Why not more tanks?

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
CommanderDeathrain
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 31

Re: Why not more tanks?

Post#11 » Dec 17 2016 04:51

I think the reason is simple
Gw wants to focus on our battle suits as in some ways they are quite unique in that they all have good armour and with the exception of stealth suits can be tooled out to do anything and have multiple wounds. That's not to say I don't want to see our tanks get some love ( I love the devil fish and pirhana kits). I would love to see a stealth suit supplement though :p

User avatar
AnonAmbientLight
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 864

Re: Why not more tanks?

Post#12 » Dec 17 2016 05:28

People do not take vehicles as much across all factions really. The top lists typically have MSU or MC in them. When they take MSU they take rhinos or other light transport vehicles.

Vehicles just aren't what they used to be and haven't been for awhile. S7+ weapons are super common, hull points, and glancing hits ensure that taking vehicles just isn't worth it.

Tau vehicles in general just aren't that good. Even the devilfish is pretty crappy when you compare what it does to the amount of points it costs.

Vehicles in general need a rework and the Hammerhead chassis could use an update on armaments to make it more appealing.
Sky IS Falling, T'au WILL Suck, Sell Me Your Models

CommanderDeathrain
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 31

Re: Why not more tanks?

Post#13 » Dec 18 2016 03:17

I agree
As much as I love my fishes of fire warriors they are quite risky as 1 immobilized result and they are glorified bunkers with none of the benefits lol. It doesn't help high strength Ignores cover weapons are becoming more common (I had a skull cannon immobilize one of my fishes yesterday).
The problem with vehicles in the current edition is you basically have to either go all in or none at all.

User avatar
Elphiel
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 89
Contact:

Re: Why not more tanks?

Post#14 » Dec 18 2016 03:33

CommanderDeathrain wrote:The problem with vehicles in the current edition is you basically have to either go all in or none at all.


This is probably the meta about everything in nowadays 40k. If you have a unit thats good, take more of them. Riptides, Crisis, Broadsides, Firewarriors and our Tanks or piranhas. The new datasheets even support that in giving bonus for 3 model squads and squadrons.

I still like to field Hammerheads a lot, most of the time 3 ion-fishes without any extra equipment. 6 model gundrone squad will move around from round one. So 375points -84points in gundrones is in my opinion some cost efficient firepower (three S8 AP3 pie plates benefiting from the same markerlights - who want more ;) ).

User avatar
Chris
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 198

Re: Why not more tanks?

Post#15 » Dec 18 2016 10:51

I played a game against a not so competitive Space Marine army with some allied robots. I absolutely wanted to try something different and due to the fact that I have enough tanks I wrote a list without a single Battlesuit.

Well... it really underperformed. The first problem was finding cover for all those tanks. Devilfishs were kept back for counter attacking. And so was my half fluted with big tanks. Against enemy fire I had often to jink or I lost the armor quick. Therefore my shooting phase went from bad to terrible. Tanks can't hold up with the rate of fire from battlesuits. And even without that they are immun to jink. Either they have their own cover save or a good invul save. Tanks are limited to movement too.

Relying nearly only on the FB from Piranhas was something different too. In other games I have a squad of 3 dFB crisis. Those Crisis melt nearly everything. Again the piranha struggled.


Only taking tanks wasn't a good idea. The other way around, taking no tanks, function very good. Tanks have too much problems against nearly everything in comparison to suits.

What would help would be the return of the "shoot as if you where a fast vehicle"- system. Also the ioncannon needs a ap2 upgrade. Maybe overall a point cost reduction.
I love tanks, too. The Hammerhead was once my most loved model. Make tanks great again. :crafty:

pilky
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 258

Re: Why not more tanks?

Post#16 » Dec 19 2016 09:25

I think you also need to take into account the benefits of releasing a new kit vs an updated kit. A new kit is likely to sell better as it's something nobody has. Updated kits can be a bit harder to sell to those who already have an army (who are the easiest group of people for GW to get money out of). As such the priority for updating kits comes down to a mix of cost and need. Fire Warriors and Crisis Suits needed upgrading as the old models were either miscast (fire warriors) or lacking detail and flexibility (crisis suits). They also make up the core of any Tau army so replacing them makes a lot of sense.

The Hammerhead model though is still a damn good model. It could do with more detail and options, but it's still one of the better models in their line, especially for its age. As such it's likely to be a lower priority than updating models that are in finecast/metal, or in greater need of an update. The good news is GW's design/production setup makes it far faster, easier, and therefore cheaper for them to produce new models, so it makes the chance of them revisiting our tanks (or creating new vehicles) much higher

User avatar
Spray & Pray
Shas'Saal
Posts: 77

Re: Why not more tanks?

Post#17 » Dec 19 2016 11:35

I agree, Tau tanks back in 3rd ed and fire warriors attracted me to Tau, suits were just another nice aspect. These days, I use the skyray fairly regularly as it is good, the rest is overpriced :-(

User avatar
Overheal
Shas'Saal
Posts: 177

Re: Why not more tanks?

Post#18 » Dec 19 2016 11:55

How is the Skyray in games actually. I've only used the ion hammer with TL SMS and found for what it is - yes, difficult to drive around basic obstacles :D and a reasonable distraction for orks because omg large blast kill it.

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: 381

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: 177

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
Shas'Vre
Posts: 947

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: 381

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: 36

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 6 guests