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.

The deployment options and their built in defense are both pretty good upgrades the Crisis teams would love to have. I think they just play to a different style. Being MORE powerful isn't important. being powerful ENOUGH is.

The problem is that Kroot can do the job stealth suits can for cheaper and more reliably thanks to shot volume and sniper rifles for MC and other tough targets. It's done cheaper and can be taken more than 3 times, while being considerably less durable thanks to only a 4-5+ cover save but having huge quantities of wounds to fall back on. Stealth suits do the same job that just about any other unit can do better. Taking up an elite slot and being expensive are just nails in the coffin.

As a long time Tau player I am very satisfied with the new codex. Things change, but they changed well.

Now we have more marker lights. The Broadsides don't have strength ten rail guns, but you can give the sky fire and that is kind of huge.

The thing of it is, the Tau do not play like other armys, you have to get clever and wiley with them. You have the win the game, not just hang back and let your army win.

Also GW has pretty much smacked us back down and said 'STOP MATHHAMMERING, NARRITIVE PLAY." Honestly I like it.

I wish I could agree.

I am playing with Large kroot units right now. heres how it goes:

1. Not on table
2. Outflank, Rapid Fire
3. Get charged, use RapidFire to try and repel. Fail and die. OR
3. Enemy pelts the Kroot after tank shocking them, prepars to charge. Kroot have ONE round to fire Sniper rifles, best case.
4. either ay they are gone or the enemy is vanquished by now, or both.

I mean this is pretty much it. Their value is how they pul the enemy away from where they really should be going. The enemy cant leave a scoring unit behind them but yet if they go there they know they are doomed. The Kroot offensively are not scaring anyone.

Now the Etheral makes them more interesting. It kind of turns the corner for them but then look at the points you're committing. Plus the VP you're risking...for a Kroot unit? nnnnn...... Maybe?

I hope you dont get the wrong impression because I love what Kroot have done for my army. they have probvably killed more vehicles than any other unit in my force.

I just dont think that they havethe same jobas Stealth units in any way and they CERTAINLY dont outperform them on any level that I can see. Stealthunits take far more punishment, far faster, better leadership and a LOT more shots over the course of the game.

10 Kroot should get 30 shots off every game reliably. I dont see Stealthsuits being outdone in that regard. I really don't.

The benefit though is that if your Kroot are dying, it's ok because they are cheap and you can take 6 large units of them. A unit of 20 Kroot costs 140 points compared to 6 stealth suits costing 180. Kroot are able to put out 20 shots at 24" while stealth suits can put out 24 shots at 18" with a 6 inch jump. Kroot only get better from there since they can either double their weapon output at 12" or they can use sniper rounds. Kroot are just far more versatile at the cost of being cheap acceptable loses. Stealth suits, I won't argue with any further. They're expensive, have terrible weapon load outs that lack versatility or utility, have so few wounds that small arms are a huge factor that reduce their firing strength significantly per wound, and they take up slots that are better left for stronger suits (either Riptide or Crisis). It was the same last edition and it'll be the same this edition, some people just want to justify expensive S5 guns.

 Kingsley wrote:
Stealth suits can Outflank and have 2+ saves under normal conditions thanks to Stealth and Shrouded. They honestly seem like a very strong option to me thanks to their ability to threaten the back lines, "home objectives," etc. I wouldn't take fusion blasters though-- burst cannons should be sufficient against rear/side armor anyway.

Yes, exactly. Comparing Stealth Suits pound for pound against Crisis Suits purely on shooting capability ignore the Stealth suits awesome 2++ cover save and extremely open deployment options. They are really two very different units, but I certainly wouldn't say Crisis are always going to be the superior option. Stealth suits are much more versatile strategically speaking, although for some reason that's an advantage that gets completely over looked in most "tactics" discussions, as strange as that is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

It was the same last edition and it'll be the same this edition, some people just want to justify expensive S5 guns.

Yeah, and some people want to just ignore all the other things they are capable of and focus exclusively on the S5 guns...

The issue is, if backfield harassment is what you want, what better to do it with than deepstriking crisis suits, or fish of fury, or heck, even vespids? Each of those units are powerful in their own right, but stealth suits have the sole benefit of 2+ cover (sometimes). But here's some math for bolters - 10 MEQ approach and rapid fire, 20 shots hit 12 times, make 8 wounds, and kill 1-3 stealth suits, depending on their cover and luck situation. That's not much, no, but it's the same points value roughly of crisis suits that would have died from the same firing, who would've contributed more distraction and over-commitment to kill than the stealth suits.

Stealth Suits are simply excellent. What is required to use them is... a strategy that makes use of their abilities.

If you aren't able to come up with one, then sure. You'd be lost trying to use them.

As one who made extensive use of them at times, I have seen the remains of their work and been keenly satisfied by the devastation. Entire flanks collapsed in front of them and there was nothing they could do at times. Kroot will never have that effect on a flank. Not ever.

Kroot are good for entirely different reasons than Stealth Suits so theres no actual REASON to choose between the two.

But as an academic point of interest, I cannot agree that Kroot are even a possible replacement for them. They're not even tasked with the same strategic job.

Why I am intrigued by stealth suits is not their weak shooting, but toys you can get for them. Posrel and homing beacon, mainly.

Say, 3 stealth suits and 2 drones, with 'vre, homin/pos (likely you will need just one) and a fusion for good measure, maybe with a target lock.

That's 142 or something? That's 12 pulse shots, which is very inefficient when compared to other options. But then there is a melta, a 2+ save in any cover and the ability to pinpoint deep-strikes.

The same points would get you a full squad of two-weapon suits, without upgrades, so make of that what you will.

I'm going to try the Stealth suits, possibly a dual fusion, but not expecting much.

As a tyranid player I'm honestly shocked that Tau players are griping about their new dex. Just because the Tau aren't Necron or Grey Knight level good doesn't mean you didn't't get an amazing dex. I mean I used to snicker whenever Tau armies came up but now Missile sides, Riptides, and those bombers make me assume the position every time they show up. I mean you still have the best LRAT around. Me? I'm still stuck with expensive as hell T-fexes. You on the other hand can swamp a board in S6+ shots from across the board like nobody's business.

 Jancoran wrote:
Stealth Suits are simply excellent. What is required to use them is... a strategy that makes use of their abilities.

If you aren't able to come up with one, then sure. You'd be lost trying to use them.

As one who made extensive use of them at times, I have seen the remains of their work and been keenly satisfied by the devastation. Entire flanks collapsed in front of them and there was nothing they could do at times. Kroot will never have that effect on a flank. Not ever.

Kroot are good for entirely different reasons than Stealth Suits so theres no actual REASON to choose between the two.

But as an academic point of interest, I cannot agree that Kroot are even a possible replacement for them. They're not even tasked with the same strategic job.

I need a situation summary of how something like this happens. Stealthsuits are not that overwhelmingly effective to collapse flanks, imo. They are more of a scaple to remove specific units, often at the expense of the suits themselves. Even with 2+ cover saves, they tend to die due to the low toughness and often exposure to the enemy due to being so close. (due to melta and burstcannon 18" range)

Big units of kroot can have that effect, especially if properly used with the right tactics (Isn't that always your excuse for units being used right?) I played against a fellow Tau player and had my krrot effective wreck his hammerhead the turn they came on and would have waste all his small firewarrior units had his commander with air burstiing frag launcher die to the 4 melta hits I put on him (rolled quad ones for wounding). The kroot were a pain in his side the whole game, and took him 3 turns of shooting to finally get them to run away to the point where they wouldn't rally. My other kroot blob helm my side of the table, and main for an effective safehaven for my farseer, dispite having a couple templates and a 10man kroot alpha strike happen to them. I vote kroot over stealthsuits for killing troops. my stealthuits over kroot for scaple removal of tanks/outflanking tricks.

I use stealthsuits as well, but they are a scaple and a means to an end with positional relays tricks bringing on my shadowsun and her fire dragon escort behind my enemy's line.

I don't see how you can claim that Stealth suits are excellent. They haven't changed since the previous edition while Crisis suits got cheaper and stronger, Piranha got cheaper, Kroot got better, Riptides were introduced, and even gun drones got better. Just do a cost comparison with Piranha. For 200 points you get 5 AV 11/10/10 and a total of 40 S5 shots. Meanwhile for 204 points you get T3 2+ cover suits and 28 S5 shots. The Stealth suits will always be denial units, but the Piranha can have the chance to be a scoring unit. The Piranha is less susceptible to small arms fire than the stealth suits. Kroot are always scoring and denial units as well.

As Coyote said, they have some tricks with their homing beacon, but even then I think the Recon drone works better for that.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I don't see how you can claim that Stealth suits are excellent. They haven't changed since the previous edition while Crisis suits got cheaper and stronger, Piranha got cheaper, Kroot got better, Riptides were introduced, and even gun drones got better.

I don't see how you can claim that steath suits are NOT excellent. They just got a 33% increase in their shooting capability on their base model, have a 4+ mobile cover save, which is like a weaker invuln but becomes a 2+ in any actual cover. They didn't really change in points but they absolutely trash lightly armored infantry, force TEQs to roll many dice and can absolutely shred lighter armor. They can also JSJ and I havn't even talked about their equipment options.

Just do a cost comparison with Piranha. For 200 points you get 5 AV 11/10/10 and a total of 40 S5 shots. Meanwhile for 204 points you get T3 2+ cover suits and 28 S5 shots. The Stealth suits will always be denial units, but the Piranha can have the chance to be a scoring unit. The Piranha is less susceptible to small arms fire than the stealth suits.

Completely different FOC slot, but sure, I'll play along. The fact of the matter is the stealth suits are much more survivable than the pirhanas. Light vehicles are incredibly weak in 6E, even the fast ones like the Pihranas. Sure, they can score in 1/6 of the game modes but they also are also tend to die easier due to their lack of JSJ to hide behind cover.

Kroot are always scoring and denial units as well.

They also die when you look at them. I play to prevent my opponent from scoring by killing their troops. Why would I invest in the obviously weaker of my two troop choices?

If you want to get into cost comparisons, then I'll give it to you:

Since I do not currently own a riptide (Still waiting for mine) I've been running my old elite slot setup of 1x Fireknives and 2x Stealth (first all burst, second with 2x fusion) and here is how the costs play out:

The fireknives, 3 suits with MP and TL Plasma and 2x shield drones is ~208 points (Don't have my codex with me)

A full, all burst stealth team with no add-ons is ~208 points as well

A full stealth team with two fusion and no other addons is ~218 points

The team that has had the most impact for me in my three games? My all burst stealth. They lay down 28 S5 AP5 shots, hide in cover and are ridiculously hard to remove once they are there. Once they make themselves known, my opponents tend to focus most of their army their next shooting phase, rarely killing the whole unit and allowing me to counter with my other teams. And they still have 4 shots per model just to keep up a good rate of fire on light targets even with models missing. These guys outflank, with acute senses giving you more flexibility, and suddenly are inside their back lines, shredding any unit up to two feet away from the table edge and getting away into cover in the assault phase.

The worst unit in my army, just so I'm clear, is my fusion stealth. The fusion is almost worthless and when I get a Riptide he's taking their place. 2x fusion means my stealth teams are firing at 75% capacity just so they can have two AP1 shots. Would much rather to force my opponent to roll ones.

Bottom line, my stealth teams are haymakers. They show up, remove an enemy unit from the board and proceed to distract my opponents while the rest of my army keeps up the heavy fire.

Well to be fair we did lose the ability to stealth cloud which was a decent way to get a TON of shots in and cheap bodies with 3+ armor

now we lose the extra bodies and wounds and gain 1 extra attack for free.

Its different and we needs think of different tactics with them now.

I can't take it seriously when you're trying to say that a piranha is somehow weaker than a T3 stealth suit. Even with side shots, it's makes the standard bolter require 6's just to glance and it will get a 4+ cover save. Compare that to the Stealth suits with T3, so wounding 2/3 of the time and with a 2+ save.

10 bolter shots at piranha = 6.67 hits, 1.11 glances, .56 hullpoints gone.
10 bolter shots at stealth suits = 6.67 hits, 4.44 wounds, getting .74 wounds.
the Piranha is also a vehicle with multiple hull points, so even if a glance gets through it doesn't stop it. Cover saves are good, and I'll grant that. For comparison the autocannon which is geared to take down light vehicles and still wounds stealth suits on a 2+.

4 autocannon shots gets 2.67 hits, which gets 1.78 glances/pens, and .88 hullpoints lost.
4 autocannons at stealth suits get 2.22 wounds, and .37 wounds.

The 2+ cover does give stealth suits the edge, but the fact that Piranha are less vulnerable to small arms fire I think is the winning factor.

My real issue though is the fact that they are an expensive single wound T3 model with a fixed weapon option compared to suits in the same slot, which can also JSJ, with T4, multiple weapons and upgrade options, and can take drone blobs like stealth suits could. 3 suits with dual burst cannons and drones ends up being 258 points for 36 S5 shots, +1 T and +4 wounds.

Also shield drones are complete trash now, unless on an IC.

Coyote81 wrote:


I need a situation summary of how something like this happens. Stealthsuits are not that overwhelmingly effective to collapse flanks, imo. They are more of a scaple to remove specific units, often at the expense of the suits themselves. Even with 2+ cover saves, they tend to die due to the low toughness and often exposure to the enemy due to being so close. (due to melta and burstcannon 18" range)

Big units of kroot can have that effect, especially if properly used with the right tactics (Isn't that always your excuse for units being used right?) I played against a fellow Tau player and had my krrot effective wreck his hammerhead the turn they came on and would have waste all his small firewarrior units had his commander with air burstiing frag launcher die to the 4 melta hits I put on him (rolled quad ones for wounding). The kroot were a pain in his side the whole game, and took him 3 turns of shooting to finally get them to run away to the point where they wouldn't rally. My other kroot blob helm my side of the table, and main for an effective safehaven for my farseer, dispite having a couple templates and a 10man kroot alpha strike happen to them. I vote kroot over stealthsuits for killing troops. my stealthuits over kroot for scaple removal of tanks/outflanking tricks.

I use stealthsuits as well, but they are a scaple and a means to an end with positional relays tricks bringing on my shadowsun and her fire dragon escort behind my enemy's line.

Yes the "excuse" I use for using units is that they are strategically appropriate. "Excuse". You kill me.

I mentioned earlier that my Kroot have killed MORE VEHICLES than any oher unit. So...again... and probably not for the last time... I repeat: I like Kroot. But Kroot have a job that is not the same. And Stealthsuits are excellent. And I'd take both. Just so we're clear on that.

I think what he meant was that your answer for everything seems to be "you need a statedgy to use them. If you can't think of one, it's your fault and the unit is fine." Which doesn't really hold any weight since you could apply that for anything. Really it's just a way of saying something without saying anything. It's like saying "You can bake a cake without needing heat. If you can't figure out how to do it, the recipe is fine but you fail as a baker." If you want to make a claim, it holds no weight unless you support it with some demonstratable. Mathhammer works great for this since everyone can do the math themselves. Ancedotal statements about how they tear through enemy flanks everytime doesn't hold as much weight since not all details are observable or repeatable.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I think what he meant was that your answer for everything seems to be "you need a statedgy to use them. If you can't think of one, it's your fault and the unit is fine." Which doesn't really hold any weight since you could apply that for anything. Literally it's a way of saying something without saying anything. It's like saying "You can bake a cake without needing heat. If you can't figure out how to do it, the recipe is fine but you fail as a baker."

But the problem is that he's right. The Tau army, as of the past few years, has never been an army where you just push your models across the table and as long as you roll well you win. It is an army that requires a bit of forethought, some strategic ingenuity and then luck.

You are trying to look at stealth suits and say "These models are terrible in a vacuum" and we're trying to tell you that we HAVE used these models and they sure as heck are anything but. You don't understand why so you're trying to poke holes in his argument. Now I will poke holes in yours.

I can't take it seriously when you're trying to say that a piranha is somehow weaker than a T3 stealth suit. Even with side shots, it's makes the standard bolter require 6's just to glance and it will get a 4+ cover save. Compare that to the Stealth suits with T3, so wounding 2/3 of the time and with a 2+ save.

[then mathhammer of bolters vs autocannons]

You are trying to force me into an argument where you're saying your point is correct.... but all you're saying is the mathhammer of marine bolters against pirhana armor. Why would marines be shooting their bolters at pirhanas? I'm certain that they would be using weapons OTHER than their bolters to be shooting at vehicles. On that same token, I'm actually positive that the last time my stealth suits entered the battlefield near a squad of space marines, I had make sure that squad was not able to counterattack onto my stealth suits, leaving a grand total of 0 bolter shots headed their way the next shooting phase.

Which leads me into my next point, your big issue here is that you're trying to just mathhammer it out and take that as the written truth on how matchups play. It doesn't account for unusual situations such as a squad of 10 terminators failing 6 of their saves to one shooting attack from overwatch or firewarriors winning in close combat against anything. I've seen odd things like this happen enough to where mathhammer is only a GUIDE. It tells me only approximately what I should expect. I could get much better, I could get WAY worse but what I do know is how favorable my matchup is and pray I didn't upset the dice gods that day and have my "This is so certain it should never fail attack" fail miserably.

My real issue though is the fact that they are an expensive single wound T3 model with a fixed weapon option compared to suits in the same slot, which can also JSJ, with T4, multiple weapons and upgrade options, and can take drone blobs like stealth suits could. 3 suits with dual burst cannons and drones ends up being 258 points for 36 S5 shots, +1 T and +4 wounds.

This is actually too funny to ignore. You state that stealth suits are too expensive than provide a squishier, more expensive unit as a counter argument. Yes, crisis suits are T4 with a 3+ armor and 2 wounds. They are also incredibly vulnerable compared to stealth teams. AP3 weapons tear right through that squad you proposed. No armor saves allowed. I've had so many crisis suits die to well placed S8 AP3(or better) weapons that I make sure to take shield drones with my crisis teams now. But then you said....

shield drones are complete trash now, unless on an IC.

...and I have to completely dissagree with you. The problem is that in this case you see them as what they were, not what they are now. Yes, shield drones were better in the past but their base function has not changed one bit. Shield drones exisit to deter high-strength low-ap weapons from firing at them, requiring a committal from other resoruces from your opponent to remove them. The argument that is constantly thrown at me is "just use small arms fire" is a joke as well. The list you had provided above is also defeated by killing the shield drone wall with small arms fire then killing the suits with high-strength low-ap weapons.

Once you stop looking at things from your very narrow perspective, then you will understand more about the Tau as a whole. The Tau army is the only army I've ever owned a codex for and by far the army I have played the most. I am surely not an expert on the game but I know what makes my army tick throughout the entirety of it and am impressed anytime someone tries to tell me that something in the codex is bad without even trying to find a way to use it right! All you can do to debate me is to theoryhammer and throw numbers out everywhere but everything I have said here is straight up experience. What HAS worked for me against a wide variety of armies.

