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.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

 Archonate wrote:
Simply (and obviously) untrue. (Though they are more powerful) If the Pulse Rifle is lighter and better balanced than a lasgun, then it's definitely lighter and more compact than a plasma gun. Fluffwise, the Plasma Gun blows up because it is unstable and prone to malfunction. http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Plasma_Gun
Sounds a lot like Ork teknology, imo...

Since when is a pulse rifle smaller than a lasgun? Whereas plasma guns are somewhat smaller.

It's not. It's actually bulkier.

Yes I'm sure the Tau are just insanely jealous...

While the closest the Tau have are fancy laser pointers.

Lol

Imperial vehicles have nothing on Tau vehicles... except (you guessed it) bulkiness.

Easier to manufacture, logistically trivial to operate, self-repairing (under the instruction of tech-priests), and tough as nails. Also smaller and more compact than the comparable tau vehicles.

Not to mention deceptively well-equipped

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
How exactly are the Tau, with their inability to handle a straight up fight, supposed to take a fortified Imperial position

Bomb it to rubble from orbit and build a Tau city on the rubble. Or just park a Remora above it and guide in over-the-horizon seeker missile strikes on the gun emplacements/key structural elements in the walls/etc until the defenders are crippled.

or hold a position against an Imperial army that doesn't split up because "well how else could the Tau win?"?

Tau don't care about holding territory, and this isn't a tabletop battle where the world magically ends at the table edge. The Tau would simply fall back while launching long-range attacks, and a massive army would be extremely vulnerable to orbital bombardment/nuclear-armed seeker missiles/etc. Meanwhile Remora stealth drones/pathfinders/etc are attacking enemy supply lines, and the "quantity over quality" Imperial force just runs out of fuel/ammunition/etc.

If you abandon positions on the ground, you lose stationary assets and resources

That is why the only static assets the Tau use are expendable drone weapons.

and if you refuse to engage the superior force, eventually you're going to wind up with no local resources left to call upon, and your logistically inefficient extravagances are going to stop working, leaving you stranded or forcing an evac, where you'd be torn apart by the superior Imperial navy.

This is true in real war. This is not true when you can resupply directly from orbit, and the standard equipment for every unit in your army includes a transport ship capable of deploying from or returning to orbit.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
Fighters can shoot down Drone Missiles too.

Ok, so we're just going to declare that Imperial defenses are 100% effective at stopping all long-range attacks. That's fine.

Only fighters. Turrets have a 50-50 chance of interception.

Apparently, the combat record of Weapon Batteries disagree. Especially against Eldar

They're useful at close range. They're a waste of space at long range.

That's what they all say. Until Imperial guns tear them to shreds. Or they go up against Eldar, only to find their bombs and Torpedoes keep missing because of Holo-fields

Imperial ships are balanced. Tau ships are over-specialized towards ordnance.

Because Dan Abnett writes better than most others?

Oh yes, and it's just pure coincidence that it's the source that makes the Leman Russ look good...

And your point is?

Which they can and do, considering that Imperial warships are faster, and better protected than Tau ships. Not to mention, the Imperium also has it's own Attack Craft, and actually have more. The latest iteration of the Gal'leath-class, the primary Tau carrier, only fields four squadrons; the Imperial Emperor-class/Chaos Despoiler-class can field eight. The Lar'shi-class can field 2 squadrons; the Imperial Dictator-class/Chaos Devastation-class can field four.

Finally got out the rules and now I can point out how you're wrong.

The Emperor class carries eight squadrons and no torpedoes, the Custodian class (the "modern" Tau carrier) carries eight squadrons, three light escorts, and four torpedo launchers. The Tau carrier is also faster and somewhat cheaper, so an equal point value (representing fleets of equal size for each side) of Tau ships has a solid advantage in a long-range fight.

Sorry, don't have the Imperial Armour source for that. I can only work with I have (the BFG rules). But then again, surround the Emperor-class with Swords and Cobras, and the advantage is lost.

The Dictator class has an extra two squadrons, but the Protector has better torpedoes (pretty important when we're talking about dedicated torpedo ships) and is cheaper.

Then bring in Cobras. That's what Escorts are for.

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
Only fighters. Turrets have a 50-50 chance of interception.

Fluff =/= game mechanics.

And your point is?

