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.

Requizen wrote:

 luke1705 wrote:

Requizen wrote:
Necron player here, thinking about adding in some Tau with the express purpose of getting Stormsurges (since Necrons don't really have a decent LoW option).

How are Stormsurges without Markerlight support? I was thinking of just putting in the Heavy Retribution Cadre alongside some Wraiths and stuff and calling it a day, but then I can't activate the D guns or get BS4.

If you want to run two stormsurges (not a bad idea) just grab a FSE CAD:

Commander with drone controller

A single crisis suit
A single crisis suit

A squad of marker drones (attach commander and profit)

A stormsurge (or two, if you prefer)

Very few tax units (and really, a 27 point obsec 3+ armor save 2 wound deep striking flamer unit really is not a tax)

If you prefer to make your drones a little more durable, you can add 36 points to be able to take strike squads instead. Gives you the option to take a 2+ armor on the commander (which also makes him T5). Very worth it IMO but if you can't afford 61 points (cost with the armor) then at least you have options.

Stormsurges without markerlights are not anything special. With markerlights, they are monsters. Whatever you do, don't take that awful formation. If you want two stormsurges (and why shouldn't you?) they really should be as a single unit. Do the hunter contingent or just a simple CAD (IMO CAD is better). Insert wraiths as counter-assault unit and profit

Is one unit of Drones really enough to support it? I feel awkward with it, like, putting in too many points and I'm now running Tau with Necron Allies (boo), put in too few and I have a useless GC (also boo).

How does the Riptide Wing work as a standalone next to Necrons? I can run that with a few Wraith units, they bring some pretty good shooting to go with the durability of Crons. Or do they want support too?

Riptide wing without ML will still do very well. It will be very durable (just like the rest of your Necrons lol), but outside of the one riptide hellfire round, the damage output won't be anything special without ML

Riptides dont need as much support as the StormSurge but they dont fill the same role, either. StormSurge really is your answer to super Heavy's et al. Nothing else really pays the bills like it does in that regard.

Riptides are excellent against everything else in the general sense and very durable so long as no one touches them (at which time they cry).

Riptides get away with LESS Markerlight support, but i feel they are a lot better with it.

Flamers did the trick against you like the Jancoran said. the free 200 pts. Where useless since you died immediately died. Also Taking two cads when HT,DBC would have been better also not the best choice, since obsec didnt matter in your mission. Missing out on Some Awesome formations rules.

Other questions: why does my mont'Ka show riptides and ghostkeel wing as formations but battlescribes doesn't find them as aux to get a valid dbc Did I miss something

 luke1705 wrote:
Do we have confirmation of whether this includes any different formations or clarification as to whether normal Riptides can take an ECPA?

If you by normal Riptides mean FSE Riptides then i believe there is some news regarding the ECPA as posted on ATT. In addition to FSE characters now being able to take both Tau Empire and FSE signature systems, it specifically points out that the ECPA can be used with Battlesuits and Nova Reactors.

X078 wrote:

 luke1705 wrote:
Do we have confirmation of whether this includes any different formations or clarification as to whether normal Riptides can take an ECPA?

If you by normal Riptides mean FSE Riptides then i believe there is some news regarding the ECPA as posted on ATT. In addition to FSE characters now being able to take both Tau Empire and FSE signature systems, it specifically points out that the ECPA can be used with Battlesuits and Nova Reactors.

Spoiler:

“Earth Caste Pilot Array....................XX points
Models with battlesuits only. The model re-rolls all rolls of 1 To Hit in the Shooting phase, and may re-roll the dice when using a Nova Reactor. However, their Weapon Skill is 1”

The issue with the ECPA was basically that you couldn't take it on a riptide because although characters could take it, a riptide is not a character. Has something changed in that regard with FSE?

Also, some people have mentioned being able to take members of the 8 separate from the formation...are they just HQ now?

The issue with Riptides and sig systems has not changed, they still aren't characters. As to the Eight, you can now build 5 of the 8 as regular HQ choices (Farsight, O'Vesa, and Ob'Lotai being the exceptions).

