[40K] US Codex Tyranids release date

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

The "Codex Tyranids" is now available for advance order, and is set for
release on the 9th of June.

Does anyone happen to have any hard info on what Codex is next? If not,
what are the latest rumors?

Zane
31 answers Last reply
More about codex tyranids release date
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    <healyzh@aracnet.com> wrote in message
    news:d6dhef01p7e@enews2.newsguy.com...
    > The "Codex Tyranids" is now available for advance order, and is set for
    > release on the 9th of June.
    >
    > Does anyone happen to have any hard info on what Codex is next? If not,
    > what are the latest rumors?
    >
    Black Templars are confirmed as next, and there have been emanations of a
    rush job Tau after that, but more likely is either Orks or Eldar.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    Erik Setzer wrote:
    > On Tue, 17 May 2005 16:11:25 -0400, "Craig Little"
    > <craig.little@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > ><healyzh@aracnet.com> wrote in message
    > >news:d6dhef01p7e@enews2.newsguy.com...
    > >> The "Codex Tyranids" is now available for advance order, and is
    set for
    > >> release on the 9th of June.
    > >>
    > >> Does anyone happen to have any hard info on what Codex is next?
    If not,
    > >> what are the latest rumors?
    > >>
    > >Black Templars are confirmed as next, and there have been emanations
    of a
    > >rush job Tau after that, but more likely is either Orks or Eldar.
    >
    > Seriously, what is up with these Tau rumors?

    People were saying that about the Tyranids a few months ago. Orks and
    Eldar aside, with the new Tyranid book the Tau have the oldest Codex
    out there.

    > They just came out,

    All of, what, four years ago now?

    why
    > redo them already? They've said over and over they're not broken,

    Therein lies a clue - Orks aren't broken either and they need a
    revision... True, the Tau aren't nearly as badly-served by their book,
    but they were a tricky race to use in 3rd and might fall off the bottom
    of the power curve now. That said I don't want to see them made
    tactically undemanding; I'd just like to see more variety (plastic
    Piranhas and Tetras please) and a bit more access to heavy firepower
    that isn't stuck on Battlesuits.

    and
    > they certainly aren't more popular than Orks or Eldar, so what kind
    of
    > twisted logic would call for them to be redone? I think we need to
    > cut off the source of these baseless rumors - the Tau players who
    > constantly whine about BS3 not being enough when you have 30" range
    > Rapid Fire S5 weapons,

    They need those weapons to be competitive at all, with their poor BS
    and limited access to high-power weapons.

    > rail guns, rail rifles, and battlesuits coming
    > out of every orifice.

    The rail rifle's pretty restricted, rail guns are expensive
    (effectively, 50pts for a Heavy 1 weapon with no area effect, albeit an
    accurate one) and Battlesuits look ghastly unless you're prepared to
    patch them up at FW prices.

    All I've heard about the Tau is that they'll be getting some sort of
    new model support this year, and that's straight from GW (in WD). No
    mention at all of a new Codex to go with the new models.

    Philip Bowles
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    On Tue, 17 May 2005 16:11:25 -0400, "Craig Little"
    <craig.little@gmail.com> wrote:

    >
    ><healyzh@aracnet.com> wrote in message
    >news:d6dhef01p7e@enews2.newsguy.com...
    >> The "Codex Tyranids" is now available for advance order, and is set for
    >> release on the 9th of June.
    >>
    >> Does anyone happen to have any hard info on what Codex is next? If not,
    >> what are the latest rumors?
    >>
    >Black Templars are confirmed as next, and there have been emanations of a
    >rush job Tau after that, but more likely is either Orks or Eldar.

    Seriously, what is up with these Tau rumors? They just came out, why
    redo them already? They've said over and over they're not broken, and
    they certainly aren't more popular than Orks or Eldar, so what kind of
    twisted logic would call for them to be redone? I think we need to
    cut off the source of these baseless rumors - the Tau players who
    constantly whine about BS3 not being enough when you have 30" range
    Rapid Fire S5 weapons, rail guns, rail rifles, and battlesuits coming
    out of every orifice.
    -Erik
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    Erik Setzer wrote:
    > On Tue, 17 May 2005 16:11:25 -0400, "Craig Little"
    > <craig.little@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >><healyzh@aracnet.com> wrote in message
    >>news:d6dhef01p7e@enews2.newsguy.com...
    >>
    >>>The "Codex Tyranids" is now available for advance order, and is set for
    >>>release on the 9th of June.
    >>>
    >>>Does anyone happen to have any hard info on what Codex is next? If not,
    >>>what are the latest rumors?
    >>>
    >>
    >>Black Templars are confirmed as next, and there have been emanations of a
    >>rush job Tau after that, but more likely is either Orks or Eldar.
    >
    >
    > Seriously, what is up with these Tau rumors? They just came out, why
    > redo them already? They've said over and over they're not broken, and
    > they certainly aren't more popular than Orks or Eldar, so what kind of
    > twisted logic would call for them to be redone? I think we need to
    > cut off the source of these baseless rumors - the Tau players who
    > constantly whine about BS3 not being enough when you have 30" range
    > Rapid Fire S5 weapons, rail guns, rail rifles, and battlesuits coming
    > out of every orifice.
    > -Erik


    Probably the same logic that kept putting back the squats back in 2nd ed
    till they went away. With Andy C gone, the Orks lost their big champ.
    Funny though, Gav is still there - Mt Eldar. He's probably waiting till
    all the other armies are out, then m ake teh Eldar able to out cheese
    all of them put together
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    In article <d6dhef01p7e@enews2.newsguy.com>, healyzh@aracnet.com wrote:
    > The "Codex Tyranids" is now available for advance order, and is set for
    > release on the 9th of June.
    >
    > Does anyone happen to have any hard info on what Codex is next?

    No.

    > If not, what are the latest rumors?

    Black templars.

    --
    Joakim
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    >> Seriously, what is up with these Tau rumors? They just came out,
    why
    >> redo them already?
    >
    >
    >
    >They don't need much, just a couple of tweaks, it could be done
    extremely
    >quickly with little or no playtesting,

    It seems to take GW three or four months to release each Codex they
    produce extremely quickly with little or no playtesting...

    > and then they can release one of the
    >other SM chapters straight away afterwards and still claim they've
    done a
    >non-Imperial list.

    So that's why they don't want to do Orks or Eldar (Craftworld or Dark)
    - they'd actually need to put some work into those Codices.

    Philip Bowles
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    "Erik Setzer" <erks@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:cvsk81lpcdr04kcc19gvi19mo6gh5ob2u6@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 17 May 2005 16:11:25 -0400, "Craig Little"
    > <craig.little@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >><healyzh@aracnet.com> wrote in message
    >>news:d6dhef01p7e@enews2.newsguy.com...
    >>> The "Codex Tyranids" is now available for advance order, and is set for
    >>> release on the 9th of June.
    >>>
    >>> Does anyone happen to have any hard info on what Codex is next? If not,
    >>> what are the latest rumors?
    >>>
    >>Black Templars are confirmed as next, and there have been emanations of a
    >>rush job Tau after that, but more likely is either Orks or Eldar.
    >
    > Seriously, what is up with these Tau rumors? They just came out, why
    > redo them already?

    They don't need much, just a couple of tweaks, it could be done extremely
    quickly with little or no playtesting, and then they can release one of the
    other SM chapters straight away afterwards and still claim they've done a
    non-Imperial list.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    <pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:1116420554.239365.9540@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >>> Seriously, what is up with these Tau rumors? They just came out,
    > why
    >>> redo them already?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>They don't need much, just a couple of tweaks, it could be done
    > extremely
    >>quickly with little or no playtesting,
    >
    > It seems to take GW three or four months to release each Codex they
    > produce extremely quickly with little or no playtesting...
    >
    >> and then they can release one of the
    >>other SM chapters straight away afterwards and still claim they've
    > done a
    >>non-Imperial list.
    >
    > So that's why they don't want to do Orks or Eldar (Craftworld or Dark)
    > - they'd actually need to put some work into those Codices.
    >
    Basically, yes. Pus they want to increase the current release schedule of
    codices because the griping has managed to sneak through to GW...
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    pbowles@aol.com <pbowles@aol.com> wrote:
    > It seems to take GW three or four months to release each Codex they
    > produce extremely quickly with little or no playtesting...

    In all fairness, the process of getting a book published, even if it's just
    a minor revision can be fairly time consuming. Especially if the proofs
    come back from the printer a couple times and need to be revised.

    Plus if they actually put any new material in the Codex, rather than a total
    rehash of the existing material, that will obviously add to the time as well.

    Zane
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    healyzh@aracnet.com wrote:
    > pbowles@aol.com <pbowles@aol.com> wrote:
    >>It seems to take GW three or four months to release each Codex they
    >>produce extremely quickly with little or no playtesting...
    >
    > In all fairness, the process of getting a book published, even if it's just
    > a minor revision can be fairly time consuming. Especially if the proofs
    > come back from the printer a couple times and need to be revised.

    GW proofs their books? I had no idea!

    > Plus if they actually put any new material in the Codex, rather than a total
    > rehash of the existing material, that will obviously add to the time as well.

