tactica thread over in the tactics forum. Read and learn who you are talking too before you say use tactics. I have tolerated this derailment because it has been amusing but I grow bored with you, so please take it elswhere.

Feeding time is now done.



On Topic: Have finished the Summay and am working back through the Army list. Another couple of days and I should be approaching the beginning of points tweeking and which weapon options will or will not make the cut.

So far it looks to be shaping up well.
I have helped to clarify some units that had muddled purposes.
Corrected horrible flaws in the drone and battlesuit wargear rules.
Removed useless wargear or repurposed such to be viable again.
Fixed unusual pricing in vehicle secondary weapons.
Stream-lined cumbersome rules
Gotten rid of uselees special character
Addressed certain 5th ed rules issues.

And a bunch of other stuff. It is now a matter of transferring from scribbled notes to word pad.

Keep the input coming.

BTW, Piercing rule is now. Railgun Sabot ignores Inv saves and when rolling for armour pen if a4 or 4+ is rolled then 2 dice are rolled on the vehicle damage table.

How does that sound? Remember my pricing is not going down on the weapons and vehicles. They are staying in the same area or going up a little.