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.

 gmaleron wrote:
I chalk it up to immaturity and people throwing a temper tantrum instead of enjoying a challenge or thinking constructively in finding ways to beat it.

I know this is probably been asked farther back in the thread but I don't really have the time to go through every single post but I am having some issue as to how to best construct Stealth Suit Squads. I am planning on only taking two squads so I can run the Optimized Stealth Cadre but I have a few questions about them as I've never run them before:

-How big a squad? I've seen lots of recommendations in regards to this but what do you feel is the best number to run them at and why?

-Equipment on them, also quite varied from what I have seen primarily I'm just wondering if it's worth it to even give them a fusion blaster or homing beacon or anything outside of that?

Appreciate the help guys!

Best squad size is a size of zero.

Only sort of kidding. It totally depends on your local meta. If you tend to play more competively with your friends, then the OSC is actually not that great. The tax for the stealth suits is too high for what you gain, even if it seems like you gain a lot.

Otherwise.. when I run an OSC with a Retaliation Cadre in more casual settings, I usually pay 110 points for a squad of three with a 'vre and homing beacon. These guys are literally a means to not scatter my reserves and really don't do anything first and second turn (aside from jumping out of LOS). The burst cannons keep them cheap, and let me pick on infantry, but really the platform is not geared to be as good at offense as a crisis suit.

my 2cents

I concur. My use of Stealth suits is the exact same thing, 3 suits, 1 is a 'vre with homing beacon, taken in a OSC so my Ret Cadre doesn't scatter on turn 2. Personally, I don't consider them a tax since they are foing exactly what I want them to do, and would normally not be able to do in an all suit army.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I concur. My use of Stealth suits is the exact same thing, 3 suits, 1 is a 'vre with homing beacon, taken in a OSC so my Ret Cadre doesn't scatter on turn 2. Personally, I don't consider them a tax since they are foing exactly what I want them to do, and would normally not be able to do in an all suit army.

SJ

That's fair, I should elaborate on what i mean by "tax".

First.. if you are using 1 ghostkeel model. In this case your bringing at a minimum 180 points of models to give nearly what 3 markerlights can do for the ghostkeel (which come much cheaper). Again, as an offensive platform there are better options then the stealthsuit.. even at defense, there are better options (given the range of weapons) to hold back objectives. Heck even kroot if you really want that outflank.

If you take a full squad of 3 ghostkeel, then I think the 180 points is fine, atleast for me.. cause you have one dynamite wrecking ball that is both hard to take down and highly offensive (bs5 etc etc).

Idk.. i feel like i am rambling... =P

My main point i guess is my stealth suits never make more than their worth over time, they are always meh or ok in game. In terms of how myself and jeffersonian play, they do exactly what we need.. deliver our main force safely.

Solo ghostkeel does feel like a waste to me. 6 S7 and a Melta shot hitting rear armor still does a lot of damage to vehicles but its also about all its going to do. Adding the other 2 ghostkeels in there gives you a gakton of shots to hurt pretty much everything, bypass lack of Skyfire if you didnt want the 20pt upgrade, and enables them to be pretty deadly in melee assuming your enemy isnt WS5+ or has AP3+ attacks at initiative. Ive charged my 3 ghostkeels into a termie squad several times and cleaned house because i wound on 2s pen their armor and attack first. With 12 of those on the charge hitting on 4s, pretty likely to take out a deepsriking termie blob with that before they get to strike back at all.

The formation would be an auto include for me if they got three uses of the counter - measure. Lets face it we have the ability to destroy atleast 1-3 units at a time if we destroy those units than all is left is 1-3 units counter measure is a defense mechanism that potentially ruins any hopes of retaliation.

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I concur. My use of Stealth suits is the exact same thing, 3 suits, 1 is a 'vre with homing beacon, taken in a OSC so my Ret Cadre doesn't scatter on turn 2. Personally, I don't consider them a tax since they are foing exactly what I want them to do, and would normally not be able to do in an all suit army.

SJ

That's fair, I should elaborate on what i mean by "tax".