SJ

So...you can't take FARSIGHT in a farsight enclaves detachment....unless you do the dawn blade? So weird that it's less restrictive to take farsight in a tau empire CAD. I think I'll just use a FSE detachment as outlined in the Mont'ka book. Not to take farsight, but to have cheaper troops. Then again, maybe it's better to have 5 bodies than 1 that can deep strike and be doubled out, even if it does have vastly better weapons options.

Theres a restriction saying he cant be taken in a FSE CAD? Thats...odd...

Not allowing ethereals or shadowsun was because of fluff reasons, the heck is the farsight reason? (i didnt get the ebook so of course no free update for me)

He's saying that because you can take from both relic lists, you can simply build commanders as those five characters.

Dissapointing really though: Being able to take a Broadside or Riptide named HQ would be more fun than simply commanders built with specific standard wargear.

Figured that people would want to know that there is a new ITC poll up for consideration, topics which include:

Cover for a GMC, ghostkeel holophoton activation and the piranha wing replacements. Even if you don't play using the ITC, it's nice to vote and help make it the best system that it can be for those of us who do. Let your voice be heard.

Free the ghostkeels!

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1vtp6zikYXgaMJr3M7-ESFs5yH_zMDPJQ19BhsiYImS4/viewform

Ghostkeels are the only ITC "nerf" to tau i dont agree with. Its not even a fuzzy rule, just because it says "unit" once after saying "model" multiple times its suddenly all 3 at once? For no added benefit too.

The rest are justified. Piranha Wing is already denied via normal reserve rules from leaving the same turn anyway and USR sharing is ridiculously OP. It also renders the Dawn Blade pointless, since Buffmander lets you reroll to hits, ignore cover, tankhunter/monsterhunter, and apply DC to all drones in the entire army. That is infinitely more powerful than rerolling to hits and wounds alone.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Ghostkeels are the only ITC "nerf" to tau i dont agree with. Its not even a fuzzy rule, just because it says "unit" once after saying "model" multiple times its suddenly all 3 at once? For no added benefit too.

The rest are justified. Piranha Wing is already denied via normal reserve rules from leaving the same turn anyway and USR sharing is ridiculously OP. It also renders the Dawn Blade pointless, since Buffmander lets you reroll to hits, ignore cover, tankhunter/monsterhunter, and apply DC to all drones in the entire army. That is infinitely more powerful than rerolling to hits and wounds alone.

Yeah all the other ones make sense IMO. Crossing my fingers pretty hard for the ghostkeels. Love the model and the rules, but if it's a one and done activation, that might keep my from bringing tau to a major event, as my local store already plays it as once per model (which just makes sense)

I dont get where Reece got the idea from anyway. Everyone reads it as once per model, even in YMDC it goes in the tau's favor in the end (after people hound on the singular use of "unit" for 8 pages or more of course).

i mean, hes making the game a lot more balanced for tournament play than RAW could ever be, but this still isnt a tournament game. Reece would have to do codex rewrites to actually balance this game (and redo walkers). A balance game doesnt mean every race has one super cheesy strat, it means every race can do many things...while not to the same degree of power it can still do something if played right.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
I dont get where Reece got the idea from anyway. Everyone reads it as once per model, even in YMDC it goes in the tau's favor in the end (after people hound on the singular use of "unit" for 8 pages or more of course).

i mean, hes making the game a lot more balanced for tournament play than RAW could ever be, but this still isnt a tournament game. Reece would have to do codex rewrites to actually balance this game (and redo walkers). A balance game doesnt mean every race has one super cheesy strat, it means every race can do many things...while not to the same degree of power it can still do something if played right.

I don't mean to sound snarky but the truth of the matter is that a subforum on one website is hardly a definitive answer on the topic. Where Reece got the idea is clearly from a number of people emailing him on how it will be played. I know this because I was one of those people - not asking for RAW, but How the ITC Will Play It

I think that there is a decent amount of consensus, but to say that there is no ambiguity is misleading. If there really is consensus then people will vote that way. If not, well I like the stormsurge enough to make it happen. Triple surge anyone?

The problem is they do not put the actual full rule in the vote. People who have never actually seen the full quoted rule are going to simply see 2 options: Nerf tau or not. And we sadly know how that will go.

Yeah. Didnt like how they biased the vote...again...sigh.

