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.

Backfire wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:

And the concept of protecting firewarriors is an absurd concept. Terrain is rather equal on both sides, so you have just as much ability to hide firewarriors as they do with their troops, so we are left with base comparisons. Firewarriors have a decent volume of shooting, but are not very survivable due to small number, T3, and L8 without HQ support. Just about every other troop is more survivable and the things that killed FW before will kill them just as much now. So I don't see why having kroot in reserves that can come in and deny an objective or even claim one would be a bad thing. Tau were losing in the objective game in 6th, and just because we can shoot some units off objectives doesn't mean our units will be fine on their objectives.

Kroot always had outflank, and they used to be better in combat, and in 5th could charge out from outflank. Yet it was not a tactic which was likely to have much chance of succeeding - I think it worked like once or twice.

Kroot are simply not survivable or killy enough to go claiming objectives by force.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Leth wrote:
Fight monstrous creatures IN close combat, where most of them excel.

A jump suit monstrous creature I have a feeling will have an easy time staying out of CC.

Grey Knights have also guns. Plenty of them. Plus they have jump troops of their own.

 Leth wrote:

Also the tanks look pretty sweet and the points seem right when you consider the role they play in the tau book.

Devilfish mobile bunkers/objective grabbing assistance
Hammerhead:Slayer of whatever

They're terrible, compared to what they were. Tau tanks need to move to survive and maximize use of their firepower. They can't do that anymore without ginormous amount of Markerlight support. If the Hammerhead didn't have only good anti-tank gun of the army, I guarantee it wouldn't see any play in current Codex.

It seems like you're trying to argue that the new Tau codex is not competitive with the current GK codex. You are correct, it's not. It was designed to be competitive with CSM, DA, and Daemons (the three books released so far for 6th). GW is balancing the scales between the armies and is trying to lay the "power dex" (which ruled in 5th) to rest. Granted, it might suck for a while as GK, Necrons, and (to a lesser extent) IG will still be running amok, but eventually, if GW does it right and doesn't fall in to old habits, all armies will be properly balanced. Here's hoping.

The Hammerhead in the new Tau Codex is one of the best tanks in the game. I expect to see 2 in most armies, and the only reason that number isn't 3 is because Broadsides and Skyrays are also very effective.

Have I been misunderstanding the markerlight rules all this time? From what I have been reading, if the officer in a fire warrior squad "lights up" an enemy, the rest of the squad can't expend the marker for +1 BS? Either another squad/unit would use the mark or it could be used to fire a seeker missile?

tidalwake wrote:

Quick note for those discussing it in previous posts: The Supporting Fire rule does state that overwatch can still only be fired once per phase. So no multiple overwatches via supporting fire.

Are you sure that its not once per unit? For example, if unit A fires overwatch for unit B and it gets charged by another unit it would be able to fire, but Unit C could overwatch for Unit A.

Yes, you have. Only Networked Markerlights can be used by the squad firing it.

thejughead wrote:

tidalwake wrote:

Quick note for those discussing it in previous posts: The Supporting Fire rule does state that overwatch can still only be fired once per phase. So no multiple overwatches via supporting fire.

Are you sure that its not once per unit? For example, if unit A fires overwatch for unit B and it gets charged by another unit it would be able to fire, but Unit C could overwatch for Unit A.

The book seems very clear. It says as an addendum after the supporting fire rule to remember that a unit can only fire overwatch once per phase. I'm not a hot dog in YMDC and I know people can argue almost anything but that seems pretty unequivocal.

I was more clearing it up for the people thinking that a single unit could fire more than one overwatch via this rule, in your example Unit A fires overwatch for Unit B being charged then unit A gets charged and could still fire overwatch for itself, the rule disallows this.

After going back and reading what you said this isn't what you meant at all... sorry!

tidalwake wrote:

thejughead wrote:

tidalwake wrote:

Quick note for those discussing it in previous posts: The Supporting Fire rule does state that overwatch can still only be fired once per phase. So no multiple overwatches via supporting fire.

