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.

ccs wrote:
I certainly don't have any suits equipped how GWs just shown them.
But so long as the Legends entry allows for how my suits are equipped I'm fine.

Im curious to know, is there someone who has?

Garrac wrote:

ccs wrote:
I certainly don't have any suits equipped how GWs just shown them.
But so long as the Legends entry allows for how my suits are equipped I'm fine.

Im curious to know, is there someone who has?

I found it funny that some people pointed at the artwork and stock models showing mixed loadout units as a double standard, but I doubt people fielded those either.

main problem with this, for me at least and how I have been running the suits, yes you now have three options. wow, I used to be able to do that within the same unit, indeed my normal loadout was one in three being all flamer, the rest all CIB, then a commander, usually all CIB. some with shields, some with the BSS for fall back and fire

made for a very versatile unit not really locked into a given role, which for me at least seemed to be the point.

they had the ability to drop near a primary target, but to also engage a secondary with the flamers, e.g. a rear area chaff unit while trying to splat a primary target

this seems to now require two units to do.

I guess this is somehow "better"

in theory the "sub optimal" units will be cheaper, this however is GW who have a long demonstrated way of not identifying which units are "sub optimal" and seem to base points on how they think the game should be played.

frankly I think they have just gone with the legal stuff "no models, no rules" and will have created a triplet of loadouts that can be made from the box and the box alone and thats what you are getting. then written some fluff to try and present a seriously versatile unit becoming vastly less so as "positive"

leopard wrote:
main problem with this, for me at least and how I have been running the suits, yes you now have three options. wow, I used to be able to do that within the same unit, indeed my normal loadout was one in three being all flamer, the rest all CIB, then a commander, usually all CIB. some with shields, some with the BSS for fall back and fire

made for a very versatile unit not really locked into a given role, which for me at least seemed to be the point.

they had the ability to drop near a primary target, but to also engage a secondary with the flamers, e.g. a rear area chaff unit while trying to splat a primary target

this seems to now require two units to do.

I guess this is somehow "better"

in theory the "sub optimal" units will be cheaper, this however is GW who have a long demonstrated way of not identifying which units are "sub optimal" and seem to base points on how they think the game should be played.

frankly I think they have just gone with the legal stuff "no models, no rules" and will have created a triplet of loadouts that can be made from the box and the box alone and thats what you are getting. then written some fluff to try and present a seriously versatile unit becoming vastly less so as "positive"

I mean I have a hard time having sympathy because your unit simply isn't flexible, or it is via the abuse of the CIB. In real terms for anyone not wanting to be at a disadvantage you take a big blob all with CIB and a commander, you just chucked in some flamers for extra horde clearance/overwatch. You still only used 2 weapons in the entire unit of 7 models, which displays notably less flexibility than if youd have 3 different weapons on each model or had shared the flamers amongst the CIB.

You have a near meta unit, which is a chunk of the reason why these changes are coming in.

thing is though "flexibility" with different loadouts on the same model usually means "performs far worse overall", I mean I could have stuck a pair of CIB and a flamer on each, get the same number of each weapon. however the configuration was to specifically keep the flamer as able to withdraw from combat and still fire - to avoid tarpit chaff, while the CIB handled the primary.

in theory other weapons were better in some cases, but overall the CIB was better, plasma a close second depending on local forces faced

not expecting sympathy either really, just pointing out that moving from flexible loadouts to fixed is not "better" when it was possible to do the new loadouts before

the fact essentially no one did is quite telling in terms of which is better

its not just the weapons on the models, its then the mix of abilities - as noted I had one able to jump back and fire, the CIB dudes had shields instead, wasn't too uncommon to find one or the other gets the wounds allocated first depending on situation.

as a very minor aesthetic thing it also made it easier to point the flamer dude in a different direction "covering our backs"

the solution was probably to add points to weapons so the triple CIB becomes expensive, but thats apparently far too complicated for GW so thats 10th all over.

and yes I used two weapons across in this case four models (unit of three + commander), I do have six of the base suits but often either ran two units or only had the four of them, the second commander never actually hitting the table.

