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.

w1zard wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
First off, FW is linked off the GW site.

Link to the exact page please?

EDIT: Nevermind I found it. Point conceded. I still think Games Workshop needs to do a better job incorporating FW into their brand, and to have better collaboration between rules writers for their main product line and their FW line.

Oh, I agree. Updating FW points in CA was a big step, but its probably time to put the models in Codexes proper. Personally, I do not at all understand why TAC Razorbacks are in my Codex, but I need the FW book to have the rules for a Mortis Dreadnought.

 oni wrote:
Forge World as I understand it have blatantly said in their seminars that they did not play test their Index rules.

GW doesn't playtest their codex rules, so I'm not sure what your point here is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

meleti wrote:
My man Peregrine, you’re taking the wrong weapons! Here’s the proper load out:

2 HBC
2 BC
2 MP
2 Skyspear Missile Racks
6 Seeker Missiles

Per the errata, we’ll be using the codex versions of these weapons. That’s 24 HBC shots at BS2+, plus all the other weapons, plus a first turn alpha strike of 6 additional seeker missiles. This flyer has fangs.

Ok, then we put the HBC on a Hammerhead, except it's a twin HBC with 50% more shots (unofficially it should have double the shots as the intent of twin weapons). And we still take two Hammerheads. One of the few good things about 8th is that GW has separated even default weapon costs from their carrier, so most of unit analysis is looking at the carrier rather than its weapons. The Tiger Shark and Hammerhead pair both have similar weapon options and pay the same point cost for those weapons, so the primary question is how 200 points of Hammerhead compares to a 245 point Tigershark as a platform for those weapons you're buying. And yeah, you can conclude that the Tiger Shark has some arguments in its favor, but it's a case of "this might be viable" rather than "this is so obviously overpowered it's one of the best units in the game". At best it's a modest upgrade over the alternatives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
Personally, I do not at all understand why TAC Razorbacks are in my Codex, but I need the FW book to have the rules for a Mortis Dreadnought.

Again, brand separation. It has two purposes:

1) Maintain the image of FW products as a "premium" line. By keeping the rules separate it says "this is something special" and justifies why you're paying all that money for a FW kit. If the rules were in the codex people would be more likely to expect the prices to be the same as that plastic kit they can buy off the shelf at their local GW store. It's all very subjective, but brand identity is a thing.

2) Maintain the idea of GW's core brand being 100% "out of the box" plastic kits. It's the same as the theme park vs. sand box debate in video games, GW wants their own retail stores to be on the theme park end of the scale. Every plastic kit has rules for using it right out of the box, every entry in the codex has a matching plastic kit you can buy. It's all very friendly to handing small children a copy of the space marine codex and getting them to beg their parents for toys. You can also see this goal in things like removing models/options from the codex if they didn't have a plastic kit available. GW doesn't want customers in their store having to hear about conversions or buying extra stuff to finish a model, they want to hand you a single plastic kit for the unit. Putting FW rules in the codex would mean having to tell those kids (and their parents!) no, you can't buy a plastic kit for this and you really shouldn't be attempting expensive resin kits at your age. And, worse, you can't even buy it through the local GW store, you have to order it from the UK. It's much better for their sales strategy to put all those rules in a separate book where only "advanced" players will find them.

There’s not a codex twin HBC, so there’s no newer profile for the twin HBC Hammerhead to use. Thus, it’s still left with the much inferior index profile. Go play a few games with two Tiger Sharks proxied. They’re one of the deadliest units in 8E.

meleti wrote:
There’s not a codex twin HBC, so there’s no newer profile for the twin HBC Hammerhead to use. Thus, it’s still left with the much inferior index profile.

But you still have two of them, one twin HBC per Hammerhead. That's a total of 32 HBC shots vs. 24 for the Tiger Shark.

Go play a few games with two Tiger Sharks proxied. They’re one of the deadliest units in 8E.

I really don't see it. You're getting firepower roughly comparable to its point cost in Hammerheads, and that's just considering other Tau units. Let's compare that Tiger Shark to its point cost in LRBTs. A LR Punisher has 49 shots (main gun and hull/sponson HBs) for 166 points. That's 98 shots, a mix of STR 5 AP - and STR 5 AP -1. Sure, the shots are individually a bit weaker, but you're talking about over double the shot count compared to the Tiger Shark. For a supposed "deadliest unit in 8th" it's sure an underwhelming comparison.

 oni wrote:
I didn't like it previously, but since 8th dropped my apprehension turned into a hard 'no'.

Forge World as I understand it have blatantly said in their seminars that they did not play test their Index rules.

Kinda hard to playtest a rule set when you are given a month to wright the rules for your entire model line.

FW also in the same sentence at the seminar stated they couldn't play test all the rules for units as they were told about 8th edition at the same time as the rest of us.
Like they were writing new material for 7th edition while the main studio was testing 8th and no-one told forgeworld they were wasting time and money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

meleti wrote:
There’s not a codex twin HBC, so there’s no newer profile for the twin HBC Hammerhead to use. Thus, it’s still left with the much inferior index profile.

But you still have two of them, one twin HBC per Hammerhead. That's a total of 32 HBC shots vs. 24 for the Tiger Shark.

Go play a few games with two Tiger Sharks proxied. They’re one of the deadliest units in 8E.

I really don't see it. You're getting firepower roughly comparable to its point cost in Hammerheads, and that's just considering other Tau units. Let's compare that Tiger Shark to its point cost in LRBTs. A LR Punisher has 49 shots (main gun and hull/sponson HBs) for 166 points. That's 98 shots, a mix of STR 5 AP - and STR 5 AP -1. Sure, the shots are individually a bit weaker, but you're talking about over double the shot count compared to the Tiger Shark. For a supposed "deadliest unit in 8th" it's sure an underwhelming comparison.

A hammer head doesn have 2 twin heavy burst cannons it only has 1 for 16 shots IRCC.

Yeah because leman russes arn't totally undercosted OP nonsence.
Only kept in check by eldar stacking -1 to hit modifier nonsence.

Yea, a shark is not that great even compared to a hammer-and a hammer isn't impressive in the grand scheme to begin with.

Never thought the day would come that I side with peregrine, but he's right, and you (meleti) are delusional.


Ice can-his point is that you can get 2 hammerheads for each tigershark pointwise.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Yea, a shark is not that great even compared to a hammer-and a hammer isn't impressive in the grand scheme to begin with.

Never thought the day would come that I side with peregrine, but he's right, and you (meleti) are delusional.


Ice can-his point is that you can get 2 hammerheads for each tigershark pointwise.

Ah really wasn't getting that.
But also a bs2+ tigershark is 60 points less than 2 bs3+ Hamerheads with THBC's

 Peregrine wrote:

meleti wrote:
There’s not a codex twin HBC, so there’s no newer profile for the twin HBC Hammerhead to use. Thus, it’s still left with the much inferior index profile.

But you still have two of them, one twin HBC per Hammerhead. That's a total of 32 HBC shots vs. 24 for the Tiger Shark.

Go play a few games with two Tiger Sharks proxied. They’re one of the deadliest units in 8E.

I really don't see it. You're getting firepower roughly comparable to its point cost in Hammerheads, and that's just considering other Tau units. Let's compare that Tiger Shark to its point cost in LRBTs. A LR Punisher has 49 shots (main gun and hull/sponson HBs) for 166 points. That's 98 shots, a mix of STR 5 AP - and STR 5 AP -1. Sure, the shots are individually a bit weaker, but you're talking about over double the shot count compared to the Tiger Shark. For a supposed "deadliest unit in 8th" it's sure an underwhelming comparison.

You’re forgetting that the old profile is only one damage instead of two.

LRBTs are 4+ BS, not 2+. They don’t have an invulnerable save, minus to hit, or the alpha strike from 6 missiles. The Punisher is a one damage gun that wounds DE vehicles and Custodes on a 5 instead of a 4. IG lack a stratagem to add +1 to wound and thus wound T11 and lower on a 4. The shots are much worse, and at a worst ballistic skill. Tiger Sharks can drown anything from Plaguebearers to Vertus Praetors to Dominus Knights in a hail of fire. And that’s just the main guns. There’s still another 2d6 shots (averaging half a HBC) from the Stormspear missiles, two more Missile Pods, two regular burst cannons, and 6 Seeker missiles each doing d6 damage.

Play some test games. I’m not saying that Tiger Sharks break the game, but there’s nothing in the Tau codex (or most codexes) that has such a mix of firepower, high accuracy, speed, and toughness.

Yeah, I don't think FW is as bad as people think anymore. 8th toned them down as well, the wonderful updates keep them in line too. So heck yeah.

meleti wrote:
You’re forgetting that the old profile is only one damage instead of two.

LRBTs are 4+ BS, not 2+. They don’t have an invulnerable save, minus to hit, or the alpha strike from 6 missiles. The Punisher is a one damage gun that wounds DE vehicles and Custodes on a 5 instead of a 4. IG lack a stratagem to add +1 to wound and thus wound T11 and lower on a 4. The shots are much worse, and at a worst ballistic skill. Tiger Sharks can drown anything from Plaguebearers to Vertus Praetors to Dominus Knights in a hail of fire. And that’s just the main guns. There’s still another 2d6 shots (averaging half a HBC) from the Stormspear missiles, two more Missile Pods, two regular burst cannons, and 6 Seeker missiles each doing d6 damage.

Play some test games. I’m not saying that Tiger Sharks break the game, but there’s nothing in the Tau codex (or most codexes) that has such a mix of firepower, high accuracy, speed, and toughness.

To be honest I expect it to see a points increase in CA 2018 as it was costed for the old HBC and has got a firepower increase from the codex without a corresponding points change.

 Peregrine wrote:


Well yes, but so is everyone else at GW.

The "nobody is perfect" argument. Perfection isn't a binary state. There is a significant delta between GW and FW in terms of overall quality of rules. Compare the Xiphon to the Predator, for example.

 Peregrine wrote:

It's just weird to single out one particular author when everyone else at GW regularly publishes a mix of blatantly overpowered mistakes and units that are unplayable

It's really not, considering FW has generally been producing awful rules since the start of 8th.

Again, field it, i don't care. I don't expect anyone to take it easy on me.

Ice_can wrote:

meleti wrote:
You’re forgetting that the old profile is only one damage instead of two.

LRBTs are 4+ BS, not 2+. They don’t have an invulnerable save, minus to hit, or the alpha strike from 6 missiles. The Punisher is a one damage gun that wounds DE vehicles and Custodes on a 5 instead of a 4. IG lack a stratagem to add +1 to wound and thus wound T11 and lower on a 4. The shots are much worse, and at a worst ballistic skill. Tiger Sharks can drown anything from Plaguebearers to Vertus Praetors to Dominus Knights in a hail of fire. And that’s just the main guns. There’s still another 2d6 shots (averaging half a HBC) from the Stormspear missiles, two more Missile Pods, two regular burst cannons, and 6 Seeker missiles each doing d6 damage.

Play some test games. I’m not saying that Tiger Sharks break the game, but there’s nothing in the Tau codex (or most codexes) that has such a mix of firepower, high accuracy, speed, and toughness.

To be honest I expect it to see a points increase in CA 2018 as it was costed for the old HBC and has got a firepower increase from the codex without a corresponding points change.

Probably. It’s ridiculously cheap for what it is, like the Fire Raptor once was. If you’ve been watching Tau lists you’ll have noticed that several top players have begun running 1-2 Tiger Sharks at recent GTs. I fully expect to see Tiger Sharks at at least one of the Majors later this year.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Well yes, but so is everyone else at GW.

The "nobody is perfect" argument. Perfection isn't a binary state. There is a significant delta between GW and FW in terms of overall quality of rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

It's just weird to single out one particular author when everyone else at GW regularly publishes a mix of blatantly overpowered mistakes and units that are unplayable

It's really not, considering FW has generally been producing awful rules since the start of 8th.

I'll just come in and say brimstone horrors, Tau overwatch, terminators, tac /csm. Smite spam, de codex, eldar -bs shenanigans, guard mortars, needing to introduce the rule of three in order to get some controll over spam, stratagems nerfs /limits, kurovs aquilla, soup with relic benefits,
Do I need to go on or do you realise that Gw is the bigger culprit of inbalance?

Ice_can wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Yea, a shark is not that great even compared to a hammer-and a hammer isn't impressive in the grand scheme to begin with.