Are you sure that its not once per unit? For example, if unit A fires overwatch for unit B and it gets charged by another unit it would be able to fire, but Unit C could overwatch for Unit A.

The book seems very clear. It says as an addendum after the supporting fire rule to remember that a unit can only fire overwatch once per phase. I'm not a hot dog in YMDC and I know people can argue almost anything but that seems pretty unequivocal.

I was more clearing it up for the people thinking that a single unit could fire more than one overwatch via this rule. After going back and reading what you said this isn't what you meant at all... sorry!

I think we are on the same page. My example was referring to Unit A only being able to overwatch once. The way I read the wording was that only one unit could do supporting fire per phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tidalwake wrote:

thejughead wrote:

tidalwake wrote:

Quick note for those discussing it in previous posts: The Supporting Fire rule does state that overwatch can still only be fired once per phase. So no multiple overwatches via supporting fire.

Are you sure that its not once per unit? For example, if unit A fires overwatch for unit B and it gets charged by another unit it would be able to fire, but Unit C could overwatch for Unit A.

The book seems very clear. It says as an addendum after the supporting fire rule to remember that a unit can only fire overwatch once per phase. I'm not a hot dog in YMDC and I know people can argue almost anything but that seems pretty unequivocal.

I was more clearing it up for the people thinking that a single unit could fire more than one overwatch via this rule, in your example Unit A fires overwatch for Unit B being charged then unit A gets charged and could still fire overwatch for itself, the rule disallows this.

After going back and reading what you said this isn't what you meant at all... sorry!

No worries, i think the rule is fine. Having multiple over watches would be op, imo.

I have a quick question about the fluff...is the terrible "Space Marines now protect Tau becuase of a 10,000 year old document that the Emperor signed" bit in there? I was really afraid that it would be, even though the idea has received a LOT of flack from the community...

tiberius183 wrote:

It seems like you're trying to argue that the new Tau codex is not competitive with the current GK codex. You are correct, it's not. It was designed to be competitive with CSM, DA, and Daemons (the three books released so far for 6th). GW is balancing the scales between the armies and is trying to lay the "power dex" (which ruled in 5th) to rest. Granted, it might suck for a while as GK, Necrons, and (to a lesser extent) IG will still be running amok, but eventually, if GW does it right and doesn't fall in to old habits, all armies will be properly balanced. Here's hoping.

I don't know whether the army is competive with GK (old Codex was, btw), I'm just expressing concern about the lack of anti-tank fire this book seems to have. Maybe other people are right, maybe it's not actually a problem, but I suspect it is.

And Hammerhead seems like it's terrible with the new book. It's previously good mobility is gimped, and without Target lock it's secondary firepower is often wasted because it has to use Railgun against hard targets which can't be hurt - or often even reached - with its secondary weapons.

I can't stress enough how forced the book seems. All the shooting aids other than Markerlights are taken away, so people are forced to take and use them. How do Mech Tau players are going to play with the new book now when tanks totally suck without Markerlight support, which is nearly all infantry? How exactly you're meant to execute Mont'ka strategy with this book when moving your tanks forward makes them unable to shoot properly? Did Vetock even read the old Codex before he began to write the new one? Because it honestly doesn't look like he did. The book looks like some guy familiar with Imperial codices took it, assumed units have Imperial equivalents "OK...Hammerhead is like Tau Predator...and Devilfish is like Tau Rhino...and Kroot are like Tau Ratlings...and Seeker missile is like Tau Hunter-killer missile..." and so on.