I'm not sure why thats a problem though, it also made rolling the dice a lot faster, one pool for flamers, one for CIB, job done - then the hazard rolls per model

in the end it is what it is, it doesn't make me want to rush out and buy a load more crisis suits though (or print more), it makes me put the army back in its box and close the lid as a good chunk of its capability has been neutered

Lord Zarkov wrote:

warl0rdb0b wrote:
My biggest question right now is if they've dropped the number of weapons down to 2 per suit, as the models shown in the article only seem to have a max of 2 each. Unless they've gone for the option to give one suit 2 burst, 1 flamer, another 2 flamer, 1 burst, and the last 1 of each as that's what the kit gives.....

When Tau originally came out it was 2 weapons and 1 system hard point, somewhere along the line this just became 3 hard points for whatever.

Wouldn’t be surprised if the new unit layouts have gone back to 2 weapons and 1 system. They want the systems to actually be used.

You could always take 3 weapons but due to the rules of the game only allowing firing of 1 weapon unless you were a vehicle or monstrous creature it simply didn't make sense to do so.
Usually you would run a two different weapons with a multi-tracker to allow firing of both, or a twin-linked pair with another piece of wargear (shield generator, target lock, drone controller).

With the way GW has been pushing 10th, it certainly has become the era of WYSINWYG, with the Not thrown in there. I don’t care what weapons I have on my suits, I’ll just declare it as one of the three types and move on. Pretty much done with GW nonsense.

 bullyboy wrote:
With the way GW has been pushing 10th, it certainly has become the era of WYSINWYG, with the Not thrown in there. I don’t care what weapons I have on my suits, I’ll just declare it as one of the three types and move on. Pretty much done with GW nonsense.

Yeah, I think that's the correct way to play it. I have suits with three burst cannons each left over from early 9th. Those may or may not get lfamers, but they'll be fine.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
If it's impossible to balance Crisis Suits with variable equipment, how come the Commanders retained the ability to mix weapons..?

The advantage here is that they can give each suit type a special rule to help differentiate the strengths of the weapon options. The main draw to taking a commander is for the buff they provide over what weapon you take with them.

leopard wrote:
thing is though "flexibility" with different loadouts on the same model usually means "performs far worse overall", I mean I could have stuck a pair of CIB and a flamer on each, get the same number of each weapon. however the configuration was to specifically keep the flamer as able to withdraw from combat and still fire - to avoid tarpit chaff, while the CIB handled the primary.

in theory other weapons were better in some cases, but overall the CIB was better, plasma a close second depending on local forces faced

not expecting sympathy either really, just pointing out that moving from flexible loadouts to fixed is not "better" when it was possible to do the new loadouts before

the fact essentially no one did is quite telling in terms of which is better

its not just the weapons on the models, its then the mix of abilities - as noted I had one able to jump back and fire, the CIB dudes had shields instead, wasn't too uncommon to find one or the other gets the wounds allocated first depending on situation.

as a very minor aesthetic thing it also made it easier to point the flamer dude in a different direction "covering our backs"

the solution was probably to add points to weapons so the triple CIB becomes expensive, but thats apparently far too complicated for GW so thats 10th all over.

and yes I used two weapons across in this case four models (unit of three + commander), I do have six of the base suits but often either ran two units or only had the four of them, the second commander never actually hitting the table.

I'm not sure why thats a problem though, it also made rolling the dice a lot faster, one pool for flamers, one for CIB, job done - then the hazard rolls per model

in the end it is what it is, it doesn't make me want to rush out and buy a load more crisis suits though (or print more), it makes me put the army back in its box and close the lid as a good chunk of its capability has been neutered

CIBs are just too good. How much of an overprize they had to be to make it balanced? People are always willing to pay for the best options, that's how the meta works.

Maybe removing CIBs from Crisis will lead to less toxic builds? Maybe CIBs on Crisis where a mistake long waiting to be corrected?

 bullyboy wrote:
With the way GW has been pushing 10th, it certainly has become the era of WYSINWYG, with the Not thrown in there. I don’t care what weapons I have on my suits, I’ll just declare it as one of the three types and move on. Pretty much done with GW nonsense.

Death to WYSIWYG.

they could have also changed the profile on the CIB, perhaps down to two shots from three for example

"what you see is what you are getting so no point whining about it"

forget which discworld book that ones from

Not that it matters for me but maybe interest to you but on facebook warhammer 40k official page staff said you can double up on weapons. So 2xplasma or 2xmissile fine. So some customization is still there.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
It's not "Oh, Crisis Suits are ruined forever!"
It's "GW did something really dumb with points and army construction this edition, and they're doubling down on it instead of changing it for the better."