The point is there are lots of sources saying the Leman Russ sucks, but you've declared that the most important source is the one that says it doesn't. You aren't looking at it objectively, you're picking what is "most accurate" based on which gives your side the best chance of winning. If, instead, you don't start from a position of "the Imperium wins" the best answer is that the Leman Russ is a mediocre-at-best tank that depends on overwhelming superiority in numbers and complete lack of concern for losses.

Sorry, don't have the Imperial Armour source for that.

Too bad. Fluff-wise the IA3 list is explicitly the modern Tau ships replacing the obsolete original ones.

Then bring in Cobras. That's what Escorts are for.

Then we also bring in Tau escorts and/or more torpedo ships.

Maybe tau have a better power source and more effecient design processes, so that they can afford quality end products. For example, hand assembled lasguns more costly than machine assembled Pulse Rifles.

And before anyone says that in this universe, humans are expendable, AD Mech Priests probably have more important things to do with their time, like assemble bolters.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
Only fighters. Turrets have a 50-50 chance of interception.

Fluff =/= game mechanics.

Fair enough. In which case, the Imperial Navy is at a disadvantage, because as I said, the Damocles Gulf and the Tau are on the frontier, and the Imperial Navy has more pressing concerns elsewhere. But if the Tau attempt to engage the Imperium in the 'inner' sectors of Ultima Segmentum, the Imperial Navy has the advantage.

And your point is?

The point is there are lots of sources saying the Leman Russ sucks, but you've declared that the most important source is the one that says it doesn't. You aren't looking at it objectively, you're picking what is "most accurate" based on which gives your side the best chance of winning. If, instead, you don't start from a position of "the Imperium wins" the best answer is that the Leman Russ is a mediocre-at-best tank that depends on overwhelming superiority in numbers and complete lack of concern for losses.

To each their own

Then bring in Cobras. That's what Escorts are for.

Then we also bring in Tau escorts and/or more torpedo ships.

 Peregrine wrote:

Vendetta, meet Barracuda. Barracuda, meet... oh wait, the transport with bolted-on heavy weapons just got shot down by a proper air superiority fighter.

I was going to keep up the escalating joke by introducing the Thunderbolt, but then I looked up Barracudas and laughed.

Oh yes, let's just throw out fluff in favor of game mechanics. Should we also assume that a Leman Russ has such an inaccurate weapon that a shot at close range is likely to fly backwards and hit the firing tank, like the game mechanics say?

The story in the Taros Campaign is almost Wardian in its flagrant departure from established fluff or even the mechanics that it, itself, contained.

Which is ridiculous. The tank has no suspension which means that on anything other than a mathematical plane (IOW, any real terrain) the tank is going to be bouncing around so much that you'd be lucky to get a shot to hit within a mile of the target.

How exactly did you come to the conclusion that the leman russ lacks a suspension?

IOW, it can activate backup systems if the tech-priest presses the "activate backup systems" button. Not very impressive, and minor field repairs are still well short of, say, repairing a railgun shot through the engine.

You don't seem to understand what tech-priests are or do. They interface directly with compatible machines, allowing access to detailed system status and any possible alterations it's capable of enacting. It would be like if a mechanic just stared at your car muttering for a second, and it proceeded to change its own oil.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
I was going to keep up the escalating joke by introducing the Thunderbolt, but then I looked up Barracudas and laughed.

Again, game mechanics =/= fluff. Fluff-wise the Barracuda is a bit better overall compared to the Thunderbolt, but the experience of the best veteran Thunderbolt pilots can make up for it.

The story in the Taros Campaign is almost Wardian in its flagrant departure from established fluff or even the mechanics that it, itself, contained.

Except in this case it makes perfect sense. The seeker missiles do about what we'd expect for a modern anti-tank missile against a modern tank, so the reasonable explanation is that the game mechanics are wrong.

How exactly did you come to the conclusion that the leman russ lacks a suspension?

By looking at the model.

You don't seem to understand what tech-priests are or do. They interface directly with compatible machines, allowing access to detailed system status and any possible alterations it's capable of enacting. It would be like if a mechanic just stared at your car muttering for a second, and it proceeded to change its own oil.

1) So what? I can interface with my computer and see "yep, needs a driver update". That's a pretty low standard of "self repair".

