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.

So Tau have an option for their vehicles of taking Flechette Dischargers, and every model that attacks them suffers a str 4 ap - hit. What if this was put on crisis suits. Lower the str to 3 since it's on a smaller platform. Cost could be 6 pts per model. Thoughts?

I'm not a fan. It doesn't seem like it'd fit well, and it'd make Tau a lot better in Close Combat. (Auto-Hits are the bomb, even at Strength 3.) That's their weak spot-they don't need a wargear option to shore that up.

Tau do not need even more ways to avoid Assault. This is a no go with me.

Personally I've thought that Flechette Dischargers should have been turned into a one use only template attack with a special rule allowing it to only be used in Overwatch.

You bet a bunch of initial hits when you're charged but after that it doesn't help.

Jefffar wrote:
Personally I've thought that Flechette Dischargers should have been turned into a one use only template attack with a special rule allowing it to only be used in Overwatch.

You bet a bunch of initial hits when you're charged but after that it doesn't help.

I like that idea

On suits, its probably not a good idea. Fluff-wise, too easy to blow your arms (or legs?) off if they're in the way when discharged. They are, more or less, outward facing claymores strapped to the hull (I forget the name of the armor, but tanks used something similar to them in the 80's; they were designed to stop RPG's, but freedom fighters figured out how to trigger them to injure tank-supporting infantry)

Besides, if you want to ward off attackers in melee, you could arm the suits with flamers and get Wall of Death.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Tau do not need even more ways to avoid Assault. This is a no go with me.

This. The annoying thing about facing Tau isn't that they're really good at shooting; it's that they have a way of shutting down every reasonable counter to their shooting. Want to hug cover? Markerlights ignore cover. Want to hide behind walls as you approach? Ignores line of sight guns. Want to deepstrike or outflank in? Interceptor. Deathstar up and charge down the middle? Combine their fire into one batch of super dakka so that everyone benefits from markerlights and shoots at BS10 (or whatever). Finally cross the table and want to try to assault? Get overwatched by everyone within 6 (or 12) inches, possibly at a BS boosted by markerlights. Finally get into melee with a unit that matters? HIt & Run.

So giving them a bunch of automatic hits after you finally go to all that trouble would just be one more way to prevent counterplay against the Tau.

Also, there's already a relic that basically does this. Making it a piece of standard wargear would - in addition to all the other problems already enumerated - render the relic even more pointless than it already is.

 Stormonu wrote:
They are, more or less, outward facing claymores strapped to the hull (I forget the name of the armor, but tanks used something similar to them in the 80's; they were designed to stop RPG's, but freedom fighters figured out how to trigger them to injure tank-supporting infantry)

It's called reactive armor, it doesn't feature any shrapnel itself, because you don't want to risk wounding nearby allies. It uses a reactive explosive that shoots back the other way with plasma, and saves the interior by blowing itself up. Your tanks tend to be near your guys more than they are near the enemies. We use it today on every tank, and is a part of why the abrams tank with its relatively thin armor is equivalent to over 800-1620 MM of armor depending on the type of projectile

 pumaman1 wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
They are, more or less, outward facing claymores strapped to the hull (I forget the name of the armor, but tanks used something similar to them in the 80's; they were designed to stop RPG's, but freedom fighters figured out how to trigger them to injure tank-supporting infantry)

It's called reactive armor, it doesn't feature any shrapnel itself, because you don't want to risk wounding nearby allies. It uses a reactive explosive that shoots back the other way with plasma, and saves the interior by blowing itself up. Your tanks tend to be near your guys more than they are near the enemies. We use it today on every tank, and is a part of why the abrams tank with its relatively thin armor is equivalent to over 800-1620 MM of armor depending on the type of projectile

Getting off topic, but I thought the chobham armor used by Abrams tanks got its resilience from ceramic construction and wasn't a reactive armor.

