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.

Just kinda thinking that AA guns don't really fit the theme of Tau and was considering this

An Aegis Defense Line purchased as a fortification for a Tau Empire primary detachment, it may not purchase a Quad-Gun Emplacement. Instead it may take a Seeker Missile SAM turret gun emplacement.

SAM (Surface-to-Air Missile for those who don't know) Turret 35pts

Rg 72"
Str 8
AP 3
Type- Heavy 1, Skyfire, Interceptor

The SAM turret also has a networked Markerlight. To fire the SAM first roll to hit with the Markerlight. If it hits you may now fire the Seeker Missile. The Missile always hits on a 2+. Dispite having the Interceptor rule, SAM enplacements may never fire at targets that are not Swooping FMC or Zomming Flyers.

Why does it automatically hit on a 2+?

SAM turrets feature a homing missile- it locks on and prusues the target, rather than going in a straight line. The 1/6 represents the target banking last minute, which causes the missile to shoot past and miss altogether. Plus, SAM turrets are more less self-serviced, either recognising enemy aircraft and firing automatically, or having a guy give a command. The "crew" have no imput into the missile's accuracy.

My point was more why does your weapon emplacement get a special rule which means it doesn't need anyone overseeing it, while every other weapon emplacement needs a babysitter to work effectively. It should function the same as other weapon empacements, and the target banking at the last moment is covered by evade.

it still needs someone to fire said markerlight...

after that it is literally a re-loading Seeker firing from a ADL, taken exactly as it is from C:TE; expand a ML counter to have a seeker hit on 2+

Why not just call the quad gun a high yield missile pod? 4 tl s7 ap4 shots sounds like a HYMP.

But I really wish the new codex gave tau some sort of tau fortification. Maybe a seeker missile silo for 96 pts it has 12 seeker missiles.

So you want a hyperios launcher with better toughness for Tau, even though you have the codex with the most AA so far?

35 pts seems fine when you compare it to an Icarus LC
Some more flexibility and accuracy due to the ML but less killing power.
Looks OK

 Deadshot wrote:
Just kinda thinking that AA guns don't really fit the theme of Tau and was considering this

An Aegis Defense Line purchased as a fortification for a Tau Empire primary detachment, it may not purchase a Quad-Gun Emplacement. Instead it may take a Seeker Missile SAM turret gun emplacement.

SAM (Surface-to-Air Missile for those who don't know) Turret 35pts

Rg 72"
Str 8
AP 3
Type- Heavy 1, Skyfire, Interceptor

The SAM turret also has a networked Markerlight. To fire the SAM first roll to hit with the Markerlight. If it hits you may now fire the Seeker Missile. The Missile always hits on a 2+. Dispite having the Interceptor rule, SAM enplacements may never fire at targets that are not Swooping FMC or Zomming Flyers.

Wait...the Tau seriously need *more* anti-air ability?

 lambsandlions wrote:
Why not just call the quad gun a high yield missile pod? 4 tl s7 ap4 shots sounds like a HYMP.

But I really wish the new codex gave tau some sort of tau fortification. Maybe a seeker missile silo for 96 pts it has 12 seeker missiles.

I agree with this, 4 S7 AP4 shots sounds exactly like a HYMP. Just model the Quadgun as a SAM missile tower. As for Tau fortification, it wouldn't be fluffy. I'd really hoped the flyers they added would work like UAV's, essentially flying tetras.

Xyrael wrote:

 lambsandlions wrote:
Why not just call the quad gun a high yield missile pod? 4 tl s7 ap4 shots sounds like a HYMP.

But I really wish the new codex gave tau some sort of tau fortification. Maybe a seeker missile silo for 96 pts it has 12 seeker missiles.

I agree with this, 4 S7 AP4 shots sounds exactly like a HYMP. Just model the Quadgun as a SAM missile tower. As for Tau fortification, it wouldn't be fluffy. I'd really hoped the flyers they added would work like UAV's, essentially flying tetras.

The Tau don't like static defenses, that does not mean they don't use them. Look to the Drone turrets for an example. Even in today's highly maneuver based warfare, static defenses still have their place. In the somewhat more static battlefields of 40k I'd imagine the Tau would have to suck up their doctrine and make use of them at least on occasion.

