Why not more tanks?

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
User avatar
Spray & Pray
Shas'Saal
Posts: 77

Re: Why not more tanks?

Post#19 » Dec 19 2016 12:29

The skyray is great, cheap enough for an AV13 skimmer tank, can pack an alpha strike, is great vs fliers/flying monstrous creatures and good vs allot of common stuff, such as Eldar jet bikes/ravenwing. After unloading the seeker missiles it can effectively confer velocity trackers to suit units, or just regular markerlight support. The hull is also big enough, that using skyrays as a movement blocking unit is viable.

Jacket
Shas'Saal
Posts: 341

Re: Why not more tanks?

Post#20 » Dec 19 2016 02:28

Skyray's were used as a very common unit in Tau lists in the ITC up until the big Tau update hit with the SS and Riptide Wing. Most people took three skyray's and would unload all the shots into Tyranid hive tyrants or appropriate targets and then use them as ML and sms support they are actually a good mid-tier unit one that can be used to tone down lists for casual play but still contribute to possibly winning. Same with HYMP Broadsides.

I love tanks too though. I heard rumors FW were working on a super heavy Tau tank and can only hope that's true. I have two Skyray's and I'm hoping for at least one new Tau vehicle next time.

As much as I love Tau tanks I love the FW aircraft more and the Barracuda's take the role of tanks quite well now and are better in all respects.

From GW I would love to see a hovering flyer stealth attack spaceship. It would function like a stealth Apache Gunship. Kit would make two variants one with more firepower and one that has reduced firepower for 5-10 person troop capacity. I think the Commanche Gunship in real life is the perfect analog to Tauify.

As for a next generation main battle tank for the Tau it would need to faster and hit harder. An enlarged single shot D-1 or 2 weapon seems appropriate. It should also be able to fire and move with no penalties due to advanced tracking. Perhaps AV14 in the front but lose a point in the back. Would make two kits. A MBT and a cavalry/recon tank which can appear from any side of the board from reserves but is more lightly armed and relies on stealth this would have two twin linked STR 10 Railguns. The scout version has larger thrusters and more antennae and advanced looking scanners to help it spot patrols to avoid and any traps.

Finally I want to see a dirt cheap transport that is open topped and can carry up to 6 soldiers.

Also in a weird twist of fate I want to see the Tau get an actual dedicated artillery platform. It would basically be larger more powerful smart missile system. 4d6 shots. Str 6 ap 4 with the usual sms rules. Can be upgraded to carry a pair of destroyer missiles for 15 points each. This would be a Tau MRLS system. Can be upgraded with HEAT rockets that replaces its weapon with 1d6 shots Str 7 ap 3. Both have a range of 72 inches. The vehicle need to be deployed and can be rammed and destroyed like the Stormsurge. I'm toying with giving the base anti-infantry weapon an upgrade to upgrade its rockets to plasma fire so basically super napalm rockets but can't think of rules.

User avatar
Overheal
Shas'Saal
Posts: 155

Re: Why not more tanks?

Post#21 » Dec 19 2016 03:08

Well the tidewall fortifications really fit that role quite a bit. I'd say a heavy tank that can carry the heavy rail cannon would be an obvious choice.

Finally I want to see a dirt cheap transport that is open topped and can carry up to 6 soldiers.
I believe I saw some converted piranha chassis' for this purpose.
From GW I would love to see a hovering flyer stealth attack spaceship. It would function like a stealth Apache Gunship. Kit would make two variants one with more firepower and one that has reduced firepower for 5-10 person troop capacity. I think the Commanche Gunship in real life is the perfect analog to Tauify.
I mean the Manta can hover....
Also in a weird twist of fate I want to see the Tau get an actual dedicated artillery platform. It would basically be larger more powerful smart missile system. 4d6 shots. Str 6 ap 4 with the usual sms rules. Can be upgraded to carry a pair of destroyer missiles for 15 points each. This would be a Tau MRLS system. Can be upgraded with HEAT rockets that replaces its weapon with 1d6 shots Str 7 ap 3. Both have a range of 72 inches. The vehicle need to be deployed and can be rammed and destroyed like the Stormsurge. I'm toying with giving the base anti-infantry weapon an upgrade to upgrade its rockets to plasma fire so basically super napalm rockets but can't think of rules.
I don't really see what differentiates it in role from the Storm Surge.

User avatar
Kakapo42
Shas'Vre
Posts: 884

Re: Why not more tanks?

Post#22 » Dec 19 2016 04:09

I'm afraid I'm going to have to step in here everyone. As fun as it might be to speculate, please remember to follow forum rules and guidelines. ATT does not condone wishlisting.

If you want to showcase your ideas better, why not see if you can convert a suitable model and post a project log about it in the hobby section? Otherwise, let's keep the discussion here based around what we can do with the current vehicle lineup.
A Shas and a Kor walk into a bar...
Naked Metal

User avatar
Unicornsilovethem
Shas'Saal
Posts: 278

Re: Why not more tanks?

Post#23 » Dec 20 2016 08:12

Kakapo42 wrote:I'm afraid I'm going to have to step in here everyone. As fun as it might be to speculate, please remember to follow forum rules and guidelines. ATT does not condone wishlisting.

“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

-Martin Luther King Jr, supposedly.

Jacket
Shas'Saal
Posts: 341

Re: Why not more tanks?

Post#24 » Dec 20 2016 02:28

Well I can say this from the huge live stream they have implied all large factions will be getting at least one new model this year. Later this year (second half) will be right on queue for a Tau update. The new campaign book announced (and many many more models) is the Fall of Cadia. Featuring plastic Saint Celestine. At this point the only thing that would astound me more is plastic Kroot Mercenaries or Demiurg.

User avatar
Plainshow
Shas
Posts: 16

Re: Why not more tanks?

Post#25 » Dec 30 2016 01:31

I have played a somewhat successful semi-competitive setup with the AIC, CAD, and Ghostkeel Wing. The Ghostkeel Wing's additional Stealth buff to the DPods is great, and the Battlesuits are big enough to give a 5+ cover screen and block Assaults. If you can grab a ruin to hide behind then the vehicle gets a 2+ Cover Save. I run a CAD with Tetras for Markerlights to keep with the mechanized theme, and give one Tetra in each unit a DPod. Barring an "Explodes!" Result on the damage table, this give the lead Tetra an effective 12 Hull Points, if you can keep their low profile behind a ruin. Without an answer to Psychic Deathstars (due playing with the ITC Formation limit) I haven't pushed this setup farther than semi-competitive. I have a few drafts for a GkW and Dawnblade with a Skysweep and the same principle, that allows an anti-Psychic Detachment, but have not had the time to play it yet. Hammerheads and Skyrays are way better when they never have to jink, and can shrug off 1 in 6 of the enemies successful hits.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests