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.

In 7th vehicles got some nice durability buff which in cause will see a rise of vehicles being fielded. Waveserpents just got harder to kill, scoring land raiders, multiple transport vehicles, the infamous CCB, and more vehicles! I want to build a list with plenty of AT and still be viable for competitive games. With that in mind I came up with this list:

HQ
-Ethereal (FE)

Troops
-3 x Crisis (FE) with 2 x flamers
-4 x 1 Crisis (FE) with TL FB and another FB

Elites
-2 x Iontides (FE) with TL SMS, EWO, and stims
-1 x Crisis (TE) with TL FB and another FB: went over one point! stupid bonding knife ritual!

FA
-3 x 4 PF (TE)

Fortification
-Skyshield

Formation
-Burstide with ECPA, TL FB, EWO, and VT
-2 x 3 Broadsides: 2 x 2 Missilesides with EWO and 2 x 1 Railsides with target lock and TL SMS.

1750 on the dot with a grand total of 30 models!

Now the Ethereal will try to get the +1 reserve rolls for Crisis suits but any of them will be somewhat useful and most likely join the broadside squad. Will deploy aggressively and put the skyshield as close to the middle as possible. If he has only 0-2 blast weapons I will cramp the PF and 6 broadsides in the skyshield and control the midfield. If he spam vehicles I will play aggressively and try to table him but if I am against a horde army I might play the maelstrom mission more. The formation gives my 6 broadsides and burstide tank hunter and PE SM. That unit alone can drop 2-4 non AV 14 per turn! In my local game store someone is going for 2-3 LR so my solo suits will DS aggressively against them. Having a TL FB and another FB almost guarantees me 1 hit (87.5%) and there is 5 of them! The flamer suits are there to roast some troops . I decided to go with TL SMS for my Iontides to help clear up some mobs. My main AA will be the burstide with some support from the missilesides. The biggest problem I see with this list is the model count...but with 3 riptides, skyshield, and all the suits DS should mitigate the losses in the early turns. C &C will be much appreciated! Thanks in advance.

Unfortunately, the Firebase formation is not a farsight enclaves formation, and so cannot gain access to farsight enclaves signature systems.

Don't have the book in hand but I am pretty sure it states that any riptides in your army can have access in the FE signature items.

Check out the FE Faq, tells you to replace all instances of "army" with "farsight enclaves detachment".

You're right I missed that. So is there anything that will contradict the rules by making the formation riptide FE? Since the only requirement for the formation is to be taken in the Codex: Tau Empire which FE are taken there too and formation units are not factionless.

Regardless of what happens with your legality issue, I think you need to use your troops less offensively; or at least less forwardly.

The 3-man crisis can be converted to double fusion with 2 target locks. You are wasting points by paying for twin-linked and then an additional fusion. Why? Because either you're going to give this unit marker support or you're not. If you don't plan on supporting your fusion suits with marker lights, then give them all ONE twin-linked fusion and keep them cheap.

That being said, you should run the 3-suit unit as I outlined and give it marker support. Drop it in amidst the tank field; give it marker support, utilize target locks and let the sky rain shrapnel.

As for your other suits, pull those back to score and JSJ around close to rear objectives. A single missile pod, or if you have the points, twin-linked MP is plenty for the solo suits. You need SOME dedicated scoring, although I agree with the general strategy of overwhelming firepower for us in 7th. We don't have super abundant, resilient scoring like Space Marines. Nor do we have a perfect dedicated transport like Eldar. So we have to go hard offense, but that doesn't mean hold nothing back.

Tautastic wrote:
You're right I missed that. So is there anything that will contradict the rules by making the formation riptide FE? Since the only requirement for the formation is to be taken in the Codex: Tau Empire which FE are taken there too and formation units are not factionless.

