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.

Following in the wake of Frankie's success, It seems that Tau players are beginning to move toward taking two Stormsurges in their competitive lists as having multiple superheavies is a great advantage (2d3 stomps, survivability and shooting multiple targets). In light of this trend, i had a few questions that I was hoping to get some feedback on:

1. why arent people running 3 stormsurges?

I understand the concept of diminishing returns but I dont see how it applies in this case as GMCs dont have the problem of overkilling in the shooting phase or suffering extra damage like vehicle squadrons. I realize that you probably have to give up the Riptide wing but it would allow you to take 1 or 2 yvaras in your CAD and/or a drone net.

2. If Tau and Imperial Knights are permitted to have multiple LoW, why should other factions be restricted? Is it really because people dont want to play against multiple Wraithknights?

I would love to hear your thoughts...

1. There is more to the game then just killing units. You still have to actually claim objectives and a Stormsurge unit still can only claim one objective and is incredibly slow (and isn't shooting twice if you try and move to claim other objectives)

2. The reason tau are allowed to take multiple stormsurges in ITC is because its still a single LoW unit. So they aren't actually getting more LoWs just a larger unit of a single LoW

 CrownAxe wrote:
1. There is more to the game then just killing units. You still have to actually claim objectives and a Stormsurge unit still can only claim one objective and is incredibly slow (and isn't shooting twice if you try and move to claim other objectives)

2. The reason tau are allowed to take multiple stormsurges in ITC is because its still a single LoW unit. So they aren't actually getting more LoWs just a larger unit of a single LoW

Thanks for the reply. Why would you call a Stormsurge slow if it moves 12" per turn? Also, don't you think that having multiple LoW rather than a unit of multiple LoWs is a distinction without a difference?

Sorry i forgot that it had 12" move. But if it moves it isn't firing twice which is why its so good (because frankly its damage output is only worth it when it double shoots)

And no, it is very significant distinction between a unit of 2 and two units of 1. Two seperate units can control two objectives, can spread out of coherency to increase threat range, requires a disorganzied multi charge or multiple units to assault both of them, requires two units to tarpit both of them, extra wounds don't carry over to the second stormsurge. There are a ton of advantages MSU gets. The only advantage a single unit of two has is you can buff both of them with the same Marker Lights and thats it.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Sorry i forgot that it had 12" move. But if it moves it isn't firing twice which is why its so good (because frankly its damage output is only worth it when it double shoots)

And no, it is very significant distinction between a unit of 2 and two units of 1. Two seperate units can control two objectives, can spread out of coherency to increase threat range, requires a disorganzied multi charge or multiple units to assault both of them, requires two units to tarpit both of them, extra wounds don't carry over to the second stormsurge. There are a ton of advantages MSU gets. The only advantage a single unit of two has is you can buff both of them with the same Marker Lights and thats it.

well, and wound allocation. The lead has taken 6 wounds, time to switch. BRING THE OTHER ONE AROUND!

You do raise some good counterpoints but, with FSE, you could counter the lack of obsec by running 6 solo crisis suits with 2 flamers for 33 points a piece. They have the ability to deepstrike and are such small units that most armies are going to dislike shooting them with 3 surges and semi-flying (yvara) riptide on the table. The yvara also has massive mobility every other turn.

A unit can hold one objective at a time - two maybe if you stretch, but wound allocation usually makes that dangerous.

Riptides don't have that problem.

You still have to choose which objective you're actively holding if you are within 3" of two objectives. You can't control both at the same time.

The issue with triple stormsurges is a lack of support units. You have too much of your army tied up in one unit to be effective.

You could maybe swing it at 2000. Definitely at 2500. But not 1850.

The surges are still very good even when they don't double shoot. Situationally, you could sit back and double shoot. But they are deceptively good in melee against a lot more than you think. On average, in between your turn and your opponent's turn, you're getting 8 stomps. At least one of those should be a 6 and just remove whatever's under it.

