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.

 n0t_u wrote:


However, it is by far a sexier model. It's essentially an Ionhead with a sexiness factor > 9000, and the fact that the model wasn't inducted into the codex was the most disappointing part of the new codex for me.

The main problems for me though with it are the limited angle of fire and, shame to bring it up but the cost (about £70 last time I checked).

I agree on that last point, I was sure that with the recent closeness of GW, WD and FW, that there would be a few crossovers in the new codex. Some of the other Hammerhead turrets or the Barracuda itself maybe. I was also slightly gutted that there wasn't another troop choice, although I must admit I struggle to think of what it could have been.

 Elliotminorkid wrote:


The main problems for me though with it are the limited angle of fire and, shame to bring it up but the cost (about £70 last time I checked).

Well, it shouldn't be too hard to arm the new plastic flyer as Barracuda.

Neither. You definitely would want to buy the barricuda. Much better flyer. Barring that i enjoy my remora stealth drones quite alot.

 Elliotminorkid wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:


However, it is by far a sexier model. It's essentially an Ionhead with a sexiness factor > 9000, and the fact that the model wasn't inducted into the codex was the most disappointing part of the new codex for me.

The main problems for me though with it are the limited angle of fire and, shame to bring it up but the cost (about £70 last time I checked).

I agree on that last point, I was sure that with the recent closeness of GW, WD and FW, that there would be a few crossovers in the new codex. Some of the other Hammerhead turrets or the Barracuda itself maybe. I was also slightly gutted that there wasn't another troop choice, although I must admit I struggle to think of what it could have been.

Honestly, Pathfinders could've been another troop choice. Space Marines get Scouts as troop choices, and the Pathfinders lost the mandatory Devilfish that made them "fast" anyways.

The RL price of the Barracuda really is the biggest limiting factor. I see one on ebay atm for $83.95 (USD). I was sure it'd be inducted into the book, given that the Vendetta was obviously inspired by FW models. What's worse, the new Tau flyers themselves are a very WW2 style doctrine, which doesn't sync at all with the rest of the army. There's no reason the Tau flyers should be essentially B-17 Bombers. If anything, they should've been MQ-1 Predator's or some such; some sort of flyer whose sole purpose was markerlighting would've been amazing. That said, stylistically 40k seems to be going slowly downhill. There's a token transformers unit in nearly every new army.

If you want to pick from the new flyers, I'd go with the Razorshark. The bomber lacks a lot of functionality - the drones that deploy as jetbikes could be killed easy enough by themselves, and the bomb on the flyer isn't anything amazing. It has a decent amount of S7, and is cheaper points-wise, because neither of the flyers is going to have an easy time making up their price, at least the fighter has a bit more in the way of teeth.

Sink into 2 riptides. They will be way more effective than the "throw in the Tau-wel " fliers

Veskrashen wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Veskrashen wrote:
The bomber will take out more horde than an Iontide on average, for fewer points.

Why do you need anti-horde shooting in an army where your basic troops are excellent horde killers?

Probably because I play mech, which means that I don't disembark those basic troops until I need to, which means that being able to put large blasts into 50-man blobs is a good thing for me. Once they're whittled down to reasonable size, that's when I roll up and Mont'ka them with 27 FWs rapid firing with Storm of Fire. Not before.

This. Everytime I've seen Tau players do static foot gunlines behind an Aegis they get destroyed by any army that has fast and or tough assault units. It only works if your opponent doesn't come after you and lets you pew pew behind your fence. Overwatch and intercept does not completely save Tau from assaults. The ADL is a trap unless you just want Darkstrider on a Icarus lascannon for giggles...or your farsight bomb with comms relay to hopefully arrive quicker.

Even if they do a decent job of whittling down the enemy they don't make it to the objectives in time.

People on the net don't like them but Devilfish are necessary for objectives games and staying alive longer.

I'll be using the Bomber as it works with Mech Tau and staying mobile.

And most people will dismiss this as anecdotal but whatev...

I don't have either of the kits, but the frame looks the same. Is it possible to build a 'shark that is magnetized and easily swapped between the two? (I'm guessing the armaments come separately, so you'd have to build the guns for the one you didn't buy...)

 Jimsolo wrote:
I don't have either of the kits, but the frame looks the same. Is it possible to build a 'shark that is magnetized and easily swapped between the two? (I'm guessing the armaments come separately, so you'd have to build the guns for the one you didn't buy...)

You don't even have to magnetize, but the drones in the wings are the issue. I didn't see a way to magnetize the extra engine bits, fins, and guns (which serve as the barrels on the quad ion gun). So, I took two gun drone bodies and mounted the engine bits on those, put the barrels on the quad ion, and built the rest of the Interceptor Drone as normal. Build the front turret as the Networked Markerlight, and the tail missile unit as twin-linked. You need to find / convert appropriate ion rifles on the drone, and never run the burst cannon on the Razorshark, but it's a pretty simple setup. I'll probably just blu-tac in the bomb making bits as needed.

I think it would also have the problems of not being able to target separate units

 Jimsolo wrote:
I don't have either of the kits, but the frame looks the same. Is it possible to build a 'shark that is magnetized and easily swapped between the two? (I'm guessing the armaments come separately, so you'd have to build the guns for the one you didn't buy...)

Thats a point... I hadn't thought of that. One thing I do know though is that if you build it properly, the bomb generator can spin. Pointless as I bet its delicate as hell, but a nice touch I felt.

Maybe the remora? 2 seeker missiles, two long range burst cannons, 1 markerlight, piles of fun. You can buy 2 for 33 euros. Has a constant stealth and shroud field, 4+ cover save, if you hover, 2+

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
Maybe the remora? 2 seeker missiles, two long range burst cannons, 1 markerlight, piles of fun. You can buy 2 for 33 euros. Has a constant stealth and shroud field, 4+ cover save, if you hover, 2+

Way too many points for the limited firepower you get. Maybe once FW updates their Tau stuff for the new codex it will become a viable option.

 Peregrine wrote:

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
Maybe the remora? 2 seeker missiles, two long range burst cannons, 1 markerlight, piles of fun. You can buy 2 for 33 euros. Has a constant stealth and shroud field, 4+ cover save, if you hover, 2+

Way too many points for the limited firepower you get. Maybe once FW updates their Tau stuff for the new codex it will become a viable option.

I don't honestly expect it to get much cheaper, pointswise, since it was recently updated in Aeronautica Imperialis along with the Barracuda. We'll see what FW can come up with update-wise though.

The Bomber is way better than the Fighter. I just don't get this. More shots at close range, marker light, can still fire as many shots into rear arc, twin-linked, drones that can seperate, interceptor ability, and can (most times) drop bombs that will do something.

What on earth does the fighter do better?

And yes, the correct answer to the original post is "Barracuda".

 Lobukia wrote:
The Bomber is way better than the Fighter. I just don't get this. More shots at close range, marker light, can still fire as many shots into rear arc, twin-linked, drones that can seperate, interceptor ability, and can (most times) drop bombs that will do something.

Unless the bomber moves exactly 18 inches, the attached drones can fire only snap shots (so no blast.) It's quite likely that this was not intended, but that's how it currently is.

The drones are the only real reason for taking a Sunshark, as far as I can tell... although it is awesome.

^^; I showed my non-40k friend the model and the Riptide, and his first instinct was that there should be a titan-sized Tau mecha that can grab the Razorshark by the central boom, flip the engine drones around and use it as a giant lightsaber hilt.

 Lobukia wrote:
The Bomber is way better than the Fighter. I just don't get this. More shots at close range, marker light, can still fire as many shots into rear arc, twin-linked, drones that can seperate, interceptor ability, and can (most times) drop bombs that will do something. What on earth does the fighter do better?

Leaving aside the issue of whether the drones can fire if it moves more than 18", the Razorshark has more shots from 15-30" (4 from the Ion, 2 missile pod) while the Sunshark only has 4 (TLMP, 2 TLIon that are 30" rapid fire). They also get a S8 large blast for 1 overheat roll vs. 2 small blasts for 2 overheat rolls, so they more reliably get larger high strength blasts. Whether that's worth giving up the markerlight and twin-linking (granted the drones are BS2 so it's not that big of an advantage over base BS3) is up to the user.

Manta.

Veskrashen wrote:
Leaving aside the issue of whether the drones can fire if it moves more than 18", the Razorshark has more shots from 15-30" (4 from the Ion, 2 missile pod) while the Sunshark only has 4 (TLMP, 2 TLIon that are 30" rapid fire). They also get a S8 large blast for 1 overheat roll vs. 2 small blasts for 2 overheat rolls, so they more reliably get larger high strength blasts. Whether that's worth giving up the markerlight and twin-linking (granted the drones are BS2 so it's not that big of an advantage over base BS3) is up to the user.

Of course, the razorshark is rarely going to be able to fire the missile pod and the ion gun at the same target (which means it won't be using one of them most of the time). And the two overheat rolls for the drones are twin-linked. Also they would only kill the drones, not the flyer... as far as I can tell.

Get a barracuda. Its better than both, and is (points wise) cheaper. Only "Issue" is getting a FW model, if you consider that an issue of course.

 DakkaHammer wrote:

Veskrashen wrote:
Leaving aside the issue of whether the drones can fire if it moves more than 18", the Razorshark has more shots from 15-30" (4 from the Ion, 2 missile pod) while the Sunshark only has 4 (TLMP, 2 TLIon that are 30" rapid fire). They also get a S8 large blast for 1 overheat roll vs. 2 small blasts for 2 overheat rolls, so they more reliably get larger high strength blasts. Whether that's worth giving up the markerlight and twin-linking (granted the drones are BS2 so it's not that big of an advantage over base BS3) is up to the user.

Of course, the razorshark is rarely going to be able to fire the missile pod and the ion gun at the same target (which means it won't be using one of them most of the time). And the two overheat rolls for the drones are twin-linked. Also they would only kill the drones, not the flyer... as far as I can tell.

Why in the world wouldn't the ion guns and missile pod on the Razorshark not be able to fire at the same target? They're both turret mounted after all, and as long as you're not flying directly at your target you should be just fine. Which, by the way, greatly increases your ability to move and continue firing on ground targets. Or to stay in the rear arc of an enemy flyer.

The interceptor drones are a pain in the neck from a "how the hell is this supposed to work" perspective. If we consider them mounted turrets, then the Sun Shark loses HP when they overheat. If we consider them embarked passengers, they take the wound, but can only snapshot if the Sun Shark moves over 18". Just... man, what a pain.

 DakkaHammer wrote:

Veskrashen wrote:
Leaving aside the issue of whether the drones can fire if it moves more than 18", the Razorshark has more shots from 15-30" (4 from the Ion, 2 missile pod) while the Sunshark only has 4 (TLMP, 2 TLIon that are 30" rapid fire). They also get a S8 large blast for 1 overheat roll vs. 2 small blasts for 2 overheat rolls, so they more reliably get larger high strength blasts. Whether that's worth giving up the markerlight and twin-linking (granted the drones are BS2 so it's not that big of an advantage over base BS3) is up to the user.

Of course, the razorshark is rarely going to be able to fire the missile pod and the ion gun at the same target (which means it won't be using one of them most of the time). And the two overheat rolls for the drones are twin-linked. Also they would only kill the drones, not the flyer... as far as I can tell.

Do you know if the model comes with a missile pod model to mount instead of the burst cannon? Or do you use the tl missile pods from the Sunshark Bomber?

Veskrashen wrote:
Why in the world wouldn't the ion guns and missile pod on the Razorshark not be able to fire at the same target? They're both turret mounted after all, and as long as you're not flying directly at your target you should be just fine. Which, by the way, greatly increases your ability to move and continue firing on ground targets. Or to stay in the rear arc of an enemy flyer.

Oh, yeah, I didn't notice the front turret had a full 360 degree arc. Yeah that would make it a bit easier then.

 Elliotminorkid wrote:

 DakkaHammer wrote:

Veskrashen wrote:
Leaving aside the issue of whether the drones can fire if it moves more than 18", the Razorshark has more shots from 15-30" (4 from the Ion, 2 missile pod) while the Sunshark only has 4 (TLMP, 2 TLIon that are 30" rapid fire). They also get a S8 large blast for 1 overheat roll vs. 2 small blasts for 2 overheat rolls, so they more reliably get larger high strength blasts. Whether that's worth giving up the markerlight and twin-linking (granted the drones are BS2 so it's not that big of an advantage over base BS3) is up to the user.

Of course, the razorshark is rarely going to be able to fire the missile pod and the ion gun at the same target (which means it won't be using one of them most of the time). And the two overheat rolls for the drones are twin-linked. Also they would only kill the drones, not the flyer... as far as I can tell.

Do you know if the model comes with a missile pod model to mount instead of the burst cannon? Or do you use the tl missile pods from the Sunshark Bomber?

You use the MP mount from the Sunshark in the front slot, in place of the burst cannon / NML cupola.

Xyrael wrote:
I was sure it'd be inducted into the book, given that the Vendetta was obviously inspired by FW models.

Then you haven't been keeping up with GW. They've actually said at a Q&A that they were stopping the practice of taking a model from Forgeworlds line to redo in plastic, for the prime reason that the overall range suffers for it.

If GW take a FW design and put it in a codex, they make a plastic kit for it (due to GW policy of models in the codex are made by the GW studio), it takes a perfectly useable model from FW's range, without adding anything new to the overall range, especially with, as mentioned in this thread, the overall closeness of FW and GW these days.

Think about it - take the Trygon as an example. GW included it in the codex. GW dropped the resin model from the FW catalogue and made a plastic model. Now the overall range still has the same amount of models, it didn't grow. These days with FW getting more popular, it makes more sense to leave the FW model with the FW team, make expansion books through that team, while making entirely new models in plastic for the codex. If people want the FW model, they can just buy IA Apocalypse Second Edition/IA Aeronautica/respective IA campaign book and the resin model. If they want the plastic kit, they buy the plastic kit.

Honestly the answer really depends on how the interceptor drones work while attached. If they can be fired at full BS, than the Sunshark carries as much firepower as the Razorshark plus its bombs, with the two small blast being more accurate, safer and more versatile than the Razorsharks single large blast. However, if the interceptor drones have to be detached to be used effectively, they lose all the benefits of being attached to a flyer (resilience and mobility) and are essentially a 2 wound unit with a limited version of no scatter deepstrike. At that point the Sunshark is just armed with a TL missile pod and bombs, compared to the Razorshark's missile pod and quad-ion gun at a lower price point, and the Razorshark comes out ahead.

Based on RAW, it unfortunately appears that interceptor drones are passengers and can therefore only snap-fire. If this is not how they are supposed to work, GW needs to issue and official FAQ clarifying the matter. It is a shame, as I believe a sunshark that could drop two small blast in addition to its bombs would actually be worth fielding. (What would really be great is if those drones were 1 hull point flyers, that will be both powerful and awesome).

 StarHunter25 wrote:
Get a barracuda. Its better than both, and is (points wise) cheaper. Only "Issue" is getting a FW model, if you consider that an issue of course.

Well, the real issue is AV 10/10/10 with only 2 HP. The Barracuda has decent firepower for its points (especially now that ion cannons overload and burst cannons got extra shots), but it's extremely fragile and even the token quad gun every army takes can blow it up before it gets a chance to fire.

Phanixis wrote:
Honestly the answer really depends on how the interceptor drones work while attached. If they can be fired at full BS, than the Sunshark carries as much firepower as the Razorshark plus its bombs, with the two small blast being more accurate, safer and more versatile than the Razorsharks single large blast. However, if the interceptor drones have to be detached to be used effectively, they lose all the benefits of being attached to a flyer (resilience and mobility) and are essentially a 2 wound unit with a limited version of no scatter deepstrike. At that point the Sunshark is just armed with a TL missile pod and bombs, compared to the Razorshark's missile pod and quad-ion gun at a lower price point, and the Razorshark comes out ahead.

Based on RAW, it unfortunately appears that interceptor drones are passengers and can therefore only snap-fire. If this is not how they are supposed to work, GW needs to issue and official FAQ clarifying the matter. It is a shame, as I believe a sunshark that could drop two small blast in addition to its bombs would actually be worth fielding. (What would really be great is if those drones were 1 hull point flyers, that will be both powerful and awesome).

I assumed they did (the drones) as it says in the fluff that while attached "they act like turret mounted weapons." pg.48

But in the actual rules in clearly states that all attached drones fire like passengers using vehicle fireports. It pretty darn explicit, and if GW really intended them to be used like turrets, they need to issue and FAQ/errata on the subject.

Barracuda. Just look at it.

Brings to mind this oldie but a goodie.