Math Hammer DOESN'T really tell you everything, does it? No.

CONTINGENCIES have no definable points value. So while I'd love to get into a math debate, the math simply CANNOT deal with this problem.

There is no points cost for the RELATIVE DIFFERENCE in impotance between being able to Deep Strike and NOT. Stealth can. Kroot can't. Unless you CHOOSE to be arbitrary, you cant define that value either. Its something you have to SEE. Anecdotal is the favorite (and overused, condescending) word I hear used to describe that.

So YOU, the Math Hammer guy can EITHER give it an arbitrary number (which flies in the face of any math hammer) OR... accept that this is utility that you either WANT strategically or dont.

If you dont, thats YOUR choice, not a Math issue.

Kroot must Snap Fire Sniper rounds when they come in. Stealthsuits can fire freely with Precision shot using ATS. The ATS can be math hammered, but the opportunity cannot.

Stealthfields have no MATH you can disassemble. They have it ALL the time. kroot have it SOMETIMES. What's the math on that? There is none!

SITUATION and STRATEGY determine these contingency values.

Being unasailable in close combat because of JSJ... Whats the value? Do you know? No! There's no number.

The VOLUME and literal deployment area of a kroot unit vs. a Stealth unit? Whats the points value for being compact and easier to hide? There is none. Its totally subjectot the situation. Sometimes ou will LOSE because you cant hide and other games, you wont NEED to hide. But what are the points for that potentiality of benefit? Completely undefinable.

So math fails you when you look at this. Which is why I didn't engage in it. If we were on a shooing range, your math per shot stuff might matter.

For example:

24 STR 5 shots, hitting on 2's: 13.33 wounds v. T4.

30 Kroot Sniper shots or just long range ones, hitting on 4's: 7.5 (12.5 if they could use a couple Markerlights)wounds v T4.

AP is better on Stealth. 180 points, point for point gives you...what in the case of Kroot? Does that look superior to you?

Lets try short range, Rapid Fire:

24 STR 5 shots, hitting on 2's: 13.33 wounds v. T4.

30 Kroot Rapid Firing shots (60 shots), hitting on 4's: 15 wounds v T4

So you'd trade all the Stealth Suits give you for that? Sure. But not because math tells you to. it's because Kroot have things going for them that Stealth won': Scoring, more wounds to give, and the ability to take advantage of Ethereals and such.

Whats the points value of scoring? Who knows! So there's no MATH to do there.

Claiming Mathhammer can solve this as an argument here is a fallacy. It just can't.

You have to be on the receiving end to understand the true threat of some things. You have to be FRUSTRATED by the inability to DO anything about a threat before you understand its potency, like th first time you see Corbulo in action. You can TELL me that X unit xets 4 kills per Y and you might not be wrong That just isn't the end of the story though.

Math IS a good guide when two units ESSENTIALLY do the EXACT same thing. It can be a nice tie breaker. But the strategy is where its at.

That's my take on it.

 YotsubaSnake wrote:

But the problem is that he's right. The Tau army, as of the past few years, has never been an army where you just push your models across the table and as long as you roll well you win. It is an army that requires a bit of forethought, some strategic ingenuity and then luck.

Are you implying that other armies don't require forethough (List making), strategic ingenuity (Deployment, list making, and objective placement), and luck (anyone that uses dice for anything)? I don't know how I can be any more clear. If you have a claim you have to back it up. Jancoran has made claims several times in various threads and very rarely does he back it up with anything more than "you have to use tactics". I will admit he is correct, only because it's a tactical game (which I'd imagine most games are by definition).

You are trying to look at stealth suits and say "These models are terrible in a vacuum" and we're trying to tell you that we HAVE used these models and they sure as heck are anything but.

If I was looking at them in a vacuum, then why did I provide examples of units that can do the job better and compare the base abilities, FOC position, stats, weapon loadouts, and even durability to enemy fire? If I was looking at it in a vaccuum I'd have nothing to compare it to.

You are trying to force me into an argument where you're saying your point is correct.... but all you're saying is the mathhammer of marine bolters against pirhana armor. Why would marines be shooting their bolters at pirhanas? I'm certain that they would be using weapons OTHER than their bolters to be shooting at vehicles. On that same token, I'm actually positive that the last time my stealth suits entered the battlefield near a squad of space marines, I had make sure that squad was not able to counterattack onto my stealth suits, leaving a grand total of 0 bolter shots headed their way the next shooting phase.

6 stealth suits shooting at 10 marines gets you only 2.67 unsaved wounds at BS3. Being generous and getting BS5 gets a total of 4.44 unsaved wounds. Pretty hard to garuntee that not a single bolter is getting shot back and hardly what I'd consider to be flank breaking.
Regardless, the reason why I pointed out the marine's ability to fire bolters at Piranha was just to demonstrate that Piranha are a more durable platform for massed S5 fire on a fast moving unit. I agree that a far better weapon against piranha would be a weapon with higher strength and longer range, which is why I used the Autocannon just to be fair on the issue. I'll even admit that the autocannon is kinda the lower performing weapon on anti-tank abilities, and the stealth suits will be more durable compared to Missile Launchers and lascannons. That wasn't my point though. My point was just that Stealth suits are still vulnerable to bolter fire due to being single wound T3 models.

Which leads me into my next point, your big issue here is that you're trying to just mathhammer it out and take that as the written truth on how matchups play. It doesn't account for unusual situations such as a squad of 10 terminators failing 6 of their saves to one shooting attack from overwatch or firewarriors winning in close combat against anything.

I was honestly going to read and reply to the rest of your points, but here is where you show a gross misunderstanding of how tactics work. Luck is not able to be factored in or counted on. Period. End of story. Mathhammer is reliable because it is easy to do, understand, and repeat. I can give you the same numbers I'm running, and you can do the math yourself to verify mine or prove me wrong if I forgot to carry the one. Ancedotal evidence and pure luck are absolute garbage to base tactics on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jancoran wrote:
For example:

24 STR 5 shots, hitting on 2's: 13.33 wounds v. T4.4.43 unsaved wounds

30 Kroot Sniper shots or just long range ones, hitting on 4's: 7.5 (12.5 if they could use a couple Markerlights)wounds v T4. 12.5 wounds resulting in 2.08 unsaved wounds against armor and 3.5 other unsaved wounds for a total of 5.5 unsaved
AP is better on Stealth. 180 points, point for point gives you...what in the case of Kroot? Does that look superior to you?

Yes... yes that does look superior. Going to T5 makes it go higher in the Kroots favor, while also being a scoring unit.

Lets try short range, Rapid Fire:

24 STR 5 shots, hitting on 2's: 13.33 wounds v. T4.

30 Kroot Rapid Firing shots (60 shots), hitting on 4's: 15 wounds v T4 Which would be 25 wounds at BS5, or more wounds than the Stealth suits could even put out

So you'd trade all the Stealth Suits give you for that? Sure. But not because math tells you to. it's because Kroot have things going for them that Stealth won': Scoring, more wounds to give, and the ability to take advantage of Ethereals and such.

If you're going to be silly and just randomly give Stealth suits BS5 without giving Kroot the same benefit then you're either being ignorant or just entirely decietful. Either way I wash my hands of discussing with you since you are unable to provide a single valid argument other than a 2+ save.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also all wounds in red are against MEQ 3+ armor.

Its funny to read a post like that Jancoran, it reads a lot like : I don't know how to apply the math so it doesn't work!

Mathhammer does tell you which gambles are good to take, and which are poor. This feeds into strategy as you are playing on a series of bets against an opponent. The more bets you can make in your favour, the better you set yourself up to win.

Certainly there are outliers, and a 51% chance to succeed doesn't mean you can count your chickens - but when you are aware of what the "mathhammer" (normally just called statistics) actually means it does tell you quite a bit.

Not all, but a lot.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Are you implying that other armies don't require forethough (List making), strategic ingenuity (Deployment, list making, and objective placement), and luck (anyone that uses dice for anything)? I don't know how I can be any more clear. If you have a claim you have to back it up. Jancoran has made claims several times in various threads and very rarely does he back it up with anything more than "you have to use tactics". I will admit he is correct, only because it's a tactical game (which I'd imagine most games are by definition).

No, what I'm saying is that you are the kind of person that I could write a f'ing field manual on specifically how I use my units and you would still disagree or not have answers. It's not that he's not backing it up, it's that you're not actually trying to be open enough to see what he is seeing, just blaming his inability to explain what he is trying to convey on being a bad player. It's a poor argument in itself.

If I was looking at them in a vacuum, then why did I provide examples of units that can do the job better and compare the base abilities, FOC position, stats, weapon loadouts, and even durability to enemy fire? If I was looking at it in a vaccuum I'd have nothing to compare it to.

But you ARE looking at it in a vacuum. You literally said "WEAPON X VS TARGET Y GIVES THIS AVERAGE # OF WOUNDS" That is a vacuum. One vs. the other with no outside influences.

6 stealth suits shooting at 10 marines gets you only 2.67 unsaved wounds at BS3. Being generous and getting BS5 gets a total of 4.44 unsaved wounds. Pretty hard to garuntee that not a single bolter is getting shot back and hardly what I'd consider to be flank breaking.

This is because you are looking at it from a vacuum YET AGAIN. I said that they entered from that side and I guarenteed that they did not get shot back. I did not say how and you jumped to the assumption that my stealth teams destroyed the enemy in one shooting attack by themselves. Here is what happened a week ago, from memory (so it may be fuzzy)

1) Stealth team enters the board, approaching unit in the marine unit that has already taken two casualties the prior turn and is sitting in a cover of ruins.

2) My sniper drone team fires, two markerlights and four sniper shots hit, 1-2 marines fall to wounds with the enemy marked twice.

3) My stealth team uses 2 markerlights, fires at BS5 and kills the remaining enemy troops.

4) My stealth team advances in the assault phase to nearby cover to prepare for the enemy counter attack.

By utilizing this combined arms, I secured a flank for my army, isolating my opponent's remaining troops in the far corner leaving me only needing to prepare for his deep strike counter-attacks next turn. This is an actual event that happened in an actual game that I ended up winning. You are not thinking of the WHOLE PICTURE when you vacuum the mathhammer. Stop t, it is not helping your cause. Tau are about combined arms, which is why every time you place their units inside a vacuum you loose credibility.

Regardless, the reason why I pointed out the marine's ability to fire bolters at Piranha was just to demonstrate that Piranha are a more durable platform for massed S5 fire on a fast moving unit. I agree that a far better weapon against piranha would be a weapon with higher strength and longer range, which is why I used the Autocannon just to be fair on the issue. I'll even admit that the autocannon is kinda the lower performing weapon on anti-tank abilities, and the stealth suits will be more durable compared to Missile Launchers and lascannons. That wasn't my point though. My point was just that Stealth suits are still vulnerable to bolter fire due to being single wound T3 models.

and your point was a poor one, unfortunately. I won't repeat my argument about mathhammer, but I will talk tactics. I was placing a unit forward and thus requred them to be protected in order to take an advantagous position. In order to accomplish that goal, covering fire from other units on the board was required. This means that I ensured secuirty in one location to put an advantage on my opponent and force them to react to my movements. Following this attack, I quickly remobilized to prepare for his counterattack next turn when his deep striking units were going to hit the table. This is where I'm certain you havn't had any kind of actual training for the effectiveness of combined arms strategic objectives. I am utilizing my stealth teams as a quick hit-and-run kill securing unit. They are not as mobile or shooty as your pirhanas, but they are much easier to hide and much tougher to kill overall.

I was honestly going to read and reply to the rest of your points, but here is where you show a gross misunderstanding of how tactics work. Luck is not able to be factored in or counted on. Period. End of story. Mathhammer is reliable because it is easy to do, understand, and repeat. I can give you the same numbers I'm running, and you can do the math yourself to verify mine or prove me wrong if I forgot to carry the one. Ancedotal evidence and pure luck are absolute garbage to base tactics on.

Yes. Luck is not able to be factored in or counted on. I could list NUMEROUS real-world examples of how forces that should have lost in a battle came out victorious. Luck is fickle yet realisitc and very true. However pure mathhammer is pure garbage to base your tactics on as well. You have to understand that there is a third factor you're not even taking into account and that is your opponent as a player. You're seeing the game as "my models vs his models" and I'm seeing it as a "My moves vs my opponents", meaning I am not only trying to take advantage of favorable matchups but also making your opponent second-guess himself. Is he playing too aggressively? Can I make him move poorly to catch his units out of position? These are things that you can't apply with your mathhammer approach, things that cause these lucky situations to arise and become a factor in the game and making it not only fun but interesting to play. Something I'm not even sure you utilize.

 Jancoran wrote:

There is no points cost for the RELATIVE DIFFERENCE in impotance between being able to Deep Strike and NOT. Stealth can. Kroot can't. Unless you CHOOSE to be arbitrary, you cant define that value either. Its something you have to SEE. Anecdotal is the favorite (and overused, condescending) word I hear used to describe that.

Actually, you're wrong. Of course you can give it a value. You can even give it a reasonably well defined value. As someone else pointed out, just because you can't doesn't mean it can't be done.

Hint: Start with how often you'll show up when you need to, typically a 2/3 chance. Work out the odds that you land close enough to where you need to be to do what you want. Then factor what you'd have been able to accomplish otherwise. I think you'll find that deep striking stealth teams is a losing proposition unless you can bag a high-value target, like a land raider, with a fusion team. Their ability to infiltrate and guarantee their availability from turn 1 is just better than reserve odds otherwise.

Stealthfields have no MATH you can disassemble. They have it ALL the time. kroot have it SOMETIMES. What's the math on that? There is none!

You're a genius, clearly there's no possible math that could be used to model terrain availability. You do know that people have modeled far more complex things than the rules for toy soldiers, right?

You have to be on the receiving end to understand the true threat of some things. You have to be FRUSTRATED by the inability to DO anything about a threat before you understand its potency, like th first time you see Corbulo in action.

Uh, sure. Maybe you do. Most of us are capable of understanding based on reading. It's really not that hard, give it a try sometime.

... But the strategy is where its at.

That's my take on it.

Duly noted. Your take is one way of approaching the game. Not a very good one, but if its working for you, keep at it. The rest of us can continue a discussion about comparative value without you telling us we're wrong and how it can't be done.

I don't see how you can claim that steath suits are NOT excellent. They just got a 33% increase in their shooting capability on their base model, have a 4+ mobile cover save, which is like a weaker invuln but becomes a 2+ in any actual cover. They didn't really change in points but they absolutely trash lightly armored infantry, force TEQs to roll many dice and can absolutely shred lighter armor. They can also JSJ and I havn't even talked about their equipment options.

I like this part because you make these claims for stealth suits. Lets see:

33% increased shooting, your right, but piranha went from 5 shots to 8 shots at 18" i think that is a win.

Mobile cover save. Yup, but that didn't change, The mobile coversave on the piranha didn't really change either it used to cost 55pts, guess what it costs 55pts now with dpod as well. Getting better saves in terrain is somewhat mitigated by having to take dangerous terrain tests, and possibly causing morale test on yourself due to failures. That is always a huge risk at key points in a game. you also have to take into account in this section the downsides of failed saves. Piranha might only take a glancing hit, the might take something worse, but whatever that first piranha takes, has no effect on the rest of the unit. Where as 2 failed armor saves could see your LD8 stealthsuits (( if you pay 10pts, which always feels expensive seeing as we don't get any stats other then ld, at least other srgts get +1 A, some get BS, or +1 AS) the simple fact that your expensive suit unit could go running off the table after two wounds, makes it's AS vs piranha AV not quite as good either.

Trash light infantry? Doing some quick mathhammer, I just don't see how 204pts of stealthsuits (assuming 6 suits and 2 gun drones) shooting at guardsmen in ruins (Yes you need to default to 4+ cover saves because they are most common) 28 shots -> 14hits -> ~10 wounds -> 5kills does not equal trashing, a hammerhead for 131pt with railgun and sms trashes infantry. And as savageconvoy above posted, piranha put out a ton more shots at the same Str and BS, so obviously put more wounds on an infantry unit for the same price. Similiar argument for TEQ and light armor. Although piranha do ahve the option to take seeker missiles, for 40pts you could take 5 seeker missile, move 12 on the first turn and fire all fire at a monstrous creature of something similar and cause some serious damage. Its a good advantage since they can both take fusion, although piranha can take 5 where as stealth suits can only ever have 2 per squad.

Mobility. you talk about JSJ, but never praise the crazy fast mobility of fast skimmers in this edition. 30" in a turn can allow piranha to quickly change the flow of a game by turning a flank into an overwhelm set of models for units to deal with. Don't discount the ability of the drones to disembark, increasing the mobility effectively, but allowing the unit to splitfire, without giving up more killing points either, and even if they do kill the drone, they don't get kill point unless they kill all five piranha.

Over all your reasons for stealthsuits don't really separate them from other units, because those other units got the same increased firepoiwer or more, those other units got cheaper, and often have more and better options as well.

@Jancoran

Wow your math just roves my point about kroot firepower versus stealthsuits. even with a two markerlight advantage kroot out shoot stealthsuits at 12". even at 15 models, they put out the same firepower as the stealthsuits at 12", or those 30 models the same at 24" as the 6 stealthsuits do at 18" vs T4 (as you stated).

I don't really have anything else to prove, your math just shouts to me to take kroot as troops, or piranha in my fast attack instead of using my precious elite slots fot stealthsuits to "shred infantry" as you stated. I think the key to the codex if to use the right unit from the right slot, without using up slots that do things better then any other slot, and in this case the elite slot is for bringing special weapons and ap2 templates, not burst cannons and other S5 infantry killing guns. We get that elsewhere in our codex and they seem to do a better job, based on your math and mine.

This is because you are looking at it from a vacuum YET AGAIN. I said that they entered from that side and I guarenteed that they did not get shot back. I did not say how and you jumped to the assumption that my stealth teams destroyed the enemy in one shooting attack by themselves. Here is what happened a week ago, from memory (so it may be fuzzy)

1) Stealth team enters the board, approaching unit in the marine unit that has already taken two casualties the prior turn and is sitting in a cover of ruins.

2) My sniper drone team fires, two markerlights and four sniper shots hit, 1-2 marines fall to wounds with the enemy marked twice.

3) My stealth team uses 2 markerlights, fires at BS5 and kills the remaining enemy troops.

4) My stealth team advances in the assault phase to nearby cover to prepare for the enemy counter attack.

By utilizing this combined arms, I secured a flank for my army, isolating my opponent's remaining troops in the far corner leaving me only needing to prepare for his deep strike counter-attacks next turn. This is an actual event that happened in an actual game that I ended up winning. You are not thinking of the WHOLE PICTURE when you vacuum the mathhammer. Stop t, it is not helping your cause. Tau are about combined arms, which is why every time you place their units inside a vacuum you loose credibility.

Your entire situation could have been done by piranha or kroot for the summary you gave. And I think the statement savageconvoy are not said in a vacuum, its a direct comparison, which is fair. Looking at a unit in a vacuum is like looking at chaos cultists without taking into account the whole codex. The cultists are terrible, they don't have effective weapons, they don't have a good means of getting to the battlelines and using their short ranged and ineffective weapons. But when taking in the whole codex, they're fantastic! Any marine player would love to have a unit like that. (Thus the abundance of IG allies) That being said, taking into account the rest of the codex when looking at a unit is the exact opposite of looking at a unit in a vacuum. What your talking about is looking at a unit on the battlefield and the role it plays. There is some merit to that. Seeing as 40k is an ever changing meta and environment, attempting to base a unit on a single game and it's battlefield role to place it above other units (even multiple games is not enough, you would have to be able to say it worked against more then 50% of the armies out their, every time, to have someone even thing it's an effective strategy) The battlefield role of stealthsuit is going to vary against armies, and it's effectiveness is going to vary as well. I find using those arguments are a deceptive way of boosting their ability.

Any value you place on an item / rule / ability that doesn't have a points value of it's own will in fact be arbitrary, because even if you're deriving it from a set of probabilities (i.e. chance I come in on the turn I want from reserves, and land within 18" of my chosen target) you're still making assumptions that don't reflect the entire volume of possible encounters.

How do you determine the value of Stealth, Shrouded, Infiltrate and Deep Strike? What assumptions do you use in order to calculate their worth? How do you determine, for example, whether Deep Strike is worth X points and Infiltrate (which gives Outflank) is worth Y points, when you start adding in things like Positional Relays and Homing Beacons? How do you define a unit's chances of getting to a point on a board where those items become a factor, when you can't readily define where or what that point will be, or when that needs to happen?

You're absolutely correct that you can, indeed, model a great many things accurately based on whatever assumptions you choose to make. You have to acknowledge, however, that any parameters you choose will be arbitrary at best (even if you choose the Final Table at Adepticon or the top 10 lists at the past 10 major tourneys or whatever), and that consequently any result you derive from that model - no matter how accurately calculated - will also be arbitrary, and likely very wrong when used in any situations that don't conform well to the model you used.

That's what Jancoran and Yostuba are getting at here. That there are intangible, difficult to measure tactical advantages that having Stealth, Shrouded, Infiltrate and Deep Strike on Stealth Suits give them that - when combined with their playstyle and army list - give them significant advantages in their games.

Stealth Suits can deploy in one of four ways, after all. They can deploy regularly, with the rest of your army. They may be Infiltrated, deploying after your army and your opponent's army is set up. That's a significant positional advantage of it's own, as it means they automagically have a better chance of being where they'll be most effective from the start. "Most effective" can also, by the way, simply mean denying board space to enemy infiltrators. They can Deep Strike, should you judge the situation will be fluid enough that you'll want that flexibility, or if you judge that your XV25s won't be effective if they're on the board first turn, or if you want your opponent to advance and open space to exploit in his backfield. You can enhance the accuracy of this via Tetras and Homing Beacons, or an attached Warlord. You can also Outflank, allowing you a guaranteed entry from anywhere on a board edge. You've got a 2/3 chance to get which one you want, but that can be enhanced by Positional Relays on Pathfinders and Crisis Suits to give you utter certainty. And, of course, reserves can be made more reliable with a Comms Relay - a far more viable option now that we've got plenty of anti-air capabilities in our Codex. Oh, and of course, Stealths are automagically more survivable against any AP3 or better weapons, due to Stealh and Shrouded.

How, exactly, can you define those survival, positional and temporal deployment advantages (and their attendant disadvantages) in a way that can bring it down to a simple points per model value?

We already did that, I believe. We compared weaponry, survivability, damage output, equipment options/loadouts, and initial unit costs. You can look at it any way you want, but stealth suits offer nothing except T3 wounds with a 2+ cover save. The equipment and abilites outside that are not limited to stealth suits and are on generally more specialized units that are much more versatile and cost effective. How much would I pay for three T3 2+ saves? Not 90 points. I won't pay 12 points for a T4 4++ invul save in shield drones.

Doesnt Stealth Suits come with Markerlights?
If so, in a seeker missile heavy list you could have your stealth infiltrate near a target that you would like to bit some markerlights into and fire off those seekers at BS5 with str8 ap3 seeker missiles on whatever you feel need a shot to the face.

As they are Jet pack infantry they shoot their heavy weapons regardless due to relentless so they can easily JSJ markerlights or bursters or fusions to do their thing.

What Kroot have is stealth in forests and do more wounds per shooting round, but you pick them for scoring so what chance to they have to score a point? In the situations they have a objective in a forest is a better situation than a objective out in the open, or behind a building and can they actually shoot at the enemy from their scoring point?

People sling around "tactics" and "math" and "statistics" without really going on about what those means in game.
Sure a Kroot does more in a outright firefight but do they survive being shot at? and will they even shoot if they sit on a objective?

In the case where you need a unit that can shoot from round 1 that have a chance of doing damage, you might consider the stealth suits for early infiltrate shennanigans, or if you want outflanking troops that can tarpit and capture you pick the kroot. So Pick your unit for what role you would like them to do and what situation you want to make with them.

Sure. Cherry-picking your comparison units does tend to bias the results though, doesn't it?

Compare 3 Crisis with 1 Burst Cannon each, to 3 Stealth Suits. Compare 3 Crisis with 2 BCs and 1 Fusion Blaster to 3 Stealth Suits. See how they compare in terms of shooting - the Crisis will come out worse, because with either loadout they're more expensive.

Compare their survivability. Crisis are T4, so they take less wounds from non-AP3 weapons of S6 or less. Against S7+ AP4 or worse weapons, Crisis lose out again on a points per wound taken, again because of their higher expense. Against AP3 weapons of any kind, Crisis lose out again, because the Stealth and Shrouded significantly increase the survivability of Stealth Suits, regardless of whether they're in cover or not.

Consider loadout. Here, Crisis win by a mile - they can take more weapons per model, more variety of weapons, more drones to supplement. You can then run various comparisons of the various permutations of those loadouts against similar Stealth loadouts; the results will vary.

Consider deployment and mobility. Both move the same, both can outflank, both can deep strike. But Stealh Suits can Infiltrate, and Crisis can't - so Stealths win again.

Let's compare them to Kroot, shall we? We'll do 3 Stealth vs. 15 Kroot to start, since that's an even point comparison.

In terms of firepower, Kroot throw 3-18 more shots per turn, at 1 less strength. In terms of sheer ability to force saves, Kroot have it. Against anything with an armor save, the AP6 of the Kroot Rifles means that even against GEQ, Kroot have to be in rapid fire range to out-kill Stealths. Same thing holds against MEQ/TEQ - the Kroot have to be within rapid fire range in order to get more wounds inflicted than the 3 Stealths can.

Survivability: Both are T3, so that's a wash. Stealths have 6 wounds total, Kroot have 15, so on a pure wounds per point basis Kroot win. Of course, against anything with an AP better than nil, Stealths take 3 times as many hits before they fail a save. Against S6+ weapons, Stealths fare worse, but even then they require 9 S6 wounds to kill them off. So, Kroot are more resilient to non-blast direct fire weapons of S6 or better.

On to mobility... Here, there's no contest. Stealths get JSJ, Kroot don't. Stealths have Deep Strike, Kroot don't. Need I say more?

So, even with minimal time, I can demonstrate that the comparison isn't as cut and dried as you made it out to be.

Veskrashen wrote:
Any value you place on an item / rule / ability that doesn't have a points value of it's own will in fact be arbitrary, because even if you're deriving it from a set of probabilities (i.e. chance I come in on the turn I want from reserves, and land within 18" of my chosen target) you're still making assumptions that don't reflect the entire volume of possible encounters.

You're aware that there's an entire industry based around doing exactly what you're saying can't be done, right? How do you think insurers decide how much to charge you?

How do you determine the value of Stealth, Shrouded, Infiltrate and Deep Strike? What assumptions do you use in order to calculate their worth? How do you determine, for example, whether Deep Strike is worth X points and Infiltrate (which gives Outflank) is worth Y points, when you start adding in things like Positional Relays and Homing Beacons? How do you define a unit's chances of getting to a point on a board where those items become a factor, when you can't readily define where or what that point will be, or when that needs to happen?

As you said, you work with probabilities. Consider Deep Strike.

There are two ways to use the math. The first is to decide whether deep striking is a good idea in a given game. To do this, you first establish your expected return if everything goes right. If your opponent has a land raider, the expected return will be 250 points, if everything goes right.

You then start modifying this downwards based on what might not go right. If you have two fusion guns, that 250 points will be reduced by the chance that you miss, the chance that you don't pen, the chance that it doesn't explode, the chance that you land in the wrong place to attack it, and so on. When you do this, you'll have a better idea of the real expected return on the action.

Then you figure out, what's the return if you don't deep strike. If you deploy instead and spend those 2 turns shooting at marines?

Then you take it a step further. What's the opportunity cost if you don't deep strike? Is this a risk you have to take? If the 2 fusion guns are your only weapons that can hurt the land raider, and it holds a scoring unit, the opportunity cost may be the chance to win the game. In this case, regardless of the odds of success, you have to take the chance.

Now, you weigh the two against each other, and if the expected return on deep strike is greater than that of not deep striking, you go for it.

Some parts of this are easier for people to grasp. The part about "if it's your only option" is easily understood by most players. But the mathematical return on the action when it's not necessary is less understood. Better players do a lot of this instinctively, but it's certainly possible to math it out on paper.


Then you get to the second part - what is this worth. And, this is what GW is really really bad at, because they don't really understand it. It's why you'll suddenly see a unit that's extremely undercosted and gets taken 3-per-army, like a helldrake, or a unit that's massively overpriced and ignored, like mutilators.

In order to appropriately determine the value of such things, you need to have some baseline expectations to work off of. Take Shrouded, for example. In order to properly price it, you need to know:

What is the expected terrain density.
What cover would normally be available.
What is the expected increase in durability for the unit that has this rule.

Shrouded is worth more on a 6+ save model than a 3+ save model, because it's boosting the survivability of the model by more.

No one is saying it is easy to work this all out, in fact, it's rather complex, and as you point out, there are a lot of possibilities to consider. But saying it's impossible is wrong. Saying it cannot be done is wrong. As far as systems go, 40k is not that complex, it's easily modeled and if you want to take the time, it's not that difficult to run the numbers.

You're absolutely correct that you can, indeed, model a great many things accurately based on whatever assumptions you choose to make. You have to acknowledge, however, that any parameters you choose will be arbitrary at best (even if you choose the Final Table at Adepticon or the top 10 lists at the past 10 major tourneys or whatever), and that consequently any result you derive from that model - no matter how accurately calculated - will also be arbitrary, and likely very wrong when used in any situations that don't conform well to the model you used.

Not arbitrary, not if you do it correctly. Arbitrary implies randomness, and educated guesses are not random, they're made consciously. Good tournament players make these evaluations before every event. If you believe there will be a lot of vendettas at an event, paladins become a worse choice. Yes, sometimes people's guesses are wrong, and they get knocked out of a tournament as a result. But don't confuse that error with their thinking being arbitrary. Educated analysis of the expected metagame is a part of tournament prep, and picking the units that will outperform against the field is a skill, not an arbitrary thing.

Stealth suits can take one markerlight per squad on the shas'vre, so 15 points on top of the 30ppm. So they aren't very useful in that regard. Adding to that they can only take 2 drones max. So Crisis suits can bring more markerlights and relatively cheaper.

Crisis suits also have Jetpacks and can take more versatile weapons and can shoot more than one per suit. The limitations are what really hurts the stealth suit squads in this regard. If they could take missiles or any other weapon, they'd be a better choice. However they are stuck with the shortest ranged weaponry.

Kroot can take many cheap bodies. That's how they are survivable. Put them into cover for 4+ (ruins or forests or anything else and go to ground) and they are decently survivable. The key part is that they have more wounds that need to be removed before a leadership check needs to be taken. They are flimsy, I will admit. Despite that they are cheap and can be taken in multiples. Elites are a lot more rare and can be used for a much better and more specialized unit like Crisis suits and Riptides. You do get to place objectives as well, so you can almost garuntee a kroot blob can sit on an objective.

They can very easily shoot and sit on an objective. They have 48" range weapons and can take up to three of them. Surviving isn't that difficult either. They get the same cover save as firewarriors will, but cost much cheaper and take larger squads, so more wounds that have to be lost before the unit crumbles.

Kroot can infiltrate as well. Also they can take acute senses. And special weapons. Really they can do anything the stealth suits can do, but more cost effectively.