Never thought the day would come that I side with peregrine, but he's right, and you (meleti) are delusional.


Ice can-his point is that you can get 2 hammerheads for each tigershark pointwise.

Ah really wasn't getting that.
But also a bs2+ tigershark is 60 points less than 2 bs3+ Hamerheads with THBC's

A BS2+ hammer hits an average of 20 hits. when moving its 16 hits
The BS3+ hammers hit an average of 10.66 hits each, so 21 hits combined. when moving they hit 8 each.

The pair of hammerheads are getting things done slightly better than the shark when stationary (or 4 markers), and exactly the same number of hits when moving.
And the big issue-the tigershark HAS to move, the hammerhead does not.
And that's with the hammerhead profile not getting updated yet, as its technically another gun and does not inherit the index->codex changes.
Or the fact that hammers gain from a fifth marker, while shark doesn't

meleti wrote:
LRBTs are 4+ BS, not 2+.

The Tigershark is BS 3+, not 2+, for its HBCs. Only the missile pods and burst cannons get to fire at BS 2+.

They don’t have an invulnerable save, minus to hit, or the alpha strike from 6 missiles.

They don't have the same defense, but they do have 24 total wounds vs. 16 and a much smaller profile that lets them stay out of LOS of some threats (assuming you play with sensible terrain and terrain rules).

As for the alpha strike, so what? It's not like those missiles are free, you're paying full price for them and you could just put them on any other vehicle in your army. The LRBTs can take a pair of hunter-killer missiles if you want to, and you can spam more of the missiles on all of your other IG vehicles. And TBH seeker missiles aren't very impressive anyway. You save 1 point per missile over HKs, but you need markerlights to fire them. If you're investing a lot of points in one-shot missiles you're probably better off buying conventional weapons with those points.

The Punisher is a one damage gun that wounds DE vehicles and Custodes on a 5 instead of a 4.

Again, twice the shots. You have slightly better shots, but you have half the volume of fire. Against multi-wound targets you maybe break even, against single-wound targets (the thing you want to throw tons of low-strength shots at) you do a lot less damage.

IG lack a stratagem to add +1 to wound and thus wound T11 and lower on a 4.

And? If you're going to get into buffs then you need to consider all buffs. Tau get a stratagem that costs 3 CP, locks you into using a specific sept which gives zero benefit to the Tigershark, and requires you to get a wound through with another unit before you can activate it. IG can take the Cadian doctrine and re-roll 1s, take a tank commander and get BS 3+ as well as re-rolling 1s, have a Cadian stratagem that gives a similar +1 to hit if another unit wounds first except it only costs 2 CP instead of 3, a Vostroyan stratagem that adds a flat +1 to hit to a single unit for 1 CP, and I'm probably missing a buff or two. Oh, and on top of having the cheapest units to fill up detachments and get a huge CP pool to power those stratagems IG also have the best CP regen in the game. So no, I wouldn't consider a Tau stratagem to be very impressive here.

I’m not saying that Tiger Sharks break the game, but there’s nothing in the Tau codex (or most codexes) that has such a mix of firepower, high accuracy, speed, and toughness.

Maybe that is true, but only because the Tau codex is fairly weak. Compared to stronger armies the Tigershark is, at best, comparable to some of the standard tournament units/lists. It's hardly the kind of game-breaking thing that is justification for banning FW.

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
Personally, I do not at all understand why TAC Razorbacks are in my Codex, but I need the FW book to have the rules for a Mortis Dreadnought.

Again, brand separation. It has two purposes:

1) Maintain the image of FW products as a "premium" line. By keeping the rules separate it says "this is something special" and justifies why you're paying all that money for a FW kit. If the rules were in the codex people would be more likely to expect the prices to be the same as that plastic kit they can buy off the shelf at their local GW store. It's all very subjective, but brand identity is a thing.

