KX-139 Ta'unar Supremacy Armour discussion

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
User avatar
Kakapo42
Shas'Vre
Shas'Vre
Posts: 936

Re: KX-139 Ta'unar Supremacy Armour discussion

Post#51 » Sep 18 2015 09:27

Now that it's released I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it.

On the one hand it's a perfectly serviceable model - well, not quite, I still have a few problems with it from an aesthetic standpoint, but I can see potential and I've already identified just how I'd convert it to fit my liking (which would be a fairly easy task in itself - some shifting and modifying of parts here, a little bit of reposing there and I'd be in business). The rules aren't too bad either from what I can see, it might not necessarily be a titan-killer, but it looks like a pretty-decent Knight-buster, able to stand toe-to-toe with the average Imperial Knight and stand a good chance of coming out on top, with less raw power in melee being offset by a better protective shield and more ranged firepower. I'll be interested to see what innovative tactics and combinations members on here come up with as they explore its capabilities further.

On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure I'm sold on its background. The first glimpses of it I saw suggested that it was primarily intended for fighting in extreme environments too harsh for conventional units to effectively operate in, and I could definitely get behind this idea, indeed I suggested something along those lines as a possible explanation some time ago (in essence under this idea it would sort of be a Tau equivalent of the Object 279 experimental tank prototype the Soviets developed in the 1950s). The description on the Forgeworld website suggests they have gone with the somewhat simpler concept of 'direct counter for bigger nastier enemies too much for all the units and weapons currently in use'. I personally find this a little bit boring, and as an Air Caste admiral at heart I found the online description a bit smarting (Our aerospace craft outclassed? Bah! Give my strike craft crews a superheavy target and they'll turn it into a smoking crater inside of 30 rai'kor, air defences or no!). I'm also a bit confused by the description of the pulse ordinance multi-driver, It was always my understanding that the 'pulse' part of pulse weapons came from the plasma pulse bursts they fired - surely using induction fields to propel solid munitions would make these some sort of mass-driver rather than a pulse weapon?

The more I think about it the less sure I am I'll get one. Don't get me wrong, I can definitely appreciate how others can like it, and I'm very happy for those who are pleased with it (and it's always good to see some xenos love from Forgeworld), but more and more I'm thinking it just isn't right for me. As much as I always daydreamed about Tau titan equivalents when I was younger, at the end of the day I've come to really like how the Tau solution to superheavy units in the past was always an asymmetrical one rather than a symmetrical one - defeating the carrier group with a barrage of anti-ship cruise missiles launched from bombers and submarines rather than dukeing it out with another carrier group, to use a Cold War analogy. The more I think about it, I just don't think it fits with the character of my army - my hunter cadre's commander is a very 'grass-roots' character, the sort of military leader who prioritises good communications gear and supplies over prototype superweapons, values small-scale support weapons and equipment and generally thinks there's always an important place for the common infantryman no matter what, and who tends to defeat giant scary things asymmetrically with smart tactics and good leadership rather than sheer brute force. The more I think about it, the more he probably wouldn't see much use for something like the KX-139, and as a storyteller first and a hobbyist second that in-universe thought process is an important one for me. The more I think about it, the more it just isn't my style.

Of course, all that said I can definitely see how it would fit well with other member's armies, and the great thing about the current situation is that both approaches are (on paper at least) viable. Really as long as my trusty bread-and-butter staple units aren't overshadowed too much, I think everything should be just fine. :)
A Shas and a Kor walk into a bar...
Naked Metal

User avatar
Morollan
Shas
Posts: 94

Re: KX-139 Ta'unar Supremacy Armour discussion

Post#52 » Sep 18 2015 09:30

zenitslav wrote:So I have been looking at the rules for this one and the model and I can't for the life of me figure out where the "Fusion Eradicator" sits on the model, All that I can see is the two Tri-Axis Cannon's and the Pulse ordnance multi-driver. There are also a bunch of sms and burst cannons that does not have any profiles on the rules sheet.