First.. if you are using 1 ghostkeel model. In this case your bringing at a minimum 180 points of models to give nearly what 3 markerlights can do for the ghostkeel (which come much cheaper). Again, as an offensive platform there are better options then the stealthsuit.. even at defense, there are better options (given the range of weapons) to hold back objectives. Heck even kroot if you really want that outflank.

I can't quite agree. Even on one ghost the "tax" isn't high.

Even ignoring the rear shot ability (as it only applies to some targets), the 3 marker effect would normally be paid around 66 (pathfinders) to 84 (network drones) points. If you would take a ghost anyway (and it's not a bad unit at all) Its almost like discounted stealth suits. And a stealth suit costing effectivly around 16 to 20 each. I'd say it's good. Even ignoring the fact they can feed off formation bonuses too,and counting the markers they would eat for the bonus means it's almost as if they are free.


It's enough to make them good, when taken in small numbers. (as the more members you got, the less relevant the "discount" becomes)

Now that I am finally going to be playing again, and have my third ghostkeel.. I am very excited to try the ghostwing formation. Has anyone ran that?

The list I am thinking is:
DBC retaliation or CAD
+
Counterstrike (i think.. the 3 FW, 1 PF, all in fish one)
+
Ghostwing


Giving all my transports 2+ jink in or 2+ cover if positioned correctly (because they will all have disruptor pods)

ive ran the ghostwing once and its the one time my ghostkeel trio disappointed me.

3 separate units w/o coord fire (since they arent an aux choice for either contingents) means they usually wont have marker support, though the cascading +1BS if they focus fire somewhat mitigates that. So they offensively got a lot weaker just from that.
The stealth bubble was comical to give my dpod vehicles a 2+ jink but aside from that it didnt do much. Random ignore cover gun took out my pathfinders turn1, and the range limitation on most crisis suit strats heavily limit using cover (ymmv) so i usually just had a walking 6+ for the guys closest to the enemy.

Razerous wrote:

Its a negative stacked questions - should something be disallowed from doing something, well no, of course not.. etc etc.
.

What do you mean of course not? That is WHAT they are voting to do. Lol.

So call it what it is and see if people are really willing to vote to disallow their armies and this one to be nerfed.

Its absoilutely what is being voted on.

So what do you guys think about taking a solo ghostkeel outside of the Optimized Stealth Cadre? Is it good? I've only got the one and I don't know how I'm going to field it yet.

Lord Ruby34 wrote:
So what do you guys think about taking a solo ghostkeel outside of the Optimized Stealth Cadre? Is it good? I've only got the one and I don't know how I'm going to field it yet.

So its a bit complicated i feel. Personally, I have run 2 in a unit very successfully outside of OSC. They seem to deal enough damage and if i have to be in CC they can deal enough wounds to not get overwhelmed.

I was originally typing all these cost ratios and numbers... but my point is.. 1 ghost is barely cheaper then a unit of crisis suits, and while having higher defense does not match the same offensive capabilities.

If your playing casual I don't think you can go wrong fielding one. It is an awesome model. Even though Vineheart made me sad with his experience with a ghostwing, I am probably going to field one simply because i like the models


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Question though... does the ethereal on a drone give the ability to assault jump?

Because I think it would be absolutely hilarious to field a max squad gun drone net with the Ethereal Council all on drones... Seriously how fun would that be All jinking on 4+ with FNP and you can even move+run+snapshot+assault jump for 18" of movement and a ton of shots within half range!

 Jancoran wrote:

Razerous wrote:

Its a negative stacked questions - should something be disallowed from doing something, well no, of course not.. etc etc.
.

What do you mean of course not? That is WHAT they are voting to do. Lol.

So call it what it is and see if people are really willing to vote to disallow their armies and this one to be nerfed.

Its absoilutely what is being voted on.

Exactly what I thought I was going to hear. You're upset because there is no pro-Tau bias. That is not a fair thing to ask for. The ITC needs to be as impartial as possible when presenting the poll questions, and to a great extent they do just that. Just because you believe that the RAI points one way (as do I) doesn't mean that Reece and co should be presenting it as RAW or as if reading it the other way is changing the rule. The whole point of the question is how to interpret the rule

Thatis nt a pro-Tau bias. For your EDIFICATION, I also voted that destroyed Piranhas do not come back. I also voted that those that are separated from the flock by immobilization are just a unit of one now. So give it a rest.

You are ABSOLUTELY not taking ownership of what is ACTUALLY being proposed here. and what IS being proposed here is that you disallow the second and third ghostkeel from using their wargear. In fact.

 Jancoran wrote:
Thatis nt a pro-Tau bias. For your EDIFICATION, I also voted that destroyed Piranhas do not come back. I also voted that those that are separated from the flock by immobilization are just a unit of one now. So give it a rest.

You are ABSOLUTELY not taking ownership of what is ACTUALLY being proposed here. and what IS being proposed here is that you disallow the second and third ghostkeel from using their wargear. In fact.

Ok buddy time to take a few deep breaths. I never said or implied anything about your voting habits. All I said was that the way that you worded the question included an undoubtedly apparent pro-Tau bias. Maybe you can't see it, but by my count, I'm the third person to point this out to you. In this thread. Just pointing that out so that you too can be edified.

I am distinctly aware of what is being proposed and I'm not sure how I *should* be "taking ownership of it", but let me attempt that:

I know that the rules seem (to me) to indicate that each Ghostkeel can utilize the holophoton countermeasures special rule.

I know that the rules seem (to others) to indicate that all Ghostkeels in a unit utilize their holophoton countermeasures simultaneously, though this seems somewhat counter-intuitive.

I know that what is being proposed is giving players the option to adopt either interpretation of the rule.

I know that there are people who are not ok with this rule being put up for a vote because they feel that their way is right and everyone else's way is wrong.

But guess what? Those people exist outside of this forum as well, and they believe that it's so readily apparent that it's the other way around. The whole point of this poll is to see which camp has more people, and let it live or die by democracy.

I also know that not everyone votes by their conscience of what they think that the rules actually say, but furthermore I know that your local TO can choose to play it however they want (even within the context of an ITC event), so it's truly the definition of moot unless you plan on taking your Ghostkeels to the LVO or BAO.

Finally, I know that nothing anyone says will change your mind, but I wanted to edify others in this thread so that they can know that Tau are fine. That these ITC rulings do not make Tau a bad or even a mediocre codex. They are still top tier and people can and will continue to do very well even at the highest level of GTs. Remember, their codex is relatively new. No one is an expert in the new Tau. It took over 6 months from publication for the Daemons codex to even start having builds that resemble the best tournament lists of today. Tau are fine

 Jancoran wrote:

Razerous wrote:

Its a negative stacked questions - should something be disallowed from doing something, well no, of course not.. etc etc.
.

What do you mean of course not? That is WHAT they are voting to do. Lol.

So call it what it is and see if people are really willing to vote to disallow their armies and this one to be nerfed.

Its absoilutely what is being voted on.

Like I said, the 10th & 38th word of the rule you are referencing are providing the ambiguity here.

Based on your logic, I could just as easily say (If I held this view) "So call it what it is and see if people are really willing to vote to allow their armies and this one to be buffed". Its just.. not helpful.

What is helpful is.. basically the entirety of what the ITC does (yes they may not be flawless. Welcome to humanity).

Please avoid capitalising words pointlessly, I feel it detracts from your points which are often really insightful.

 luke1705 wrote:

But guess what? Those people exist outside of this forum as well, and they believe that it's so readily apparent that it's the other way around. The whole point of this poll is to see which camp has more people, and let it live or die by democracy.

I also know that not everyone votes by their conscience of what they think that the rules actually say, but furthermore I know that your local TO can choose to play it however they want (even within the context of an ITC event), so it's truly the definition of moot unless you plan on taking your Ghostkeels to the LVO or BAO.

Finally, I know that nothing anyone says will change your mind, but I wanted to edify others in this thread so that they can know that Tau are fine. That these ITC rulings do not make Tau a bad or even a mediocre codex. They are still top tier and people can and will continue to do very well even at the highest level of GTs. Remember, their codex is relatively new. No one is an expert in the new Tau. It took over 6 months from publication for the Daemons codex to even start having builds that resemble the best tournament lists of today. Tau are fine

Wait. So you say the "whole point" of the poll is to see which camp has more people... which it cant do accurately. So what good is this poll if you actually don't get that information? What actually is the value of this exercise?