I think rather the reality is that costing battlesuit gear never worked. This gives abilities associated with loadouts that will be more interesting than "I take the best option and make sure I magnetize everything so I can switch out my weapons on the next pass".

If someone wants to take a crack at making a battlesuit datasheet that is fully balanced with costs for each weapon I'm sure some enterprising math hammer enthusiasts can validate it.

Given you're saying "fully balanced" there, I believe the response is "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good" - or, in this case, swap out "good" for "better".

 Daedalus81 wrote:
In either case - get used to it. Splitting sheets is how GW will eliminate units with mismatched gear and points.

Never go full tneva with your posts.

Unpopular position, but I don't think Crisis Suits should have ever got CIBs so losing them doesn't bother me that much.

The fixed loadouts feels a bit stupid but I'll just apply WYSI(not exactly)WYG. I have some crisis suits with 3 plasma guns, and some with missile pods. They can group up together as... "Fire Knife suits". I think it will be reasonably obvious to all concerned even if they don't precisely match GW's loadout.

worst case, stick one of three coloured flashes on the shoulder/heads, there you are, three units. regardless of weapons the actual models are pretty much the same

job done

just a shame to see the gradual waves of bland enveloping faction after faction

While I actually like 10th base rules stupid stuff like this is what is driving my whole gaming group to OPR.

the actual concepts behind 10th are decent, the card based scenario system is good (and should be in the main rulebook)

the execution is more variable to say the least

compare to Battletech, of a similar vintage where the core rules are, more or less, very similar to how it started with occasional refinements.

40k is in its 10th iteration, the game should be nailed on perfection by now, but its not, its profitable because of inertia and a very good line of models

its enjoyable, so long as you and your opponent don't take it too seriously and are willing to find ways past the WTF? moments and not try to break it

just a pity someone decided to make it so damned bland

leopard wrote:
40k is in its 10th iteration, the game should be nailed on perfection by now

You say this as though that was even their goal in the first place.

Garrac wrote:

ccs wrote:
I certainly don't have any suits equipped how GWs just shown them.
But so long as the Legends entry allows for how my suits are equipped I'm fine.

Im curious to know, is there someone who has?

No one knows what the guns you have on are called. People barely know the marine guns, you could glue an AK-47 onto a Ghostkeel and call it a <removed - show some maturity for once..> and the average player wouldn't be able to tell you ANY of that was not correct per the codex.

 Platuan4th wrote:

leopard wrote:
40k is in its 10th iteration, the game should be nailed on perfection by now

You say this as though that was even their goal in the first place.

not really, its quiet evidently not their goal, the only game GW have that seems to have gotten better and not be fiddled with to basically break it every edition is Middle Earth SBG. the rest its obviously the update treadmill

It's more exhausting corporate nonsense. They're never happy with something that customers enjoy. They need it to pull in MORE.

I understand the tau book exists online somewhere, seen the 4th detachment and new crisis suit profiles, they seem ok tbh?

I'm just mad that they have now ruined plasma rifles even more.

Pour one out for Tau Battlesuit lovers. Minimal flexibility in the new Crisis Suit datasheet and a shorter-ranged Plasma Rifle.

Interesting that they only have 4 detachments.

 alextroy wrote:
Pour one out for Tau Battlesuit lovers. Minimal flexibility in the new Crisis Suit datasheet and a shorter-ranged Plasma Rifle.

Interesting that they only have 4 detachments.

The 4 detachments seems weird and harsh to me tbh

Kauyon, Montka, Battlesuits, and Kroot assuming the leaker didn’t leave some of the detachments out on their pictures.

From what I saw not everything was shown (like Pathfinders for example). I haven't seen a hard confirmation of only 4 detachments.

 Kothra wrote:
From what I saw not everything was shown (like Pathfinders for example). I haven't seen a hard confirmation of only 4 detachments.

There are points costs listed in a table for 4 detachments. There are 4 detachments unless numbers 5+ do not have enhancements, and we know that isn't the case.

I haven't seen this table. That's a shame.

This codex was pretty much the last hope for 10th for me, and what I've seen just really isn't that interesting.

Edit: I've seen it now. Definitely only four detachments.

Wow, what a joke of a codex.