Both clearly explained in the rules:

The Tau KX139 Ta’unar Supremacy Armour may exchange either of its tri-axis ion cannon for a fusion eradicator for Free.


Vigilance Defence System
The vigilance defence system comprises two smart missile systems and two twin-linked burst cannon which may be fired normally.

User avatar
Das'Kyman
Shas'Vre
Shas'Vre
Posts: 1161

Re: KX-139 Ta'unar Supremacy Armour discussion

Post#53 » Sep 18 2015 09:45

Before everyone writes off the Fusion arms, consider a few things:

Just because it is a Fusion weapon doesn't mean it has to be within 12" to be useful. 24" plus the 12" GC movement is 36" (acceptable for most players, seeing as how everyone uses HYMP broadsides)
It has significantly more shots (66% more) than the focused Ion and only one less than the regular Ion. S8 double taps the majority of infantry units in the game. AP1 makes it better than the regular Ion shots against 2+ armour targets. S8 is also better against anything with a toughness of 6+. Against Imperial Knights (AV13) the fusion strips more HP at 24" and the if the IK is outside of 24" then it cannot assault you next turn anyways.
So it has more shots than the focused Ion, and better S/AP than the regular Ion. Melta, for when Imperial Knights close in. Aside from AB14 targets, the only disadvantage is the max range, which will only be a factor against a target which can threaten the KX-139 at long range. The wraithknight seems like the obvious issue here, especially since you can take two WK for the price of one Ta'unar. However, this suit is so incredibly resilient, even against ranged D attacks, I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't be better to just ignore the WK and kill everything else (that barrage seems custom-built for wiping out Jetbikes and Seerstars.

There is also the psychological effect. An opponent may see the 24" range and decide to put his units out of harms way, when he otherwise would be claiming an objective. Creating a bubble of death makes your opponent at least consider the option of staying outside of it, which in most cases will be a bad idea.

Just my opinion. I am not sure which one I would take, but I don't like to see the Fusion arm dismissed before it has even been sold

User avatar
Emagdnim
Shas
Posts: 361

Re: KX-139 Ta'unar Supremacy Armour discussion

Post#54 » Sep 18 2015 09:51

Also, I'm kinda hoping all Ion goes this way.. over xharge was stupid and too risky and doesnt fit Tau imo. Where as a multishot or solid beamy type would really help vs armour, something tau lack.

It woyld also mean that maybe rail rifles will get the submunition type on the larger cannons ? Sure they wont be s8 ap3 (guessing s4/5 for rifles etc) but no overcharged to worry about and that type is already in the game / fluff.

ATM no one uses it (baring R'varna that has to) because you need every rail weapon to kill armour..however, if ion now goes from say 3x s7 ap3 to say 1x s9 ap2 variable profile, you might not need to always go solid rail shot.

Ion is on everything , from flyers,to suits to tanks and even pathfinders.I really hope this next codex will follow suit but it sounds too good / strong / fluffy to be true
" Blasphemy is a victimless crime"

User avatar
ShasODerpy
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 742

Re: KX-139 Ta'unar Supremacy Armour discussion

Post#55 » Sep 18 2015 12:48

By the way... Toughness 9, 10 wounds. with Barrier shielding and FNP

Just imagine encountering this in a Tau vs Tau match.
As it stands, I cant think of a single way on how to down one of these. (outside of some ridiculous allied choices.)

Melta's wound these on 5's, just think about that for awhile.
Even our strongest weapon, the Hammerhead Railgun wounds on a 3 (not that the single shot would be any better then spamming melta's at it)


Trying not to come across as the "whiny guy", but would you seriously blame anyone for saying "no game" when you bring one of these?

I really, Really hope our new Codex doesn't stray this far into the "go big or go home" idea, or I might see myself just shelving my Tau.


-Derp
Shas'O 50mm, the Foresighted
WIP Tau

User avatar
Vay
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 882

Re: KX-139 Ta'unar Supremacy Armour discussion

Post#56 » Sep 18 2015 01:16

Bulk fire, out flank, and or evade and capture obj. WK, IK, and what not already stalk my local meta. He is very kill able.

Lead way in my meta, no EWO. So 2-3 DS drop pods land and drop mech grav troops. 36 grav shots later...

Some meta, yes hard to kill. Full out no limit currant meta, not worse then a Wraith Knight.
Shas'O Kais Vay Shone’nan

User avatar
Vector Strike
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 955

Re: KX-139 Ta'unar Supremacy Armour discussion

Post#57 » Sep 18 2015 01:45

Sent some questions to FW; this was their answer:

Image

User avatar
tekkblade
Shas
Posts: 79

Re: KX-139 Ta'unar Supremacy Armour discussion

Post#58 » Sep 18 2015 01:58

Vay wrote:Bulk fire, out flank, and or evade and capture obj. WK, IK, and what not already stalk my local meta. He is very kill able.

Lead way in my meta, no EWO. So 2-3 DS drop pods land and drop mech grav troops. 36 grav shots later...

Some meta, yes hard to kill. Full out no limit currant meta, not worse then a Wraith Knight.


36 grav shots later is just 6.666667 wounds, and that's assuming the Tau player doesn't bring two full missileside units with EWO. No one puts a big shinny diamond out without some security.

User avatar
ThreeSixRemix
Shas
Posts: 6

Re: KX-139 Ta'unar Supremacy Armour discussion

Post#59 » Sep 18 2015 02:02

Maybe it's just me, but I'm personally happy with what I'm seeing so far. Now personally, at this point in time at least, I've been painting and modeling more than playing (most of my army took a beating in my recent move and its a sluggish process to repair and repaint), but I'm glad this thing isn't stupid powerful. I mean if this beast of suit had every rule we wanted on our collective wishlist, I'd be concerned that the next army to get their next big model would be equally stupidly powerful or even more so. I'll take a slow power creep or attempted balancing over leapfrogging by leaps and bounds any day.
Friendly blast templates...aren't.

User avatar
Bitterman
Shas
Posts: 909

Re: KX-139 Ta'unar Supremacy Armour discussion

Post#60 » Sep 18 2015 03:03

ShasODerpy wrote:Melta's wound these on 5's, just think about that for awhile.
Even our strongest weapon, the Hammerhead Railgun wounds on a 3 (not that the single shot would be any better then spamming melta's at it)

Trying not to come across as the "whiny guy", but would you seriously blame anyone for saying "no game" when you bring one of these?


It's an artefact of 40K's rules. Gargantuan monsters with a generous T and armour save are damn near indestructible (though does Poison still affect them? Not sure). Drop the T very far and it's too fragile (even T7 can be wounded by bolters), drop the W very far and it doesn't stand up to much firepower, increase the points and who'd take it? That just leaves making it a vehicle, which would make more sense (even our Crisis suits should be walkers. I mean look at them. They're walkers!) but the vehicle rules are clunky enough as it is. Fancy your £250, 600 point model dying in a couple of lucky hits, anyone? Nah.

Ultimately, just like you don't want to be the "whiny guy", anyone who gets one of these (ooh! ooh! <raises hand>) is going to have to not be "that guy". Don't take it down your local FLGS and whip it out in a friendly 1500 point pick-up game, it would be ridiculous, no matter what the points allow. It's a centrepiece model - use it in centrepiece games. Face it off against your mate's Stompa, or your other mate's Warhound, or whatever. Throw it down with a bunch of fortifications and challenge two of your mates at once, to take you on in a Stronghold Assault. It's true that models this ridiculously powerful break 40K, which is still a skirmish-scope game at heart. That doesn't mean you can't use it - only that you really mustn't use it in a "normal" game.

Oh... and speaking of wounds versus armour values...

Lord Mayhem wrote:
Bitterman wrote:We don't know for certain what the rules will be yet, but I'll eat my own face if it's not a super-heavy


If you do end up having to eat your own face, can we get it on Pay per View? :)


Does anyone have any ketchup...? :neutral:

XV566
Shas
Posts: 82

Re: KX-139 Ta'unar Supremacy Armour discussion

Post#61 » Sep 18 2015 03:12

I mean in my local meta, there's plenty of lords of war. In tournaments every single person runs them. People even ally with imperial knights just because we have to as tau.

I'm glad to see us have something to field.

User avatar
El'mo
Shas'El
Shas'El
Posts: 1569

Re: KX-139 Ta'unar Supremacy Armour discussion

Post#62 » Sep 18 2015 03:37

Bitterman wrote:Don't take it down your local FLGS and whip it out in a friendly 1500 point pick-up game, it would be ridiculous, no matter what the points allow. It's a centrepiece model - use it in centrepiece games. Face it off against your mate's Stompa, or your other mate's Warhound, or whatever. Throw it down with a bunch of fortifications and challenge two of your mates at once, to take you on in a Stronghold Assault. It's true that models this ridiculously powerful break 40K, which is still a skirmish-scope game at heart. That doesn't mean you can't use it - only that you really mustn't use it in a "normal" game.


Wholeheartedly agree. This is a model that makes an excellent Tau Cadre centrepiece - this is probably why I have pre-ordered one ;)
There are enough armies with their own equivalent of this which are unpleasant to play against so it is only fair to give your opponent warning of its use before placing it gently on the table whilst giggling hysterically.

What I am looking forward to is my next apocalypse game using this and my new Tiger Shark, both of which will need painting so I had better get on with it. Also I think I may need a bigger display case never mind thinking how to transport it to my local GW which is nowhere near a parking area ;)


Bitterman wrote:
Lord Mayhem wrote:
Bitterman wrote:We don't know for certain what the rules will be yet, but I'll eat my own face if it's not a super-heavy


If you do end up having to eat your own face, can we get it on Pay per View? :)


Does anyone have any ketchup...? :neutral:


Gets popcorn and sits comfortably waiting for the entertainment to begin ;)

User avatar
Emagdnim
Shas
Posts: 361

Re: KX-139 Ta'unar Supremacy Armour discussion

Post#63 » Sep 18 2015 03:39

I got a similar email from them too
" Blasphemy is a victimless crime"

User avatar
Deepstrike
Shas
Posts: 355

Re: KX-139 Ta'unar Supremacy Armour discussion

Post#64 » Sep 18 2015 03:46

LOL!!!! I completely forgot you said you'd do that Bitterman!! I'll provide the ketchup!! :biggrin: please make sure you film and post for the rest of us to see!!

As for monstrous rules and poison, they can only be poisoned on a 6+.

Also, there seems to be a little misconception over on the BOLS site about how many weapons a Gargantuan creature can fire... The way I read it is that it can fire all of its weapons at different targets, much like a super heavy... However, there are those on that site that believe it's like a monstrous creature in that it may only fire 2 weapons, due to the way one of the phrases is worded..

"Gargantuan Creatures are Monstrous Creatures that have the additional rules and exceptions given below. Flying Gargantuan Creatures are Flying Monstrous Creatures that have the additional rules and exceptions given below."

Monstrous creature shooting reads as:

"Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase – they must, of course, fire both at the same target. They may never Go to Ground, voluntarily or otherwise."

Gargantuan creature shooting reads as this:

"When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired. In addition, firing Ordnance weapons has no effect on a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature’s ability to fire other weapons. Gargantuan Creatures and Flying Gargantuan Creatures cannot fire Overwatch."

Personally, I still read it as ALL weapons may be fired. I'm very curious on the communities take on this though.

In the mean time, I have made a quick copy of the rules with picture and blurb all together for those that like them all together.

Thanks to El'mo for allowing me to use his photo hosting site.

Image

If you would prefer a PDF, please feel free to pm me directly.

Direct links to official rules and fluff:
FW rules
FW fluff
Last edited by Deepstrike on Sep 18 2015 06:06, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Bitterman
Shas
Posts: 909

Re: KX-139 Ta'unar Supremacy Armour discussion

Post#65 » Sep 18 2015 04:06

From those quotes, it seems clear cut to me.

"Gargantuan Creatures are Monstrous Creatures that have the additional rules and exceptions given below... When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired."

Each of its weapons => all of its weapons. It doesn't say "both", or "two". It says "two" for MCs but overrides that with "each" for GCs.

User avatar
SinisterSamurai
Kor'La
Kor'La
Posts: 390

Re: KX-139 Ta'unar Supremacy Armour discussion

Post#66 » Sep 18 2015 04:13

Vector Strike wrote:Sent some questions to FW; this was their answer:

Well, we know that these rules are officially experimental, even if the stamp isn't there. I've heard it said that the stamp is no longer part of the forward-going FW doctrine, but they still called it experimental.

And out of curiosity, what questions is everyone specifically asking, just so we know which ones are going to be "frequent?"
Deepstrike wrote:Also, there seems to be a little misconception over on the BOLS site about how many weapons a Gargantuan creature can fire... The way I read it is that it can fire all of its weapons at different targets, much like a super heavy... However, there are those on that site that believe it's like a monstrous creature in that it may only fire 2 weapons, due to the way one of the phrases is worded..

"Gargantuan Creatures are Monstrous Creatures that have the additional rules and exceptions given below. Flying Gargantuan Creatures are Flying Monstrous Creatures that have the additional rules and exceptions given below."

Monstrous creature shooting reads as:

"Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase – they must, of course, fire both at the same target. They may never Go to Ground, voluntarily or otherwise."

Gargantuan creature shooting reads as this:

"When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired. In addition, firing Ordnance weapons has no effect on a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature’s ability to fire other weapons. Gargantuan Creatures and Flying Gargantuan Creatures cannot fire Overwatch."

Personally, I still read it as ALL weapons may be fired. I'm very curious on the communities take on this though.
This is one, for example, that I see coming up. The Garg Creature rules make a specific exception, but, people are disputing whether that exception is only for the single-target limit or both the single-target and two-weapon limits. Personally, leaning towards the latter.

Other questions:
*If, for some reason, it turns out that it's only two weapons, does the VDS count as a single weapon or as four? Technically the SMS and Burst cannons aren't listed in the Wargear, but the VDS is. The VDS therefore is a single piece of gear that provides them, rather than a simple special rule that modifies the overwatch rules for four weapons.

*All Tau models get Supporting Fire, but not this model. Some say it doesn't have Supporting Fire because GCs can't normally overwatch, and this is an oversight. Others say it's by design. Supporting Fire and a screen would make that BS2 overwatch way more appealing.

*The parenthetical omits the rules for Stomp and FNP from the PDF, even though these are provided to GCs by default in the primary rulebook. Are these rules excluded intentionally or simply just not written in?

*For the Barrier Shield, does the Destroyer have to bypass the invulnerable save before it can roll on the Destroyer table, or can a "saved" Destroyer weapon still drop the shield?

Edit: Before you ridicule me, note that I've already seen these questions come up. Some of them, I'd think were pretty clear cut, but....

User avatar
Deepstrike
Shas
Posts: 355

Re: KX-139 Ta'unar Supremacy Armour discussion

Post#67 » Sep 18 2015 04:26

SinisterSamurai wrote:
Vector Strike wrote:Sent some questions to FW; this was their answer:

Well, we know that these rules are officially experimental, even if the stamp isn't there. I've heard it said that the stamp is no longer part of the forward-going FW doctrine, but they still called it experimental.

And out of curiosity, what questions is everyone specifically asking, just so we know which ones are going to be "frequent?"
Deepstrike wrote:Also, there seems to be a little misconception over on the BOLS site about how many weapons a Gargantuan creature can fire... The way I read it is that it can fire all of its weapons at different targets, much like a super heavy... However, there are those on that site that believe it's like a monstrous creature in that it may only fire 2 weapons, due to the way one of the phrases is worded..