Chobham isn't ERA (it's composite, and the exact composition is classified, but, long story short it's pretty resistant to HEAT warheads), but there are ERA applique packs for various tanks, I believe including the M1.

Russia used to use ERA extensively; some of their tanks still do.

Russia still uses ERA heavily, they've also added active protection systems like guidance jammers and interceptors (some of which are similar in concept to Tau Flechette Dischargers to return to the nominal topic).

The big reason they are so common on Russian vehicles as opposed to Western vehicles is that Western vehicles typically pack an extra 10 to 20 tons of weight, most of it armour.

Pretty much every tank around bow uses some form of composite base armour to maximize its protective qualities. Reactive Armour is usually laid overtop of that. Only lighter vehicles have homogenous armour, often aluminum based.

Stormonu wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
They are, more or less, outward facing claymores strapped to the hull (I forget the name of the armor, but tanks used something similar to them in the 80's; they were designed to stop RPG's, but freedom fighters figured out how to trigger them to injure tank-supporting infantry)

It's called reactive armor, it doesn't feature any shrapnel itself, because you don't want to risk wounding nearby allies. It uses a reactive explosive that shoots back the other way with plasma, and saves the interior by blowing itself up. Your tanks tend to be near your guys more than they are near the enemies. We use it today on every tank, and is a part of why the abrams tank with its relatively thin armor is equivalent to over 800-1620 MM of armor depending on the type of projectile

Getting off topic, but I thought the chobham armor used by Abrams tanks got its resilience from ceramic construction and wasn't a reactive armor.

Aye, and it is in many ways far more effective than ERA, although there is now a new model that makes even Chobham look like paper and is used on the Challenger 2.
I remember talking with an ex tanker. He was recounting his days in the Gulf War when his tank (a Challenger 1) engaged an enemy T-62. The T-62 ambushed them at about 20 metres and scored a direct hit, and in his own words:
"I heard a thunk on the tank and I looked out and saw a T-62 about 20-30 metres away. He had hit us, but he hadnt kiled us. As I called the target to my gunner he popped smoke and tried to retreat - it is what I would have done too - but we didnt let hi get away. After it was all over I had a walk around my tank and I couldnt find where he had hit us. The reactive armour (Or something similar, I cannot recall exactly what he called it) hadnt even deployed."

Wyldhunt wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Tau do not need even more ways to avoid Assault. This is a no go with me.

This. The annoying thing about facing Tau isn't that they're really good at shooting; it's that they have a way of shutting down every reasonable counter to their shooting. Want to hug cover? Markerlights ignore cover. Want to hide behind walls as you approach? Ignores line of sight guns. Want to deepstrike or outflank in? Interceptor. Deathstar up and charge down the middle? Combine their fire into one batch of super dakka so that everyone benefits from markerlights and shoots at BS10 (or whatever). Finally cross the table and want to try to assault? Get overwatched by everyone within 6 (or 12) inches, possibly at a BS boosted by markerlights. Finally get into melee with a unit that matters? HIt & Run.

So giving them a bunch of automatic hits after you finally go to all that trouble would just be one more way to prevent counterplay against the Tau.

My point exactly.

Flechette Dischargers are mounted to Tau vehicles because they are unable to defend themselves against close combat attackers. Battlesuits can, although this is not ideal. Plus, the Dischargers are too large to mount to a Battlesuit, which would mess up its stability and its safety to operate.

Game wise, also not a good idea. If you want a defensive bonus against chargers, you already have Covering Fire, and if you really want it, take a Flamer or two for your automatic hits.

G.A

I'm a bit confused, as a lot of posters seem to have the impression that Flechette Dischargers are too cumbersome to be used on an XV-8 suit frame... which is directly contradicted by both the fluff and rules of Shas'o R'Myr, who uses the unique-to-him Signature System XV-89-02 Battlesuit.

Specifically, the XV-89-02 has "a miniaturized flechette discharger" which acts like a weaker, slightly-modified-in-the-mechanics version of the Vehicle upgrade. This shouldn't surprise anyone, given the Tau have a standing tradition in reworking existing technologies to fit both smaller (Ion and Rail tech) and larger (Pulse and Battlesuit tech) platforms.

The fluff makes it clear that this is a "unique prototype battlesuit still undergoing field trials" and so would not reasonably be available to the Tau en-masse, which is probably for the best, for exactly the gameplay reasons mentioned above... But there's really no support for the notion that the Tau are INCAPABLE of the technology, only that they haven't finished testing it sufficiently for mass production. If it ever were to go into mass production (or even mass testing), 6 points per would make it very undercosted for its performance.

TL;DR: Fluff-wise, it exists but only as a prototype. Gameplay-wise, BAD IDEA.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:


I'm a bit confused, as a lot of posters seem to have the impression that Flechette Dischargers are too cumbersome to be used on an XV-8 suit frame...

They are - the vehicle mounted versions are too large.

Shas'o R'myr uses them not only as a smaller, prototype version like you stated, but on a modified Class 8 Suit that will have been made to deal with any stability issues. On a regular XV8, this would not work.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that they are beyond Tau innovative abilities, just not viable in their current form, which is designed for vehicles. They'll never see mass use anyway, even if the prototypes are successful, as while Battlesuits can be armed for close range engagements, they are never designed for Close Combat under regular protocol.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:


I'm a bit confused, as a lot of posters seem to have the impression that Flechette Dischargers are too cumbersome to be used on an XV-8 suit frame...

They are - the vehicle mounted versions are too large.

Shas'o R'myr uses them not only as a prototype version like you stated, but on a modified Class 8 Suit that will have been made to deal with any stability issues. On a regular XV8, this would not work.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that they are beyond Tau innovative abilities, just not viable in their current form, which is designed for vehicles. They'll see mass use anyway, even if the prototypes are successful, as while Battlesuits can be armed for close range engagements, they are never designed for Close Combat under regular protocol.

Speaking of the vehicle mounted versions when even the OP discussed a lessened version (he mentions lowering the strength of the effect) of the same seems like something of a red herring, but sure: the Flechette Dischargers designed for Hammerhead-sized vehicles would be unwieldy for single crisis suits. I... I don't think that was ever disputed or presumed otherwise, but sure.

Presuming you meant "they'll never see mass use anyway", I think we might disagree based on a different undesrstanding of what "mass use" entails. I consider Target Locks, Early Warning Overrides, Counterfire Defense Systems, and the like to fall under the "mass use" category, even though they aren't ubiquitous in the manner that Blacksun Filters and Multi-trackers are.

If the prototype is considered successful, I could see large numbers of those subsystems (or if needed, a few-per-cadre suits designed around that subsystem, akin to the XV-89-02) being available as a choice for the commander to equip, or not equip, as need arises, much like the above TL, EWO, and CDS subsystems.

If the prototype was wildly successful and the cost negligible, I could see battlesuits with the subsystem integrated as a default becoming a replacement base crisis suit, in the same way BSF and MTs were integrated into the baseline battlesuits.

But I absolutely disagree that Crisis Battlesuits are not designed for Close Combat under regular protocol, though I would certainly agree with a modified statement that Crisis suits are not PRIMARILY designed for CQC (though still designed with the ability to deal with that relative inevitability in mind). They are designed to deal with crises, and given the impressive range and firepower the vast majority of their infantry and tanks have, as well as the combat doctrines that dictate Tau tactics, a very common crisis would be a unit getting through Tau dakka and into the sort of chaotic melee that prevent the Tau from using all of that immense firepower to good advantage.

The Tau are, above all else, pragmatists in combat. They are, by now, fully aware that the best laid plans o' Kroot and Tau aft gang agley, and consequently orient their development to cover the situations they DON'T prefer to be in (but can be, in their universe, a regrettably common situation).