Zilch. Its a C.Y.A. maneuver.

You want to know why I oppose it? I think I just told you. You don't ask questions like this if you want to actually know the answer. You ask questions like this when you want the answer to be something specific.

My "bias" that you "expected to hear" doesn't exist. What actually happened here is I am saying something you don't like. So you put on the airs of someone who "expected such a thing from a Tau General such as me":. I'll let you in on a secret: I own all but three of the 40K armies. I play them all, all the time. Ask anyone whose known me for any time. I am as likely to be facing it as playing it. That's a fact. I always will love Tau Empire, but playing them doesn't mean I am excited to face broken things when I'm not. This isn't even on the same plane of existence as some of the crap they banned or changed.

If this vote goes through, you are in fact taking the other two Ghostkeels and actually removing their wargear. You can sugar coat that anyway that makes you sleep at night, but if you don't make it clear as glass to the voter that this is what is being proposed...and that it could be done to THEM just as easily for their gear...you give them no reason to vote any way but nerf. None. And anyone, even my 11 year old can vote.

You saaaaay you know people don't vote entirely honestly all the time... When this inevitably happens, you will excuse the wording they used by telling me its the TO's job and he'll fix it anyways right? You just did so I suppose that is true.

You're not wrong in theory but you're way oversimplifying the dynamic here. First, this does nothing to absolve the criminal level of bias on the question. So pointing it out is obfuscating the point you are refuting. Reecuius doesn't want to look stupid for jumping the gun, so he is offering this "fair question" to make sure this vote goes his way. HIS bias exists even when the damage can be voto'd by the TO's better discretion. Sure. But that still makes it a ridiculous form of the questions. Doesn't change that. ITC can do all the good in the world and you can laud it til the cows come home...as long as you're intellectually honest about the shadier side too. Waving your hand and dismissing this as inconsequential somehow just because they did some "good things" is like telling me its okay to commit treason after a long military career. No its not. No amount of good excuses any amount of bad. It's still bad.

You're also assuming here that the TO is strong enough to stand up to the bully's who will CAMPAIGN on facebook and other places against your event if you dare change anything about the rulings! I know. I run them at four stores and I have had to weather that storm, 8-12 times a year. It is absolutely nuts how many PM's I get leading up to these damn things, and they all start as coy non confrontational questions, followed by more probing ones and finally one or two turn into somewhat less than friendly affairs or big threads about how "consistency is more important than one TO's opinion". Yeah. That's real life. TO's don't all come built to handle it. they'd rather be liked than right. Come to think of it... They're not the only ones.

That is not fair to the TO. For you to give the ITC wording a pass just because the TO coooould say no is a bizarre suggestion. You're not wrong, he could. But you're just not taking into account this dynamic of personality.

Since you brought it up:
No one even suggested the Tau weren't "fine" so bringing it up as a concluding statement does nothing. Nothing. Everyone knows they are fine. This isn't about The Tau empire. It's about unfair questions. The line at which the Tau are not "fine" is a subjective thing. You don't get to decide when that is and neither do I so why are you telling me they are or aren't as if this would allow any nerf to be okay? Space Marines are "fine" too. Shall we poll people to remove the Company Support rule. They will still be fine. Shall we vote to remove Invisibility from any model attached to a deathstar? I realize that removing the ability they paid points for is probably not fair...but Space Marines will be "fine". right? No. Slippery slope confirmed.

We won't agree and not because I can't be convinced. It's because you haven't said anything that directly tells me how a terribly bias'd question should garner anything remotely positive as my response? Explain it to me. Why should that happen? if you can explain why it should, perhaps I will be moved to more positively respond. if you don't like my question, pose your own and we'll see what it looks like.

I suspect (and hope) you know that I am right on one thing: this was a bias'd question. It should never have been allowed. If this goes down in flames and people vote against the nerf, it will be a sterling endorsement of their process...but not their methods.

I think we've probably reached a good stopping point for the purposes of this topic in this thread. Or at least I have. It doesn't feel productive to go back and forth.