Unfortunately no, because FE isn't Tau Empire. The formation does not give you the choice to select from FE, it specifically only allows you to choose from its parent codex which in this instance is codex: Tau Empire. As far as any rules are concerned with regards to TE and FE, they are treated as wholly separate armies. Though one shares rules with the other, that does not allow them to cross pollenate. It is the same way with every other supplement, like Black Legion and Chaos Space Marines, Eldar and Iyanden, etc.

Believe me, as someone who uses the firebase formation, I wish there was an FAQ that allowed you to choose a "primary", which could be farsight enclaves, and therefore gain access to the ECPA. Until that happens, no sig systems for a Firebase Riptide.

As for The Shrike's suggestion, he is absolutely right. You should change the 3 suit to double fusions and 2 target locks. Tis' how I run them and I will never run them differently.

The way I view the formation is an extension of the parent codex (TE) and FE has access to any of its parents units unless stated otherwise (shadowsun and aun'va). I am basing this in regards with FW models and how FE includes tetra and the likes. Unless ofcourse FE cannot have any FW models then my argument is invalid.

In regards with the TL FB blaster I wanted the solo suits to have dual FB and had 20ish points extra so might as well spend 5 extra point to make one of them TL. I am trying to have less reliance on ML since my PF are not mobile those annoying wyvern/thunderfire cannons are just out of their range...As for dedicated scoring in my deployment zone I was just thinking of having the 2 iontides to handle that without hampering their damage output too much with 72'' range (30'' SMS). Though I really wanted to have some MP suits but that AP 1 FB are just too hard to resist.

Maybe change the dual flamers to dual FB with TL and put the flamers on 3 solo suits and have the other 2 solo suit with MP?

Well The Shrike makes lots of good points I'd follow tjose. Plus if you are having a FE detachment then all units in that detachment gain the benefits and restrictions if you aren't then none do. So unfortunately no mixing of supplement and main codex units.

I don't get why you are paying for 3 Broadsides in each unit but only taking 2. Get all 3 in each squad and EWO all round.

7th makes mobile scoring important so you'd be surprised how often you Nova the movement on the Tides. You'll want to maximise your troops choices with as Shrike suggests 1 man MP units.

Mixing in the supplement and main codex in one CAD is kind of a grey area. You can't allies with the same faction. I am going with the BAO tournament ruling where it allows to mix in match in one CAD because most likely they don't want to allow double CAD. Either way it's only 12 PF and I can easily get 15 pts from making the dual flamers single.

There are 2 squads of 3 broadsides. It's just that 2 of the 3 are missilesides with EWO and the other one a Railside with target to snipe some annoying transports!

I do have 5 OS units as is. Now on their loadouts I am still debating either FB or MP. With the missilesides I should have plenty of S7 shots while more S7 shots in exchange of FB is still underconsideration. Another reason I am leaning toward FB is that there will be plenty more AV13-14 spam with them being harder to kill.

There are 2 squads of 3 broadsides. It's just that 2 of the 3 are missilesides with EWO and the other one a Railside with target to snipe some annoying transports! 

Exactly you have 2 squads where you are paying for 3 Broadsides but only taking 2.

MP is more defensive for the Crisis but with Maelstrom missions I can see the viability in other choices. Why are you expecting lots of Av13-14? Russes sure will be seen, Knights took a big nerf in this edition, the Ork dex won't be allowed yet.

But with 3 Riptides and a FBSC you can't go too far wrong

Ok I have 6 broadsides. 4 are missilesides and 2 railsides. Each squad of 3 has 2 missilesides and 1 railsides.

Necron CCB will be quite common as they are ridiculously hard to kill. I will see more LR and some of them will have OS too. The FB also plays the role of MC killer, wraithknight/lord. Beside getting a good DS behind a WS and one shoting it with AP 1 on its rear armor would be amazing! Don't get me wrong MP is great, I just really hate big tank hahaha

No you have 4 Broadsides and 2 failsides, seriously I initially ran 4 & 2 like you but the 2 never achieved much whilst the 4 killed everything. Necron barges can be dealt with by Missilesides better than anything. You fire the S8 Ap1 at him he'll take it on the lord. You spam S7 with tank hunters at him and he's struggling either way.