I know we don't know everything, but here's something to consider: Pathfinders are actually fast attack now, not just in the slot. Before, they were only good for markerlights, which made them particularly stationary, a definite backfield unit. Now, they're still good for that (arguably better), but one could reasonably kit them out to be an offensive unit. The stock Pulse Carbine is a lot more effective, as are EMP grenades. Add to this the option of the Ion Sniper Rifle (whatever it was called) which someone reported here as S7 AP4 rapid fire 36"(I think), with a S8 blast Heavy option. So imagine you go first. Deploy 12" forward on a flank, Scout 12" forward. On Turn 1, disembark and move 6", putting S7 shots at whatever side armor is the best target. The Devilfish moves to cut off the worst incoming lines of fire to the Pathfinders. You've now set up a deep striking or outflanking position deep into the opponent's zone thanks to the positional relay. You've also created a sizable no-go bubble for any enemy tank due to the EMP grenades you're packing. Enemy troops will also take a lot of damage from the Pathfinder's now very substantial guns. The downside? You're not using Mandatory Markerlights, and Pathfinders now only have a 5+ armor save, so they won't survive after turn 1. Just when you think a unit gets interesting...

 CaptainLoken wrote:
I have a quick question about the fluff...is the terrible "Space Marines now protect Tau becuase of a 10,000 year old document that the Emperor signed" bit in there? I was really afraid that it would be, even though the idea has received a LOT of flack from the community...

Not going to go into the fluff, for one I haven't read it all yet. For two half the fun of getting a new codex is reading the fluff and I don't want to ruin it for anyone.

 CaptainLoken wrote:
I have a quick question about the fluff...is the terrible "Space Marines now protect Tau becuase of a 10,000 year old document that the Emperor signed" bit in there? I was really afraid that it would be, even though the idea has received a LOT of flack from the community...

NO.

The Emperor protected and Mr Vetock kept the fluff untainted.

Biophysical wrote:
I know we don't know everything, but here's something to consider: Pathfinders are actually fast attack now, not just in the slot. Before, they were only good for markerlights, which made them particularly stationary, a definite backfield unit. Now, they're still good for that (arguably better), but one could reasonably kit them out to be an offensive unit. The stock Pulse Carbine is a lot more effective, as are EMP grenades.

I actually used Pathfinders few times in this capability with the old book. I took fully kitted out Warfish w/ 8 Pathfinders, then outflanked them to objective, Pathfinders & the Fish shot up the objective holding troop, Pathfinders finishing with a charge (!). It was super fun, though practical only against very weak objective holders (like Gretchin...).

 CaptainLoken wrote:
I have a quick question about the fluff...is the terrible "Space Marines now protect Tau becuase of a 10,000 year old document that the Emperor signed" bit in there? I was really afraid that it would be, even though the idea has received a LOT of flack from the community...

Wait what? I never heard of that horrible bit of fan fic.

Few other things from the Codex.

HQ slots are very cheap compared to other armies.

There isn't an HQ with Eternal Warrior in the entire Codex that I could see.

Cadre Fireblades do not allow you to purchase multiple models to attach to squads. One per HQ slot is all you get. I know there was some discussion on this previously, just wanted to clear it up.

 Kingsley wrote:
The Hammerhead in the new Tau Codex is one of the best tanks in the game. I expect to see 2 in most armies, and the only reason that number isn't 3 is because Broadsides and Skyrays are also very effective.

I don't think the Hammerhead is even close to being one of the best tanks in the game.

1) It is actually undergunned. It has now got only two weapon systems - the turret and the "sponsons".

2) Most other tanks have considerably more firepower. Yes the Hammerhead has the Rail Cannon, but it needs support from other units or Longstrike.

Base HH vs Base LR Vanquisher - The Russ is better as it can penetrate armour better and has more guns. It has more armour too, but it also more expensive.

On the subject of HH... what second weapon do we go with? I'm thinking just drones as they might be better than the Burst Cannons.

So are fireblades still worth it? How cheap are they cause I think I'd just splurge to get the Crisis suit or maybe just give it a marker drone squad.

Also I don't see how the Hammerhead is the best tank in the game. It has a single BS4 railcannon shot and... well... that's about it. It will get a 4+ cover if it's kitted with the disruption pod and forced to move every turn. Meanwhile other armies can get lascannon predators, Landraiders, the various Leman Russ varients, Manticores, Lance skimmers that are cheaper from what I hear, anyone got anything else they would count as a better tank?