What secondary weapon is best on a Riptide? I was thinking Fusion, but the others could be useful as well. I ask because I may soon acquire a Riptide from a friend.

Smart missiles

That was really...definitive.
What makes you feel the SMS is so much superior as the secondary over the fusion?

I have to agree with Smart Missles being the best choice followed by Plasma and then Fusion. Smart Missiles are just awesome in everyway and compliment the Riptide very well especially in terms of range, Plasma I have second as it is another high S low AP shot and again it has the range advantage, seeing a pattern here? Fusion is not bad by any means but having to get within 9 inches to benefit form the Melta rule is why I have it third, unless you are planning on running it super aggresive in your opponents face you want weapons that can reach out and tough people.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
What secondary weapon is best on a Riptide? I was thinking Fusion, but the others could be useful as well. I ask because I may soon acquire a Riptide from a friend.

SMS: s5 ap5 rof4 30", Riptide wing it can be very effective as you have the range you need to target up to 6 targets (3 riptides) without moving that turn. s5 is effective at taking out troops and light vehicles (and ignores cover is great). I feel this is the most multi-role way to build a riptide.

Plasma: s6 ap2 rof1-2 12-24", Possibly equipped in the riptide wing, you still have some decent range but the fact you can't move your riptide period that turn makes me hesitate throwing them into harms way just to get the most plasma shots out. Great at light vehicle and TEQ targets though.

Fusion: s8 ap1 rof1 9-18", Do not equip in a riptide wing, you simply don't have the range or the rof to use it effectively. Personally if I equip a fusion, my riptide is hunting MCs and mid-heavy vehicles. That is not to say you can't shoot at other things... it is just simple math.. you have an rof of 1... shooting at a marine squad does not make it worth it. A very effective combo is IA and fusion... i say this over the heavy burst because you need to overcharge the burst cannon.. and with the IA you can get a s8 plate and 2 fusion shots (double tap nova).

Check out my sig as well.. i have a link to a guide that I talk about the riptide amongst other tau units =) Feel free to comment!

I'd rank the SMS lowest, specifically because it has the least synergy with the role of a Riptide, and if there's one thing Tau don't lack it's S5 AP5 spam. It's one advantage of note is the ability to hang well, well back... But frankly? A Riptide should be dancing at the edge of medium range, close enough to draw fire and rebuff it with it's durability. Ideally in the upper levels of ruins to make charging harder and benefit from cover admittedly, but still: Where it can perform it's defensive/distraction/support role.

Fusion, yes, has the issue of 18 rather than 24 inch range. Hits harder though. Ignore the melta rule for the most part: You have other units to do that kind of dedicated anti-vehicle work, the selling point is that it's S8.

Plasma is best. Supplements the high strength AP2 of the suit, supplies some reliable AP2 if you went for a burst cannon, and has the nastiest overwatch potential either way.

sms is still superior in ruins.
Are you willing to acknowledge that your opponent wants your riptide to be tied up in CC? If so, ruins are one of the best ways to end up that way, as you may not have LOS to your attackers. If you ripple fire sms, you have the possibility of 8 TL shots that ignore cover AND don't require LOS to use.

The only real reason to take either of the others is whether or not you have other sources in your list. . . and if you have the IA, the TL Plasma Rifle is more than a little redundant.

changemod wrote:
I'd rank the SMS lowest, specifically because it has the least synergy with the role of a Riptide, and if there's one thing Tau don't lack it's S5 AP5 spam. It's one advantage of note is the ability to hang well, well back... But frankly? A Riptide should be dancing at the edge of medium range, close enough to draw fire and rebuff it with it's durability. Ideally in the upper levels of ruins to make charging harder and benefit from cover admittedly, but still: Where it can perform it's defensive/distraction/support role.

What, seriously?

Its "one advantage of note" is the fact that IT DOES NOT REQUIRE LINE OF SIGHT TO FIRE. SMS with EWO is friggin' obnoxious as all get out to deal with, and is one of my biggest beefs with Tau.