But yeah you'll see more CCBs and I had forgetten about anni barges. I think the shift in meta back to more melta will see LRs no more common than they have ever been. The best time ever to take LRs was in 6th after Tau came out and most gave up on Necrons, but yet they were still pretty rare. They are such a point sink that you have to build a list around them which pretty much forces a rock, paper, scissors army which tend to struggle at tournaments as you will play the rock to your scissors at one point.

Yeah as I said in 7th I see the argument for almost any of the weapons. Double flamer keeps you cheap and helps clear objectives. Double plasma hurts MCs and finishes off marine squads, double Fusion hurts vehicles and MCs whilst MP allows you to sit far away and plink at nearly anything. Heck even double burstcannon is pretty cheap and puts 8 shots out there (not bad for 43 points). So go with what you think works best for you in your meta. I'd consider a bit of a mix personally.

Hmm you got me thinking again about the railsides... I mainly wanted them to bait jinks from tanks. But if I have so many FB suits already I guess I don't need them. Don't you think it's too much to have 3 missilesides on a squad? 12 TL S7 and 12 TL S5. I guess it's better to be sure than sorry. No one is going close to that skyshield hahaha

In regards to the crisis suits weapon I might change up their load out a little. Let me crunch in the numbers and see if it will work out. Thanks for the comments!

I agree with nearly everything FlingitNow said; especially about the futility of Railsides.

I don't share the "all options are enticing" opinion on the weapon loadouts though. Flamers perform well under perfect conditions; but unless it's a single unit operating with Farsight and not scattering, you cannot depend on perfect positioning. And they must DS to work. As for Farsight, he's probably gone from elite competition now that O'Vesastar is dead and buried. So the hypothetical I just outlined belongs in friendly games only.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I'm not a math guy. I squeaked by in school. But I have heard it bandied about by a math guy on this forum that against the majority of targets, Burst Cannons are more effective than plasma, for a lower price point. I'll leave that hang for other math guys to dispute, and I should note I rarely use them myself.

All-plasma units can be brutal with marker support; but they're expensive and to really shine must get within 12". That's dangerous against a lot of opponents; and rarely is there ever enough terrain to keep them out of harm's way after a good volley. I keep gravitating back to Riptides with IA for my AP2. They still need marker support; but for just a few more points, you get so much more resiliency; mostly because you'll be farther away from the enemy. And Riptides are more flexible too; especially with ripple-fired SMS. You lose objective-secured, but that's what solo-MP suits are for.

Which brings me to my main point; Monat MP suits are still the bread and butter troops choice for enclaves. As much as I want to use my crisis suits offensively, I just can't bring myself to do it outside of friendly games.

Funny enough, I actually largely prefer railsides over missilesides. For the most part, I find that missilesides greatest weakness is their range. Bsides in general are resilient yes, but in the grand spectrum not nearly as resilient as people make them out to be.

And this is the inherent problem with missilesides, they have to be THAT much closer to the enemy to be effective. Now, as a whole, 36" range is nothing to scoff at. The problem is this puts them in danger of many weapons that normally railsides would be immune to. Its the mass S4 shots, and S3 shots that missilesides have to worry about where as railsides couldnt care less.

The biggest hit railsides took with their newest book was of course, the - 2 to the strength of their rail rifle. This was a MASSIVE hit as they were really the ONLY form of reliable long range anti-tank that tau had at their disposal.

This by no means makes them unusable. Long range ap1 is more important than ever. In a firebase, free access to tank hunter makes them even scarier. Yeah you can only glance AV14, and can only pen 13 on 6s, but I have found that more often than not, if even one penetrating shot gets through, that spells curtains for most tanks. They are also useful for the psychological effect. When your opponent becomes fully aware of the 60" threat radius, you can see the frustration build within them as any of their squishier vehicles suddenly become much harder to place.