    -snicker, snicker-

    Uh-huh. Have you *seen* what GW puts in their Codices?

    --
    --- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
    \-|-/
    | A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
    | Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    In article <d6g8gd$do8$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Helicon_One wrote:
    >
    > "Erik Setzer" <erks@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:cvsk81lpcdr04kcc19gvi19mo6gh5ob2u6@4ax.com...
    >
    >> Seriously, what is up with these Tau rumors? They just came out, why
    >> redo them already? They've said over and over they're not broken, and
    >> they certainly aren't more popular than Orks or Eldar, so what kind of
    >> twisted logic would call for them to be redone? I think we need to
    >> cut off the source of these baseless rumors - the Tau players who
    >> constantly whine about BS3 not being enough when you have 30" range
    >> Rapid Fire S5 weapons, rail guns, rail rifles, and battlesuits coming
    >> out of every orifice.
    >
    > Raw power isn't the key issue with the Tau army, so much as variety. Unlike
    > the long established races which have had numerous revisions since the Rogue
    > Trader days, the Tau codex list is still very much in its 1st incarnation,
    > and the lack of options shows.
    >
    > Principally, all well balanced Tau armies seem to look more or less the
    > same - x amount of suits, y amount of Fire Warriors, n amount of vehicles,
    > scaled to fit available points values. Any attempt to theme an all-FW or
    > maxed out battlesuit force results in major glaring weaknesses in the all
    > round ability of the army, there's no opportunity to theme your army
    > fluffily and still remain fairly competitive like you can with Eldar,
    > Marines, Orks etc. . What the Tau need is all their current optional extras
    > (Auxiliaries, heavy drones, Tetra/Piranha, new suit types, alternate
    > Hammerhead weapons, etc) to be integrated into the main list, so that if you
    > want, say, a suit-free army, you're not relying entirely on S5 shooting, EMP
    > grenades (hah!), and your precious Hammerhead(s) to deal with enemy armour.

    I'd also like to see:

    * A 'mob up' rule for drones.

    * Something needs to be done with the rules for attached drones. Now
    they are more of a liability than anything else.

    * Requiring Path Finders to buy a devilfish *or* infiltration. This
    would make it slightly easier to break the dependance on suits.

    * Kroot Oxen being made more attractive by allowing Kroot Carnivore
    units to take a single Kroot Ox without using a heavy support slot.

    I'm sure I could think of more tweaks, but that's it for now.

    > However, I don't actually believe the Tau codex is due anything like soon.

    Me neither.

    --
    Joakim
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    On Wed, 18 May 2005 20:27:58 +0000 (UTC), "Helicon_One"
    <shiny*blue*thing@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

    >
    >"Erik Setzer" <erks@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >news:cvsk81lpcdr04kcc19gvi19mo6gh5ob2u6@4ax.com...
    >
    >> Seriously, what is up with these Tau rumors? They just came out, why
    >> redo them already? They've said over and over they're not broken, and
    >> they certainly aren't more popular than Orks or Eldar, so what kind of
    >> twisted logic would call for them to be redone? I think we need to
    >> cut off the source of these baseless rumors - the Tau players who
    >> constantly whine about BS3 not being enough when you have 30" range
    >> Rapid Fire S5 weapons, rail guns, rail rifles, and battlesuits coming
    >> out of every orifice.
    >
    >Raw power isn't the key issue with the Tau army, so much as variety. Unlike
    >the long established races which have had numerous revisions since the Rogue
    >Trader days, the Tau codex list is still very much in its 1st incarnation,
    >and the lack of options shows.
    >
    >Principally, all well balanced Tau armies seem to look more or less the
    >same - x amount of suits, y amount of Fire Warriors, n amount of vehicles,
    >scaled to fit available points values. Any attempt to theme an all-FW or
    >maxed out battlesuit force results in major glaring weaknesses in the all
    >round ability of the army, there's no opportunity to theme your army
    >fluffily and still remain fairly competitive like you can with Eldar,
    >Marines, Orks etc. . What the Tau need is all their current optional extras
    >(Auxiliaries, heavy drones, Tetra/Piranha, new suit types, alternate
    >Hammerhead weapons, etc) to be integrated into the main list, so that if you
    >want, say, a suit-free army, you're not relying entirely on S5 shooting, EMP
    >grenades (hah!), and your precious Hammerhead(s) to deal with enemy armour.
    >
    >However, I don't actually believe the Tau codex is due anything like soon.
    >
    >Tim

    All of these problems sound like issues that the Dark Eldar or - more
    importantly - the Orks suffer from. I don't see many Ork players
    using the Elites choices, or using a Klan, because it tends to weaken
    the army. But that could be because the entire Ork army has been bent
    over by the 40K4 rules, and GW couldn't care less and won't work on
    them for another two years. I sometimes worry that my Orks are going
    the route of the Squats.

    But then I realize that GW's mainly about money, not the gamer, these
    days. So the more likely scenario is that Orks have a large fan base
    who won't leave the hobby if they don't get a new codex - they'll
    soldier on and learn new methods to deal with massed bolter fire. On
    the other hand, Tau are quite boring - in how they play, their
    background, and their models. So they need work fast, so people will
    start buying them again! Necrons have enough players that they don't
    have to worry about this, despite all successful Necron armies looking
    very much the same (and keeping most players from buying the most
    expensive Necron models, except to use as display models).

    But hey, I've heard that GW almost outright confirmed Tau receiving an
    updated codex after the BTs at GD Baltimore, so it might be true. And
    then I'll be even more pissed off, as I watch Tau receive a revision,
    Space Marines, Tyranids, Eldar, Black Templars, etc., and the Orks sit
    by the side because GW just doesn't care about them. These are the
    times I miss Andy Chambers. He's the only designer who even bothered
    with Orks. Without him, they have no one who wants to bother.

    Then again, they might know the issues with the Orks and like them.
    The idea that people are now playing larger games on average because
    games get bloody up close, and Orks having to have even more models to
    have a half-effective force once the firepower is done ripping them
    up, combines to give GW a healthy influx of cash from Ork players,
    especially with the "realignment of prices".
    -Erik
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    On Wed, 18 May 2005 20:27:58 +0000 (UTC), "Helicon_One"
    <shiny*blue*thing@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

    >Principally, all well balanced Tau armies seem to look more or less the
    >same - x amount of suits, y amount of Fire Warriors, n amount of vehicles,
    >scaled to fit available points values. Any attempt to theme an all-FW or
    >maxed out battlesuit force results in major glaring weaknesses in the all
    >round ability of the army, there's no opportunity to theme your army
    >fluffily and still remain fairly competitive like you can with Eldar,
    >Marines, Orks etc. . What the Tau need is all their current optional extras
    >(Auxiliaries, heavy drones, Tetra/Piranha, new suit types, alternate
    >Hammerhead weapons, etc) to be integrated into the main list, so that if you
    >want, say, a suit-free army, you're not relying entirely on S5 shooting, EMP
    >grenades (hah!), and your precious Hammerhead(s) to deal with enemy armour.

    Yep, one think which could help a lot is to remove the "stupid"
    heavy/fast slot occupied by krootox/kroothounds, and perhaps add the
    rail rifle option to FW squads. With these restrictions out, I feel
    the Tau can be a lot more balanced.

    >
    >However, I don't actually believe the Tau codex is due anything like soon.

    sigh!
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    John Hwang <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote:
    > GW proofs their books? I had no idea!

    Theoretically they give them at least a quick once over to catch the most
    glaring errors.

    > > Plus if they actually put any new material in the Codex, rather than a
    > > total rehash of the existing material, that will obviously add to the
    > > time as well.

    > -snicker, snicker-

    > Uh-huh. Have you *seen* what GW puts in their Codices?

    Sure, but that doesn't mean I actually read anything besides the parts
    specific to the game. I avoid reading most of the fluff, it would detract
    from the time I have to work on my Mini's :^)

    I do realize that most of it is simply a rehash of existing material.

    Zane
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    jockelinde wrote:
    > In article <d6g8gd$do8$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
    Helicon_One wrote:
    > >
    > > "Erik Setzer" <erks@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > > news:cvsk81lpcdr04kcc19gvi19mo6gh5ob2u6@4ax.com...
    > >
    >> I'd also like to see:
    >
    >> * A 'mob up' rule for drones.

    Not only unnecessary but unfluffy - each drone squadron is supposed to
    act as a self-contained network.

    >> * Requiring Path Finders to buy a devilfish *or* infiltration. This
    >> would make it slightly easier to break the dependance on suits.

    The suits need to be made less omportant, certainly, but not this way -
    Pathfinders are supposed to be a mechanised infantry unit, they aren't
    trained infiltrators and having them as such wouldn't suit the Tau
    theme or style of play.

    > * Kroot Oxen being made more attractive by allowing Kroot Carnivore
    > units to take a single Kroot Ox without using a heavy support slot.

    Krootox being made more attractive by improving the gun...

    Philip Bowles
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    >All of these problems sound like issues that the Dark Eldar or - more
    >importantly - the Orks suffer from. I don't see many Ork players
    >using the Elites choices, or using a Klan, because it tends to weaken
    >the army. But that could be because the entire Ork army has been bent

    >over by the 40K4 rules,

    Because they were really a force to be reckoned with in v3, of
    course...