2) Maintain the idea of GW's core brand being 100% "out of the box" plastic kits. It's the same as the theme park vs. sand box debate in video games, GW wants their own retail stores to be on the theme park end of the scale. Every plastic kit has rules for using it right out of the box, every entry in the codex has a matching plastic kit you can buy. It's all very friendly to handing small children a copy of the space marine codex and getting them to beg their parents for toys. You can also see this goal in things like removing models/options from the codex if they didn't have a plastic kit available. GW doesn't want customers in their store having to hear about conversions or buying extra stuff to finish a model, they want to hand you a single plastic kit for the unit. Putting FW rules in the codex would mean having to tell those kids (and their parents!) no, you can't buy a plastic kit for this and you really shouldn't be attempting expensive resin kits at your age. And, worse, you can't even buy it through the local GW store, you have to order it from the UK. It's much better for their sales strategy to put all those rules in a separate book where only "advanced" players will find them.

I'd agree with this 100%, but the point is the only place you can get a Twin Assault Cannon for the Razorback is from Forge World, but the option is in my Codex.

On the subject on whether or not FW is a separate company, its probably worth noting that for Blood Bowl, Forge World sells bungles that include their FW resin players AND the plastic team they play for. Probably not something you'd see if they were separate.

 LunarSol wrote:
I'd agree with this 100%, but the point is the only place you can get a Twin Assault Cannon for the Razorback is from Forge World, but the option is in my Codex.

This is a rarity though. TBH I'm kind of surprised that GW didn't remove the option from the codex, since it doesn't fit their policy of having a plastic kit for everything in the codex and removing any options that don't have one.

Yeah, S6 2D is more than twice as good as S5 1D against T6 multiwound models, which just happen to be some of the most important units in the game - Vertus Praetors, Ravagers, Raiders, Hemlocks, Eldar flyers, Necrons vehicles, etc. You’re confusing HBCs with generic Dakka.

 LunarSol wrote:
I'd agree with this 100%, but the point is the only place you can get a Twin Assault Cannon for the Razorback is from Forge World, but the option is in my Codex.

Lots of people have had Twin Assault cannons for years now that are GW plastic. I remember early on getting them fromLRC Kit but I thought there were an option in plastic in the Razorback kit now. Weird.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have no particular issue one way or the other with FW. I own some and so do people in my group. It's been common for years.
Why would I have an issue.

meleti wrote:
Yeah, S6 2D is more than twice as good as S5 1D against T6 multiwound models, which just happen to be some of the most important units in the game - Vertus Praetors, Ravagers, Raiders, Hemlocks, Eldar flyers, Necrons vehicles, etc. You’re confusing HBCs with generic Dakka.

But, again, half the volume of fire. S6 D2 may be twice as good, but the LRBTs have twice the shots. That's a break-even situation, in the best case scenario for the Tigershark. Facing hordes of guardsmen/orks/etc? LRBTs win decisively. Facing proper tanks? Neither is great, take real anti-tank weapons*. The Tigershark is only winning against a particular class of targets, and not by a very impressive margin. Maybe that's enough to put it in the category of units that have a role to fill and see some use, but it's hardly the kind of thing that gets it the "one of the most overpowered units in the game" title.

*A Tigershark's HBCs do 5.333 wounds to a T7/8 SV3+ tank. A pair of LR Punishers does 5.444 wounds, even assuming the HBs don't get their AP because I'm lazy. A Shadowsword, for only a small point increase over the Tigershark, removes the tank from the table.

I don't see how people can call the Tau Codex mediocre. Is full of good units. Broadsides, Riptides, Stormsurge, Fire Warriors, Breacher Teams, Shield Drones, Commanders of all tipes, Vespids, Stealth Suiths, Ghostkheells, Kroots, Kroot Hounds , etc...

Of course some are more powerfull than others and only 3-4 (Broadsides, Riptides and Stormsurges+Shield drones) make the cut into the ULTRA COMPETITIVE META where you are fighting for the 1-3 spot, but most of the codex is absolutely usable in a competitive scene, and in a casual-competitive one I believe nearly all of it is. So basically like codexs as Drukarhi, Craftworld Eldar, Astra Militarum, Adeptus Custodes or Tyranids, the top dogs.Codex with a ton of good and usable units, but the most competitive lists are mostly composed of 3-4 units.

Yeah, they could have been more inspired in Sept tactics, stratagems, etc... but whatever. Of the six armies I play (Dark Angels, Adeptus Custodes, Tau, Necrons, Imperial Knights+Astra Militarum), even if the one I have played most are Dark Angels, without a doubt Tau are in my top 2 of most fun, behind Imperial Knights+Imperial Guard.

 Galas wrote:
I don't see how people can call the Tau Codex mediocre. Is full of good units. Broadsides, Riptides, Stormsurge, Fire Warriors, Breacher Teams, Shield Drones, Commanders of all tipes, Vespids, Stealth Suiths, Ghostkheells, Kroots, Kroot Hounds , etc...

Of course some are more powerfull than others and only 3-4 (Broadsides, Riptides and Stormsurges+Shield drones) make the cut into the ULTRA COMPETITIVE META where you are fighting for the 1-3 spot, but most of the codex is absolutely usable in a competitive scene, and in a casual-competitive one I believe nearly all of it is. So basically like codexs as Drukarhi, Craftworld Eldar, Astra Militarum, Adeptus Custodes or Tyranids, the top dogs.Codex with a ton of good and usable units, but the most competitive lists are mostly composed of 3-4 units.

Yeah, they could have been more inspired in Sept tactics, stratagems, etc... but whatever. Of the six armies I play (Dark Angels, Adeptus Custodes, Tau, Necrons, Imperial Knights+Astra Militarum), even if the one I have played most are Dark Angels, without a doubt Tau are in my top 2 of most fun, behind Imperial Knights+Imperial Guard.

I'd say it is because of the mostly uninspired Sept rules (though you gotta admit that at least the Farsight one is creative at minimum) and that it didn't exactly fix some of the core issues with the Index, like how Crisis Suits are still junk.

I can understand people being upset because Crisis aren't as good as they should. Even having 9 I don't like them that much, and as the Codex made usable and good some of my favourite units (Vespids, Stealth Suits, Fire Warriors, etc...) I'm very happy with it.

My biggest grievance with the codex is the fact that it didn't fixed my favourite units, Broadsides and Hammerheads with Rail Rifles.

Hilariously, the supposed "best unit in 8th" Tigershark isn't even the best large FW flyer. The Marauder Destroyer is what the Tigershark wishes it could be. Better guns, equal durability, and the ability to delete half a unit each game with mortal wounds. All that for less than 100 points more.

 Peregrine wrote:

meleti wrote:
Yeah, S6 2D is more than twice as good as S5 1D against T6 multiwound models, which just happen to be some of the most important units in the game - Vertus Praetors, Ravagers, Raiders, Hemlocks, Eldar flyers, Necrons vehicles, etc. You’re confusing HBCs with generic Dakka.

But, again, half the volume of fire. S6 D2 may be twice as good, but the LRBTs have twice the shots. That's a break-even situation, in the best case scenario for the Tigershark. Facing hordes of guardsmen/orks/etc? LRBTs win decisively. Facing proper tanks? Neither is great, take real anti-tank weapons*. The Tigershark is only winning against a particular class of targets, and not by a very impressive margin. Maybe that's enough to put it in the category of units that have a role to fill and see some use, but it's hardly the kind of thing that gets it the "one of the most overpowered units in the game" title.

*A Tigershark's HBCs do 5.333 wounds to a T7/8 SV3+ tank. A pair of LR Punishers does 5.444 wounds, even assuming the HBs don't get their AP because I'm lazy. A Shadowsword, for only a small point increase over the Tigershark, removes the tank from the table.

Not at home right now so I can’t post the mathhammer. But are you reading what I’m posting? HBC are best at shooting multiwound targets below T7, and those happen to be abundant right now because there’s at least five armies (DE, CWE, Harlequins, Custodes, Necrons) which are fairly popular and have units like that in abundance. You still take FW to deal with 1 wound infantry and QFCs to deal with heavy armor. Tiger Sharks are the super efficient target that’s decent against both of those while being super effective against what’s dominant in the competitive meta right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Hilariously, the supposed "best unit in 8th" Tigershark isn't even the best large FW flyer. The Marauder Destroyer is what the Tigershark wishes it could be. Better guns, equal durability, and the ability to delete half a unit each game with mortal wounds. All that for less than 100 points more.

Said it was one of the best. There’s a lot of great units.

Not to derail the thread too much, I think pointing out some of the flaws in the tau codex are requried.

First up, the traits are widespread known to be mostly uninspiring and honestly meaningless at many cases, and the stratagems are often poor as well-and the sept specific ones are probably the worst "subfaction specific" stratagems in the entire game. (lets not mention the god-aweful sept spesific warlod traits, not that the regulars are much better)
Overall, unlike other armies you don't have a single sept that allows you to plan a unique stratagy around, except maybe T'au to crutch on longstrike to make hammerheads viable.

On to units, many are just...bad. anything with a rail-type weapon is pointless, the only transport is an expensive brick that actually costs far more than the things it moves around (and unlike the ghost arc, WS and the like-don't bring added value), our "commander" for some reason is the only leader-type HQ in the game who's aura is single use, and its single use army-wide even, not even per commander.

Then comes the biggest issue-the sheer insult of having "buffs" who are either useless, or non-stacking yet repeat over and over again. here are a few examples:

You want to advance and shoot your assault weapons without penalty? Vior'la sept does that. also one of the warlord traits does it, or level 4 markerlights, or calling mont'ka, or having a target lock. 5 way. some have added parts to them, but overall its 5 times you got the same non-stacking buff.

how about rerolling 1s to shooting?
Ethreal gives reroll 1s to infantry and suits.
Multi-tracker rerolls 1s, though for some reason its both expensive AND only works on 5 or more models in a unit, making it useless.
Level 1 markerlights also let you reroll 1s.
Kay'oun gives a one-time reroll to all.

How about markerlights?
1st marker, reroll 1s to hit is nice, but as shown above you got so many sources of that already.
2nd, you can fire missiles at full BS....thank you? heck missiles are non-viable because they can't be even used without markers, so nobody takes them, making this level do nothing.
3rd remove cover bonuses. so its useful, unless shooting at a target that isn't in cover, or your gun AP is overkilling their armor armyway, or they got invuls-especially demons. situational buff but at least its SOMETHING (and you actually dont acquire it elsewhere!)
4th gives you advace+shoot at full BS or move+shoot at full BS. nice, except you also have repear sources for this, and your units that need this buff took this darn ability elsewhere because they can't rely on having 4 markerlights.
5th gives +1BS, and FINALLY you get something worthwhile.


And when you go through all that poor writing, you have to cope with being the only army in the game that has a hard-limit on his supposed "commander HQ", and is forced into taking mini-buffers to build a battalion.
Sucks twice as much if you wanted to play viorla-who find fireblades rather pointless, or FSE who can't even take ethereal and find fireblades (who are now the only option left) equally pointless.




And to return to why the tigershark seems so good-he gets around all this crap because he is built around the assumption that sept tenets have no effect on him (they really dont), he don't have support systems, he don't really play into the whole "buffs" system the tau has going, etc.
Tigershark works well because he can ignore the rest of the tau codex except his guns.

meleti wrote:
HBC are best at shooting multiwound targets below T7

Only by a small margin. Remember, the LRBTs have more than double the shots. The Tigershark is throwing 36+2D6 shots (average 43) if you give up the drones, the LRBTs have 98. You have to out-perform them by a huge margin per-shot to even come close to beating the overall firepower.

Said it was one of the best. There’s a lot of great units.

If there are lots of great units then "one of the best" becomes a meaningless term. You've redefined it to mean "possibly tournament viable" instead of "one of the few overpowered units that most exceed the level of what is appropriate", at which point who cares if it reaches that threshold?

I’m not saying that it’s “possibly tournament viable.” I’m saying it’s the best non-Commander unit available to Tau. There was a 2 Tiger Shark list that took 4th at Dallas Open GT. There was a 1 Tiger Shark list that finished near the top (I think top 4) of Flying Monkey Open. This is an emerging unit that not a lot of Tau players have the model for yet, but the fact that the #1 Tau ITC player has been running two of them should tip you off to how effective it is.

I say “one of the best” as there’s way too many caveats to identify the absolute best unit. It’s going to vary by your individual meta, and a powerful unit in a top tier faction will always look better than a more powerful unit in a mid tier faction.

