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.

 Jancoran wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
I would think the Blastcannon on the Stormsurge would be a risky move. Getting close enough to get the big D puts you in serious risk if you don't roll a 6 against that Knight that you are now in easy charge range of...

I like the Driver cannon myself, especially since my preferred way of running the Stormsurge is to sit in the backfield and dig his heels in.

Define "serious risk". I am confident that the reason the stormsurge is within 10" of an enemy is because quite soon the closest enemy will be 20 inches away.

Unless you roll a 6 on the d-table, you are likely trying to Pound through 12 HP which you cause at a rate of 0-3 x "X" a turn. In combat, the opposing knight will shred you (imagine pulled pork but more Tau'y) having in the previous phase shot something else, having then also just gained 2d6 additional movement you have so kindly afforded this melee monstrosity, in the subsequent phase, followed by a final D6 consolidation. Bravo

The missiles afford you a few answers, if you can get the right set-up. The driver is the tactical choice whilst the d-shotgun is the 'shiny' choice.

So put a generator on it, put it n harms way and sack up with the rest of the army to clear his way. A stormsurge isnt Bruce Lee or anything, but he aint helpless neither. I think the concern may be founded on some occassions, but not as many as youre fearing.

 Jancoran wrote:
So put a generator on it, put it n harms way and sack up with the rest of the army to clear his way. A stormsurge isnt Bruce Lee or anything, but he aint helpless neither. I think the concern may be founded on some occassions, but not as many as youre fearing.

Just the general odds. The Surge needs a 6 with two shots, otherwise its trying to pound through effective 12HP. The knight has two CC turns of combat to finish off the surge (his and yours), which gives it a pretty likely chance to chew through your own effective 12 wounds. In CC, the surge is only getting the benefit of stomps whilst the knight gets both a reaper chainsword (assuming this is the case) and its own stomps.

Just saying, rule of averages. I feel some occasions will be most of them.

I don't believe GMC, super heavy vehicles can be stomped

You act as if its in a vacuum. it isn't. Lots of units to support its efforts nad situation is King so sure, there will be times to do otherwise. I dont think the "averages" favor the more expensive gun in any way I can see. Neither one is bad so it's a strategic consideration more than one of mathematical probability.

Its my position that you cannot stop the StormSurge from dying. it simply will. It's 3+ armor, its T6 and theres just a lot that can chew through that given the willpower t odo so on the opponents part. the thing to do is maximize damage while it is possible to do so, so that the enemy response is weakened and the odds of keeping it alive and active longer increases. the best offense in this case is a good offense.

Mileage will vary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grizzyzz wrote:
I don't believe GMC, super heavy vehicles can be stomped

um... why do you believe that?

Because under the stomp rules it says so


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Check stomp under super heavies. 96 of mini rulebook

Yeah supers cant be stomped or thunderblitzed but i am pretty sure nonsuper MCs/Walkers still can be.

Tbh im kinda surprised walkers/MCs dont have a mini-stomp of their own. D3 hits instead of blasts, 1-2 does nothing, 3-5 does S4 AP- autohits and 6 does S6 AP3 autohits.
Even though i think that might make some MCs even more broken than they are lol

I think the best way to get the stormsurge to survive is to have a second one. Squadding them up is a huge deal since you can keep both of them alive significantly longer by moving the injured one to the back of the squad.

 Jancoran wrote:
You act as if its in a vacuum. it isn't. Lots of units to support its efforts nad situation is King so sure, there will be times to do otherwise. I dont think the "averages" favor the more expensive gun in any way I can see. Neither one is bad so it's a strategic consideration more than one of mathematical probability./quote] The premise was about getting within range to use the d-shotgun and when in range with the d-shotgun (assuming you shooting at a Knight, not a rhino), the Knight is going to end the surge - based off of averages.

The D-shotgun, being a d-weapon, lends to the idea that the surge should be going after the big baddies. Where as the driver allows you to engage anything across the board and from turn 1. The (bad) strategic consideration is the one where you are tempted to pitting a surge against things (or within range of things, the range is the crucial thing here) it maybe shouldn't.

 luke1705 wrote:
I think the best way to get the stormsurge to survive is to have a second one. Squadding them up is a huge deal since you can keep both of them alive significantly longer by moving the injured one to the back of the squad.