This doesnt mean they replace fusion, not at all. Fusion is incredible with its 18" range and easy access to it on suits is incredible.

I don't know, I guess in the end it comes down to play style, and in that light, to each their own, I would just make sure like anything in 40k, make sure you try things thoroughly before you decide on anything.

On a separate note, The Shrike, funny enough, I have actually had hilarious success with hyper aggressive double plas suits with an attached buffmander. Amazing delete unit in this new meta, with so many armies harkening back to 4th and 5th and the MSU era. I have also been using counterfire defence systems on them. I am sure someone would remark "you should use advanced targeting systems on them instead" or something to that effect, but most of the time, they end up wiping out whatever they fire at rendering the ATS useless. But the CDS is crazy powerful when using them aggressively. Nothing like melting an assault unit attempting to charge your suits.

Tautastic wrote:
Don't have the book in hand but I am pretty sure it states that any riptides in your army can have access in the FE signature items.

bs.

The Shrike I think you miss my point on why any weapon has a purpose on solo suits now. You have to go grab objectives turn 1 now and only have to hold them at the end of your turn. So throwing a 33 point crisis suit into a place where he gets assaulted next turn is necessary as it gets you a VP (or more) and access to more VPs. I find that in 7th the objectives are like a rolling stone the more you compkete early the more you draw and then the more you complete next turn and so on. With OS your Crisis suits only need to kill troops units within 3" to grab that objective hence you are operating much closer to the enemy and probably starting most if not all your suits on the board whilst largely using the assault move to get forward.

This then makes all the weapons more viable as you're not hanging back with your solo suits and trying to plink away you're using them to aggressively grab objectives in your opponent's half.

For maths on Burst vs Plasma:

Killing marines
24" Burst cannon 0 kills Plasma 0.4167 kills
18" Burst cannon 0.44 kills Plasma 0.4167 kills
12" Burst cannon 0.44 kills Plasma 0.833 kills

Marines in cover

24" Burst cannon 0 kills Plasma 0.277 kills
18" Burst cannon 0.44 kills Plasma 0.277 kills
12" Burst cannon 0.44 kills Plasma 0.56 kills

So given the points different and assuming marines are in cover the burstcannons do look better. Against TeQs and with ML support is when plasma comes into its own (and against MCs).

You forgot the bit where the marine player won't get cover.

But I agree for the most part. I think all guns bar the two single takers in the weapons list have a place in play.

Well you won't be using MLs or a buffmander on a solo suit.

@FlingItNow, I suppose I need to preface my opinions now that there are two completely different ways of playing. I play almost exclusively tournament missions that do not and probably will never incorporate an element as random as Maelstrom cards. I get what you're saying though; I could see flamers being effective in Maelstrom.

@GameandWatch, Railsides are now even worse than they were in 6th. You went from exploding a vehicle on a 4+ to a 5+...that's a 50% to 33% debuff; pretty terrible.

So you play 6th Ed not 7th, the objective cards are what makes 7th work as an Edition. They are no more random than dice rolling. A good fix I use (houserule) is if you generate a mission it is impossible for you to complete you immediately discard and generate again (e.g. you draw kill a Psyker and your opponent has no Psykers).

FlingitNow, The Bay Area Open and Nova Open have their own tournament mission styles; many of which rule the areas around which they are based. For example, to get a competitive game in the NOVA area, chances are you'll play missions from their packet. No one is interested in playing BRB missions.

Ditto in the Bay Area I would assume. Some of them are progressive objectives, sort of like the cards, but without variability. It's still 7th edition rules; but NOVA for example barely draws on the rulebook at all for its missions; basically they try to design the most balanced missions possible. It's not about 6th versus 7th ed mission design, GW is uniquely terrible at game design so the tournament committees design their own.

The Maelstrom cards are cool for friendly games; but even with your house rule, if you draw a card that is easily completed or automatically completed, and I draw a card that is technically possible but very difficult, the game is massively skewed in your favor. That is why I prefer missions designed by the community.

BAO are running a weird create your own 6th Ed tournament with a Psychic phase. Even army selection is basically 6th Ed.

Seriously play the maelstrom missions they are actually pretty balanced, yes some of the objectives will be easier to achieve than others but you're normally have 3+ objectives to fulfill and having an army capable of full filling any objective is part of army build. Playing them makes the whole Edition make sense, it makes transports worth it again, combat is viable, Shooty FMCs balanced, Unbound armies uncompetitive, deathstars weak etc

The reason they are having to "balance" the edition is because they are not playing it. It's just sad reactionary decisions which are going to keep the tournament scene stale as they try to reproduce the previous edition.

/rant

I suppose we agree to disagree this time. I find most TOs to be better game designers than GW.

I have to say though, 7th ed Maelstrom mission has a lot of "luck" in it. Played a game when I got 4 points on my first turn because of the 3 objective card I already control and on my deployment zone and I got a first blood. None the less it is a fun and friendlier alternate missions from the Eternal Missions.

So I decided to go with The Shrike's idea in regards with the suits. I went with dual FB and 1 target lock on my 3-man crisis. 4 of the solo suits have TL FB and the 5th suit has dual MP. Decided to go with a single dual MP to grab those out of nowhere onjectives and still have some damage output. Still undecided whether or not to take a railside. That 60'' range and AP 1 could be quite useful in games. Will probably need to play test both configuration.

@GameandWatch, Railsides are now even worse than they were in 6th. You went from exploding a vehicle on a 4+ to a 5+...that's a 50% to 33% debuff; pretty terrible.

Agreed that they took yet another hit this edition, no argument there. Still, long range AP1 is incredibly useful and low ap high range weapons are severely lacking in the Tau Codex. I have agreed that fusion blasters are Tau's most reliable anti armor platform, but wholly relying on them is a mistake in my opinion. I like using both to, in essence, carpet the field with anti armor threats.

Then again, I play less competitively and more silly/fun, even in a competitive setting (except in the "no holds barred" tournaments), I am even running what I call a "melee-manders" list in my FLGC's next tourney. Should be interesting!

I have to say though, 7th ed Maelstrom mission has a lot of "luck" in it. Played a game when I got 4 points on my first turn because of the 3 objective card I already control and on my deployment zone and I got a first blood. None the less it is a fun and friendlier alternate missions from the Eternal Missions. 

I suppose it depends what you want from the game. If you want dice rolls and list building to be the only factor in determining the game then yes EW missions and 6th Ed is the game for you. If you want tactical play and calculated risk taking to be the deciding factors then you want 7th and Maelstrom.

Luck is an equal factor in both just only one rewards dymanic tactical play the other rewards static dice rolling.

If you want a game without luck play Go or Chess.

 FlingitNow wrote:

I have to say though, 7th ed Maelstrom mission has a lot of "luck" in it. Played a game when I got 4 points on my first turn because of the 3 objective card I already control and on my deployment zone and I got a first blood. None the less it is a fun and friendlier alternate missions from the Eternal Missions. 

I suppose it depends what you want from the game. If you want dice rolls and list building to be the only factor in determining the game then yes EW missions and 6th Ed is the game for you. If you want tactical play and calculated risk taking to be the deciding factors then you want 7th and Maelstrom.

Luck is an equal factor in both just only one rewards dymanic tactical play the other rewards static dice rolling.

If you want a game without luck play Go or Chess.

What you many to say was "If you want dice rolls and list building to be the only factor in determining the game yes EW missions and 6th is the game for you. If you want your tactical play and calculated risk taking to be negated by a a terribly unbalanced card game then you want 7th and Maelstrom." Bolded my interpretive and sarcastic changes.