Anyways, let’s look at some math assuming 1 markerlight or two for seekers:

Against Vertus Praetors:
Tiger Shark (no missiles or burst cannons): 10.32 unsaved wounds
Seeker missiles: 4.09 wounds

2 LRBT (3 HBs), re-roll 1s: 3.76 wounds

So, without even firing the 8 burst cannon shots, the Tiger Shark is doing more than than 2.5x the unsaved wounds, and there’s still seeker missiles that can be fired as well.

Shooting at other T6 targets is going to demonstrate the same thing. Having a torrent of low quality shots doesn’t come close to higher strength multiwound shooting. And, as you’d expect, going from 1-2 ML to 5 giving the Tiger Shark a 1+ BS that ignores movement penalties makes it that much deadlier against any unit, but especially ones with hit penalties.

This is all on a faster unit with an invulnerable save, Fly, and -1 to hit, too.

meleti wrote:
2 LRBT (3 HBs), re-roll 1s: 3.76 wounds

Uh, no. It's more than that. The punisher cannons alone are doing 5.18 wounds, and then the heavy bolters add another 1.75 wounds for a total of 6.93. So, your Tigershark is doing less than twice the damage against tanks when compared to an anti-horde LRBT. And it should be noted that a third of your firepower is coming from the highly variable 2D6 missile shots.

Just for fun, let's do the average damage for a Shadowsword, since we're discussing LoW-class models against tanks. The Cadian (because why not re-roll 1s when you never need to move your 120" range gun) Shadowsword does 20.45 wounds to the Predator with its primary weapon, annihilating it with a substantial margin for bad dice, then puts another 7.4 wounds into a second Predator with its secondary weapons. Tigershark doesn't look so hot anymore, does it?

and there’s still seeker missiles that can be fired as well.

Seekers suck, and you aren't taking them, especially in a Tigershark list where the biggest advantage is independence from markerlights. But, as I said, you have to pay for them, and you can put them anywhere in your list. The IG list can match those seekers with HK missiles of its own, and the HK missile alpha strike doesn't rely on markerlight hits. Seeker/HK capacity is of very little value.

Having a torrent of low quality shots doesn’t come close to higher strength multiwound shooting.

Actually it does, when you have more than double the shot count.

And, as you’d expect, going from 1-2 ML to 5 giving the Tiger Shark a 1+ BS that ignores movement penalties makes it that much deadlier against any unit, but especially ones with hit penalties.

Ok, sure, but now you're including a bunch of points in buff units when a major benefit of the Tigershark is that you already have reliable shooting without markerlights (unlike pretty much everything else in the codex). And the LRBTs can get buffs of their own. Want +1 BS? Upgrade them to tank commanders for the cost of a Pathfinder squad that averages 5 ML hits, and the IG +1 BS buff is just always applied instead of depending on keeping your ML sources alive and able to shoot. Oh, and because your tank commanders can order themselves to re-roll 1s you are free to make them Vostroyan instead of Cadian, which means you get to use that 1 CP stratagem which gives another +1 BS to a unit. Now instead of BS 3+ with a re-roll to hit you have BS 2+ with a re-roll, essentially guaranteeing that all 49 of your shots will hit. And god help your opponent if they're playing Chaos, since another 1 CP gives you full re-rolls to hit and wound for a unit.

This is all on a faster unit with an invulnerable save, Fly, and -1 to hit, too.

Which is offset by the LRBTs having 50% more wounds. And remember, that save doesn't matter against anything with worse than AP -3, against another Tigershark (since you praise them so much) the invulnerable save is blank text.

Using this calculator: http://mathhammer.thefieldsofblood.com

80 punisher shots, rerolling 1s at BS4+, is 2.59 wounds.
18 heavy bolter shots is 1.17 wounds.

That’s how I get to 3.76 wounds.

And no, Tiger Sharks aren’t a head to head with Shadowswords against tanks. That’s not what TS are for. They’re decent enough at it, but you aren’t taking a TS to deal with Predators. You take QFCs or quad CIB Commanders for that, and let the Tiger Shark do what it does (launch seekers into vehicles while aiming the volume fire at infantry, probably).

edit: Wait. You seem to think Custodes bikes have a 3+ instead of a 2+? That explains your numbers. I’m not sure I should talk to you about competitive balance if you don’t know what a Vertus Praetor does at this point...