On the issue with pathfinders, there save did go down to the point where standard weapons ignore it and special weapons that are cheap like the flamer will now wreck pathfinders. Would you really consider that a fast attack unit for one special weapon? In it's normal mode it's a lame plasma gun with longer range (I can't honestly remember the weapon profile) and if you didn't move it's a blast weapon. Pathfinders suffer from the same problem they always have. They are an almost vital unit, that is fragile, and they paint themselves as a huge target. I think they are even more of a target now, since I wager that many will be taking multiple weapon suits, vice twin-linked weapons to take advantage of the built in multi-tracker. This will make pathfinders a gamble since every AP5 weapon will be aimed at their heads to remove something that will hurt the army as a whole.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
So are fireblades still worth it? How cheap are they cause I think I'd just splurge to get the Crisis suit or maybe just give it a marker drone squad.

They are pretty cheap for what they do, the problem is finding HQ slots.

Also, something I was just looking at. Pathfinders come with the option to purchase the new special drones. All drones are T4, including old drones and the new ones.So you could theoretically buy enough drones to make majority toughness be 4 for the unit. It seems expensive but the new drones are pretty nice so it isn't useless by any means and this seems like a way to make them more survivable, especially since with defensive grenades they will be getting stealth from anything 8" away and therefore, better cover saves.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
So are fireblades still worth it? How cheap are they cause I think I'd just splurge to get the Crisis suit or maybe just give it a marker drone squad..

Fireblades are 60 pts. The problem is, Ethereals are only 50, and they do more than Fireblades. It sucks because I was so excited about the Fireblade when I first heard about it, but now, they really are overshadowed with the incredible buffs that Ethereals got...

Ethereals now are to Tau almost like Vendettas (or Marbo) are to IG: they're just too good to not take....

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 CaptainLoken wrote:
I have a quick question about the fluff...is the terrible "Space Marines now protect Tau becuase of a 10,000 year old document that the Emperor signed" bit in there? I was really afraid that it would be, even though the idea has received a LOT of flack from the community...

Wait what? I never heard of that horrible bit of fan fic.

Yeah, it was a VERY specific rumor that came out from a...not so accurate rumor poster...

Basically, the rumor was that a 10,000 year old document was discovered. In the document, the Emperor stated that an alien species who was "almost immune to the touch of the warp" would be Humanity's salvation against Chaos. So, the Space Marines decide that the Tau fit the bill, and started "protecting" them...

I HATED it, and so did MANY others. In fact, at one panel conversation with GW game designers, a young fan actually asked how they could put that bit of offal into the fluff. He concluded his question with the Allies Chart, and asked if that was why Tau and Space Marines were allowed to be Battle Brothers. He was instantly showered with applause from the other fans in the room. The GW game designers were a little surprised by the fan reaction, and simply said that, "there were several times in the existing fluff where Space Marines and Tau had allied against a common enemy..." No one seemed to like this response.

So, I was just making sure it was not in the Tau Codex. Now, if we can dodge the same bullet in the Space Marine Codex, then I can continue to play the game...

tiberius183 wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
So are fireblades still worth it? How cheap are they cause I think I'd just splurge to get the Crisis suit or maybe just give it a marker drone squad..

Fireblades are 60 pts. The problem is, Ethereals are only 50, and they do more than Fireblades. It sucks because I was so excited about the Fireblade when I first heard about it, but now, they really are overshadowed with the incredible buffs that Ethereals got...

This is true, though I was trying to be careful on points costs since I wasn't sure if that was ok to post.

Also a small point, the Fireblade is 3W and gives you another markerlight (he has split fire) at BS 5, plus volley fire. While the Etheral is only 2W and needs to be close to the fighting to gives buffs at 12"

Not sure how much wounds matters with T3 on each though.

I don't see ethereals as being that good. I'm just not really impressed with their invocations, but I'm not really giving it much thought so no big surprise. I'm fully prepared to be proven wrong on this, and I certainly don't see a draw back in taking them. I'm going to give it some more thought, maybe I'll come around.

I wouldn't say the Fireblade is cheap, especially compared to the CSM HQs, which have great gear and load out options and can make various units troops. Sorry, but I could spend 60points better than just getting an extra shot from immobile firewarriors... like bringing more firewarriors.