"Gargantuan Creatures are Monstrous Creatures that have the additional rules and exceptions given below. Flying Gargantuan Creatures are Flying Monstrous Creatures that have the additional rules and exceptions given below."

Monstrous creature shooting reads as:

"Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase – they must, of course, fire both at the same target. They may never Go to Ground, voluntarily or otherwise."

Gargantuan creature shooting reads as this:

"When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired. In addition, firing Ordnance weapons has no effect on a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature’s ability to fire other weapons. Gargantuan Creatures and Flying Gargantuan Creatures cannot fire Overwatch."

Personally, I still read it as ALL weapons may be fired. I'm very curious on the communities take on this though.
This is one, for example, that I see coming up. The Garg Creature rules make a specific exception, but, people are disputing whether that exception is only for the single-target limit or both the single-target and two-weapon limits. Personally, leaning towards the latter.

Other questions:
*If, for some reason, it turns out that it's only two weapons, does the VDS count as a single weapon or as four? Technically the SMS and Burst cannons aren't listed in the Wargear, but the VDS is. The VDS therefore is a single piece of gear that provides them, rather than a simple special rule that modifies the overwatch rules for four weapons.

*All Tau models get Supporting Fire, but not this model. Some say it doesn't have Supporting Fire because GCs can't normally overwatch, and this is an oversight. Others say it's by design. Supporting Fire and a screen would make that BS2 overwatch way more appealing.

*The parenthetical omits the rules for Stomp and FNP from the PDF, even though these are provided to GCs by default in the primary rulebook. Are these rules excluded intentionally or simply just not written in?

*For the Barrier Shield, does the Destroyer have to bypass the invulnerable save before it can roll on the Destroyer table, or can a "saved" Destroyer weapon still drop the shield?

Edit: Before you ridicule me, note that I've already seen these questions come up. Some of them, I'd think were pretty clear cut, but....


Apparently what we, and most of the English speaking world consider obvious are two different things...I agree with what you're saying. Also, you should confirm that if for some silly reason it is only two weapons, that our Multi-Tracker rule for ALL Tau Battle Suits still stands.

User avatar
Vector Strike
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 955

Re: KX-139 Ta'unar Supremacy Armour discussion

Post#68 » Sep 18 2015 04:30

SinisterSamurai wrote:And out of curiosity, what questions is everyone specifically asking, just so we know which ones are going to be "frequent?"
*For the Barrier Shield, does the Destroyer have to bypass the invulnerable save before it can roll on the Destroyer table, or can a "saved" Destroyer weapon still drop the shield?


That one is easy. Deathblow is when you roll a 6 in the Destroyer table. You cannot save it anyway, so the enemy just need to roll a 6 to drop the shield (a unit with more than 1 D attack must roll it one-by-one, so you can know when the shield is gone)

regarding the other questions, I've sent those:

- Are these the final rules to go with Imperial Armour 14 or are they experimental? The lack of experimental seal seems to me they're not final.
- If the rules are not final, is there any chance the arm-mounted weapons will get Large Blast firing modes? Seems like they have the potential for those. And only 24" for the Melta arm? I can't see many reasons to buy that one.
- The Smart Missile System isn't twin-linked in the rules (Vigilance Defence System), while they look like they are on the model. Was that a mistake?
- Looks like you guys missed Feel no Pain and Stomp special rules within the Gargantuan Creature parentheses.
- There's some discussion if Gargantuan Creatures can fire more than 2 weapons in their Shooting Phase. By the number of weapons in this thing, I assume you guys agree that they can.
- Why the "No Cover Saves" expression instead of "Ignores Cover" with the Pattern Bombardment? I believe they work the same way, but you know... some players are too picky with these things.
- Do you guys plan on releasing more arm or shoulder options for it? Rail weaponry would be lovely on such a machine.
- Should we expect model and rules for the Super-Heavy Skimmer we've heard about anytime soon?

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests