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.

 Redbeard wrote:

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?

Of course. They're called actuaries. They do statistical modeling and such, using such variables as health, age, etc etc etc to determine what their likely loss ratios are and all that. Those same individuals then build in a healthy margin of error, then charge you more to ensure profitability. Why? Because while you can statistically model the likelihood of a person aged 83 in rural southern Georgia dying within the next 12 months, assuming knowledge of his age and such, you have no way of modeling what the odds of him getting killed by a drunk driver are within that time period. Or the odds of him being killed by a flash flood. A lot of that is subsumed within general mortality rates - which kinda aggregate all those factors - but being able to determine what incremental risk to build into your policy to account for the freak accident is essentially beyond their ability to determine with any real accuracy. It is, literally, incalculable. So they make reasonable assumptions, tack on a big margin for errors they can't account for, and call it good enough. Those companies that don't do that tend to go bankrupt when things don't go as smoothly as estimated.

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.

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.

I cut out a lot of your analysis in order to save space, but I will say that it's an excellent rundown of the different variables involved. You are absolutely right that you can calculate, with some degree of accuracy, whether it's worth deep striking a unit of Fusion toting Crisis in to take shots on a Land Raider on Turn 2 or Turn 3. You can model the opportunity cost of holding something in reserve, to make that kind of a shot, versus your expected value of the shooting you'd be able to do in return. You can even model the opportunity cost of not having it survive to use those Fusion Blasters against that Land Raider. And yes, there's a difference in the value of Stealth to a 5+ save model as opposed to a 3+ save model.

All that said, I do still feel that it is, indeed, arbitrary. Your expected terrain densities are arbitrary - you can guess, you'll probably be pretty close, but it'll be a guess. You can make a reasonable estimate of where on the board you think that Land Raider will be, and you can make assumptions about what else is in the list and where it'll be in relationship to that LR, and you can model mishap probabilities and all that. And again, I'd say that even though those calculations are relatively straightforward to do, running all the various permutations of all the various terrain densities in all the various table layouts with all the various deployments will all the army lists (good and bad) for every codex out there and all their ally permutations (good and bad) is simply... well, it's not as simple or straightforward as you imply. And I'm not so sure the effort is worth just going with a rough "good enough" model of 1/3 of the time I'm dead on target, 1/6 of the time I'll scatter closer to my target in a way that increases my chance of mishap, 1/6 I'll scatter in a direction likely to take me out of my effective range, and the rest is a crapshoot as to whether or not I'll be able to get the shot I want.

I also feel that, again, it's hard to put a points value on unit option flexibility, or on a unit special rule, at least not in a vacuum. You can easily model different Crisis loadouts against each other, and against different units in the codex - hell, I do that in Excel already, and I'm not all that great at the statistical modeling thing. It's harder to put a points value on Stealth and Shrouded on a Stealth Suit vs. the weapon flexibility of a Crisis Suit. Each one depends on so many other variables - what you're using it against, what's shooting it, what the rest of the list has, etc etc etc - that I don't think you can make a blanket statement about that. That's why I feel "Unit X sucks, don't use it" isn't useful advice, since it ignores a whole host of scenarios and reasons and situations where Unit X could perform well, or even outperform it's usual replacement or competitor units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
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.

This is an analysis I can work with. In it, you clearly explain what you feel the alternatives are to Stealths and why you think they're superior. It's much much better than just saying "they suck,don't take them" because we can then actually argue about where your analysis conflicts with mine, and vice versa.

For instance, I don't assume I can place the objectives, and I don't assume that I can afford to let Kroot sit on them. Primarily because you can't determine in advance if that's going to be a useful strategy. It is utterly useless in The Relic or Purge The Alien, or even Crusade for the most part . In most tournaments, you don't get to place the objectives, and there's no guarantee they'll be in cover. Finally, with the plethora of stuff that's long ranged, AP6 or better, and ignores cover, I make no assumptions about Kroot being able to survive simply because cover is available. Thunderfires taught me that, and Helldrakes have pretty much reinforced it. I also disagree that Kroot are better just because they can take more bodies. It takes 6 bolter wounds, on average, to cause a 3-man Stealth Suit squad to take a Ld 8 check. It takes 4 bolter wounds to cause a Ld 7 check on a similar points value of Kroot. That's not what I would call significantly more resilient, point for point. I also don't feel that 48" S7 AP4 rapid fire guns are worthwhile, especially not at 25pts per shot and a 60pt minimum tax on top of that. Oh, and since it'll be in your backfield on your objective, you'll be shooting at front armor of vehicles, not the squishier side and rear where S7 is far more effective. S4 AP6 is far worse than S5 AP5 except within 12" rapid fire range. S7 AP4 is far worse against vehicles of any kind that S8 AP1 fusion. Stealth not only have Acute Senses for free as part of being battlesuits, they get the 2d6 JSJ that Kroot will never have. Kroot cannot, in fact, do everything Stealths can better. In short, I feel you overestimate their effectiveness considerably, and as a result compare them far too favorably.

There is, as I've said on a different thread, an argument to be made based on FOC availability. They do indeed compete with Crisis and Riptides FOC-wise, so I feel in a lot of ways that's what they need to compete against - the hard choices in the Tau codex don't often come down to points, but rather to FOC slots. Thus, to me at least, the argument about whether Stealth Suits are worth taking comes down to whether or not you need the Elite slots for Crisis or Riptides. If you've got the roles those things perform well covered in the rest of your list, or if Infiltrating Stealths with a Homing Beacon can enhance those Crisis suits' performance, then I definitely think they're worth considering. I also think it's reasonable to look at what other FOC slots might be freed up if you used Stealths instead of Crisis or Riptides in a list.

I like that we are having the conversation about stealth suits because it proves that the codex is not a one trick pony but has multiple viable units that can fit multiple roles. I personally do not like stealth suits because I feel their performance is inconsistent. There are games where you can't get into cover and shoot with their 18'' range, there are games where they bring down your opponents whole flank, there are games where they do nothing but absorb a ton of fire, and games where a hell drake fly over them and they die. When stealth suits are good they are really good and when they are bad they are really bad, which is different from most of our other units.

I feel if you really want a flanking unit then shadowsun with crisis suits is the way to go. It cost a little more but you get a lot more survivability with more wounds and higher toughness and you get much better weapon choices. There is nothing like outflanking, clearing out a building and then taking up keep there and whats as the enemy tries to shoot you away, and every wound they cause just kills a 12pt gun drone.

 lambsandlions wrote:
I like that we are having the conversation about stealth suits because it proves that the codex is not a one trick pony but has multiple viable units that can fit multiple roles

Not really. People were having a conversation about stealth suits before the new codex even though they were garbage, so all a continued conversation means is that people are willing to talk about bad units. They weren't a viable option in the previous codex, and they aren't a viable option in the current codex.

 Peregrine wrote:

 lambsandlions wrote:
I like that we are having the conversation about stealth suits because it proves that the codex is not a one trick pony but has multiple viable units that can fit multiple roles

Not really. People were having a conversation about stealth suits before the new codex even though they were garbage, so all a continued conversation means is that people are willing to talk about bad units. They weren't a viable option in the previous codex, and they aren't a viable option in the current codex.

Peregrine has spoken, so it must be true.

Really, all the people whose tactical acumen raises to the level of put units down, shoot at opponent, are the ones who consider them bad. The people who know how to do more things in 40k then just throw dice at their opponent are the ones that see the strategical flexibility the unit opens up, and consider them good. That's why you see all the detractors only mentioning the amount of S5 shots/point and resiliency/point, and completely ignoring their deployment options and specialty gear. That's a dead give away to me that some ones tactical and strategic capabilities are sadly lacking in this game. Unfortunate, but true. The saddest thing is these people tend to have a disproportionate amount of hubris surrounding their ignorance making it nigh incurable. Sucks :(.

ShadarLogoth wrote:
completely ignoring their deployment options

Which are incredibly overrated. Infiltrate is usually worthless (it just gets you closer where you can get shot at sooner), and outflanking is of limited value when your other units can deep strike into many of the same areas and you have an IC that can outflank better units. It's nice to have options, but not at the expense of the unit's primary role.

and specialty gear

Which is all of two items. Stealth fields are marginal at best since they just compensate for the unit only being T3/W1, and the homing beacon is decent but also available on Pathfinders (a far superior unit).

That's a dead give away to me that some ones tactical and strategic capabilities are sadly lacking in this game.

No, it's a dead giveaway that some people overvalue gimmicks and take inefficient units in the desperate hope that the gimmick will actually matter. Unfortunately it usually doesn't.

ShadarLogoth wrote:

Really, all the people whose tactical acumen raises to the level of put units down, shoot at opponent, are the ones who consider them bad.

Wow. Thanks for assuming that people against your opinion are obviously less skilled and tactical than you are. I bet you completely ignore the majority of arguments made against stealth suits.

The people who know how to do more things in 40k then just throw dice at their opponent are the ones that see the strategical flexibility the unit opens up, and consider them good. That's why you see all the detractors only mentioning the amount of S5 shots/point and resiliency/point, and completely ignoring their deployment options and specialty gear.

And I'm right. We totally covered all the wargear, USR, weapons and unit limitations. It's been covered.The only difference is that stealth suits can take a single marker and a homing beacon. That's it. That does not justify 90 points.

That's a dead give away to me that some ones tactical and strategic capabilities are sadly lacking in this game. Unfortunate, but true. The saddest thing is these people tend to have a disproportionate amount of hubris surrounding their ignorance making it nigh incurable. Sucks :(.

Wow... the irony is overwhelming. I have offered a fairly decent comparison of stealth suits to multiple units that can do all the jobs better. I brought in math to show the averages, unit sizes and costs, and equipment load outs. Most of the arguments for stealth suits have been mostly anecdotal or just broad statements like stating that stealth suits infiltrate makes them better in a way that normal people can't grasp. Yet I'm the one blinded by hubris. Even though I've offered fair comparisons and shown my work to prove my reasoning. Way to prove me wrong. Keep up the amazing work.

Which are incredibly overrated. Infiltrate is usually worthless (it just gets you closer where you can get shot at sooner), and outflanking is of limited value when your other units can deep strike into many of the same areas and you have an IC that can outflank better units. It's nice to have options, but not at the expense of the unit's primary role.

LOL. The fact that you actually think that tells me all I need to know about you. Have fun with your static no imagination gunlines while the adults are playing real games at the big boy table Peregrine. I have no intention arguing with a brick wall.

Savageconvoy

I think your analysis was much fairer, I just think you are selling their deployment options and ability to pinpoint DS other units a bit short. These are massive difference makes in a list designed to take advantage of them. Sorry to lump you in with Peregrine.

I am going to have to agree with Dracos, Redbeard and Savageconvoy on the value of mathhammer. Sure, it may be difficult to impossible to quantify everything in the game, but their are also a lot of aspects of the game that can be easily quantified, and those quantities are quite meaningful. Mathhammer provides explicit, factual, and verifiable information on the performance of units under specific circumstances, which is far more informative than the random "this unit sucks"/"no the unit is great, you just need to learn to use tactics" type arguments that get thrown around.

Sure, its quite difficult to quantify the value of Stealth Suits infiltration, outflanking and deepstriking, but mathhammer can clearly quantify how much damage the Stealth Suits are likely to do once they use one of these mechanisms to get in range of their target, as well as calculate the likelihood of various outlier scenarios, such as the chance the stealth suits will miss with both their fusion blasters. And when the Stealth Suits suffer return fire, the mathhammer can again be used to estimate how much punishment they can take. After all, regardless of the method the Stealth Suits use to get to their target, you still need to know if they will inflict appreciable damage on the target, and if they will suffer lesser or greater damage in return.

Mathhammer is a valuable tool that should not be ignored. Rather than being used an excuse to ignore the math, tactics and strategies should instead be looked upon as something that can be improved with better understanding of the statistical performance of various units. After all, how are you suppose to execute sound tactics if you have no basis on how a unit is going to perform?

Wow. There is a lot of vitriol in this thread over stealth suits.

As I see it stealth suits remind me a lot of Imperial Guard Stormtroopers. They are expensive, somewhat gimmicky, and other units can do it better... but damn if they are not the unit that does it in the coolest fashion. Their fluff paints a portrait of a unit that embodies the Tau way of war like no other. They are evocative, but they are not the best. This is, however, okay. Not being the best does not mean they can not have an impact in game. Sure you might not win a major tournament (probably partially due to a tragic lack of terrain that enhances vacuum mathhammer), but if you can pull off something incredible with them more kudos to you. This is just a game. Have fun!

ShadarLogoth wrote:
LOL. The fact that you actually think that tells me all I need to know about you. Have fun with your static no imagination gunlines while the adults are playing real games at the big boy table Peregrine. I have no intention arguing with a brick wall.

Since when does "focus on efficiency in the primary roles instead of gimmicks" mean "gunline"? Does a list with crisis suits/riptides/etc magically become a static gunline because its units have been optimized for maximum shooting efficiency?

And I'm glad you've resorted to petty insults, it does more than anything I can do to demolish your credibility.

 Peregrine wrote:

ShadarLogoth wrote:
LOL. The fact that you actually think that tells me all I need to know about you. Have fun with your static no imagination gunlines while the adults are playing real games at the big boy table Peregrine. I have no intention arguing with a brick wall.

Since when does "focus on efficiency in the primary roles instead of gimmicks" mean "gunline"? Does a list with crisis suits/riptides/etc magically become a static gunline because its units have been optimized for maximum shooting efficiency?

And I'm glad you've resorted to petty insults, it does more than anything I can do to demolish your credibility.

The primary role of the game is capping, holding, and contesting objectives. Flexible deployment options is a far more important factor towards that primary goal then math hammering damage and resiliency efficiencies. Good players realize that without it having to be spelled out for them. I guess we know what category that puts you in.

I'm not throwing petty insults, just calling a spade a spade. I'm sorry if that offends you.

Terrain is also exceptionally important. As line of sight blocking terrain on a board increases so too does the usefulness of stealth suits. In a Cities of Death themed board they become little nightmares. That said stealth suits are sub-optimal when placed on an open killing field without enough line of sight blocking terrain to afford them decent hiding places. They need to make use of their mobility or they become a giant point sink. They are designed to draw units away from objectives or other more critical units. They are also, as previously stated, more resilient against high strength weaponry that would chew up a unit of XV8s in a single turn.

They are useful and they do work, but their general dependence on a more specific battleground makes them less reliable than other options that will work whether or not you have a whole host of buildings or a little empty patch of ground with a "rock and bit of wall" that is labeled area terrain.

ShadarLogoth wrote:
Flexible deployment options is a far more important factor towards that primary goal then math hammering damage and resiliency efficiencies.

Not true at all. Flexible deployment has value, but a unit with flexible deployment but poor damage/durability is a bad unit. It doesn't matter how flexible your deployment options are if you can't do very much once you use them.

(And this is especially true for Tau, since we have alternative units with better damage/durability and the same or better deployment options as stealth suits.)

I'm not throwing petty insults, just calling a spade a spade. I'm sorry if that offends you.

Keep up the good work and we'll see what the mods have to say about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nightwolf829 wrote:
As line of sight blocking terrain on a board increases so too does the usefulness of stealth suits.

Actually it's the exact opposite. Stealth suits are worse when you have lots of LOS blocking terrain because their cover bonuses are only relevant when they're in LOS of something that wants to shoot at them. If you have easy access to complete LOS blocking then crisis suits bring much better firepower with the same defense.

Not true at all. Flexible deployment has value, but a unit with flexible deployment but poor damage/durability is a bad unit. It doesn't matter how flexible your deployment options are if you can't do very much once you use them.

(And this is especially true for Tau, since we have alternative units with better damage/durability and the same or better deployment options as stealth suits.)

Yes, and if Stealth suits had 6+ armor saves and S1 heavy 1 guns, then you might have a point. The truth is, they are easily in the neighborhood of other units in those areas, plus offer you game winning options the other units don't.

Keep up the good work and we'll see what the mods have to say about it.

LOLOLOLOL. Did you just threaten to cry to Mommy? Wow.

ShadarLogoth wrote:
The truth is, they are easily in the neighborhood of other units in those areas

They aren't even close. Even if you like burst cannons stealth suits are 30 points for a single BC compared to 42 points for two BCs on a crisis suit, and the crisis suit has the option to take better guns. That's a huge difference in firepower per point.

plus offer you game winning options the other units don't.