Some calculations, the hit chances of SAM vs Quad Gun for comparison. Obviously the damage inflicted is random based on the flyer and how many Quad Gun shots hit. A single Quad shot is worse than SAM but 4 would be better I'm guessing.


SAM

0.41666666665 at Bs 3
0.55555555555 at BS 4
0.6944444444 at BS 5

Quad Gun

3 at BS 3
3.55555555554 at BS 4
3.88888888888 at BS 5

 Deadshot wrote:
Some calculations, the hit chances of SAM vs Quad Gun for comparison. Obviously the damage inflicted is random based on the flyer and how many Quad Gun shots hit. A single Quad shot is worse than SAM but 4 would be better I'm guessing.


SAM

0.41666666665 at Bs 3
0.55555555555 at BS 4
0.6944444444 at BS 5

Quad Gun

3 at BS 3
3.55555555554 at BS 4
3.88888888888 at BS 5

Wouldn't an SAM by definition have some sort of homing ability? Because shooting single unguided rockets to down aircraft sounds awfully silly.

How about just making it a S7 gun that ignores Jink in exchange for no Interceptor?

 IHateNids wrote:
How about just making it a S7 gun that ignores Jink in exchange for no Interceptor?

AA without interceptor is just asking to get alpha striked off the board by a passing Vendetta.

not really, by the very nature of the Tau codex

"Oh you got through the gakstorm of Interceptor Broadsides? Allow me to actually shoot you down now"

 IHateNids wrote:
not really, by the very nature of the Tau codex

"Oh you got through the gakstorm of Interceptor Broadsides? Allow me to actually shoot you down now"

But then...why get the turret in the first place?

i guess its a guaranteed kill

 Kain wrote:

Wouldn't an SAM by definition have some sort of homing ability? Because shooting single unguided rockets to down aircraft sounds awfully silly.

How about a rule like this?

Homing: Successful jink saves must be re-rolled against weapons with this rule?

It might also be worth considering a SAM battery instead of a single missile?

Perhaps make it "Type- Heavy 2, Skyfire, Interceptor, Homing"

Don't forget that some people (including me) use some toys because they love them and enjoy how they look / sound cool, not because they're awesome in game terms

 Kain wrote:

The Tau don't like static defenses, that does not mean they don't use them. Look to the Drone turrets for an example. Even in today's highly maneuver based warfare, static defenses still have their place. In the somewhat more static battlefields of 40k I'd imagine the Tau would have to suck up their doctrine and make use of them at least on occasion.

With due respect, the Anvil and Hammer tactic is just a variation of a classic Pincer tactic - in some ways better, because you don't have to commit allot of your forces to defense, leaving more of your forces to hit the enemy from behind, while they are focused on a specific target. It also lets you make more effective use of less mobile forces, while your more mobile forces are free to move.

 Chopper Greg wrote:

 Kain wrote:

The Tau don't like static defenses, that does not mean they don't use them. Look to the Drone turrets for an example. Even in today's highly maneuver based warfare, static defenses still have their place. In the somewhat more static battlefields of 40k I'd imagine the Tau would have to suck up their doctrine and make use of them at least on occasion.

With due respect, the Anvil and Hammer tactic is just a variation of a classic Pincer tactic - in some ways better, because you don't have to commit allot of your forces to defense, leaving more of your forces to hit the enemy from behind, while they are focused on a specific target. It also lets you make more effective use of less mobile forces, while your more mobile forces are free to move.

Did I ever mention hammer and anvil or pincer tactics?

 Kain wrote:


Did I ever mention hammer and anvil or pincer tactics?

No you didn't - you said:

 Kain wrote:


The Tau don't like static defenses

If nothing else, the Tau, are very tactical, and do make use of any advantage they can find, thus the tactics I mentioned. Tau also have a dislike of taking excessive casualties when they don't need to, and fortifications / static defenses play a big part in that.

So why would Tau, dislike static defenses, if it allows them to make better use of their mobile forces? It's not as if they were acting like IG, sitting in one place and pounding away at the enenmy.