For more context, the list I was thinking of was:

HQ: commander (drone controller, 2x marker drone)

Troops: 2 x 1 crisis suit (2 flamers)

Fast: yvara (ewo, fnp)

6 x marker drones

LoW: 3 x Stormsurge (pulse driver, ats, ewo)

That comes to just under 1850 and looks like it would be fun.

DooDoo wrote:
For more context, the list I was thinking of was:

HQ: commander (drone controller, 2x marker drone)

Troops: 2 x 1 crisis suit (2 flamers)

Fast: yvara (ewo, fnp)

6 x marker drones

LoW: 3 x Stormsurge (pulse driver, ats, ewo)

That comes to just under 1850 and looks like it would be fun.

I would find more ways to add in more markerlights, so you can get your storm surges shooting accurately, or with d strength missiles.

I have a side note question: If a unit of GMCs shoots, can they fire at different targets naturally (i.e. without stuff like target lock). The GMC rules say that "a" GMC can fire each of its weapons at a different target, but doesn't explicitly say it can fire at different targets than its unit.

Would this mean that a unit with 2+ GMC's would have to fire at least 1 of thier weapons at the same target?

 CrownAxe wrote:
Sorry i forgot that it had 12" move. But if it moves it isn't firing twice which is why its so good (because frankly its damage output is only worth it when it double shoots)

And no, it is very significant distinction between a unit of 2 and two units of 1. Two seperate units can control two objectives, can spread out of coherency to increase threat range, requires a disorganzied multi charge or multiple units to assault both of them, requires two units to tarpit both of them, extra wounds don't carry over to the second stormsurge. There are a ton of advantages MSU gets. The only advantage a single unit of two has is you can buff both of them with the same Marker Lights and thats it.

The marker lights is a huge deal and probably outweighs everything else you said.

The voting that was done for the multiple LOW was probably based off the fear of multiple low cost wraithknights.

Stormsurges are effective but fairly priced so we voted that you could take multiple.

Overall the biggest reason to not take 3 is diminishing returns.

Frankie's list would be challenged by battle company and a 3rd storm surge would compound on the weakness of his list vs the huge amount of obsec units you'd be facing.

I actually think the riptide wing is really important to the list as well, the benefit Is really strong. You'd miss out on that with a 3rd.

 Galef wrote:
I have a side note question: If a unit of GMCs shoots, can they fire at different targets naturally (i.e. without stuff like target lock). The GMC rules say that "a" GMC can fire each of its weapons at a different target, but doesn't explicitly say it can fire at different targets than its unit.

Would this mean that a unit with 2+ GMC's would have to fire at least 1 of thier weapons at the same target?

My interpretation would be yes, at least 1 weapon system would have to be fired from both models in the unit at the same target, AND you need to fire all of the same weapons in a unit at the same time. So no using the cluster rockets from 1 storm surge, kills a unit, "OK, now this storm surge shoots its cluster elsewhere."

On the topic of marker lights, my list has the same amount as Frankie's. On the topic of riptides, I have 2 less but I do have a Yvara, which is a lot more mobile and dangerous. Objectives could definitely be trouble, but what could stand up to 3d3 stomps and up to 12 d missiles?

DooDoo wrote:
On the topic of marker lights, my list has the same amount as Frankie's. On the topic of riptides, I have 2 less but I do have a Yvara, which is a lot more mobile and dangerous. Objectives could definitely be trouble, but what could stand up to 3d3 stomps and up to 12 d missiles?

Emperor class titans, possibly a tau manta.. But in 40k proper (non Apoc) Flying invisible demon princes of tzeentch with enough cursed earth for the 2+ reroll-able invuls, with RAW players.
Or 2-3 imperial guard wyverns going first, putting out enough barrage ignores cover shred twin-linked wounds to destroy all your pathfinders/marker drones, to remove your D missiles's Ds.

 CrownAxe wrote:

2. The reason tau are allowed to take multiple stormsurges in ITC is because its still a single LoW unit. So they aren't actually getting more LoWs just a larger unit of a single LoW

Amazing that the guy who makes the rules made the rules so he can break his own rules for his own army.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

2. The reason tau are allowed to take multiple stormsurges in ITC is because its still a single LoW unit. So they aren't actually getting more LoWs just a larger unit of a single LoW

Amazing that the guy who makes the rules made the rules so he can break his own rules for his own army.

They originally ruled it that people could still only take one, but then when it was later voted on people voted to allow multiples of them.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

2. The reason tau are allowed to take multiple stormsurges in ITC is because its still a single LoW unit. So they aren't actually getting more LoWs just a larger unit of a single LoW

Amazing that the guy who makes the rules made the rules so he can break his own rules for his own army.

Amazing that people still think that the ITC "make the rules" when in reality thousands of people vote on them and they tally the votes. The tin hats are strong with this one

 luke1705 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

2. The reason tau are allowed to take multiple stormsurges in ITC is because its still a single LoW unit. So they aren't actually getting more LoWs just a larger unit of a single LoW

Amazing that the guy who makes the rules made the rules so he can break his own rules for his own army.

Amazing that people still think that the ITC "make the rules" when in reality thousands of people vote on them and they tally the votes. The tin hats are strong with this one

I think I'll quote Boss Tweed, 'Vote how you want, as long as I am the one counting the votes!'

Do you guys not think Frankie's list is top tier? It has less the same issue of limited marker lights and min troops.

 carldooley wrote:

 luke1705 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

2. The reason tau are allowed to take multiple stormsurges in ITC is because its still a single LoW unit. So they aren't actually getting more LoWs just a larger unit of a single LoW

Amazing that the guy who makes the rules made the rules so he can break his own rules for his own army.

Amazing that people still think that the ITC "make the rules" when in reality thousands of people vote on them and they tally the votes. The tin hats are strong with this one

I think I'll quote Boss Tweed, 'Vote how you want, as long as I am the one counting the votes!'

Do you apply that kind of baseless scrutiny to everything in life. Certainly there exists a possibility that everything you ever knew is false, everybody is lying to you, and the whole world is fake. Unless you have some evidence as to it being false it just looks ridiculous to call it as such.

I cant think of any reason why the ITC would rig the votes. They don't take part in there own GT's, there business is based around giving their customers what they want, and in this case they themselves originally ruled it otherwise before the vote happened. Its not like they are running around winning a bunch of money at tournaments, by changing the rules to suit them.

 coblen wrote:
Do you apply that kind of baseless scrutiny to everything in life. Certainly there exists a possibility that everything you ever knew is false, everybody is lying to you, and the whole world is fake. Unless you have some evidence as to it being false it just looks ridiculous to call it as such.

I cant think of any reason why the ITC would rig the votes. They don't take part in there own GT's, there business is based around giving their customers what they want, and in this case they themselves originally ruled it otherwise before the vote happened. Its not like they are running around winning a bunch of money at tournaments, by changing the rules to suit them.

should I have added \sarcasm to the end of my post? I'm not particularly paranoid and I am not a sociopath.
Gripping hand, when a tournament uses their rules, is there any particular kickback for frontlinegaming?

 carldooley wrote:

 coblen wrote:
Do you apply that kind of baseless scrutiny to everything in life. Certainly there exists a possibility that everything you ever knew is false, everybody is lying to you, and the whole world is fake. Unless you have some evidence as to it being false it just looks ridiculous to call it as such.

I cant think of any reason why the ITC would rig the votes. They don't take part in there own GT's, there business is based around giving their customers what they want, and in this case they themselves originally ruled it otherwise before the vote happened. Its not like they are running around winning a bunch of money at tournaments, by changing the rules to suit them.

should I have added \sarcasm to the end of my post? I'm not particularly paranoid and I am not a sociopath.
Gripping hand, when a tournament uses their rules, is there any particular kickback for frontlinegaming?

No . ITC rules are free to use. That's why its all there on their website for free.

I don't think that FLG gets a thing from people using their rules other than people going to their page and mite buy something. The key is the rules must be good or no one will use them

 carldooley wrote:

Gripping hand, when a tournament uses their rules, is there any particular kickback for frontlinegaming?

Free advertising.