Can they innately split fire? If so, yeah I can see that. You double down and get a force multiplier. The stomps can also start adding up. I'm assuming shield gens - as otherwise things like str 8 ap 3 / grav can cause trouble.

Shield gen might as well be included in the price. Seriously, not taking a shield gen on a SS is suicide since the majority of weapons that wound it reliably also pen a 3+ save.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Shield gen might as well be included in the price. Seriously, not taking a shield gen on a SS is suicide since the majority of weapons that wound it reliably also pen a 3+ save.

Eh. Comes down to meta and if you play ITC or RAW.

ITC. Yes because they don't allow toe in cover, like RAW allows.

And yes a squad can innately spitfire because they can shoot whatever they want.

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Shield gen might as well be included in the price. Seriously, not taking a shield gen on a SS is suicide since the majority of weapons that wound it reliably also pen a 3+ save.

Eh. Comes down to meta and if you play ITC or RAW.

ITC. Yes because they don't allow toe in cover, like RAW allows.

And yes a squad can innately spitfire because they can shoot whatever they want.

Really it doesn't make a difference. You still need the shield. You lose so much of your mobility when you're in cover. Plus when something ignores cover, you're not in a happy place. The shield is always worth the points

 luke1705 wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Shield gen might as well be included in the price. Seriously, not taking a shield gen on a SS is suicide since the majority of weapons that wound it reliably also pen a 3+ save.

Eh. Comes down to meta and if you play ITC or RAW.

ITC. Yes because they don't allow toe in cover, like RAW allows.

And yes a squad can innately spitfire because they can shoot whatever they want.

Really it doesn't make a difference. You still need the shield. You lose so much of your mobility when you're in cover. Plus when something ignores cover, you're not in a happy place. The shield is always worth the points

Exalted for truth. Shield is absolutely essential, as T6 won't cut it against strong shooting. Even plasma guns only need 3's to wound and ignore your armor, and your FnP will not cut it alone. Compared to the original cost of the model, an extra 50 points is well spent on keeping its ass alive.

 Grizzyzz wrote:
And yes a squad can innately spitfire because they can shoot whatever they want.

If you are playing using ITC. If not, then yes, you need a Target Lock on one of them.

As for non-gmc stomps? smash. I was a bit amused to be able to smash(ID) a Demon Prince with a stormsurge before I stomped it to death.

 carldooley wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:
And yes a squad can innately spitfire because they can shoot whatever they want.

If you are playing using ITC. If not, then yes, you need a Target Lock on one of them.

As for non-gmc stomps? smash. I was a bit amused to be able to smash(ID) a Demon Prince with a stormsurge before I stomped it to death.

Can you explain to me where that is in the rules? To my knowledge, the ITC didn't FAQ anything in that regard. (Two stormsurges in a unit needing to target even a single unit in common)

 carldooley wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:
And yes a squad can innately spitfire because they can shoot whatever they want.

If you are playing using ITC. If not, then yes, you need a Target Lock on one of them.

As for non-gmc stomps? smash. I was a bit amused to be able to smash(ID) a Demon Prince with a stormsurge before I stomped it to death.

And why is that the case? If GMC can fire each weapon at a different target, why does having a second one require a TL?

Target Locks is definitely overruled by the ability to splitfire their own individual weapons.

You cant even attempt to RAW that one, because the stormsurge is the only squadron GMC. Meaning the only rule we have to go on is they may target their weapons at different targets.

where do you get that?
P. 70, 'Gargantuan Creatures are Monstrous Creatures (pg 67) that have the additional rules and exceptions given below.'

P. 67, 'Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting Phase - they must, of course fire both at the same target.'

P. 70, When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired.'

note the may. this indicates that RAW, the Gargantuan creatures have essentially 2 firing modes, focus fire (like MCs) or split fire. Unfortunately, it also says that you must fire each of its weapons. Did you fire off a D-missile? use an EWO? sorry, but RAW, you cannot split fire as you have weapons that cannot contribute to the fire. Sorry, but also by RAW you can only fire at a unit with a single weapon from each stormsurge if using the split fire option.

also, the 2 stormsurges would make a unit, not a squadron. There aren't actually rules for squadrons of MCs or GMCs in the rulebook.Please direct me where units can split fire when the unit lacks the ability?

the ITC sidesteps the problem with the second to last bullet point on P. 6 under, 'Super-Heavy Walkers (SHW), Gargantuan Creatures (GC) and Flying Gargantuan Creatures (FGC)'
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16nmBS2KZglu9JaGttpX_9lOYhYO2PQM47N8HvrsAA60/edit?pref=2&pli=1#

GCs/FGCs may fire as many weapons as they are armed with in the Shooting phase.

 carldooley wrote:
where do you get that?
P. 70, 'Gargantuan Creatures are Monstrous Creatures (pg 67) that have the additional rules and exceptions given below.'

P. 67, 'Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting Phase - they must, of course fire both at the same target.'

P. 70, When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired.'

note the may. this indicates that RAW, the Gargantuan creatures have essentially 2 firing modes, focus fire (like MCs) or split fire. Unfortunately, it also says that you must fire each of its weapons. Did you fire off a D-missile? use an EWO? sorry, but RAW, you cannot split fire as you have weapons that cannot contribute to the fire. Sorry, but also by RAW you can only fire at a unit with a single weapon from each stormsurge if using the split fire option.

also, the 2 stormsurges would make a unit, not a squadron. There aren't actually rules for squadrons of MCs or GMCs in the rulebook.Please direct me where units can split fire when the unit lacks the ability?

the ITC sidesteps the problem with the second to last bullet point on P. 6 under, 'Super-Heavy Walkers (SHW), Gargantuan Creatures (GC) and Flying Gargantuan Creatures (FGC)'
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16nmBS2KZglu9JaGttpX_9lOYhYO2PQM47N8HvrsAA60/edit?pref=2&pli=1#

GCs/FGCs may fire as many weapons as they are armed with in the Shooting phase.

Someone's late to the party. If that's the way you want to play it man, more power to you. However, the general concensus is that a GMC can fire all of its weapons per shooting phase and may declare different targets for each weapon if it so chooses.

I also don't see anything in the GMC shooting rule that you posted stating that a GMC "must fire each of its weapons" as you stated. If you see those words, could you post them? The quote you have lacks the word "must".

yip. I certainly am firing my weapons every which way, as is its right as granted by GAWD.

 Jancoran wrote:
yip. I certainly am firing my weapons every which way, as is its right as granted by GAWD.

Yeah the only debate on how a GMC can shoot per RAW was whether or not it is limited to two weapons..

I am not debating this. Just saying that's like the only thing that was ever debated haha.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 carldooley wrote:


the ITC sidesteps the problem with the second to last bullet point on P. 6 under, 'Super-Heavy Walkers (SHW), Gargantuan Creatures (GC) and Flying Gargantuan Creatures (FGC)'
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16nmBS2KZglu9JaGttpX_9lOYhYO2PQM47N8HvrsAA60/edit?pref=2&pli=1#

GCs/FGCs may fire as many weapons as they are armed with in the Shooting phase.

Thought I would add a bit more info.

The reason for the bullet point that you are quoting is for the debate I mentioned. This point allows them to fire 'all' of their weapons which was debated since MC s could only fire two, and GMC are MC etc.. read the debate threads If you need more info . .

Cheers!

Just as a general consensus btw, do you guys play as them needing to declare all targets at once? Not trying to start a rules debate - I've just seen it go both ways and wondered what the norm was

i havnt heard anyone argue the 2 weapons only thing for a looooong time. Every single GMC has more than 2 guns, most of which are small-arms, the WK is the only one that doesnt have like ~5 guns but he still has 3.

Might be a daemon i dont know about that doesnt have a mass of guns but he'd be the only one.

 luke1705 wrote:
Just as a general consensus btw, do you guys play as them needing to declare all targets at once? Not trying to start a rules debate - I've just seen it go both ways and wondered what the norm was

I generally declare all the targets up front. That seems to make the most sense to me, in context of the rules.