The Tau see Melee as distasteful, hence why they barely ever engineer weapons and tech for such scenarios. The Flechette Discharger is an exception to the rule since a vehicle cannot defend itself in any other way; a Fire Warrior may be a useless fighter in close combat, but at least he can strike the enemy with his rifle. A Hammerhead cannot.

Certain one off tech pieces like the Onagar Gauntlet and Fusion Blades have been made for use by high ranking Battlesuit users, but such systems will never see use by anything below a Shas'el due to Tau principles; a Battlesuit squad should not be close enough for the enemy to hit them in melee, even if they are equipped for CQB. Such systems would go against the ideals of Tau warfare for scenarios that a Battlesuit Pilot should never find himself in, according to Tau tacica at least.

Even Tau pragmatism doesn't top their morals at times. They are a very proud and arrogant race at heart.

Your example seems contradictory: The Tau find melee distasteful, but they'd rather have the Firewarrior pistolwhip enemies than design a flechette system that the Fire Warrior could use to discourage such distasteful factics?

They don't often make melee weapons, but they certainly do engineer systems and tech for CQC scenarios - most often in a form that doesn't involve the Tau pilot/infantry/battlesuit actually hitting things with objects/energy/blades (though they occasionally do that as well, as noted by the Fusion Blades and Onager gauntlet), but rather in the form that prevents, discourages, and/or punishes the enemy for attempting or succeeding in getting into CQC in the first place.

The tau do some minimal training in CQC, because they know that even the best plans don't always survive engagement with the enemy, and they highly value the lives of their troops enough to design for mitigation in those circumstances. As I said, it wouldn't be the primary purpose the Tau design the Crisis suits for, but it would be a characteristic that suits, particularly crisis suits, would include within their design so they CAN perform their primary purpose of putting out fires and dealing with whatever crisis they're called to deal with.

Tau morals, particularly the traditional Path of Fire (I forget the actual name, but its their rough equivalent of Knightly Chivalry and/or Samurai Bushido) practiced by the Fire Caste, do dictate Tau tactics to a degree, no doubt. That path does not involve any form of "honorable" melee combat, as far as I know, so a Tau subsystem explicitly designed to punish an enemy for engaging in a distasteful practice would, if anything, conform to that moral framework, not vie against it.

If the Tau aren't interested in developing systems that help protect a Battlesuit from enemy in melee, and escape it unscathed, why are there Counterfire Defense Systems and Vectored Retro Thrusters?

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Your example seems contradictory: The Tau find melee distasteful, but they'd rather have the Firewarrior pistolwhip enemies than design a flechette system that the Fire Warrior could use to discourage such distasteful factics?

That's not contradictory at all - their rifles are standard issue, and they don't have any attachments to assist in close combat. The only Close Combat aid a Warrior could ever hope for is a Grav Inhibitor Drone, or a Ceremonial Knife.

They don't often make melee weapons, but they certainly do engineer systems and tech for CQC scenarios - most often in a form that doesn't involve the Tau pilot/infantry/battlesuit actually hitting things with objects/energy/blades (though they occasionally do that as well, as noted by the Fusion Blades and Onager gauntlet)

Flamers, Grav Inhibitor Drones and the Repulsor Impact Field to name a few. These are not melee weapons though. Fusion Blades and Onager Gauntlets will never see use past individual deployment, while the other equipment does.

The tau do some minimal training in CQC, because they know that even the best plans don't always survive engagement with the enemy, and they highly value the lives of their troops enough to design for mitigation in those circumstances. As I said, it wouldn't be the primary purpose the Tau design the Crisis suits for, but it would be a characteristic that suits, particularly crisis suits, would include within their design so they CAN perform their primary purpose of putting out fires and dealing with whatever crisis they're called to deal with.

Close Combat training is not part of a Warrior's regime; Shas'ui and the ranks above are only more proficient in CC because they have learned from, and survived in, the field, not in the academies.