    > and GW couldn't care less and won't work on
    >them for another two years.

    The same article/editorial that promised new Tau models also promised
    modular Ork vehicles by the end of the year (but naturally no Codex).

    > On
    >the other hand, Tau are quite boring - in how they play,

    Because a mobile shooty army has so many fewer tactical options than a
    close combat horde army...

    their
    >background, and their models.

    I'd say that both are interesting - at least the background has the
    potential to be, and the models are original for GW.

    > So they need work fast, so people will
    >start buying them again! Necrons have enough players that they don't
    >have to worry about this, despite all successful Necron armies looking

    >ery much the same (and keeping most players from buying the most
    >expensive Necron models, except to use as display models).

    Are you serious? In the time since the Tau were released they've had
    massive FW support, a rules update for the Pathfinders with associated
    new models, a large BFG fleet, their own place in the EoT campaign (and
    associated strong showing) and are featuring centrally in a FW
    campaign. In a press release a year or so after their release GW execs
    credited the Tau for improved sales. Simply taking this group as a
    cross-section of the gaming community, contrast the general interest in
    Tau with that in Necrons (and how about the Tale of RGMW Gamers, with
    its 3 Tau armies and one Necron one?). Since they were released the
    Necrons have had the one post-Codex model they had slated for release
    (the Dragon C'tan) slip off the schedule completely (a Games Day
    presentation listed it for release within a couple of months of the
    rail rifle Pathfinders), they've had next to no FW support, little
    interest among Specialist Games (compare the activity on the Tau forum
    with that on the Necron one) and after frenziedly trying to insert them
    into every piece of fluff out there, GW has even quietly dropped them
    from that background for the time being. The Necrons are practically
    the definition of the term "flop", right up there with Warhammer Online
    (though they, like Tau and Orks, are promised a new model this year -
    my guess is that they'll finally get round to releasing the Dragon
    rather than actually make anything new for them).

    > These are the
    >times I miss Andy Chambers. He's the only designer who even bothered
    >with Orks. Without him, they have no one who wants to bother.

    He was the one who saddled them with a sub-par Codex in the first
    place, remember, and did precious little about it through Chapter
    Approved even when it was obvious to all and sundry that it couldn't
    compete.

    Philip Bowles
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    In article <d6lbpd$c4h$3@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Helicon_One wrote:
    > "Naranek" <nospam@invalid.es> wrote in message
    > news:tb6p81pknlnht5934p4420pp2iqhs3hls8@4ax.com...
    >
    >> Yep, one think which could help a lot is to remove the "stupid"
    >> heavy/fast slot occupied by krootox/kroothounds, and perhaps add the
    >> rail rifle option to FW squads. With these restrictions out, I feel
    >> the Tau can be a lot more balanced.
    >
    > Fixing the Kroot as above is definitely something that needs doing. Not sure
    > about handing out the railrifle to FWs though - I like the fact that a FW
    > unit has decently powerful guns for everyone, rather than a bunch of grunts
    > catching bullets to protect the one guy in the squad with the Mega Killy
    > Death Ray. Its something different to the other races, so lets not discard
    > it straight away.

    I agree; keep rail rifles out of FW units. Giving the FWs the option
    to attach a grav platform or drone with seekers might be more
    interesting.

    --
    Joakim
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    On Fri, 20 May 2005 18:54:35 +0000 (UTC), "Helicon_One"
    <shiny*blue*thing@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

    >Orks hardly seem short of variety either. Okay, you can say that there isn't
    >all that much difference between the various mob types, but like the DE
    >there's a few ways to run the army - footslogging horde

    Footslogging horde? Don't try it. Don't try charging across the
    table on foot, without something like Kommandos who'll be in HTH on
    turn 2. I've seen a lot of Ork players become disheartened watching
    Marines shoot them to pieces with Rapid Fire. Not a good sight.

    OTOH, I think an Ork SAFH is perfectly viable - especially with Bad
    Moons! And the Kult of Speed? Delicious!
    -Erik
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    Okay, my list of Tau revisions:

    Armoury

    -Battlesuit upgrade section for characters (do not take up hardpoints):
    - Extra armour (20pts, as artificer armour?)
    - Combined markerlight/target lock (10pts?)
    - Advanced targeting matrix (Tank Hunter)
    - Reinforced exoskeleton (immune to instant death)
    - ?

    -Weapons section (any character with a pulse weapon):
    -Markerlight +10pts
    -Fusion blaster +10pts
    -Plasma rifle +15pts

    -New hard-wired systems - e.g.
    -Shield generator
    -Targeting array (+1BS)
    -Tactical algorithms (Infiltrate)
    -Sensor drone: Auspex, see through woods?
    -Markerlight drone
    -?

    ELITE

    - New veteran infantry team: 4 Shas'ui with rail rifles and hard-wired
    targeting arrays. Move Through Cover? Unit leader can take additional
    hard-wired system (e.g. Tactical algorithms or target lock).

    TROOPS

    - Krootox 30pts; they and Kroothounds upgrades in the Kroot Carnivore
    entry.

    - Fire Warrior EMP Grenades reduced to 2ppm

    - Devilfish: May replace burst cannon with fusion blaster for 5ppm

    - 0-1 Piranha squadron (1-3 vehicles) added

    - Gue'vesa Auxiliaries: Up to 2 rail rifles/EMP launchers (48" range,
    Heavy 1, effect as EMP grenade). 'Hit on 3+' penalty removed.

    FAST ATTACK

    - Pathfinders come with Dragonet transport (11/10/10, transport: 8,
    twin pulse rifles); can upgrade to Devilfish. EMP grenades 2ppm. Squad
    with a Shas'ui can split fire between up to 2 target squads. Rail rifle
    target lock removed.

    - Pathfinder Tetras added: 1-4 vehicles. May replace markerlight with
    rail rifle/missile pod?

    - Drone squadron may upgrade up to X drones to heavy drones (burst
    cannon/markerlight)?

    - Kroot Trackers added?

    HEAVY SUPPORT

    - New variant Battlesuit: Smart missile system + hardpoint systems -
    weapon options plasma rifle, missile pods, burst cannon

    - Hammerhead alternate turrets added. Hammerhead can replace targeting
    array with a burst cannon.

    - New 'light' gunship - missile tank? Guided munitions?

    Philip Bowles
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    >> Okay, my list of Tau revisions:
    >
    >
    ><Snip>
    >
    >
    >> -New hard-wired systems - e.g.
    >> -Shield generator
    >> -Targeting array (+1BS)
    >> -Tactical algorithms (Infiltrate)
    >
    >
    >Perhaps Scout would be better for battle suits (don't want to intrude
    on
    >Stealth Suit territory)

    So instead Fire Warriors get to intrude on Pathfinder territory? :-)
    Scout is so far, and IMO should be, confined to vehicle, bike and
    vehicle-mounted units (and of course Infiltrate is more useful for
    veteran 'sniper teams'). Stealth suits have their suit rules and
    armament to make them distinctive, and in any case Crisis suits will
    often be better off deep striking rather than infiltrating.


    >> -Sensor drone: Auspex, see through woods?
    >
    >
    >Suggestion:
    >Auspex, but 2d6+12 instead of 4d6,

    Not bad at all - prevents the Tau having yet another carbon copy of a
    common item, but still having much the same effect. That might even be
    enough on its own without adding anything else, though a blacksun
    filter effect is also fairly obvious (after all, it still has the
    protective advantages of a drone).

    >allows unit to ignore target priority.

    Not sure about this. Conceptually target priority reflects a unit's
    instincts to target the most obvious threat, not their inability to
    detect troops further away. It's for the squad leader to override those
    instincts, not a drone...

    Philip Bowles
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    <pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:1116735719.353800.161270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > Okay, my list of Tau revisions:

    <Snip>

    > -New hard-wired systems - e.g.
    > -Shield generator
    > -Targeting array (+1BS)
    > -Tactical algorithms (Infiltrate)

    Perhaps Scout would be better for battle suits (don't want to intrude on
    Stealth Suit territory)

    > -Sensor drone: Auspex, see through woods?

    Suggestion:
    Auspex, but 2d6+12 instead of 4d6, allows unit to ignore target priority.

    > -Markerlight drone
    > -?

    <snip>

    > Philip Bowles
    >
    Not much to add, but I hope its helpful.

    All the best
    RF
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    In article <1116631358.840443.43800@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, pbowles@aol.com wrote:
    >
    > jockelinde wrote:
    >> In article <d6g8gd$do8$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
    > Helicon_One wrote:
    >> >
    >> > "Erik Setzer" <erks@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >> > news:cvsk81lpcdr04kcc19gvi19mo6gh5ob2u6@4ax.com...
    >> >
    >>> I'd also like to see:
    >>
    >>> * A 'mob up' rule for drones.
    >
    > Not only unnecessary but unfluffy - each drone squadron is supposed to
    > act as a self-contained network.

    Well, since it would be a fairly minor effect I might give you
    unnecessary, but not unfluffy.

    The drone networks are networks of identical units, which need to be
    large enough to function properly. If the drones are all identical
    it does not matter who you form a network with, only that the network
    is large enough. If your network has become too small then seeking
    other drones to form a larger network with is a very sensible
    strategy.

    >>> * Requiring Path Finders to buy a devilfish *or* infiltration. This
    >>> would make it slightly easier to break the dependance on suits.
    >
    > The suits need to be made less omportant, certainly, but not this way -
    > Pathfinders are supposed to be a mechanised infantry unit, they aren't
    > trained infiltrators and having them as such wouldn't suit the Tau
    > theme or style of play.

    It doesn't have to be Pathfinders. What I was looking for was limited
    (Fast Attack or Elite slot) access to rail rifles that does not
    require you to take a Devilfish.

    >> * Kroot Oxen being made more attractive by allowing Kroot Carnivore
    >> units to take a single Kroot Ox without using a heavy support slot.
    >
    > Krootox being made more attractive by improving the gun...

    Although a bit too expensive, I think the gun itself is fine as it is.
    The major problem is the heavy support slot.

    --
    Joakim
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    >>>> -New hard-wired systems - e.g.
    >>>> -Shield generator
    >>>> -Targeting array (+1BS)
    >>>> -Tactical algorithms (Infiltrate)
    >
    >>>Perhaps Scout would be better for battle suits (don't want to
    intrude
    >>>on Stealth Suit territory)
    >
    >
    >> So instead Fire Warriors get to intrude on Pathfinder territory? :-)

    >> Scout is so far, and IMO should be, confined to vehicle, bike and
    >> vehicle-mounted units (and of course Infiltrate is more useful for
    >> veteran 'sniper teams'). Stealth suits have their suit rules and
    >> armament to make them distinctive, and in any case Crisis suits will

    >> often be better off deep striking rather than infiltrating.
    >
    >
    >
    >I just can't see big clunky battle suits infiltrating, for the same
    reason I
    >can't see bikes or vehicles infiltrating.

    Well, the rationale would be that they've been there all along and have
    moved ahead of the rest of the army - setting them up last simply
    represents the predictive capabilities of the program, allowing them to
    optimise their deployment.

    Philip Bowles.
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    <pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:1116753419.836398.14840@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    >>> -New hard-wired systems - e.g.
    >>> -Shield generator
    >>> -Targeting array (+1BS)
    >>> -Tactical algorithms (Infiltrate)
    >>
    >>Perhaps Scout would be better for battle suits (don't want to intrude
    >>on Stealth Suit territory)
    >
    > So instead Fire Warriors get to intrude on Pathfinder territory? :-)
    > Scout is so far, and IMO should be, confined to vehicle, bike and
    > vehicle-mounted units (and of course Infiltrate is more useful for
    > veteran 'sniper teams'). Stealth suits have their suit rules and
    > armament to make them distinctive, and in any case Crisis suits will
    > often be better off deep striking rather than infiltrating.

    I just can't see big clunky battle suits infiltrating, for the same reason I
    can't see bikes or vehicles infiltrating. I would agree that non-suit units
    should have Infiltrate rather than Scout, but the idea of stealth suits, or
    even broadsides being in the right place at the right time because a
    real-time logic engine has predicted enemy movements seems more appropriate
    somehow.

    >>> -Sensor drone: Auspex, see through woods?
    >>
    >>Suggestion:
    >>Auspex, but 2d6+12 instead of 4d6,
    >
    > Not bad at all - prevents the Tau having yet another carbon copy of a
    > common item, but still having much the same effect. That might even be
    > enough on its own without adding anything else, though a blacksun
    > filter effect is also fairly obvious (after all, it still has the
    > protective advantages of a drone).

    Blacksun filters are already available in hardwired form, so adding another
    way of getting the same effect seems over the top. Giving the drone the
    auspex ability and acute senses seems to be about right.

    >>allows unit to ignore target priority.
    >
    > Not sure about this. Conceptually target priority reflects a unit's
    > instincts to target the most obvious threat, not their inability to
    > detect troops further away. It's for the squad leader to override those
    > instincts, not a drone...

    .....Well it seemed a good idea at the time, but you're right it doesn't
    quite fit. Hey hum.


    HTH,
    RF
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    >
    ><pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
    >
    >
    >news:1116733523.344082.282460@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    >
    >
    >>>> Adding the options from the new suits FW produces would be enough
    >>>> (extra armour, smart missile system in addition to hardpoint
    >>>> options, markerlight).
    >>>My list is from before the new Forgeworld models came out, so yes,
    >> they'll
    >>>do too. Targetting array would be nice though.
    >> Aren't Battlesuit commanders BS5 anyway?
    >
    >
    >Yeah, it would be useful for the lower ranks though.

    Okay; for some reason I was confusing hardpoint and hard-wired (as the
    latter is only available to commanders and Shas'vre).

    > I was thinking of the
    >targetting array as a hardpoint option for any member of the suit
    team,
    >really, as unlike target locks or multitrackers its something that
    will be
    >universally useful regardless of role or weapon fit. I don't really
    like
    >taking a flamer just because I have to fill the third slot.

    Don't think it would work - too much book-keeping to keep track of
    who's BS4 and who's BS3 if you're using several teams. Why would you
    ever need to take a flamer anyway? Shield generators are universally
    useful and most suits should either have twin-linked weapons or two
    they want to use plus a multi-tracker (i.e. plasma rifle/missile
    pod/multi-tracker).

    >>>>>* 'Light' Crisis Suit - 2 hardpoints, may always deepstrike, Fast
    >>>>> Attack.
    >>>>>Faster movement?
    >>>No, the point of a revision should be to give more options for the
    Tau
    >>>player to configure his army however he wants it - more suit types,
    >>> more
    >>>vehicle types, more suit-less infantry types, whatever.
    >>
    >> The first step in giving the Tau more options is *reducing* the
    >> reliance on suits, not adding more types.
    >
    >
    >You reduce the reliance on suits by offering alternatives, you can
    still
    >offer new suit types for players who want to play the army that way.

    There are already three suit types, more than there are Tau infantry or
    vehicle types, plus an effectively compulsory suit commander, and I've
    suggested adding an anti-infantry HS suit option.

    >>>A faster,
    >>>deepstriking, light battlesuit fills a role for any Tau player who
    >> wants to
    >>>be suit-heavy without bothering with vehicles (I know that concept
    is
    >> heresy
    >>>to you ;-) , but some Tau players would love it).
    >>
    >> Tau are a combined arms force - they should use infantry, they
    should
    >> use vehicles and, much as I hate to admit it, they should even use
    >> suits for certain things (they should just use fewer of them...).
    >
    >
    >
    >So you don't share my complaint that 'all competitive Tau armies look
    the
    >same', you just want the default balance between the unit types to be
    >shifted?

    No, I want the Tau to have more options to give them more flexibility,
    but duplicating existing options in a different form for the sake of
    variety is not the way to do it. The Tau player should have, say, the
    option to avoid using Crisis suits without becoming non-competitive,
    but he shouldn't have the option of taking something else in the
    short-range special weapons role - that should be something that only
    Crisis can do. He should have the option of fast FA firepower, but that
    option should be a vehicle. An Eldar player can choose not to use, say,
    Dark Reapers, but if he does he shouldn't have the option of taking
    another Devastator-equivalent unit in their place. Each Tau unit should
    have a role specific to that unit; as I see it:

    Crisis suits: Close-range special weapons support; short-range
    anti-armour
    Stealth suits: Mobile close range anti-infantry firepower
    Fire Warriors: Mobile mid-range anti-infantry firepower
    Kroot: Infiltration; static mid-range anti-infantry firepower; close
    combat
    Pathfinders:Area denial; short-mid range anti-infantry fire support;
    disruption
    Gun Drones: Mobile short-range disruption
    Broadsides: Static anti-vehicle firepower
    Hammerhead: Main battle tank; versatile long-range firepower

    With the proposed additions:

    Shas'ui veteran sniper team: Mid-range anti-heavy infantry fire;
    disruption
    Gue'vesa Auxiliaries: Long-range fire support?
    Piranha: Mobile skimmer; versatile short-range firepower (Land Speeder
    equivalent)
    Tetras: Jetbikes
    Kroot Trackers: Cavalry; infiltration; close combat
    SMS Crisis Team: Long-range anti-infantry fire support
    Stingray: Long range artillery-equivalent.

    True, there's overlap - otherwise a Tau player would have to take
    absolutely everything to achieve particular results (as is the case
    now, in fact). You can take a Piranha squadron to do a Crisis suit's
    jobs at a pinch, Gue'vesa fire support in place of HS Battlesuits,
    Stingrays instead of Hammerheads or Tetras to fill in for Pathfinders
    (especially with the rail rifle upgrade I've suggested for them) and
    you have the freedom to include Tetras, cavalry, snipers etc. or not as
    you see fit depending on your playing style. My proposals almost double
    the number of units available to the army (and add extra options to
    several of the existing ones, such as Drone Squadrons and Hammerheads),
    so you can't accuse me of restricting variety.

    >>>> Why the obsession with seeker missiles?
    >>>Because they're COOL. The marker/seeker relationship is one of the
    >>> few things the Tau have that isn't to be found in other armies.
    >>
    >> Unlike, say, Battlesuits, jetpacks, 30" range rifles, S5 basic
    >> weaponry...
    >
    >
    >
    >I meant in terms of distinct rule mechanics.

    *shrug* Eldar don't have their own distinct rule mechanics.

    >>>> Also, some sort of
    >>>> sensor drone (as in the conversions for Kill-Team in the 40k
    >>>> rulebook); nice idea, but what to do with it?
    >>>>
    >>>Some sort of Auspex type effect is an obvious starting point.... or
    >>> have it
    >>>act as an early warning system for incoming fire (let the squad
    >>> re-roll
    >>>armour/cover saves, or something like that)?
    >>
    >>
    >> That's too powerful, especially with Battlesuits (anyway, could they

    >> get out of the way quickly enough?) and no one's going to use a
    drone
    >> 'slot' for an auspex.
    >
    >
    >
    >Just an Auspex effect on its own, maybe (but if the Shas'ui wasn't
    planning
    >on taking drones anyway, why not?) .

    He'd need to buy a drone controller, hence no target lock (or any of
    the upgrades I've suggested be added, such as a targeting array or
    tactical algorithms).

    > With battlesuits the re-roll saves
    >would be too powerful, but we can easily say that because of their
    bulk the
    >effect only applies to Fire Warriors.

    Rerolling 4+ saves isn't insignificant.

    >Or, how about.... hmm, turn this around, and say sensor drones are
    able to
    >deny the enemy of its own cover saves?

    I wondered about that, but I was talking to Keith Hann recently about
    updating our version of Codex Dark Eldar for 4th Ed. Originally we'd
    allowed soul-seeker ammo as a basic squad upgrade for Warriors, but
    Keith pointed out that ignoring cover as a sqaud effect is far more
    powerful now than it was when 5+ cover saves were the norm.

    >>>'Platoon' is my shorthand for 'some sort of system where you get
    >>> multiple
    >>>squads per FOC slot', I should have clarified that it wouldn't
    >>> neccessarily
    >>>mean using the IG platoon structure.
    >>
    >> If we can't make them work as a squad, probably best drop them
    >> altogether - adding a new formation type to a unit entry just
    >> complicates things, and anyway you've said you don't want to
    encourage
    >> people using them as cannon fodder.
    >
    >
    >
    >How complicated can it be to have (something like) 1-3 Gue'vesa squads
    count
    >as a single FOC slot?

    That's a simple way of doing it certainly; I had in mind something more
    like the Codex IG Conscript platoons.

    >>>Plasmas could be ok if the human bought them along when they
    defected,
    >>> and
    >>>would the Tau want to piss off their new allies by taking their
    >>> lovingly
    >>>maintained Big Gun off them?
    >
    >> Without maintenance the Big Gun would probably melt... Anyway, you
    >> could ask that about heavy weapons too.
    >
    >
    >I think with heavy weapons the issue is more one of ammo supply,
    whilst they
    >can get lasgun ammo by leaving the cells out in the sun. Admittedly,
    the
    >ammo issue affects grenade launchers too, but they use it up less
    rapidly
    >than a heavy bolter and in fluff I think would be easier to construct.


    If the Tau can keep Kroot supplied with ammo, I imagine they'd do the
    same with humans - especially if they upgraded their weapons.

    >>>> Grenade launchers and flamers,
    >>>> certainly, but would those make Gue'vesa viable?
    >>>More so than just lasguns! And why not meltas?
    >> Mostly because that would either entail having two weapons in the
    army
    >> with identical stats, or finding a way to justify the fact that
    >> Gue'vesa use Tau 'fusion blasters'.
    >
    >
    >True, but otherwise you have to justify all the meltaguns mysteriously

    >vanishing whenever a Guard unit defects....

    You already have to explain that with the current Gue'vesa entry...

    > I can live with one gun profile
    >having 2 different names depending on who is firing it.

    To me it's just unnecessary - the Tau have fusion blaster access (and
    if I have my way, with Piranhas entering the list and Devilfish getting
    the option, they'll have easy access to fusion blasters); they don't
    need human grunts with them.

    >>>Gue'vesa probably wouldn't get railrifles until FWs did,
    >>
    >> I don't see the lack of rail rifles in FW units as a temporary thing
    -
    >> "oh, we'll try them on expendable Pathfinders and it they work we'll

    >> give them to the Fire Warriors". After all, PFs still get them
    despite
    >> the fact that they malfunction.
    >
    >
    >I saw it as more that better trained troops can get better use out of,
    and
    >give better feedback on, a new weapon type than a grunt.

    I still don't see the fluff mentioning that Pathfinders are
    better-trained than Fire Warriors - they are Fire Warriors, just
    equipped for a different battlefield role.

    >> FWs don't have rail rifles because it
    >> doesn't suit their mobile firepower role - Pathfinders do get them
    >> because it's advantageous for forward scouts to have some sort of
    heavy
    >> support, and once in position they can afford to sacrifice mobility
    for
    >> firepower.
    >
    >
    >I'd have seen it as the other way around - a 36" range S6 heavy weapon
    is
    >surely a better match with 30" S5 Rapid Fire than 18" Assault 1.

    Gamewise, probably, but Fire Warriors are not conceptually used simply
    to stand in place and blast away at the enemy. In any case rail rifles
    aren't a very good match for either - they're not significantly better
    than pulse rifles against light infantry (another reason Fire Warriors
    would eschew them - they'd sacrifice mobility and short-range firepower
    for little gain against their favoured targets) and pulse weapons are
    weak against heavy infantry - that, aftrer all, is why rail rifles get
    their own target locks.

    >>> It just encourages the squad to stand at the back
    >>>and shoot like IG, with most of the squad as human shields for the
    >>> lucky
    >>>guys carrying them, not really in keeping with the Tau theme.
    >
    > You'll get that if they're armed with special weapons too.
    >
    >
    >
    >How about making them smaller squad sizes (eg 4 to 8, with up to 2
    special
    >weapons)?

    So they're essentially the Tau version of IG Special Weapons teams?
    Hmm...Gue'vesa with demo charges... As above, though, the Tau already
    have a unit to fill that role - Crisis suits.

    >> Why would
    >> the Tau even deploy human auxiliaries unless they added something
    new
    >> to their battle tactics? They don't need wannabe Fire Warriors - as
    >> with the Kroot they need auxiliaries who add something new to the
    army,
    >> and where the Kroot are close range specialists humans' strength
    lies
    >> in their ability to stand back and shoot - it's what humans do.
    >
    >
    >I'm not convinced they do it better than rifle-armed Fire Warriors
    though.

    They'd have more flexibility in weapon options; the point is to give
    them access to abilities FWs lack; the anti-armour power of a rail
    rifle and maybe some ranged vehicle-cracking power.

    >Stand-and-shoot Gue'vesa are still stand-and-shoot FW wannabes.
    Personally,
    >I kind of like the idea of Tau'va indoctrination breaking down the old

    >Imperial Guard habit of standing at the back and shooting all day.

    Tau indoctrination hasn't yet broken the Kroot habit of slaughtering
    and then eating people up-close... The question is, *why* would the Tau
    break them of a habit that complements their own fighting style?

    >> Though that does basically amount to
    >> transplanting an army list entry from one Codex to another
    >
    >
    >Exactly my problem - Gue'vesa arent Imperial Guard, any more, that's
    the
    >whole point.

    Look at Kroot Carnivores in the Tau list, and look at Kroot Carnivores
    in the Kroot list. Aside from minor details (such as the weapons the
    Shaper has access to) they're basically the same - certainly their
    battlefield role is the same. The Gue'vesa entry I'm thinking of would
    look quite different to the IG platoon entry in any case:

    GUE'VESA AUXILIARY TEAM

    PV WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv
    Gue'vesa'la 6 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 7 5+
    Gue'vesa'ui +4 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 8 5+

    Squad: 5-10. You may take up to two Gue'vesa squads as a single Troops
    choice.

    Weapons: Lasgun.

    Options: Up to three models may be armed with pulse rifles for +2pts
    per model.

    Up to two models may be armed with rail rifles for+10pts
    per model or EMP missile launchers
    for +15pts per model.

    The squad may be equipped with frag grenades for +1pt per
    model and/or krak grenades for +2pts per model.

    Character: One model may be upgraded to a Gue'vesa'ui. The Gue'vesa'ui
    is armed with either a lasgun or a laspistol and close combat weapon
    and may be given weapons from the Tau armoury. He may not be given
    hard-wired systems.

    EMP missile launcher:

    Most of humanity's more advanced weapons, including those based on
    plasma and melta technology and many of the more powerful laser
    weapons, can either no longer be manufactured in the Imperium or are
    constructed on hive and Forge Worlds, none of which the Tau have been
    able to capture. However, the human factories the Tau have obtained are
    able to construct a range of simpler weapons, among them lasguns and
    Imperial-pattern missile launchers. Exploiting the training of their
    Gue'vesa auxiliaries, the Tau have begun to equip these troops with
    heavy weaponry unsuited to Fire Warriors' mode of warfare. However,
    while the Tau have been able to manufacture simple fragmentation rounds
    for Gue'vesa missile launchers, they have not succeeded in replicating
    the advanced materials technology used in the strengthened warheads of
    Imperial krak missiles, and have instead substituted ammunition derived
    from Tau electromagnetic pulse technology. This has proved an effective
    weapon against alien military vehicles, as the large EMP warhead,
    though only effective against electronic systems, is able to scramble
    those systems even if it hits the vehicle slightly off-target, negating
    much of the benefit vehicles obtain from cover.

    Frag R48" S4 AP6 Heavy 1 Blast
    EMP R48" S- AP- Heavy 1 Special: May only target vehicles. If a
    hit is scored roll a D6: 1-4 no effect, 5 glancing hit, 6 penetrating
    hit. Ignores cover.

    This gives the unit access to the basic weapon types - anti-light
    infantry 'special weapons' (pulse rifles), anti-heavy infantry and
    anti-vehicle heavy weapons but it's a very different entry from either
    Fire Warrior teams or Imperial Guard platoons.

    >>>> maybe they could start to deploy Nicassar psykers as
    >>>> HQ
    >>>> or Elite picks.
    >>>That's also a thought, but I got the impression that keeping the Tau

    >>> list
    >>>'warp neutral' was a deliberate move to distinguish it from other
    >>> armies.
    >> The way it helps distinguish them from the Necrons, Dark Eldar and
    most
    >> Imperial Guard, you mean? :-)
    >
    >
    >Necrons (as a full codex list, at least) came afterwards though,

    But they were planned at the same time if not earlier and there was no
    suggestion from their earlier list that they would gain psykers in the
    full Codex.


    >> STINGRAY MISSILE GUNSHIP
    >
    >
    >Liking it.

    Thought you might...

    >> Shas'ui might be more fluffily appropriate, but that forces you to
    pay
    >> for an extra attack you don't want without getting a BS bonus.
    >
    >
    >
    >Unless, as we said elsewhere, we dropped the +1A from the Shas'ui
    profile
    >and lowered the cost appropriately. Integrate a targetting array into
    the
    >rail rifle, and I still think something in the region of 30 ppm is
    fair.

    Problem with integrating a targeting array into the rifle is that no
    other weapon - Tau or otherwise - has inbuilt targeters these days. I
    can see hard-wiring a targeting array to the Shas'ui themselves,
    though.

    >> Hmm...I'm now thinking a specialist BS4 sniper team; 4 models, all
    with
    >> rail rifles and target locks, as one Elite pick. Have to find a way
    of
    >> working this specialist training into Tau fluff though.
    >
    >
    >Would be pretty nasty.

    I've altered it more in keeping with the fluff now - each of the 4
    Shas'ui has a rail rifle and hard-wired targeting array as standard
    (i.e. is BS4 Ld8), but the team leader can take a second hard-wired
    system - so players can choose to give him a target lock or to give the
    squad infiltrate (hard-wired tactical algorithms), or add useful marker
    or sensor drones. Hmm. I really like the way this squad is shaping
    up...

    TAU VETERAN SNIPER TEAM 100pts

    WS BS S T W I A Ld
    Shas'ui 2 4 3 3 1 2 1 8

    Squad: 4 Shas'ui

    Weapons: Rail rifle, hard-wired targeting array (included in profile)

    Options: One model may be upgraded to a Team Leader for +5pts. The team
    leader can be given a single hard-wired system from the Tau armoury and
    may be given a markerlight for +10pts.

    Bonding option as normal

    ARMOURY

    Hard-wired systems

    Target lock 7pts
    Multi-tracker 5pts
    Blacksun filter 3pts
    Drone controller 2pts + drones
    Marker drone 10pts
    Gun drone 10pts
    Shield drone 15pts
    Sensor drone 8pts
    Shield generator 20pts/10pts
    Tactical algorithms (infiltrate) 10pts
    Targeting array (+1BS) 10pts (N/A in this case)
    ?

    Marker drone

    Armed with a markerlight, no pulse carbines. Otherwise as gun drone.

    Sensor drone

    After deployment, can detect infiltrators within 2D6+12", allowing a
    free shot from the squad as per auspex. Gives the squad Acute Senses
    (can't remember what this does but it was a good suggestion...)

    >>>Drop the target locks on the railrifles altogether, preferably, and
    >>>integrate the rule as a unit ability like Long Fangs, regardless of
    >>> which
    >>>weapon they're firing.
    >>
    >>
    >> Okay, but the way it works with Target Priority needs to be
    clarified.
    >
    >
    >
    >Can't we just change the Target Priority rules instead?

    Not when we're dealing with a Codex rather than a new rulebook... I'd
    like it to have modifiers to make it more effective, though, and link
    it to the squad leader (i.e. once he's dead you can't make target
    priority rolls - ditto if your squad hasn't been upgraded with a
    leader).

    >>> I want fusion cannon but it ain't gonna happen... I'd give the
    >>>> Devilfish a fusion blaster option in line with the Piranha, but
    >>>> nothing
    >>>> else.
    >>>>If you're giving it the option for one, why not at least a couple
    of
    >> the
    >>>others?
    >>
    >>
    >> Which ones? These are special weapons, so the missile pod's out.
    >> Flamers are inappropriate. Plasma rifles are just plain ugly, though

    >> they'd be the other obvious choice.
    >
    >
    >
    >I don't follow why the missile pod wouldn't be ok, its assault like
    the
    >burst cannon.

    I keep forgetting that. However, I still don't like it - the Devilfish
    shouldn't have a long-ranged weapon, and in terms of firepower it's not
    really different enough from the burst cannon to be justified. I do
    think Tetras should have the option to upgrade their markerlight to
    either a missile pod or a rail rifle, though.

    >> That's what Stealths are anyway, save that they have better armour
    and
    >> jetpacks. A unit size of 4-8 would be better than 4-12, though.
    >
    >
    >
    >How about giving your Shas'ui Elite squad above the choice of
    railrifles or
    >burst cannons? (keeping the targetting arrays and target locks)

    Hmm, I've become very partial to them being a specialised sniper team
    now, actually - the sort of unit the Tau should have got with rail
    rifles in the first place...

    >>>I'd like to have the Commander start out on foot, with battlesuit
    >> options
    >>>available to him if he wants them. A commander in a XV15 would be
    >> cool.
    >
    >> Not keen on the idea of Battlesuits as upgrades, but a veteran
    infantry
    >> commander option would be welcome.
    >
    >
    >Wouldn't a battlesuit commander just be an infantry commander
    'upgraded' to
    >a battlesuit....?

    More or less, but it would keep things tidier than having strength and
    toughness upgrades and wouldn't allow a Stealth suit option.

    >>>> How about using the smart missile
    >>>> system suits (with 3+ save) as a standard HS option?
    >>>
    >>>Sure, why not? The more the merrier. If bloody Space marines can
    have
    >> six
    >>>heavy support units in their codex....
    >>
    >>
    >> Might need some restriction on hardpoint options, though, to make
    them
    >> more distinctive than just Crisis+. In an anti-infantry role we
    could
    >> probably drop the fusion blaster option, and as long-ranged troops
    cut
    >> the flamer as well (i.e. they can choose missile pods, plasma rifles

    >> and/or burst cannon).
    >
    >
    >
    >Sounds decent enough.

    I hear that Forgeworld's campaign book will introduce a hardpoint
    system allowing Battlesuits with heavy weapons to move and fire - this
    could be added to both this and the Broadside entry at the same time.

    > Any opinion on the close-support variant Broadside?

    Yes. It's called a Crisis suit...

    Philip Bowles
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    <pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:1116911511.747251.222230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > The Tau player should have, say, the
    > option to avoid using Crisis suits without becoming non-competitive,

    Uh, I don't know if you've noticed but most of the competitive Tournament
    Tau lists don't bother with Crisis suits (except, sometimes, the Commander)
    preferring to max out on stealth.
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    On Mon, 23 May 2005 21:34:58 +0000 (UTC), "Helicon_One"
    <shiny*blue*thing@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

    >> Footslogging horde? Don't try it. Don't try charging across the
    >> table on foot, without something like Kommandos who'll be in HTH on
    >> turn 2. I've seen a lot of Ork players become disheartened watching
    >> Marines shoot them to pieces with Rapid Fire. Not a good sight.
    >
    >Meh. Its worked ok for me - I think the fact that all the Big Shootas and
    >Rokkitz are assault, letting you soften up enemy units as you close in,
    >helps alot. Against something that's moderately HTH based (eg a HTH Marine
    >army), they can be a surprise.

    I use the big guns all the time to soften up an enemy unit. I'm just
    sick of bolter fire going nuts on my Orks. I've switched to the Kult
    of Speed, much better for me.
    -Erik
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    "Helicon_One" <shiny*blue*thing@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:d72k36$ohr$2@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
    > <pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
    > news:1116911511.747251.222230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >>
    >> Sensor drone
    >>
    >> After deployment, can detect infiltrators within 2D6+12", allowing a
    >> free shot from the squad as per auspex. Gives the squad Acute Senses
    >> (can't remember what this does but it was a good suggestion...)
    >
    > Re-rolls for night vision, IIRC.

    Also doubles spotting range for sentries.