No context, no pro and con arguments. give the best pro and best con argument 100 words to make their case alongside the rules text and then see what people say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
I dont get where Reece got the idea from anyway. Everyone reads it as once per model, even in YMDC it goes in the tau's favor in the end (after people hound on the singular use of "unit" for 8 pages or more of course).

i mean, hes making the game a lot more balanced for tournament play than RAW could ever be, but this still isnt a tournament game. Reece would have to do codex rewrites to actually balance this game (and redo walkers). A balance game doesnt mean every race has one super cheesy strat, it means every race can do many things...while not to the same degree of power it can still do something if played right.

His biased questions do the rewrtiing for him. People dump RAW in a heart beat if they dot like something and it becomes so easy... I'd warn anybody against voting anything but RAW except in the most bitterly game breaking situations. INvis needed a nerf. Its just too much. a huge majority of players agree. But taking cover saves away from Gargants? i mean a 5+ save and its totally legal to take... I dont like that. And I speak as one who hadn;t used the gargants available to me until the last month or two. it never bothered me enough to just go singling them out for special hate. Seems dumb to me.

Some people do take issue to a wraithknight standing on top of "rubble" and gaining a 4+ cover save, whereas a dreadnought standing on the same rubble would not.

A decent amount of terrain at the ITC events is 4+ (around 50% IIRC) and there are usually at least 2 4+ area terrain pieces on any board. So the toe in cover for a 4+ (3+ with night fight or 2+ with shrouded) is a very real thing (except for Tau on the shrouding). I can see people feeling that that is a bit nonsensical. I voted to stick to RAW but I think it's going to change. I also have a feeling that the points are going to go down to 1650 but we'll see. I understand why for large format events but I hope not. I like 1850 a lot.

A vehicle being affected by the 'Abadonded' rule, forms two separate units correct? Surely by RAW both of those units have the same rules and (possibly?) a piranha immobilised left within 6" could leave into ongoing reserves? The less dogdey aspect is the remaining pirhanas will be able to enter ongoing reserves and re-enter a full strength. Full strength would be, reasonably, the full compliment of models.

My point being.. RAW is often not helpful, especially when there are really 'reasonable/obvious' readings of the rule. An even better/more concise point is the GMC + cover. Raw they can toe in cover. In relaity, maddness.

I can appreciate an argument for MC being able to be fluid/dynamic to make use of cover.. but I still feel the game would simply be better if that RAI also applied to MC too! (but it needs to go full circle, with GW having this RAI or FAQ'ed rule (sorry.. sigh) in mind when they design MC/GMC).

Cheers

im fine with MCs getting area cover, not all of them are as huge as a Riptide. GMCs really shouldnt though...every GMC towers over everything. Wk/Stormsurges are as tall as the standard ruined multi-leveled building GW puts out, if theyre behind it sure but if theyre sitting on a platform at the base infront of it they still get it...how? Smaller units could argue they darted inside, how does a GMC dart into cover when hes towering over it?

GMCs dont really need any help, and granting toe-in-rocks 4+ cover is one hell of a bonus that supervehicles dont get when they already survive longer due to no Explode! bonus damage. RAW theres no debate, but logically it makes no sense.

Admittedly i think non-super vehicles should be granted area cover too. Vehicles need a bone, the few that are good either sit so far back they never get in danger or can jink or have an invul, so granting area cover wouldnt make the already good vehicles infinitely better while making the craptastic vehicles do something (mainly thinking walkers)

 luke1705 wrote:
Some people do take issue to a wraithknight standing on top of "rubble" and gaining a 4+ cover save, whereas a dreadnought standing on the same rubble would not.

A decent amount of terrain at the ITC events is 4+ (around 50% IIRC) and there are usually at least 2 4+ area terrain pieces on any board. So the toe in cover for a 4+ (3+ with night fight or 2+ with shrouded) is a very real thing (except for Tau on the shrouding). I can see people feeling that that is a bit nonsensical. I voted to stick to RAW but I think it's going to change. I also have a feeling that the points are going to go down to 1650 but we'll see. I understand why for large format events but I hope not. I like 1850 a lot.

Its the rules, and they are abstract to allow us to model terrain the way we want to.

I am not going to support changing obviously RAW rules just so people can make their opponents easier to beat. If it doesn't have a significant impact, then I just don't see doing it. A unit of 20 Dark Eldar can get the ame cover saves despite being an enormous 20 man unit. No one is advocating taking it away if they ball up and become such an onvious target that the trees COULDNT hide them.

I mean if I want to sit here and attack the internal logic of what I am seeing on the board at every turn, I can. We have to accept some abstraction and stop trying to be the GW police. Unless its having an enormous impact that is any more unfair than 20 dark eldar hiding behind one tree, lets step away from our "oh goody, I get to nerf my opponent again" button.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Razerous wrote:
A vehicle being affected by the 'Abadonded' rule, forms two separate units correct? Surely by RAW both of those units have the same rules and (possibly?) a piranha immobilised left within 6" could leave into ongoing reserves?

Yes. The single IMMOBILZED Piranha could go into ongoing reserve but then could not return because it cant move. if it cannot enter it is destroyed. But sure.

I see no problem there.

he meant the unit that the immobilized piranha belonged to couldnt regain the lost piranha because it technically didnt die.

I could see it both ways, but im more inclined to it doesnt come back for balance sake. Thats an extra target in its entirety not just a repair job/replacement model. Not like its going to happen much anyway since piranhas abusing the Rearm and Repair are not going to be further than ~10" from their board edge so odds are they wont get shot at unless its something that obliterates them.

Look its two issues: DO destroyed ones come back? No of course not. So if they DONT come back then an immobilized one is irrelevant. the rules already handle what to do there.

So Just make sure you vote NOT to have Piranhas come back. This is clearly not what they mean by full strength, and the sentence on full strength goes on to explain armaments and dones are whats meant). the name of the rule should tell you!

Anywho. a lot of to do about nothing. im a Tau player. Im saying they shouldnt come back with dead piranhas. i am saying the separated piranhas are just that: units of their respective size, same rules apply.

 Jancoran wrote:
Look its two issues: DO destroyed ones come back? No of course not. So if they DONT come back then an immobilized one is irrelevant. the rules already handle what to do there.

So Just make sure you vote NOT to have Piranhas come back. This is clearly not what they mean by full strength, and the sentence on full strength goes on to explain armaments and dones are whats meant). the name of the rule should tell you!

Anywho. a lot of to do about nothing. im a Tau player. Im saying they shouldnt come back with dead piranhas. i am saying the separated piranhas are just that: units of their respective size, same rules apply.

Destroyed Piranha come back, just like any other lost model is renewed when a unit returns at full strength. The problem that people can't seem to reconcile is that when an immobilized vehicle is left behind by a squadron, it and the squadron form separate units. The question becomes, if the shortened unit rearms and returns, is it at "full strength", as in all models replaced including the immobilized one that was separated. Logically, no, the unit should not return at full strength because the new unit has one less model. Per RAW, yes, the unit should return at full strength because the immobilized model is a lose. Thematically, the returning unit is not necessarily the same unit that left, even if the returning models are the same. A good compromise could be only the Piranha that leave the table can return, while another good compromise could be that if appropriate models are available that unit can return with replacement models at full strength. The first compromise acts as a balancing factor that takes into consideration that the unit's strength is redefined once the immobilized model leaves the unit. The second compromise acts as a literal interpretation of the rule as written, as it is the exact same limit that exists with the Gun Drones regardless of how else the rule is interpreted.

The ITC question does not address these factors, lending to a vote based on "Yes, I understand the mechanic in question so voted Yes" and "No, I do not understand the mechanic in question so voted No". A better way to approach this issue should have been posting the issue and two potential resolutions, then requesting the vote for option 1, option 2, or neither.

SJ

I'm saying that what stops the immbolised Pirhana from entering on-going reserves. From the formations rules - zero.

I'm not sure if the rules specifically forbid deployment from reserves (can a Piranha deep strike?) if a vehicle is immobilised. My point is.. that would be bonkers, plus the two separate units of Piranhas drawn from the Fire stream formation would.. well, make use of the 're-arm & re-fuel' rule. Pure RAW? Complete bonkers.

Even if you ignore the immobilised Piranha's, the original unit coming back into play using 're-arm & re-fuel' would get the lost models back. There is no provision in the rule to consider anything outside of the unit itself (& it's "full strength").

So RAW is just plain bad (edit: Can be, especially with subsequent and/or complicated rules). As with GMC getting cover. A rubble strewn house could easily hide a squad of 20men, the various obstacles and debris can all be used. However a GMC that is.. what, 4x the size of the entire house. Bonkers. Okay better yet, a collection of fox holes. Guys can hide it each one.. a GMC may have trouble fitting the smallest part of its body into one. Pure maddness. We play a game, that game is grounded in structure and logic (you roll to hit, wound, saves. Big things have more wounds than smaller things.. etc).

 raverrn wrote:
Yes it's still a transport and yes the rule does nothing.

Thanks for the clarification

That sucks, but I guess the automatic cover save vs flying stuff is something. A very small something.

After last night's Frontline stream with Necrons/Tau, I've started to think that allying in Suits might not be a bad idea. Like Destroyers, but trade MTC/Reanimation for different guns and a lower cost, and potentially ObSec if taken in a FSE detachment.

What's a good, relatively cheap way to take some Suits into a Necron detachment? What guns are good and will compliment a list with Wraiths?

Now that FSE detachments can take Empire signature systems, you can get a buffmander (relatively expensive though) and a crisis suit unit in as an allied detachment. The unit of suits can be scaled to whatever level you are looking for and will run well enough without markerlight support due to the buffmander.

I like such a unit with missile pods and target locks, for some efficient long range fire. Essentially like mobile broadsides with the buffmander who tanks for the unit.

I know Necrons lack AP2, but tbh, Tau struggle in that department as well, unless you want to go Riptides, which require marker support and it gets expensive fast.

I think crisis suits niche these days is either with a buffmander as above or MSU, where the cyclic ion blaster or Frag projector offer something different.

Well, a normally kitted Destroyer Lord (Warscythe, 4++) and the base Destroyer Cult is 515 for 9 Destroyers (2 S5 AP3 shots with Shred/Tank Hunters each) and the IC. While I love my Destroyer Cult immensely, firstly it can't hurt a Void Shield and secondly I just kind of wanted to see what I could get for a similar price or cheaper by grabbing Tau instead.

Missiles seem pretty good, high Strength and volume of fire sorta makes up for the AP3. I don't know all the weapon options, though.

I know a guy who uses his Commander + unit of Suits + mass amount of Gun Drones to DS down and just blast out the stupidest amount of shots I've ever seen, to quite some effect. I was thinking maybe if I did a FSE Allied detachment for just that it could be a nice pseudo-shooting-star that compliments Wraiths and Bikes quite effectively.

I am just excited to run a t5 fusionblade commander around the table ignorant of everything but S10 and D weapons =D

 Grizzyzz wrote:
I am just excited to run a t5 fusionblade commander around the table ignorant of everything but S10 and D weapons =D

When did this happen? Where can I find the rules that allow me to do this?

Also guys their is a new ITC poll that you guys should vote on as we all know that Tau players receive irrational fear because of our gun line style army that some players have a hard time beating. Also could you guys copy and paste the questions listed below to

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1W8A22qTts0p9CIkhxZIefmicHr7J2RoWlJmPqGQFiZo/viewform

because they say this is how they determine what is asked on the poll so hopefully if enough of us ask the exact same question there will be no excuse.


1) Can a Riptide other than O'Vesa take the Earth Caste Pilot Array Signature system. RAW this is not allowed, however I believe there was discussion of giving them an allowance (or voting to do so) since it seemed an oversight by GW.

2) Piranha's from the Firestream Wing, by RAW they can leave in the same turn they enter. There was a FAQ entry added without vote prior to the LVO restricting this, could we get a vote on this?

3) Coordinated Firepower Ruling - Revote Request. This issue was voted prior to much playtesting/seeing how impactful it was and I was hoping it would be revoted at a later date as stated it might be. For what it's worth, I'd like to see the middle ground ruling occur, which is more or less: only shots fired at the target of the coordinated firepower attack receive the associated buffs, but buffs do transfer.