Non Maelstrom is no less 7th than than Eternal War or custom missed designed for balance. And for fun non competitive setting Maelstrom is just fine. But remember, you have already admitted that it requires house ruling. The fact is, that Maelstrom as is is not appropriate for Competitive play. Now, that doesn't mean that tournaments can't learn from and adapt some of the Principles of Maelstrom, but using them as is is far more problematic. Maelstrom removes skill and tactical play as you have no control nor can you plan for being dealt a terrible hand, or a game where your opponent is dealt a hand that is vastly superior. Maelstrom, as written rewards certain armies and gives them an inherent advantage, orders of magnitude higher than presently exists.

Neither Maelsteom nor Eternal War missions are designed for competitive play. Custom missions in one way shape or form are required for competitive play. As far as casual, friendly, or pickup play is concerned healthy doses of both are great. If a local's competitive scene are influenced by larger tournament mission, great, even in the Midwest our tournaments are using inspired missions. Being dealt a terrible hand and having no hope of winning despite a solid list and good sound tactical decisions is fine in casual play. In competitive play it's blatantly unacceptable. Adding gross levels of randomization to a game with many variable topped with dice is a bad idea. Yes, dice are random, but we roll many dice and the average impact of each roll is small, in comparison we draw realistically few cards and each has a major and direct impact on the games results. Four bad die rolls are unlikely to cost a good player with a good list a game, four bad card draws has an entirely different and more pronounced impact.

You won't be dealt a terrible hand ever (admittedly if you use the simple fix) you may be dealt a challenging hand and if you've got a poorly constructed army ill equipped to deal with that then it might be a "terrible hand". But it is not the fault of the cards you have rolled (remember it is still a dice roll).

Just like for instance say you have an army built around certain Psychic powers (like invisibility) and you don't roll that power. That single roll will have a massive impact on the game. However that is your fault for building an army reliant on that. Also single dice can have massive impacts on games. I've lost a game in a tournament where I had tabled my opponent without taking a casualty simply because the game ended turn 5 (it was against the TO who then declared himself winner where I had tabled every single opponent I had faced, not that I'm bitter )

I lost a game at a tournament 5 things that were in my favour (ranging from 70:30 to 90:10) went against me in turn 5 to make my opponent 1 VP up and the game ended. A single dice roll can have a massive impact. Luck is a factor in the game. It is up to you write a list and play the game to mitigate that and stack the odds in your favour. With out missions that require going for multiple objectives each turn the game boils down to how you've written your list, target selection (which is not exactly tough and every decent player can get right) and dice rolling. Why? Because all you need to do is play to table turns 1-4 and then worry about last minute objective grabs if necessary and realistically First Blood becomes almost the single biggest factor in a game between 2 good players.

Granted I haven't seen BAO missions but I've seen their army selection and that is not Warhammer 40,000 it is Baybowl 4,000 Hammers. They've tried to force 6th Ed onto 7th then put weird fixes in to solve Supplements allying with parent codexes and decided they don't want any Tyranid players at the Tournament. Ok I can see why you'd limit detachments (though I'm not for it, if you're going to do it just limit total number rather than forcing 6th, just say 2 detachments total if you don't want to see Coteaz in every list) I have no idea why you wouldn't allow unbound, they've limited LoWs which I can understand (though I still believe the only truly broken LoW list is double C'tan but that only really works at 1500 and is rock papers scissors).

Have you a link to their rules pack for missions? Because for me having multiple objectives that you are going after each turn with a random element as to which is what makes 7th Ed compelling and what balances basically everything in the game. If you play to table you'll find by turn 3 you'll be in a position where you have to table to win as you'll be that far behind a well constructed list that is designed to fulfill the tactical objectives.

Basically every tournament pack I've seen so far has been designed to try to force the lists that were strong in 6th to still be the top lists. BAO army selection certainly seems to be that. You see the same in Fantasy a lot too where comp has been rife for years. Which is just sad it is mediocre players largely complaining that their old net list is no longer top dog.