    On another random note, I think that it would be nice to have the option of
    taking a farsight enclave force that wasn't lead by O'shovah. Admittedly I'm
    not sure how effective such a force would be game-wise, but I just cant see
    one guy leading his forces /all the time/; surely he'd delegate at least
    occasionally?

    --
    all t' best,
    RF
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    ><pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
    >
    >
    >news:1116911511.747251.222230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >
    >
    >>> I was thinking of the
    >>>targetting array as a hardpoint option for any member of the suit
    >> team,
    >>>really, as unlike target locks or multitrackers its something that
    >> will be
    >>>universally useful regardless of role or weapon fit. I don't really
    >> like
    >>>taking a flamer just because I have to fill the third slot.
    >
    >> Don't think it would work - too much book-keeping to keep track of
    >> who's BS4 and who's BS3 if you're using several teams.
    >
    >
    >
    >There is that I guess - I usually arm my battleuit teams identically so the
    >thought idn't register. Saying that, however, there's no 'book-keeping'
    >involved when you can just look at the model to see which ones have arrays,
    >the same as you'd check which ones have plasma rifles or target locks.

    You still need to roll to hit for each separately if you have
    differential BS, which is a nuisance.

    >> Why would you
    >> ever need to take a flamer anyway? Shield generators are universally
    >> useful
    >
    >
    >They're also 20pts, whilst a flamer is 6. I try and keep my suits on a
    >budget.

    Missile pod, plasma rifle, multitracker. What more do you need?

    >> An Eldar player can choose not to use, say,
    >> Dark Reapers, but if he does he shouldn't have the option of taking
    >> another Devastator-equivalent unit in their place.
    >
    >
    >Like a support weapon battery or War Walker squadron, you mean?

    Support weapons don't come 5 to a unit. War Walkers have BS3, so have
    fewer *effective* weapons as well. Neither is as tough; most aren't as
    long-ranged. Certainly none get fast-firing BS5 missile launchers.

    >> Each Tau unit should
    >> have a role specific to that unit; as I see it:
    >
    >
    >You make them sound like Eldar Aspects. Tau units shouldn't be so ritualised
    >and fixed.

    That's exactly what they should be - to my mind, a given Tau unit
    should be slightly more flexible in its role than a given Eldar Aspect,
    but its role should be restricted to that unit alone. That's precisely
    how a combined arms force should work - and until the Tau came along
    the Eldar were the only representatives of this fighting style in 40k,
    so it's inevitable that there will be similarities.

    >> Crisis suits: Close-range special weapons support; short-range
    >> anti-armour
    >
    >
    >Missile pod = medium-long range anti armour.

    You can run down the stats, but I still don't regard
    autocannon-equivalents as anti-tank weapons, and it bounces off heavy
    infantry.

    > To me, Crisis teams are more
    >suited (hah!)to bouncing off to go hunting on their own than as a
    >close-support unit.

    However you want to deploy them, Crisis suits still represent the
    army's special weapon support team.

    >> Stealth suits: Mobile close range anti-infantry firepower
    >> Fire Warriors: Mobile mid-range anti-infantry firepower
    >
    >
    >FWs can do static firepower too

    They can, but there's no requirement for them to do so - they aren't
    equipped for a stationary role in the same way that, say, a Gue'vesa
    heavy weapons team would be.

    >>*shrug* Eldar don't have their own distinct rule mechanics.
    >
    >
    >
    >Crystal Targeting Matrix?

    Just a variant on the move-shoot-move theme of jetbikes/Warp Spiders,
    adjusted for a unit that doesn't get an assault move.

    Fleet of Foot (ok, not unique any more, but they
    >had it
    >first)?

    The Dark Eldar had it first, Craftworlders didn't...

    > He'd need to buy a drone controller, hence no target lock (or any of
    > the upgrades I've suggested be added, such as a targeting array or
    > tactical algorithms).
    >
    >
    >
    >But, again, if you weren't planning on taking any other wargear item, why
    >not throw in something cheap? Its a waste now when you're spending 10pts on
    >the Shas'ui, but if that cost drops

    I don't know about you, but I practically always give Shas'ui a target
    lock if I take them at all - and I'd like to see the wargear options
    expanded drastically in any case, giving them more attractive options.

    >> With battlesuits the re-roll saves
    >>would be too powerful, but we can easily say that because of their
    >> bulk the
    >>effect only applies to Fire Warriors.
    >
    > Rerolling 4+ saves isn't insignificant.
    >
    >
    >
    >If it was, there's be little point in paying for the ability, would there?
    >Okay, just re-roll cover saves then - the sensor drone gives them a couple
    >of seconds early warning, but unless they're in a position to take cover, it
    >just means they
    >know they're about to die.....

    Same effect, though - how often are shooty troops not in cover,
    especially if they are being used as static firepower?

    > So they're essentially the Tau version of IG Special Weapons teams?
    > Hmm...Gue'vesa with demo charges... As above, though, the Tau already
    > have a unit to fill that role - Crisis suits.
    >
    >
    >
    >As above yourself! I think Crisis teams are better using their mobility to
    >hunt alone rather than being tied down to close support for the infantry.

    They have the ability to do either - the point is that they're the
    special weapon-toting unit in the Tau army, so that position's already
    taken.

    >>>> humans' strength lies
    >>>> in their ability to stand back and shoot - it's what humans do.
    >>>I'm not convinced they do it better than rifle-armed Fire Warriors
    >> though.
    >> They'd have more flexibility in weapon options; the point is to give
    >> them access to abilities FWs lack; the anti-armour power of a rail
    >> rifle and maybe some ranged vehicle-cracking power.
    >
    >
    >But you just said above that the railrifle isn't much better than a pulse
    >rifle anyway... even against Marines a railrifle or 2 plus some lasguns
    >isn't going to kill much more than the points equivalent in pulse rifle FWs.

    No, but it will make them attractive to players who think "kewl, rail
    rifles" rather than running the stats... In any case, if we're giving
    them multiple squads per FOC we can't make them shootier than FWs
    without unbalancing them.

    >> GUE'VESA AUXILIARY TEAM
    >
    >
    >> PV WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv
    >> Gue'vesa'la 6 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 7 5+
    >> Gue'vesa'ui +4 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 8 5+
    >
    >
    >> Squad: 5-10. You may take up to two Gue'vesa squads as a single Troops
    >> choice.
    >
    >
    >> Weapons: Lasgun.
    >
    >
    >> Options: Up to three models may be armed with pulse rifles for +2pts
    >> per model.
    >
    >
    >
    >No carbines?

    Nope. Specialised heavy support - just as they get Tau heavy weapons
    FWs don't, Fire Warriors get short-ranged mobile weaponry Gue'vesa
    don't, emphasising the differences in role and encouraging a more
    mobile playing style with FWs, who have their transport access, S5
    rapid fire and pulse carbines, while Gue'vesa take the sit and shoot
    role.

    >> This gives the unit access to the basic weapon types - anti-light
    >> infantry 'special weapons' (pulse rifles), anti-heavy infantry and
    >> anti-vehicle heavy weapons but it's a very different entry from either
    >> Fire Warrior teams or Imperial Guard platoons.
    >
    >
    >It works, but I still prefer the idea of the Gue'vesa acting as smaller
    >mobile fire-teams with special weapons.

    I really don't see that it would work - I certainly wouldn't feel drawn
    to them. As with rail rifles, grenade launchers wouldn't make them
    noticeably shootier than equivalent FWs (and wouldn't have the AP), and
    meltaguns involve getting fragile humans within 12" when Crisis suits
    can get as close more quickly, with a better chance of survival and
    with more weapons (including fusion blasters).

    >> But they were planned at the same time if not earlier and there was no
    >> suggestion from their earlier list that they would gain psykers in the
    >> full Codex.
    >
    >
    >
    >I'm amused by the thought that more then 10 minutes planning went into the
    >Necron codex....

    I didn't mean to imply any such thing - they spent ten minutes planning
    Codex: Necrons before the Tau came out, then shelved it while they
    excreted the models...

    >>>>>> I'd give the
    >>>>>> Devilfish a fusion blaster option in line with the Piranha, but
    >>>>>> nothing else.
    >>>>>If you're giving it the option for one, why not at least a couple
    >>>>> of the others?
    >>>> Which ones? These are special weapons, so the missile pod's out.
    >>>>I don't follow why the missile pod wouldn't be ok, its assault like
    >>>> the burst cannon.
    >> I keep forgetting that. However, I still don't like it - the Devilfish
    >> shouldn't have a long-ranged weapon, and in terms of firepower it's not
    >> really different enough from the burst cannon to be justified.
    >
    >
    >I don't see why the Devilfish should be restricted to short range,

    Because it's a dedicated transport designed to ferry troops with ranges
    shorter than 36" (and as short as 18")? Same reason a Rhino has a storm
    bolter rather than a missile launcher.

    >>>> Not keen on the idea of Battlesuits as upgrades, but a veteran
    >>>> infantry commander option would be welcome.
    >>>Wouldn't a battlesuit commander just be an infantry commander
    >> 'upgraded' to
    >>>a battlesuit....?
    >> More or less, but it would keep things tidier than having strength and
    >> toughness upgrades and wouldn't allow a Stealth suit option.
    >
    >
    >There is that, but what's wrong with the stealthsuit option?