Game winning options like what?

LOLOLOLOL. Did you just threaten to cry to Mommy? Wow.

I didn't threaten anything, I just reported all of your rule-breaking posts. Just like I'm about to report this one.

Being rude to people breaks the no.1 rule of the forum, and is liable to attract a penalty from the moderators.

@Peregrine

Stealth Suits are not game WINNING units however they force your opponent in to some tough choices. They can carry wargear to get your Crisis Teams or outflanking Kroot / Devilfish w.Darkstrider in to position with detrimental effects. They are the only Suits that can infiltrate WITHOUT Shadowsun.

With the new changes to our Fusion Blasters they are also one of the few units who can get armour (and even possibly within Melta range) first turn. Plenty of tables we play on have good LOS Blocking buildings so...12" away - 6" move - 6" away from armour - 9" melta range baby! (I have actually used this twice and wrecked face with it first turn, Shadowsun was attached also)

Regarding Crisis Suits - there is little point taking 3 guns and it's wiser to specialise up. Taking Burst Cannons for anti-infantry is great and even works well against MEQ but having two plus another weapon is a little redundant - and becomes expensive.

Stealths have a very valid place in an army and can be good fun to use.

Nightwolf829 wrote:
Wow. There is a lot of vitriol in this thread over stealth suits.
This is just a game. Have fun!

This has happened forever though on Stealthsuits. I'll say this: I am legitimately surprised that so many improvements to the unit were made and yet...still this.

And after thinking about it, I guess it's nothing to me if some don't use them. Most of them are so star struck by the Riptide (and for good reason) or the improved Crisis teams (which I spent 6 years essentially not using but would now definitely use) that they wont even bother trying their alternative Elite. And their lack of practice using them probably wont help. That they never owned more than 6 of them at any time probably also wont help if they even own any now (yes i know, someone will say they have 18 and tried them, got it, check check). The last models they did were so ugly that Im not surprised that some just took one look and said "They could be Gawds gift to Warhammer and I wouldn't field THAT ridiculum". That matters to some.

Maybe what it will take is to go win a tourney or two with them to try and change a mind or two. Barring that (and maybe even AFTER that) there's going to be doubting Thomas's and bruised egos that will pretend it never happened to make themselves feel "right". As a famous sports philosopher once said: "Just win, baby".

Phanixis wrote:
I am going to have to agree with Dracos, Redbeard and Savageconvoy on the value of mathhammer. Sure, it may be difficult to impossible to quantify everything in the game, but their are also a lot of aspects of the game that can be easily quantified, and those quantities are quite meaningful. Mathhammer provides explicit, factual, and verifiable information on the performance of units under specific circumstances, which is far more informative than the random "this unit sucks"/"no the unit is great, you just need to learn to use tactics" type arguments that get thrown around.

I absolutely agree with this, which is why I try to explain why / how I see the value of those less tangible and less measurable things in ways that do allow them to be compared across units. It's also why arguments that don't attempt to do so, but simply rely on broad unstated assumptions irritate me so much. And you'll note that my reply to SavageConvoy and Redbeard noted this fact, and laid out what I felt was less quantifiable and why those things would impact a person's decision to take them. The fact that they laid out their arguments in ways that allowed us both to take a good look at what scenarios those advantages would and would not apply actually furthers the discussion, rather than hampering it.

I also would say that "the unit sucks"/"learn tactics LOL" arguments generally revolve around the various assumptions people are making that feed into the mathhammer they calculate. It's easy for one person to say that Kroot are more resilient because it takes more small arms fire to dig them out of ruins or woods than it takes to cause casualties to Stealth teams in the open. It's just as easy for another person to look at Stealths and say they're far more resilient than Kroot because they generally don't care about things like SMS and Thunderfires and Blastmasters that tear Kroot to pieces.

Sure, its quite difficult to quantify the value of Stealth Suits infiltration, outflanking and deepstriking, but mathhammer can clearly quantify how much damage the Stealth Suits are likely to do once they use one of these mechanisms to get in range of their target, as well as calculate the likelihood of various outlier scenarios, such as the chance the stealth suits will miss with both their fusion blasters. And when the Stealth Suits suffer return fire, the mathhammer can again be used to estimate how much punishment they can take. After all, regardless of the method the Stealth Suits use to get to their target, you still need to know if they will inflict appreciable damage on the target, and if they will suffer lesser or greater damage in return.

Mathhammer is a valuable tool that should not be ignored. Rather than being used an excuse to ignore the math, tactics and strategies should instead be looked upon as something that can be improved with better understanding of the statistical performance of various units. After all, how are you suppose to execute sound tactics if you have no basis on how a unit is going to perform?

Again, I totally agree. That's why blanket pronouncements drive me nuts. I would be far more interested in an analysis that said something like "Stealth Suits are generally a poor alternative to other units for anti-infantry and anti-armor work, because they compete with Crisis Suits and Riptides for Elite slots, and it's easy to get effective long range anti-infantry in other areas of the Tau codex. That said, Stealth Suits are more resilient, point for point, than other infiltrating units such as Kroot, and (having greater deployment options and mobility of Jet Packs) are able to threaten larger areas of the board with their anti-infantry shots than Kroot or Fire Warriors are able to do (both of which need to be within rapid fire range to out-shoot Stealths). In addition, Stealths are more survivable than Crisis, point for point, against any shooting of S8 or higher, or AP3 or better, assuming those shots don't ignore cover. Finally, the Homing Beacons that Stealth Suits can carry - when combined with infiltrate and their greater mobility - does open up additional options for Deep Strike reliant builds that can significantly increase their effectiveness."

That kind of analysis gives you a far better feel for what scenarios or lists you might want to take Stealth Suits over other more obvious options. It also allows someone to look at them and determine whether (given their meta, projected matchups and projected terrain, etc etc etc) attempting to use them in their list is worth doing or not. And, of course, this kind of analysis also gives you insight into what you might be able to expect from an opponent who does take them, which lets you better devise counters to that opponent.

All of which, IMO, is better than "that unit sucks" / "tactics LOL" that happens far too often.

 Jancoran wrote:

This has happened forever though on Stealthsuits. I'll say this: I am legitimately surprised that so many improvements to the unit were made and yet...still this.

"so many improvements"
You mean +1 shot, drones got reduced in quantity but don't require drone controllers, and the addition of homing beacons that are only taken on two other units? That's not so many. That's three. That's three mild improvements.

And after thinking about it, I guess it's nothing to me if some don't use them. Most of them are so star struck by the Riptide (and for good reason) or the improved Crisis teams (which I spent 6 years essentially not using but would now definitely use) that they wont even bother trying their alternative Elite.

This is so glaringly ironic that I hope you even noticed it. Why is it that I hear from the pro-stealth side that the no-stealth side is blinded and biased. We offered legitimate arguments (which haven't been refuted really) and yet we are the ones that are just biased and unable to learn. Really?! Let me change that around for you. "Most of them are so star struck by the Stealth or the improved Shrouding that they won't even bother looking at the unit for what it is?" Not very fun when the other side makes assumptions about the opposing side's motivations and character. This is also insane since most of the animosity is coming from the pro-stealth side, and has made offensive remarks and bogus claims about how the people against are just unreasonable and stubborn while most of us have offered a reason for our line of thinking.

And their lack of practice using them probably wont help.

Thank you for the random assumption that we haven't tried them out. You never even bothered to ask how many games we have tried them in, you just assumed that.

That they never owned more than 6 of them at any time probably also wont help if they even own any now (yes i know, someone will say they have 18 and tried them, got it, check check).

So your personal experience is the only experience that matters, even if we have tried them out? Seriously? You ignore mathhammer then go straight to personal experience while shrugging off others. I don't think Tactics is the right forum for that kind of thinking.

The last models they did were so ugly that Im not surprised that some just took one look and said "They could be Gawds gift to Warhammer and I wouldn't field THAT ridiculum". That matters to some.

What? Now we're just hating on stealth suits because of the ugly models? Wouldn't field them because they are ugly?! Conversion! People would have used counts as! Bought the XV-15 which is still available! But no. We are just shallow. Thanks for another assumption. I could have lived with you just completely glossing over your failed attempt at math on the previous page, but this is almost insulting how much you claim to know about my reasoning for hating stealth suits despite the fact that I listed them off several times and didn't bother to include one in your entire list of assumptions.

Here's a hint. If you're trying to prove something and have to resort to assumptions about the opposing side's motivations, then it probably means you don't have anything left to stand on.

It's interesting that you consider a 25% increase in firepower a "mild improvement." Overall I've found that Outflanking units are extremely useful, far beyond what their actual combat capabilities indicate. For instance, I often take a unit of 10 Scouts with bolters. This doesn't seem like a particularly efficient unit and indeed in a straight combat comparison it isn't, but in many situations it wins games by scoring Linebreaker, assaulting enemy units, etc. Stealth Suits must be evaluated in the context of Outflankers, which are often extremely disruptive to the enemy. In that sense I believe they acquit themselves admirably.

Are Stealth Suits ever going to be a three-of? No, probably not. But can a single Stealth team be a useful addition to an army list? Certainly, especially a list that doesn't feature outflank-oriented Pathfinders. Such units can often be worth it for disruption and tempo control alone.

It's a 33% improvement from the original, I will admit that's nice. If it was the only change in the codex, it would look more appealing. It's not exclusive though. Most units can get burst cannons. Several units can get fusion blasters. Infact stealth suits are the only unit where they are limited to how many the unit can take. Crisis suits can take none, 1 on a suit, 1 on all suits, 2 on a single suit, 2 on all suits, and just about any combination you want. Piranha can take multiple as well. Stealth suits are the only unit where the have a useless limitation of 1 for every 3 suits. With the burst cannon it's the same issue of one per stealth suit while it can be taken on crisis suits, hq's, bodyguards, devilfish, hammerheads, skyrays, piranha, the fighter, and even a drone gets a burst cannon. It's all the same gun too. If stealth suits were the only unit to get the 4 shot version, then I would consider it something more than a mild improvement. The bar got raised across the board, it doesn't mean the stealth suit is close to catching up with it's more versatile counter parts.

Even with outflanking considered, it's nothing really special. Piranha, outflanking kroot, 4d6 thrust riptides, deepstriking crisis suits all have ways of getting linebreaker. It's nothing really exclusive to stealth suits. Can they get it fairly easy? I would agree since it's a unit that can hide in the back field and be pretty much ignored while the rest of the game revolves around it. Kroot however can serve a far mor vital role because they are outflanking with cheap acute senses, can take 48" S7 rapid fire guns, are scoring, and are in a slot with plenty of room. The sniper rounds alone make them a more vesatile unit because they get precision shots, wounds on 4+, rending and pinning.

I'm not saying you can't run a single unit and that it won't do some good. By all means it can definately do some damage and score linebreaker. However I think there are more cost effective and versatile means of achieving that. For me, I favor versatility because I face plenty of different lists and I know that I have my S5 quota filled.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

You mean +1 shot, drones got reduced in quantity but don't require drone controllers, and the addition of homing beacons that are only taken on two other units? That's not so many. That's three. That's three mild improvements.

We offered legitimate arguments (which haven't been refuted really)...

Let me change that around for you. "Most of them are so star struck by the Stealth or the improved Shrouding that they won't even bother looking at the unit for what it is?" Not very fun when the other side makes assumptions about the opposing side's motivations and character. ...while most of us have offered a reason for our line of thinking.

Thank you for the random assumption that we haven't tried them out. You never even bothered to ask how many games we have tried them in, you just assumed that.

...So your personal experience is the only experience that matters, even if we have tried them out? Seriously?

...You ignore mathhammer then go straight to personal experience while shrugging off others.

Here's a hint. If you're trying to prove something and have to resort to assumptions about the opposing side's motivations, then it probably means you don't have anything left to stand on.

Clipped for brevity.

Sacageconvoy, you are overstating this.

1. YES... THOSE changes you just mentioned PLUS the upgrades they can now take that they couldn't which you tacitly avoid mentioning in your minimizing statement. And yes... those changes were free and upgrades are not expensive. It made it BETTER for the same points. This is an OBJECTIVE truth, so why are you arguing it?

2. You offered some legitimate arguments wrapped in a dismissive shell of glittering generalities. You ACTUALLY SAID verbatim that a Kroot can do whatever the Stealth suit can! This is your "objective" argument? Kroot take wound 2-3 times FASTER that Stealthsuits but you're going to say that the Kroot unit size is their "key"? You said those things and you tell me now that these were good arguments! Well...

3. I am not required to ASSUME what you think of Stealthsuits because...you...told...me. And everything you ...TOLD me... Was some math and some of this vague analysis of their less tangible values. Not experience. If you had any extensive experience using them you'd have said so long before this point in the discussion. So do not PRETEND like you have been "playing stealth suits all along and they suck". You haven't and yeah I AM willing to bet on it.. You've been hung by the tongue here. Your argument comes down to staring at the page and telling me "Its not that hard to figure out" (your words. not mine).

4. How dumb is it to suggest that I feel my experience is "the only one that matters". That sounds like a kid whose mad that his parents have chided him. This is a forum. Its MY EXPERIENCE that I am sharing. Im not here to share YOURS. My EXPERIENCE (and it is considerable when it comes to this unit) is that they are good. Why would I say different? Why SHOULD I say different if I have gotten players to concede in turn 2 almost exclusively because of the stealth suits eating their flank like flame to ice? I don't have anything to apologize for if I'm winning. Your experience, however little or much it may be with this unit is what is is. Play the victim all you want. Stop complaining that I'm "assuming", especially when I'm assuming rightly. Someone like you who can look at a PAGE and so imperiously declare that stealthunits are trash again surely did not spend money or time on them unless you count getting on a forum and tyelling people your opinion (which is legit, as long as you can stand the counter point).

5. I didn't ignore Math Hammer. I told you why you can't use it exclusively in this case unless YOU place arbitrary numbers on the different features of the unit and attempt to quantify the truly unquantifiable. With infinite terrain variation, and its impact on the enemy, let alone on you, its absolutely an irrational position to state that these things can be calculated BEFORE you get to the table at which point your list was already DONE. That's why there ARE multiple units to choose from instead of just one ubiquitous one in a codex: a suit for every occasion. We also pointed out that shooting range type comparisons are inadequate because while in the vacuum of a shooting range you might make some valid points, there is more to consider in a units value.

6. You made your motivations very clear. I don't have to guess them. Your stated it!!! Your motivation here is to try and prove that stealth suits are trash as YOU said. What is it I need to GUESS at exactly in your motivations? You care if people agree or you'd have dropped it, as would I have. But we do care that the word gets out on this unit because PERHAPS we both have at least one common goal: We want to see more Tau players winning and any advice we can give is toward that end. So I know that you mean well with the advice you offer and I certainly do. But understand than none of this theory is going to change the BIG number of wins I have using the unit. it just wont. You're not sitting here on this forum talking to people who LOSE all the time. Quite the opposite. As it says in the header of my blog: "What works, works. Arguing otherwise is a fools errand".

You're over reacting in my opinion and trying to make this more personal than it is. Like i said: don't use them, as you haven't in the past. It's fine. Just don't be surprised when Im not exhorting people to listen to such a negative perspective on them, given that I have seen first hand...a lot... how good they can be. I know how to use them. You could learn to do it too I can assure you that the brilliant choices you have in the Tau Elites aren't JUST Riptides and Crisis Teams. You can build a whole army around the Stealthsuits too if you'd like and win with it.

Instead of spending your energy debunking it... Try? Its a new codex. This is the TIME to do so.

 Peregrine wrote:

 lambsandlions wrote:
I like that we are having the conversation about stealth suits because it proves that the codex is not a one trick pony but has multiple viable units that can fit multiple roles

Not really. People were having a conversation about stealth suits before the new codex even though they were garbage, so all a continued conversation means is that people are willing to talk about bad units. They weren't a viable option in the previous codex, and they aren't a viable option in the current codex.

I can see value in Stealth Suits; I just don't see how they're more useful than crisis suits in the new codex for their roles.

I'd take 3 Crisis suits over 6 stealth suits anyday.

Now, if I Could take a pair of drones for every stealth suit, I think I'd have to disagree with you...

Can't you just imagine this working well?

6 suits, ATS except for two with Fusion guns, each with Target Lock. - shas'ui has a burst cannon and a VRT (so he has precision shots, but still gives the squad H&R)
Commander with 2 Fusion guns, Target Lock and Drone controller
14 drones of varying kinds, probably a few markerlights so you can do markerlights without needing to use pathfinders.

^ I agree.

Not being able to take drones on Stealth Suits is probably a bigger nerf than all the buffs they got.

A drone cloud was massively annoying and somewhat potent against DE. Immune to DL and not as vulnerable to poison, and could glance the vehicles to death, as they were made of paper and chewing gum.

But alas, you can only take 2 drones now (and only with the 'vre upgrade(?)), which makes every failed save a hefty loss.

And if you want durable S5 fire, you could take a Crisis with dual BC and a stim-injector for 57 points, but god knows why you would need something like that.

 Jancoran wrote:

1. YES... THOSE changes you just mentioned PLUS the upgrades they can now take that they couldn't which you tacitly avoid mentioning in your minimizing statement. And yes... those changes were free and upgrades are not expensive. It made it BETTER for the same points. This is an OBJECTIVE truth, so why are you arguing it?

They got better, I admit that. I'm arguing that the crisis suits got significantly better though. While stealth suits have multi-trackers, they can only take one model with 2 weapons. They have BSF for free, but crisis suits can take an array of weaponry that make better utilization of them. All the other wargear and options are available to suits and most of them to the riptide. Out of all the upgrades the only ones that offer a noticable advantage are the BS2 overwatch and interceptor. But here's a question, if you're boasting about load outs and wargear, why don't you present a unit load out and present why it's a reasonable unit. You aren't. You're using the gaps argument. You will keep saying that I'm missing some fine detail or something that can't be calculated to hide behind instead of arguing the point.

2. You offered some legitimate arguments wrapped in a dismissive shell of glittering generalities. You ACTUALLY SAID verbatim that a Kroot can do whatever the Stealth suit can! This is your "objective" argument? Kroot take wound 2-3 times FASTER that Stealthsuits but you're going to say that the Kroot unit size is their "key"? You said those things and you tell me now that these were good arguments! Well...

And you offered nothing and dismissed statistical analysis. I was not being dismissive, I was using the math and showing that other units are more versatile. I believe that my claim is more subjective though since I'm stating that Kroot are more versatile and able to be used for a wider range of uses for the army, and just about every job the stealth suits can do can be done with better army cohesion since the other choices don't take up elite slots. I think your claim is the more objective one that stealth suits are good for any game any time provided you wave your hands and say "tactics". I already said why kroot are a good unit, and showed your math to be wrong, while your bias and dismissal is proudly flaunted. The Kroot blob is plenty durable due to the number of wounds required to take a morale check. Next you'll try to tell me that a 5 man squad of terminators get 2+ armor and that makes IG blobs useless.

3. I am not required to ASSUME what you think of Stealthsuits because...you...told...me. And everything you ...TOLD me... Was some math and some of this vague analysis of their less tangible values. Not experience. If you had any extensive experience using them you'd have said so long before this point in the discussion. So do not PRETEND like you have been "playing stealth suits all along and they suck". You haven't and yeah I AM willing to bet on it.. You've been hung by the tongue here. Your argument comes down to staring at the page and telling me "Its not that hard to figure out" (your words. not mine).

And here you try to ignore what you just posted before, and try arguing that statistics don't work. Less tangible values? Their shooting is a less tangible value? Are you being honestly serious? You're the one who made the claim that stealth suits break flanks all the time, and now the shooting is a "less tangible value"? You have done nothing other than use your own personal experience to back up the claim. I didn't need to do that, which is why I didn't mention it. My personal record doesn't matter though since it's not repeatable. Which is why I used the statistical breakdown of their effectiveness. I'm sorry for offering people verifyable and repeatable probabilites. Maybe I should just spin a story about how I won an apocalypse game with a single gun drone to prove their merit.

4. How dumb is it to suggest that I feel my experience is "the only one that matters".

Really? You're really going there?
" That they never owned more than 6 of them at any time probably also wont help if they even own any now (yes i know, someone will say they have 18 and tried them, got it, check check). " You just blatantly dismiss what anyone else could claim from experience while only backing up your claims with your own personal experience. Again, are you marking this up as dishonesty or ignorance?

This is a forum. Its MY EXPERIENCE that I am sharing. Im not here to share YOURS. My EXPERIENCE (and it is considerable when it comes to this unit) is that they are good. Why would I say different? Why SHOULD I say different if I have gotten players to concede in turn 2 almost exclusively because of the stealth suits eating their flank like flame to ice? I don't have anything to apologize for if I'm winning. Your experience, however little or much it may be with this unit is what is is. Play the victim all you want. Stop complaining that I'm "assuming", especially when I'm assuming rightly. Someone like you who can look at a PAGE and so imperiously declare that stealthunits are trash again surely did not spend money or time on them unless you count getting on a forum and tyelling people your opinion (which is legit, as long as you can stand the counter point).

And you don't disappoint. Assuming that you're assuming rightly about my experience? Very dishonest tactic really. Again your experience doesn't matter for anything since it's not repeatable like statistics are. Go ahead and make all the claims about how you win singlehandedly because of stealth suits. It matters for nothing because it's not repeatable and nobody else can claim the same outcomes.

5. I didn't ignore Math Hammer. I told you why you can't use it exclusively in this case unless YOU place arbitrary numbers on the different features of the unit and attempt to quantify the truly unquantifiable.

Really? BS, S, Range, AP, T, and save values are unquantifiable? DO you even math?!

With infinite terrain variation, and its impact on the enemy, let alone on you, its absolutely an irrational position to state that these things can be calculated BEFORE you get to the table at which point your list was already DONE.

So you don't even understand that you get to place half of the terrain or can agree to set terrain? Or even understand that terrain is fairly average from store to store barring a small amount of exceptions?

We also pointed out that shooting range type comparisons are inadequate because while in the vacuum of a shooting range you might make some valid points, there is more to consider in a units value.

Way to just dismiss your failed math attempt earlier. There are exceptions that will change results, like units being hidden out of LOS, but the majority of shooting game wide will be unaffected. And in either case the results would have as much impact on either unit really.

6. You made your motivations very clear. I don't have to guess them. Your stated it!!! Your motivation here is to try and prove that stealth suits are trash as YOU said.

... That isn't even close to what motivation is. Motivation is the "why". I stated stealth suits aren't good which is a "what" claim. I stated why they are bad, which is a "how" claim. You don't know what my motivation is, because I have none. I am not biased in this regard and in fact have conceded on issues such as durability and equipment. If I was just being dismissive I wouldn't bother refuting and making claims that can be shown to be wrong, like statistics.

What is it I need to GUESS at exactly in your motivations? You care if people agree or you'd have dropped it, as would I have. But we do care that the word gets out on this unit because PERHAPS we both have at least one common goal: We want to see more Tau players winning and any advice we can give is toward that end.

the difference is, I provide numbers and comparisons to show other players numbers and facts they can go over and verify and on average what to expect. You flash your winning record and baseless claims. One is helpful the other is misleading.

I'm not even going to quote the last statement because it's all based on the assumption that I haven't given them a shot. That I haven't tried them. That I haven't compared them with other players and their results. How about you ask me how many games I played with them? I garuntee I will give an honest answer towards that. Because I don't mind backing up my claims.

 Kingsley wrote:
It's interesting that you consider a 25% increase in firepower a "mild improvement."

It's not really a 33% increase because they lost targeting arrays (which were also a 33% increase) and the ability to take gun drones on every model.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
It's interesting that you consider a 25% increase in firepower a "mild improvement."

It's not really a 33% increase because they lost targeting arrays (which were also a 33% increase) and the ability to take gun drones on every model.

You're right, instead they're getting the impact of a 5pt TA and a 3pt BSF for free. Oh, and because of that whole issue of having a 4 shot BC be able to potentially land 4 hits, you're getting a higher maximum number of hits for the same number of models.

Yes, they can't take gun drone swarms anymore, but if they were taking DCs to bring along drones they weren't using TAs and BSFs. So you're basically comparing the current 4 shots at BS3 for 30pts against the previous 3 shots at BS3 + 1 shot at TLBS2 for 40pts. You're getting more hits per point with the current suit. Moreover, a current max unit of 6 suits plus 2 drones fires 28 shots, vs 6 suits plus 12 drones at 30 shots. The current max squad costs 214, whereas the previous max squad costs 300. I don't see how being able to spend 86pts more in order to gain 2 additional S5 AP5 shots was such an advantage over the current version.

You're missing the point. I'm not saying that stealth suits didn't get better (they obviously did, even if it's just the gain in point efficiency from having the 33% increase built in instead of a 10 point upgrade), I'm saying that the improvement was much less than 33% because the extra shot is somewhat negated by the loss of two powerful upgrades. Overall it's an improvement, but not a very significant one, and not one that addressed the actual problems with stealth suits.

Veskrashen wrote:

You're right, instead they're getting the impact of a 5pt TA and a 3pt BSF for free. Oh, and because of that whole issue of having a 4 shot BC be able to potentially land 4 hits, you're getting a higher maximum number of hits for the same number of models.

Targetting arrays were 10 points actually. They got the multitracker, which can only be used on the shas'vre with a markerlight, and the BSF. The BSF really is almost a negligible bonus since their weaponry is AP5, with the exception of the limited fusion blasters, and rarely will it come into play. I'd even argue that it's not even really as effective on stealth suits since with the edition change only two markers are needed to reduce all cover. Previously it saved a marker token or two, but now it's questionable. The only situation it really helps is for 5+ hordes being left in the open during night fighting, which is negated if night fighting is in turn 1 and stealth suits are in reserves.

Yes, they can't take gun drone swarms anymore, but if they were taking DCs to bring along drones they weren't using TAs and BSFs. So you're basically comparing the current 4 shots at BS3 for 30pts against the previous 3 shots at BS3 + 1 shot at TLBS2 for 40pts. You're getting more hits per point with the current suit. Moreover, a current max unit of 6 suits plus 2 drones fires 28 shots, vs 6 suits plus 12 drones at 30 shots. The current max squad costs 214, whereas the previous max squad costs 300. I don't see how being able to spend 86pts more in order to gain 2 additional S5 AP5 shots was such an advantage over the current version.

I think I'm getting the numbers mixed up. 6 stealth suits at 30ppm and 10 ppm drones from the previous edition got 300 total.
6 suits without drones and TA ends up being 240 total.
6 stealth with 12 drones get 30 bs3/bs2 and twin-linked shots. Getting on average about 12 hits
6 stealth with TA got about 12 hits.

Currently we get
6 stealth getting 24 shots, and about 12 hits.
with two drones getting about 2 more hits.

current costs runs 180 still for suits with another 24 for drones.
so previously we had:
240 for 12 hits with no drones
300 for 12 hits with drones
compared to now:
204 for 14 hits.

It's actually a significant swing in points for the new version actually.