 Kanluwen wrote:

changemod wrote:
I'd rank the SMS lowest, specifically because it has the least synergy with the role of a Riptide, and if there's one thing Tau don't lack it's S5 AP5 spam. It's one advantage of note is the ability to hang well, well back... But frankly? A Riptide should be dancing at the edge of medium range, close enough to draw fire and rebuff it with it's durability. Ideally in the upper levels of ruins to make charging harder and benefit from cover admittedly, but still: Where it can perform it's defensive/distraction/support role.

What, seriously?

Its "one advantage of note" is the fact that IT DOES NOT REQUIRE LINE OF SIGHT TO FIRE. SMS with EWO is friggin' obnoxious as all get out to deal with, and is one of my biggest beefs with Tau.

And you are just jumping at an irrelevant factor that is far more powerful on paper than in practice.
While it needs no LoS, the main gun does. Do if you shoot the SMS beyond LoS, you can't shoot main gun.
And having the entire riptide waste itself for mere 4 shots at S5Ap5, it's not a threat to anything.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

changemod wrote:
I'd rank the SMS lowest, specifically because it has the least synergy with the role of a Riptide, and if there's one thing Tau don't lack it's S5 AP5 spam. It's one advantage of note is the ability to hang well, well back... But frankly? A Riptide should be dancing at the edge of medium range, close enough to draw fire and rebuff it with it's durability. Ideally in the upper levels of ruins to make charging harder and benefit from cover admittedly, but still: Where it can perform it's defensive/distraction/support role.

What, seriously?

Its "one advantage of note" is the fact that IT DOES NOT REQUIRE LINE OF SIGHT TO FIRE. SMS with EWO is friggin' obnoxious as all get out to deal with, and is one of my biggest beefs with Tau.

And you are just jumping at an irrelevant factor that is far more powerful on paper than in practice.

Speaking of "jumping at an irrelevant factor that is far more powerful on paper than in practice"...

While it needs no LoS, the main gun does. Do if you shoot the SMS beyond LoS, you can't shoot main gun.
And having the entire riptide waste itself for mere 4 shots at S5Ap5, it's not a threat to anything.

Interceptor shots aren't fired during your turn. EWO gives you Interceptor on all the weapons on a Riptide or whatever Battlesuit you've put them on. SMS with EWO gives you free shots with no LOS, with the caveat that the weapon which fired is not able to fire during your Shooting phase.

So you fire SMS with EWO during the enemy's Movement phase, maybe take some return fire on the Riptides, and then during your turn you will be able to get the main guns on the Riptide into position since you get to move and then fire your primaries.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

changemod wrote:
I'd rank the SMS lowest, specifically because it has the least synergy with the role of a Riptide, and if there's one thing Tau don't lack it's S5 AP5 spam. It's one advantage of note is the ability to hang well, well back... But frankly? A Riptide should be dancing at the edge of medium range, close enough to draw fire and rebuff it with it's durability. Ideally in the upper levels of ruins to make charging harder and benefit from cover admittedly, but still: Where it can perform it's defensive/distraction/support role.

What, seriously?

Its "one advantage of note" is the fact that IT DOES NOT REQUIRE LINE OF SIGHT TO FIRE. SMS with EWO is friggin' obnoxious as all get out to deal with, and is one of my biggest beefs with Tau.

And you are just jumping at an irrelevant factor that is far more powerful on paper than in practice.
While it needs no LoS, the main gun does. Do if you shoot the SMS beyond LoS, you can't shoot main gun.
And having the entire riptide waste itself for mere 4 shots at S5Ap5, it's not a threat to anything.

that is why EWO can be considered game breaking. It allows any number of additional actions on a 2 gun rig like a riptide. Fire the SMS at an incoming unit from reserves when they come in, which allows the other weapon to be fired in your shooting phase. Fire both weapons at different units that come in, then use your shooting phase to run the riptide so as to redeploy it.

ninja'd

 Kanluwen wrote:
SMS with EWO is friggin' obnoxious as all get out to deal with, and is one of my biggest beefs with Tau.

It's four S5 shots. That's killing basically nothing.

changemod wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
SMS with EWO is friggin' obnoxious as all get out to deal with, and is one of my biggest beefs with Tau.

It's four S5 shots. That's killing basically nothing.

unless you ripple fire. then it's 8, and that in NOT nothing. and ignoring cover & LOS?