So basically since the codex dropped, I've been thinking about ways to get the most out of Breachers. While I'm not sure I've done that, I do have an interesting list for you guys to mull:

Tau CAD
Ethereal
4x5 Breachers - devilfish with Dpods and SMS
2 Y'vahras - EWO
1120

Ghostkeel Wing
3 Keels - EWO, VT, fusion, and CIR on all
495

Drone Net
4x4 Marker Drones
224

That's 1839 all told, so there's definitely some room for moving things around. Maybe drop a VT on the Keels for EMP grenades on all the Breachers or something? Anyway, the idea is to Screen with the Fish, which can readily Jink for a 2+ cover save and are really frustrating to shoot at since they suck. You can also use them to tank shock things into flamer position for your Y'vahras. Relative to many Tau lists, you should also be in decent position for objective grabbing due to all the obsec troops. The Y'vahras are for flying around and killing everything, particularly knights, and deathstars. Duh. They're the engine that makes this list go. The Ghostkeels provide some much-needed anti-air but are mostly around to make your fish unkillable. It doesn't hurt that they can boost your Y'vahras' nova-granted 4+ cover save, too. The ethereal is mostly there to fill the obligatory HQ slot but has the spiffy bonus of making your Breachers unload 3 S6, AP3 shots each when they disembark next to something juicy. The marker drones, as I see it, are best for making sure your Y'vahras don't overheat themselves to death, though they can obviously be used to boost anything else in your list, if necessary.

Like I said, the list needs tinkering and optimizing, but I thought it was an interesting start. Any thoughts?

I like the list. It's an interesting way to go. Dfish are, I think, underestimated. They are an ObSec troop transport that is AV12 on the front (only other one I know of like that is a Wave Serpent), plus they can jink for a 3+ save in the open. And they really don't lose that much if they are forced to jink, since all they carry stock is a burst cannon. Not sure its worth it to put SMS on them, as it isn't free like on Hammerheads and Skyrays. Just pop off their built-in drones and use them as a harassment unit.

Indeed. I'm not certain about the SMS, either, but it's so useful that it's tough to pass up, even for an extra 10 points. Even when snapfiring due to a jink, you'll probably hit at least once. I plan on driving the Fish all over the freaking place, so not needing LoS, much less having to face in a certain direction, is a big plus. It's also kind of nice to bait your opponent into actually shooting at them. That said, the SMS are mostly a "just because" kind of upgrade that might have the benefit of pushing some scout unit off an objective or something. If there's a better way to invest 40 pts, I'm all ears.

 luke1705 wrote:
Just as a general consensus btw, do you guys play as them needing to declare all targets at once? Not trying to start a rules debate - I've just seen it go both ways and wondered what the norm was

Weapons fire MUSt by rule be resolved one gun type at a time.

 luke1705 wrote:
Just as a general consensus btw, do you guys play as them needing to declare all targets at once? Not trying to start a rules debate - I've just seen it go both ways and wondered what the norm was

For GC's we do, select target, select weapon, rinse repeat until all weapons have fired.

 Jancoran wrote:

 luke1705 wrote:
Just as a general consensus btw, do you guys play as them needing to declare all targets at once? Not trying to start a rules debate - I've just seen it go both ways and wondered what the norm was

Weapons fire MUSt by rule be resolved one gun type at a time.

I think we went over this a few pages ago but you technically need to declare targets THEN resolve weapons one by one (theres a step process in the shooting phase)

Generally people, least around me, just say what guns theyre firing at a target rather than keep track of ~5-8 guns before firing a single one. Unless you go "ok...that didnt finish that unit off lets fire this then!" i dont think anyone would care if you dont declare at once.

 Vineheart01 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 luke1705 wrote:
Just as a general consensus btw, do you guys play as them needing to declare all targets at once? Not trying to start a rules debate - I've just seen it go both ways and wondered what the norm was

Weapons fire MUSt by rule be resolved one gun type at a time.

I think we went over this a few pages ago but you technically need to declare targets THEN resolve weapons one by one (theres a step process in the shooting phase)

Generally people, least around me, just say what guns theyre firing at a target rather than keep track of ~5-8 guns before firing a single one. Unless you go "ok...that didnt finish that unit off lets fire this then!" i dont think anyone would care if you dont declare at once.

So technically yes as stated you should target everything first, this goes for split fire and target lock which is why the combined fire rule is a nightmare.

This prevents you from say.. one model at a target.. oh I didn't kill it.. let me shoot the next.. OK got it.. third guy will shoot something else.

Between friends talk and out, as long as your honest about it.. or say "these two are shooting that" the rest something else.. let me resolve for book keeping.. I don't think anyone would give you a hard time.