One thing I would have loved to see was a bonus to DTW. It would make perfect sense as the Tau don't have the ability to have psykers and per the fluff have a minimal presence in the warp.

I forgot. I thought they made a rule that Tau got 5+ deny the witch on suits and rerolls for everyone. It may be early on in the codex, but I don't expect it to be there.

And another thing they didn't fix. No psyker defense and no psyker support.

Allied farseer with divination + 5 dire avengers. Rerolls and army wide psychic defense, well for at least a few months anyway.

 CaptainLoken wrote:

Basically, the rumor was that a 10,000 year old document was discovered. In the document, the Emperor stated that an alien species who was "almost immune to the touch of the warp" would be Humanity's salvation against Chaos. So, the Space Marines decide that the Tau fit the bill, and started "protecting" them...

I HATED it, and so did MANY others. In fact, at one panel conversation with GW game designers, a young fan actually asked how they could put that bit of offal into the fluff. He concluded his question with the Allies Chart, and asked if that was why Tau and Space Marines were allowed to be Battle Brothers. He was instantly showered with applause from the other fans in the room. The GW game designers were a little surprised by the fan reaction, and simply said that, "there were several times in the existing fluff where Space Marines and Tau had allied against a common enemy..." No one seemed to like this response.

Ally matrix is supposed to be read (fluff-wise) so that it presents the BEST possible case. Tau are open-minded, and under best circumstances will ally with nearly anyone. It is not meant to be interpreted that EVERY contact is friendly. Admittably, I do find the Ally matrix somewhat too "lenient". There are too many Battle brothers.

Funnily enough, fan-written Battlefleet Gothic ally rules say that "Space Marines will NEVER ally with Tau".

 Ravenous D wrote:
Allied farseer with divination + 5 dire avengers. Rerolls and army wide psychic defense, well for at least a few months anyway.

I prefer pathfinders. I even considered using my rail rifle tau pathfinders and etheral as "counts as" eldar at the start of this edition as a tribute to the cash grab allies rules.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I don't see ethereals as being that good. I'm just not really impressed with their invocations, but I'm not really giving it much thought so no big surprise. I'm fully prepared to be proven wrong on this, and I certainly don't see a draw back in taking them. I'm going to give it some more thought, maybe I'll come around.

I wouldn't say the Fireblade is cheap, especially compared to the CSM HQs, which have great gear and load out options and can make various units troops. Sorry, but I could spend 60points better than just getting an extra shot from immobile firewarriors... like bringing more firewarriors.

Well, to me it would be the choice between a Fireblade which gives a single squad an extra shot at full or rapid, or an Ethereal with Storm of Fire who sort of meets everyone within 12" halfway with an extra shot at rapid only. Now, let's think in double-HQ choices: two Fireblades = two squads with volley fire; two Ethereals (positioned correctly) = almost your entire DZ blanketed with Storm of Fire, so everyone with pulse weapons (not just FWs) are getting that extra shot at half range (especially Sniper Drone teams, who will now have 3 shots each at 24"), and, once again, for cheaper. Ethereals really are the better value.

The only time I can see Fireblades as being useful is in small games (500-750) where every victory point counts, since the drawback now to Ethereals is they give up two Victory points.

In regards to the Fireblade and Ethereal, they are but secondary hq choices when compared to the Commanders.

The Fireblade buffs are for one squad only... one paper thin squad.

The Ethereal again only buffs one squad, but gives more buffs.

Personally, after reading up on them, I'd take Space Pope. He can give two squads buffs.

Puscifer wrote:

Personally, after reading up on them, I'd take Space Pope. He can give two squads buffs.

This is noteworthy in that up until like a week ago, you would never have heard those words uttered. Space Pope, the worst unit in any army, ever. And that includes games which are not Warhammer 40k.

Seriously, I'm utterly puzzled who came up with the idea of Aun'va, and why. Putting him to a Tau army is like having Franklin Roosevelt lead up a charge on Omaha Beach.

edit. right prez fixed.