    I doubt the Tau would place their commander in something that
    lightweight and expose him to fire on the front lines, mainly - I don't
    imagine Stealth teams have a high survival rate.

    >I just realised in all the excitement I forgot to mention the idea of
    >Broadsides getting an Ion Cannon option....

    I like ion cannons - they're distinctively Tau and we should find more
    ways of making use of them - but they'd be a bit over the top for a
    Battlesuit unit; time to introduce another tank, I feel... Maybe a new
    Tau infantry heavy weapon - an ion blaster (R36" S7 AP3 Heavy 2) or
    something similar?

    Philip Bowles
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    In article <1117432564.817375.196950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, pbowles@aol.com wrote:
    >><pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
    >>
    >>
    >>news:1116911511.747251.222230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >>
    >>
    >>>> I was thinking of the
    >>>>targetting array as a hardpoint option for any member of the suit
    >>> team,
    >>>>really, as unlike target locks or multitrackers its something that
    >>> will be
    >>>>universally useful regardless of role or weapon fit. I don't really
    >>> like
    >>>>taking a flamer just because I have to fill the third slot.
    >>
    >>> Don't think it would work - too much book-keeping to keep track of
    >>> who's BS4 and who's BS3 if you're using several teams.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>There is that I guess - I usually arm my battleuit teams identically so the
    >>thought idn't register. Saying that, however, there's no 'book-keeping'
    >>involved when you can just look at the model to see which ones have arrays,
    >>the same as you'd check which ones have plasma rifles or target locks.
    >
    > You still need to roll to hit for each separately if you have
    > differential BS, which is a nuisance.

    Just use a die with a different colour.

    >>> Why would you
    >>> ever need to take a flamer anyway? Shield generators are universally
    >>> useful
    >>
    >>
    >>They're also 20pts, whilst a flamer is 6. I try and keep my suits on a
    >>budget.
    >
    > Missile pod, plasma rifle, multitracker. What more do you need?

    I use three different configurations:

    MP + PR + MT for HQ suits and possibly also for normal suits in low
    point games.

    Elite suits get

    TL MP + TL

    or

    TL PR + flamer.

    I've never actually used the flamers but, as was pointed out before,
    they only cost 6 points.


    --
    Joakim
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    ><pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
    >>
    >>
    >>news:1117432564.817375.196950@
    >>
    >>
    >>>g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com..­.
    >>>>> Why would you
    >>>> ever need to take a flamer anyway? Shield generators are universally
    >>>> useful
    >>>They're also 20pts, whilst a flamer is 6. I try and keep my suits on a
    >>>budget.
    >
    >> Missile pod, plasma rifle, multitracker. What more do you need?
    >
    >
    >
    >Twin linked missile pod, target lock. Much cheaper, and gives the squad a
    >dedicated role of stopping a Rhino Rush dead in its tracks, but obviously
    >there's no point giving all three team members target locks, so the third
    >model carries a rarely used flamer 'just in case'.

    Targeting array wouldn't do anything to solve that problem. It would be
    at least 10pts, which is a fair bit to pay for something that will only
    be useful a fraction of the time for a model with twin-linked weapons.

    >>>> An Eldar player can choose not to use, say,
    >>>> Dark Reapers, but if he does he shouldn't have the option of taking
    >>>> another Devastator-equivalent unit in their place.
    >
    >>>Like a support weapon battery or War Walker squadron, you mean?
    >
    >
    >> Support weapons don't come 5 to a unit. War Walkers have BS3, so have
    >> fewer *effective* weapons as well. Neither is as tough; most aren't as
    >> long-ranged. Certainly none get fast-firing BS5 missile launchers.
    >
    >
    >
    >You said 'Devastator-equivalent unit', which I take to mean 'something to
    >sit at the back and shoot with lots of big guns',

    Okay, I should have said 'Reaper equivalent' - something that can put
    out a ton of anti-Marine firepower at long range.

    >in which role War Walkers
    >and support batteries operate similarly to DRs. Just because they happen to
    >use different guns, or have a different number of squad members, doesn't
    >make their purpose radically different,

    Depends on the targets they're equipped to take out. Reapers aren't a
    tank-hunting unit; D-Cannons or EML/bright lance Walkers can be. Plus
    the range makes a big difference - D-Cannons sitting at the back of the
    line won't be shooting much anyway.

    > You can run down the stats, but I still don't regard
    > autocannon-equivalents as anti-tank weapons, and it bounces off heavy
    > infantry.
    >
    >
    >
    >Missile pods make excellent anti-tank weapons for
    >the simple reason that they are carried by jetpackers, giving them the
    >mobility to shoot against side or rear armour values. That's if you let them
    >do their own thing rather than shackle them to an infantry close support
    >role which wastes their mobility, anyway....

    I'm not actually sure where you got the 'close support' thing - I don't
    think it was something I mentioned. Crisis suits support the infantry
    by taking out things that threaten them/weighing in with their own
    firepower. They could do that from the other side of the board. In any
    case, Devilfish are faster than Crisis suits and the infantry works
    best within 12" of the enemy, so why would the suits be tied to one
    place if they were keeping close to the infantry?

    >> They can, but there's no requirement for them to do so - they aren't
    >> equipped for a stationary role in the same way that, say, a Gue'vesa
    >> heavy weapons team would be.
    >
    >
    >
    >Give them all rifles, and they're more than adequetely equipped to
    >stand-and-shoot!
    >
    >It seems as though you want to arbitrarily restrict each Tau unit to one
    >default role - saying that Fire Warriors 'should' be mechanised short ranged
    >firefight units despite their access to full squads of 30" S5 rifles,

    Fine. Make pulse rifles Heavy 1 and I'll agree that they suit a static
    firepower role. Make them Assault 1 and I'll concede that they're as
    effective for a unit at 30" range as they are for one within 12".
    They're rapid fire and this isn't v3 anymore, and that makes a big
    difference. The fact that they have rapid-fire weapons implies that
    they're equipped to fight short-ranged firefights.

    or
    >that Crisis teams 'should' be babysitting the infantry in a close support
    >role even though it restricts their mobility.

    Which I didn't actually say...

    >> Same effect, though - how often are shooty troops not in cover,
    >> especially if they are being used as static firepower?
    >
    >
    >
    >Depends on the terrain available to them...

    Usually enough for two or three squads.

    > and it does mean that often we'd
    >be talking about a re-rollable 5+ instead of a re-rollable 4+.

    I was rather under the impression that a 4+ cover save was effectively
    the default these days?

    >>>> This gives the unit access to the basic weapon types - anti-light
    >>>> infantry 'special weapons' (pulse rifles), anti-heavy infantry and
    >>>> anti-vehicle heavy weapons but it's a very different entry from either
    >>>> Fire Warrior teams or Imperial Guard platoons.
    >
    >>>It works, but I still prefer the idea of the Gue'vesa acting as smaller
    >>>mobile fire-teams with special weapons.
    >
    >
    >> I really don't see that it would work - I certainly wouldn't feel drawn
    >> to them. As with rail rifles, grenade launchers wouldn't make them
    >> noticeably shootier than equivalent FWs (and wouldn't have the AP),
    >
    >
    >
    >Grenade launchers give them the mobile 24" stand-off capability, though,

    Rail rifles allow them to engage from 36" away. Being able to move and
    fire with grenade launchers isn't enough of an advantage to see the
    weapon favoured in the IG, and it won't keep them out of trouble here.

    and
    >S6 is enough to give Rhinos something to think about.

    You could make the same point with rail rifles.

    >>>I just realised in all the excitement I forgot to mention the idea of
    >>>Broadsides getting an Ion Cannon option....
    >
    >> I like ion cannons - they're distinctively Tau and we should find more
    >> ways of making use of them - but they'd be a bit over the top for a
    >> Battlesuit unit; time to introduce another tank, I feel... Maybe a new
    >> Tau infantry heavy weapon - an ion blaster (R36" S7 AP3 Heavy 2) or
    >> something similar?
    >
    >
    >
    >I don't see a problem with Broadsides getting Ion Cannons, they'd be worth
    >more points but it wouldn't be unbalancing.

    It would look pretty ugly (as though rail rifle ones don't) for
    starters...

    > Saying that, what if the Ion
    >option wasn't twin linked (technobabble something about the power supply
    >taking up the other hardpoint)?

    That would make railguns attractive, true, which they wouldn't be if
    the alternative was a Heavy 3 Marine-killer.

    > I'm not sure there should be stripped down
    >infantry versions of all the big weapons, really - it starts to take away
    >distinctions between the unit types.

    Meh, rail rifle is a 'stripped-down' railgun but has nothing in common
    with it and isn't used for the same purpose. Conceptually I think the
    idea that the Tau would work with their existing technology to create
    more sophisticated/more portable versions over time fits quite well -
    particularly since the ion cannon isn't native Tau technology (they
    bought it from the Demiurg), it makes sense that their engineers would
    be hard at work trying to gain a better understanding of their 'new'
    weapon and introducing weapons based on the same technology to other
    units as they learn how it works.

    Philip Bowles
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games