Crisis Suits are also not designed in any way for Close Combat. A by product of the increased strength the wearer has by using the suit can be used to their advantage in CC, but is in no way the reason why the suit has augmented strength.

Tau morals, particularly the traditional Path of Fire (I forget the actual name, but its their rough equivalent of Knightly Chivalry and/or Samurai Bushido) practiced by the Fire Caste, do dictate Tau tactics to a degree, no doubt. That path does not involve any form of "honorable" melee combat, as far as I know, so a Tau subsystem explicitly designed to punish an enemy for engaging in a distasteful practice would, if anything, conform to that moral framework, not vie against it.

I don't believe the Code of Fire teaches anything other than honorary Martial Arts; its main themes focus on loyalty, obedience, duty and self sacrifice. But again, outside of Fusion Blades and the Onager Gauntlet, CC tech has not been created for practical use. Hell, even Flechette Dischargers are projectiles rather than a melee weapon.

I feel its worth stressing the nature of Flechette discharges is more akin to a last minute cloud of Overwatch than it is a melee style engagement - yes, it technically has an effect in the Melee phase and has an initiative value, but its initiative value of 10 means it's really a last minute minimizing/mitigation of the attacking force's capability to actually engage in that distasteful melee.

Gameplay-wise, the biggest issue is that the vehicles with the mass-produced availability of FDs are models that cannot actively engage in melee combat (instead requiring a charging enemy to actively attack it in melee), while Crisis Suits (and other battlesuits) have the option of starting the melee engagement themselves.

That would allow/encourage the Tau to actively engage in extremely close-range melee combat (which would very much be distasteful to the Tau and Fire Warrior codes of conduct and ideals), and make Tau so equipped be far too good at close combat (their gameplay weakness in relation to other factions).

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Your example seems contradictory: The Tau find melee distasteful, but they'd rather have the Firewarrior pistolwhip enemies than design a flechette system that the Fire Warrior could use to discourage such distasteful factics?

That's not contradictory at all - their rifles are standard issue, and they don't have any attachments to assist in close combat. The only Close Combat aid a Warrior could ever hope for is a Grav Inhibitor Drone, or a Ceremonial Knife.

It is contradictory, in the sense that the Tau (with full knowledge, after hundreds of years of experience against Orks, SM, and Nids, that melee combat can and will happen despite their best plans) are by your measure implicitly relying on Fire Warriors actively engaging in melee using melee weapons rather than using technology and, as you yourself admitted, projective/ranged weaponry to deal with the same.

I used the term Fire Warrior, but you're probably correct that the infantry would not be able to use a Flechette system (though a Drone could certainly carry that sort of system). Replace, for my statements, with a Battlesuit using its fists and/or gun barrels - a far more distasteful outcome than a Battlesuit making mincemeat of its attackers through a last-ditch flechette discharge.

They don't often make melee weapons, but they certainly do engineer systems and tech for CQC scenarios - most often in a form that doesn't involve the Tau pilot/infantry/battlesuit actually hitting things with objects/energy/blades (though they occasionally do that as well, as noted by the Fusion Blades and Onager gauntlet)

Flamers, Grav Inhibitor Drones and the Repulsor Impact Field to name a few. These are not melee weapons though. Fusion Blades and Onager Gauntlets will never see use past individual deployment, while the other equipment does.

Flamers, Grav Inhibitor Drones, the Repulsor Impact Field AND R'Myr's miniaturized Flechette Dischargers, you mean. And by its nature, the Flechette Dischargers are not what you'd term a melee weapon (at least, not in the same category as Fusion Blades and Onager Gauntlets), but are far, far, FAR closer in their intent, focus, and use to the Flamers/Grav/Repulsor side of tech development.

The tau do some minimal training in CQC, because they know that even the best plans don't always survive engagement with the enemy, and they highly value the lives of their troops enough to design for mitigation in those circumstances. As I said, it wouldn't be the primary purpose the Tau design the Crisis suits for, but it would be a characteristic that suits, particularly crisis suits, would include within their design so they CAN perform their primary purpose of putting out fires and dealing with whatever crisis they're called to deal with.

Close Combat training is not part of a Warrior's regime; Shas'ui and the ranks above are only more proficient in CC because they have learned from, and survived in, the field, not in the academies.

The Academics include a wide variety of training circumstances. Though they are WS 2 (representing minimal training), they aren't completely inept (which would be better represented by WS 1, as seen by the Earth Caste Piloting Array which represents a truly untrained individual).

Crisis Suits are also not designed in any way for Close Combat. A by product of the increased strength the wearer has by using the suit can be used to their advantage in CC, but is in no way the reason why the suit has augmented strength.

They are designed to deal with crises, and the Tau are learning, through hard and painful experience, that Close Combat is a crisis that they can and have to be able to deal with. A Crisis suit is not designed to dive into combat, but it is certainly designed to deal with Close Combat scenarios (through various means - flamers, CFD systems, Repulsors, and yes, Flechette Dischargers).

Tau morals, particularly the traditional Path of Fire (I forget the actual name, but its their rough equivalent of Knightly Chivalry and/or Samurai Bushido) practiced by the Fire Caste, do dictate Tau tactics to a degree, no doubt. That path does not involve any form of "honorable" melee combat, as far as I know, so a Tau subsystem explicitly designed to punish an enemy for engaging in a distasteful practice would, if anything, conform to that moral framework, not vie against it.

I don't believe the Code of Fire teaches anything other than honorary Martial Arts; its main themes focus on loyalty, obedience, duty and self sacrifice. But again, outside of Fusion Blades and the Onager Gauntlet, CC tech has not been created for practical use. Hell, even Flechette Dischargers are projectiles rather than a melee weapon.

Seeing as there is some disagreement on the idea, what if it was changed to an overwatch ability? On the charge each model suffers a str 3(or maybe should it be downgraded to str 2) hit ap -. Or maybe they could be like defensive grenades. Thoughts?

 TheLumberJack wrote:
Seeing as there is some disagreement on the idea, what if it was changed to an overwatch ability? On the charge each model suffers a str 3(or maybe should it be downgraded to str 2) hit ap -. Or maybe they could be like defensive grenades. Thoughts?

I'd be fine with letting them pay for Defensive Grenades-they're handy, but not that bad.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 TheLumberJack wrote:
Seeing as there is some disagreement on the idea, what if it was changed to an overwatch ability? On the charge each model suffers a str 3(or maybe should it be downgraded to str 2) hit ap -. Or maybe they could be like defensive grenades. Thoughts?

I'd be fine with letting them pay for Defensive Grenades-they're handy, but not that bad.

If its a defensive grenades though, I say we call it something different, as Flechette Dischargers are already a thing. Call it a flash burst projector or something. Shoots out a blinding wave of light and sound that disorients attackers

 TheLumberJack wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 TheLumberJack wrote:
Seeing as there is some disagreement on the idea, what if it was changed to an overwatch ability? On the charge each model suffers a str 3(or maybe should it be downgraded to str 2) hit ap -. Or maybe they could be like defensive grenades. Thoughts?

I'd be fine with letting them pay for Defensive Grenades-they're handy, but not that bad.

If its a defensive grenades though, I say we call it something different, as Flechette Dischargers are already a thing. Call it a flash burst projector or something. Shoots out a blinding wave of light and sound that disorients attackers

Might as well call it a flashbang then.

There are photon dischargers, which are battlesuit defensive grenades.

Jefffar wrote:
There are photon dischargers, which are battlesuit defensive grenades.

Was going to say this!

Don't reinvent the wheel, and don't confuse terminology when existing terminology works just fine. Especially given photon technology is already strongly associated with defensive grenade mechanics...

You know I thought they already existed, and that term kept popping into my head and I just went "nah they don't exist"