2) The tech-priest rituals are just religious decoration on top of "follow the user manual". "Recite the blessing of lubrication" is just a fancy way of saying "switch the oil tank selector from 'left' to 'right'", except with candles and purity seals and all that.

 Peregrine wrote:

Again, game mechanics =/= fluff. Fluff-wise the Barracuda is a bit better overall compared to the Thunderbolt, but the experience of the best veteran Thunderbolt pilots can make up for it.

The barracuda wouldn't even stand up to a vendetta with any reliabilty. And what fluff, the Taros "we gotta make up a bunch of rules to stack everything in favor of the Tau" Campaign?

Except in this case it makes perfect sense. The seeker missiles do about what we'd expect for a modern anti-tank missile against a modern tank, so the reasonable explanation is that the game mechanics are wrong.

That depends on what you think an anti-tank missile does to a modern tank. If you know it rarely manages anything but some drive damage, then yeah, pretty much. If you think it's a magic bullet, then lol.

By looking at the model.

Since when have lumps of plastic depicting the external chassis of something been anything but lumps of plastic?

1) So what? I can interface with my computer and see "yep, needs a driver update". That's a pretty low standard of "self repair".

2) The tech-priest rituals are just religious decoration on top of "follow the user manual". "Recite the blessing of lubrication" is just a fancy way of saying "switch the oil tank selector from 'left' to 'right'", except with candles and purity seals and all that.

You're still not getting it. Go read Titanicus.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
The barracuda wouldn't even stand up to a vendetta with any reliabilty.

Game mechanics =/= fluff, especially since 40k doesn't account for little details like speed and maneuverability. Fluff-wise the Vendetta is a slow and clumsy transport aircraft with bolted-on heavy weapons, it's not bad for strafing ground targets but in a dogfight it is going to die horribly against ANY dedicated air superiority fighter.

And what fluff, the Taros "we gotta make up a bunch of rules to stack everything in favor of the Tau" Campaign?

And everywhere else the Barracuda has appeared.

That depends on what you think an anti-tank missile does to a modern tank. If you know it rarely manages anything but some drive damage, then yeah, pretty much. If you think it's a magic bullet, then lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHPVDRXKGfc

Yep, just some minor drive damage. Don't confuse proper anti-tank missiles like a hellfire (which is even smaller than a seeker missile) with infantry-scale RPGs.

Since when have lumps of plastic depicting the external chassis of something been anything but lumps of plastic?

The art agrees with the model: the tracks run directly along the lower edge of the side armor plates, and there is no room for a suspension.

 Peregrine wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
How exactly are the Tau, with their inability to handle a straight up fight, supposed to take a fortified Imperial position

Bomb it to rubble from orbit and build a Tau city on the rubble. Or just park a Remora above it and guide in over-the-horizon seeker missile strikes on the gun emplacements/key structural elements in the walls/etc until the defenders are crippled.

or hold a position against an Imperial army that doesn't split up because "well how else could the Tau win?"?

Tau don't care about holding territory, and this isn't a tabletop battle where the world magically ends at the table edge. The Tau would simply fall back while launching long-range attacks, and a massive army would be extremely vulnerable to orbital bombardment/nuclear-armed seeker missiles/etc. Meanwhile Remora stealth drones/pathfinders/etc are attacking enemy supply lines, and the "quantity over quality" Imperial force just runs out of fuel/ammunition/etc.

If you abandon positions on the ground, you lose stationary assets and resources

That is why the only static assets the Tau use are expendable drone weapons.

and if you refuse to engage the superior force, eventually you're going to wind up with no local resources left to call upon, and your logistically inefficient extravagances are going to stop working, leaving you stranded or forcing an evac, where you'd be torn apart by the superior Imperial navy.

This is true in real war. This is not true when you can resupply directly from orbit, and the standard equipment for every unit in your army includes a transport ship capable of deploying from or returning to orbit.

All of which requires naval superiority, which the Tau simply don't have. The Imperium has more warships than the Tau do Tau. If the Tau aren't sitting on fuel and ammo stockpiles, they'll wind up with no way to continue waging war.

By the way, fortified Imperial positions include massive void shields and usually anti-orbital batteries in hardened positions. How could the Tau take something that looked like Vraks, particularly if it was manned by proper guardsmen instead of chaos rabble? The Imperium can simply up and eradicate everything on a planet, or the planet itself to a large extent, if it deems it necessary; they refrain from doing so because planets are far more valuable than the materiel and manpower it takes to capture them.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
All of which requires naval superiority, which the Tau simply don't have. The Imperium has more warships than the Tau do Tau. If the Tau aren't sitting on fuel and ammo stockpiles, they'll wind up with no way to continue waging war.

So we're just magically assuming that the entire Imperial Navy goes to fight the Tau, rather than working with the constraints in real 40k where the Imperium is surrounded by enemies and can't just swarm the Tau with overwhelming naval power.

How could the Tau take something that looked like Vraks, particularly if it was manned by proper guardsmen instead of chaos rabble?

Easily. Land beyond the defenses like the IG did, launch over-the-horizon seeker missile strikes on key defensive positions (for example, the defense lasers preventing orbital bombardment) and then carpet bomb the trenches until everything is dead. Vraks was only a war because FW wanted to do WWI trench warfare in space and put complete idiots in charge of both sides.

 Peregrine wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
All of which requires naval superiority, which the Tau simply don't have. The Imperium has more warships than the Tau do Tau. If the Tau aren't sitting on fuel and ammo stockpiles, they'll wind up with no way to continue waging war.

So we're just magically assuming that the entire Imperial Navy goes to fight the Tau, rather than working with the constraints in real 40k where the Imperium is surrounded by enemies and can't just swarm the Tau with overwhelming naval power.

It was a comment of scale. The Imperium has more ships able to flatten continents than the Tau have soldiers. Were it an all-out conflict instead of a minor skirmish in the middle of nowhere, the Imperium could field thousands of leman russes for every firewarrior the Tau had.

How could the Tau take something that looked like Vraks, particularly if it was manned by proper guardsmen instead of chaos rabble?

Easily. Land beyond the defenses like the IG did, launch over-the-horizon seeker missile strikes on key defensive positions (for example, the defense lasers preventing orbital bombardment) and then carpet bomb the trenches until everything is dead. Vraks was only a war because FW wanted to do WWI trench warfare in space and put complete idiots in charge of both sides.

You're still operating on the assumption that seeker missiles are some sort magic, instead of crappy versions of the Imperial equivalents. You're forgetting, too, that Imperial artillery makes railguns look like a bad joke, outranging them and delivering effectively the same power to everything within ~15' of the impact. These weapons, far superior to seeker missiles, couldn't scratch the fortifications.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
You're still operating on the assumption that seeker missiles are some sort magic, instead of crappy versions of the Imperial equivalents.

No, I'm comparing them to their real-world equivalents. There's a reason nobody plans on having trench warfare anymore.

You're forgetting, too, that Imperial artillery makes railguns look like a bad joke, outranging them and delivering effectively the same power to everything within ~15' of the impact. These weapons, far superior to seeker missiles, couldn't scratch the fortifications.

Hint: there's a difference between artillery and precision laser-guided weapons. It's called accuracy. Artillery couldn't do the job because unguided artillery firing from 15 miles away doesn't have enough accuracy to hit vulnerable points. So the DKoK spent months shelling a target but just scattered random craters all over the battlefield (with maybe a few lucky shots hitting the wall somewhere near the target bunker). A precision guided weapon, on the other hand, hits directly on the gun emplacement and wrecks it with one shot.

This is the reason why artillery bombardments in WWI/WWII failed to silence fixed defenses, it wasn't about firepower, it was about accuracy. Now that weapons are so much more accurate fixed fortifications have gone away.

 Peregrine wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
You're still operating on the assumption that seeker missiles are some sort magic, instead of crappy versions of the Imperial equivalents.

No, I'm comparing them to their real-world equivalents. There's a reason nobody plans on having trench warfare anymore.

Right: mobile armor and air superiority. Not the existence of missiles that can effectively counter light armor assets.

You're forgetting, too, that Imperial artillery makes railguns look like a bad joke, outranging them and delivering effectively the same power to everything within ~15' of the impact. These weapons, far superior to seeker missiles, couldn't scratch the fortifications.

Hint: there's a difference between artillery and precision laser-guided weapons. It's called accuracy. Artillery couldn't do the job because unguided artillery firing from 15 miles away doesn't have enough accuracy to hit vulnerable points. So the DKoK spent months shelling a target but just scattered random craters all over the battlefield (with maybe a few lucky shots hitting the wall somewhere near the target bunker). A precision guided weapon, on the other hand, hits directly on the gun emplacement and wrecks it with one shot.

This is the reason why artillery bombardments in WWI/WWII failed to silence fixed defenses, it wasn't about firepower, it was about accuracy. Now that weapons are so much more accurate fixed fortifications have gone away.

Except in 40k, artillery is quite accurate. While those "precision laser-guided weapons" only hit an object the size of a tank 83% of the time, damaging it much less often. What, precisely, is that supposed to do against fortifications designed to ward off the heaviest firepower in existence?

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Right: mobile armor and air superiority. Not the existence of missiles that can effectively counter light armor assets.

And the fact that precision guided weapons make fixed fortifications pointless.

Also, precision guided missiles do more than counter just light armor.

Except in 40k, artillery is quite accurate. While those "precision laser-guided weapons" only hit an object the size of a tank 83% of the time, damaging it much less often. What, precisely, is that supposed to do against fortifications designed to ward off the heaviest firepower in existence?

FLUFF =/= GAME MECHANICS.

Seeker missiles are weak against tanks because realistic anti-tank missiles would not be fun at all. A pathfinder squad would call in off-table seeker missiles and destroy an entire tank army in a single shooting phase. A Vulture gunship (armed with six hunter-killer missiles) would pop out from behind a hill and one-shot six different Leman Russes. Etc. So in the interest of having games last for more than one exchange of fire weapons have been greatly reduced in effectiveness.

And yes, they would kill fortifications. Vraks had simple concrete bunkers and gun emplacements, IG artillery had no problem destroying them when it hit anything. The war only lasted so long because the people running it were utter morons so FW could have their "WWI in space" book.

Fluff kind of equals game mechanics. Not exact, but the basics match up.

This is all true. But you're popping in and out of the game world for your arguments.

Logic isn't set up a la carte

The Tau are using Tau weapons, not the real world equivalents. They are fire rail guns, not the real world equivalents. If anything at about the game were based on any kind of modern technology, than the game would cease to be a game. It would just be a quick blurb about how this empire pissed off that empire and got nuked into oblivion. Sounds like a great game.

 Peregrine wrote:

Also, precision guided missiles do more than counter just light armor.

Which seeker missiles, notably, do not.

FLUFF =/= GAME MECHANICS.

Seeker missiles are weak against tanks because realistic anti-tank missiles would not be fun at all. A pathfinder squad would call in off-table seeker missiles and destroy an entire tank army in a single shooting phase. A Vulture gunship (armed with six hunter-killer missiles) would pop out from behind a hill and one-shot six different Leman Russes. Etc. So in the interest of having games last for more than one exchange of fire weapons have been greatly reduced in effectiveness.

And yes, they would kill fortifications. Vraks had simple concrete bunkers and gun emplacements, IG artillery had no problem destroying them when it hit anything. The war only lasted so long because the people running it were utter morons so FW could have their "WWI in space" book.

Vraks had void shields on everything important, and thousands of years worth of construction on optimized fortifications. Now Vraks was a stupid war, but more because the Imperial armor and air assets should have rendered the trenches useless, not to mention the super-heavies and titans which should have been more than enough to wipe out anti-armor/anti-infantry positions to allow the storming of the anti-orbital defenses by infantry. The Imperial assets devoted to it, by the way, would have been more than enough to wipe out the whole of the Tau, at least were they deployed all at once, dwarfing the Damocles Gulf crusade which, had its legs not been pulled out from under it in reaction to the arrival of behemoth, would have ended the Tau right off the bat.

Believe or not I'm actually more on Valerians side for once....

The Tau have a far superior strategy and capabilities on planet. The only real advantage IoM had was Titans but Tau (actually capable of innovation) created a new titan-killer airship that sent the Titan Legion literally running away because it wasn't worth the cost of keeping them there. Which honestly sums up the Tau really well. The cost of fighting them from the Imperium's stand point almost always outweighs the benefit.

BUT the IoM still wins most of their straight up fights. Why? Two reasons..

1. Superior space fleets

2. Macro. Oh my god. The Macro.


The best IoM ships are considerably more advanced and their ability to pump ungodly amounts of men and armor unto a planets surface simply overwhelms the Tau. I was reminded of a game in Starcraft II where the world champion from starcraft one (which favors micro) went up against one of the worlds best starcraft 2 players (which favors macro). The micro player had some truly brilliant moves and fethed the gak out of the macro player for a long time but eventually the sheer numbers of the macro player outweighed the superior fighting style of the micro player. That's pretty much how it is for the Tau. Which is why they should thank god they are as good as they are because if they were even a little less badass the IoM would have obliterated them long ago.

It's one of the annoyances of 40k that you have a lot of disagreeing stories and no clear ranking. This leaves the door open to cheery picking bits to make what you want true. I have seen quite a few versos of the hammer head from so OP that I can't buy it, to so weak that I can't buy it. It's one of the reasons I go by the themes and tag lines. They don't change much.

En Excelsis wrote:
The Tau are using Tau weapons, not the real world equivalents. They are fire rail guns, not the real world equivalents. If anything at about the game were based on any kind of modern technology, than the game would cease to be a game. It would just be a quick blurb about how this empire pissed off that empire and got nuked into oblivion. Sounds like a great game.

Real weapons came in because Sir Pseudonymous refused to accept the fluff of seeker missiles effortlessly destroying Imperial tanks. I brought up real-world anti-tank missiles to prove that the fluff description is actually a very reasonable one.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Which seeker missiles, notably, do not.

FLUFF =/= GAME MECHANICS.

Seeker missiles in the tabletop game are weak for game balance reasons.

Seeker missiles in the fluff one-shot Leman Russes.

Vraks had void shields on everything important

No they didn't. The void shields only protected the inner citadel, the outer rings of defenses were just WWI-style walls and trenches.

 Shlazaor wrote:
Believe or not I'm actually more on Valerians side for once....

The Tau have a far superior strategy and capabilities on planet. The only real advantage IoM had was Titans but Tau (actually capable of innovation) created a new titan-killer airship that sent the Titan Legion literally running away because it wasn't worth the cost of keeping them there. Which honestly sums up the Tau really well. The cost of fighting them from the Imperium's stand point almost always outweighs the benefit.

That's from the Taros "of course a railgun can one-shot a titan, what are void-shields again?" Campaign, and its big thing is it has a railgun on it. It's like one broadside for the price of seven, and completely helpless against any kind of anti-air or air superiority fighter. A thunderbolt would tear it apart, as would a hydra battery.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
It's like one broadside for the price of seven

No, it carriers a pair of titan-scale weapons. That's WAY more than a mere broadside.

and completely helpless against any kind of anti-air or air superiority fighter.

No, just like Imperial bombers it carries gun turrets for self defense.

A thunderbolt would tear it apart, as would a hydra battery.

Of course a Thunderbolt would win against a heavy bomber, just like a Barracuda would tear apart a Marauder. That's why you have these things called escorts.

Seeker missiles are reportedly very good at taking down void shields.

 Peregrine wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Which seeker missiles, notably, do not.

FLUFF =/= GAME MECHANICS.

Seeker missiles in the tabletop game are weak for game balance reasons.

Seeker missiles in the fluff one-shot Leman Russes.

The Taros Campaign also has railguns oneshotting a titan, an armored column forgetting it's made of tanks mid-paragraph, and the IG making themselves as small and diffuse as possible so as to allow the Tau to gang up on isolated groups. It's a pile of lunacy that makes Ward look like a competent writer, and is transparently aimed at selling FW Tau resin kits.

No they didn't. The void shields only protected the inner citadel, the outer rings of defenses were just WWI-style walls and trenches.

I could have sworn the anti-orbital emplacements had them too, since they were hardened against artillery and orbital bombardments.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
The Taros Campaign also has railguns oneshotting a titan

Too bad. I guess that's what happens when you have titan-scale railguns.

and the IG making themselves as small and diffuse as possible so as to allow the Tau to gang up on isolated groups.

An IG commander being a complete idiot? Shocking...

I could have sworn the anti-orbital emplacements had them too, since they were hardened against artillery and orbital bombardments.

They might have, but the defense lasers weren't a big factor in the ground battle. Even if they did have void shields making it harder to kill them (harder, not impossible, some of the defense lasers in the outer ring were destroyed by artillery) precision seeker missile strikes on the fortifications around them would quickly leave the defense lasers cut off and surrounded by Tau forces, at which point their destruction is inevitable.

The random walls/trench lines/gun bunkers/etc making up the outer rings did not have void shields, they were just WWI trench warfare with laser guns.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Which seeker missiles, notably, do not.

FLUFF =/= GAME MECHANICS.

Seeker missiles in the tabletop game are weak for game balance reasons.

Seeker missiles in the fluff one-shot Leman Russes.

The Taros Campaign also has railguns oneshotting a titan, an armored column forgetting it's made of tanks mid-paragraph, and the IG making themselves as small and diffuse as possible so as to allow the Tau to gang up on isolated groups. It's a pile of lunacy that makes Ward look like a competent writer, and is transparently aimed at selling FW Tau resin kits.

No they didn't. The void shields only protected the inner citadel, the outer rings of defenses were just WWI-style walls and trenches.

I could have sworn the anti-orbital emplacements had them too, since they were hardened against artillery and orbital bombardments.

The AX-0-1 Tigershark that killed the Warhound titan , did it with a titan killer rail cannon, not a standard railgun, and even by the rules of that edition its was possible, so sorry it happened, oh well.

I read the passage you constantly bring up about a armored column forgeting its tanks , yup bad writing, oh well, bad editing happens alot in gw books.

And the Tau were able to gang up on IG units DUE to the better manuver assets they have. Mantas, grav vehicles, jetpacked suits all can move without regard to terrain, ravines, canyons rocky terrain, do not even slow them down, most of the IG roll on the ground, I guess its hard to accept that the IG can actually be outmanuvered by anyone.

Every book printed by GW/FW are slated to sell the units factions inside, so you dislike the book who cares.

and there are alot of comments about seeker missles not being able to destroy a leman russ...last time I checked the sides of a Russ is only av 12, and a seeker is str 8, so maybe...just maybe some of these hits maybe..again wrap your head around this concept hit the Russ from the side.

 Peregrine wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
It's like one broadside for the price of seven

No, it carriers a pair of titan-scale weapons. That's WAY more than a mere broadside.

Wait, it's an S10 weapon with the destroyer rule? That doesn't make sense; if it has a strength other than "destroyer" it's not a destroyer weapon... ah, and it's recosted in IA Apocalypse, making it one marginally improved broadside for the price of nine and a half. Which would, ironically, be enough to potentially bring down a warhound in one salvo. It's still a little unlikely, but it's quite a bit more so than the entirely impossible one heavy railgun bringing down a titan in one shot.

No, just like Imperial bombers it carries gun turrets for self defense.

Which are significantly shorter range than either hydras or the imperial hunter-"we don't need no stinkin markerlights"-killer missiles.

Of course a Thunderbolt would win against a heavy bomber, just like a Barracuda would tear apart a Marauder. That's why you have these things called escorts.

A marauder would stand a better chance of winning against a barracuda than a tiger-shark would against a thunderbolt, however.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Wait, it's an S10 weapon with the destroyer rule? That doesn't make sense; if it has a strength other than "destroyer" it's not a destroyer weapon... ah, and it's recosted in IA Apocalypse, making it one marginally improved broadside for the price of nine and a half. Which would, ironically, be enough to potentially bring down a warhound in one salvo. It's still a little unlikely, but it's quite a bit more so than the entirely impossible one heavy railgun bringing down a titan in one shot.

GAME MECHANICS =/= FLUFF.

The Tigershark is armed with two titan-scale weapons. Essentially it's a flying Warhound.

Which are significantly shorter range than either hydras or the imperial hunter-"we don't need no stinkin markerlights"-killer missiles.

What does that have to do with a dogfight with a Thunderbolt (you know, the thing the defensive turrets on a Marauder or Tigershark are designed for)? The way you deal with Hydras is to stay above their maximum altitude and/or kill them with stand-off weapons, not strafe them with machine guns.

A marauder would stand a better chance of winning against a barracuda than a tiger-shark would against a thunderbolt, however.

Evidence for this?

And even if the Marauder has a marginally better chance, it's still pretty much zero. Pointing out that heavy bombers die if they're forced into a dogfight with air superiority fighters isn't really saying much, and it isn't a point against the Tigershark.