Factfile: Battleforce T'au

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2184

Re: Factfile: Battleforce T'au

Post#19 » Nov 30 2017 09:31

Atlas_MH wrote:Am I the only one wondering what an "experimental XV8-02" is?
I feel like I would have remembered hearing that somewhere prior to that article, but I just don't. :-?

XV8-02 is the designation for an Iridium-armored battlesuit.

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

Re: Factfile: Battleforce T'au

Post#20 » Nov 30 2017 05:16

Haechi wrote:
AnonAmbientLight wrote:
Haechi wrote:The only "gem" I found it this one : "How you equip your battlesuits is up to you, but consider taking at least one flamer on your Commander and XV8 Crisis Battlesuits to discourage any units that try to charge you."

To write something this stupid you can't just be ignorant of the T'au index, but of the entire game as well. In what world a single D6 auto hits of S4 are a deterrent to charges? xD


The author is not wrong to suggest that. Flamers are cheap and adding one to all suits in a squad is viable if you have the hard points and if the weapon fits the role.


You missed the part where he talks about Commanders ^^


I didn't, but thanks.

Again, the author is not wrong to suggest that. Flamers are cheap and adding one to all suits in a squad is viable if you have the hard points and if the weapon fits the role.

Example: Gunline army that has crisis suits nearby in support. You will get a crazy amount of Supporting Fire with Flamers to deter charges if you position them properly.

Deepstrike three squads of three Crisis Suits. They are focused on getting relatively close and you have a free hard point. The flamer matches the role (it's not long range suit config). 9 flamers shooting overwatch can be scary.
Sky IS Falling, T'au WILL Suck, Sell Me Your Models

User avatar
Haechi
Shas'Saal
Posts: 148

Re: Factfile: Battleforce T'au

Post#21 » Nov 30 2017 06:42

He's wrong to suggest considering it on Commanders.

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

Re: Factfile: Battleforce T'au

Post#22 » Nov 30 2017 10:37

Haechi wrote:He's wrong to suggest considering it on Commanders.




"How you equip your battlesuits is up to you, but consider taking at least one flamer on your Commander and XV8 Crisis Battlesuits to discourage any units that try to charge you."


This is what he said. This is what that poster commented on and that is why I replied "he isn't wrong."

If you're going to quote a piece, but only mean to talk about a part of that quote please clarify as such.

Unless you guys want to argue that flamers should never be on crisis suits ever.

As a final note. I know that people are tired of T'au under performing and not doing well. About how the codex isn't coming out until next year. I get it. It's not fun. It's frustrating and a bad time. But as a general note to all, please leave the pessimism and negativity out of threads like this. It turns into a circle jerk hate fest to the point that simple articles can't even be discussed.
Sky IS Falling, T'au WILL Suck, Sell Me Your Models

User avatar
StealthKnightSteg
Shas'Saal
Posts: 195
Contact:

Re: Factfile: Battleforce T'au

Post#23 » Dec 01 2017 04:17

AnonAmbientLight wrote:As a final note. I know that people are tired of T'au under performing and not doing well. About how the codex isn't coming out until next year. I get it. It's not fun. It's frustrating and a bad time. But as a general note to all, please leave the pessimism and negativity out of threads like this. It turns into a circle jerk hate fest to the point that simple articles can't even be discussed.


Aye, that was never my intend for this thread, but just to try and see if we can find some possible spoilers for our upcoming Codex.
And maybe the suggestion of the flamer is a good spoiler in that. Maybe the spoiler should be that we can't take more then 2-3 of the same weapons on a Commander in which then the Flamer would become a good complementary weapon.

On a personal note.. some of the pessimistic comments recently make me somewhat angry also. It's easy to complain about everything that fails about a topic (in this case the performance of T'au) but it doesn't really help. Not with the issue, not with your own mood and not for the mood of others you are venting towards.
Keep it constructive with the things we still can do or find out about smaller gems that are still undiscovered. Be positive about things and we'll see some good stuff when our Codex drops! Until then take pride in how you (can) perform with an underpowered / not fleshed out faction.

szeszej
Shas
Posts: 45

Re: Factfile: Battleforce T'au

Post#24 » Dec 01 2017 05:02

StealthKnightSteg wrote:And maybe the suggestion of the flamer is a good spoiler in that. Maybe the spoiler should be that we can't take more then 2-3 of the same weapons on a Commander in which then the Flamer would become a good complementary weapon.


Unlikely, it was stated in the Designers' Commentary (I think) that if you could take a loadout in the index, you'll be able to take the same loadout even if it's not found in the codex.

User avatar
StealthKnightSteg
Shas'Saal
Posts: 195
Contact:

Re: Factfile: Battleforce T'au

Post#25 » Dec 01 2017 05:21

szeszej wrote:
StealthKnightSteg wrote:And maybe the suggestion of the flamer is a good spoiler in that. Maybe the spoiler should be that we can't take more then 2-3 of the same weapons on a Commander in which then the Flamer would become a good complementary weapon.


Unlikely, it was stated in the Designers' Commentary (I think) that if you could take a loadout in the index, you'll be able to take the same loadout even if it's not found in the codex.


Not if the Codex (newer rules) will tell us that a certain weapon option can only be taken X times -1, where X is tha amount of hard points (4 for commander and 3 for Crisis Suits)
Or if the Codex gives us specific maximum amount to use on a weapon (ie. only 2 CIB's can be mounted on a model at any given time).

But like I said, it's highly speculative (and I like to explore idea's)

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2184

Re: Factfile: Battleforce T'au

Post#26 » Dec 01 2017 08:08

StealthKnightSteg wrote:Keep it constructive with the things we still can do or find out about smaller gems that are still undiscovered. Be positive about things and we'll see some good stuff when our Codex drops! Until then take pride in how you (can) perform with an underpowered / not fleshed out faction.

I absolutely agree. It's fine to be disappointed with the rules, but we're all here on ATT to make Tau as good as we can. While we wait for our Codex, we should consider our lackluster rules as challenges to overcome, not as things to gripe about.

To everyone here thinking about lists and tactics, let's keep up the good work.

User avatar
Jhi'Myr
Shas'Saal
Posts: 11
Contact:

Re: Factfile: Battleforce T'au

Post#27 » Dec 10 2017 05:27

kruetz wrote:"Finally, if you’re looking for a low-points objective-holding unit, consider some units of Kroot Carnivores." -Article quoted above.

I know I am treading over many previous post on the subject, so when I see GW write something that many people who love, and spend a great amount of time invested in the beloved T'au army unanimously disagree the statement months before this was writen; I need some help to understanding if this can be taken at face value, when the community that plays the army, for the most part, as their first and only army, all disagree with this statement.

I have tried kroot myself, love the models. But I see myself playing them when I currently run out of physical fire warriors models.

My apologies for being abrasive of the actual GW rules that make a strike team or breacher teams much better at holding objectives. ( Without including that firewarriors get much better buffs from characters than kroot).

I love the game, and Love my T'au.


What I have seen of these articles, (something that I began to suspect of the original T'au faction focus and have only found more evidence since) is that these reviews are coming from the perspectives of a power level game. In power level games kroot are in fact more cost efficient than fire warriors. If you compare the exact same power level of kroot and fire warriors, the kroot are 150% the points cost of the fire warriors, meaning you're getting a competetive edge. It's similar to why in the original T'au faction focus that introduced this accursed p'unctuation d'rone the author commented about how good missile pods are, as they are sheerly the most competetive edge to throw as they net you the most points for the least power level.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Blinx, DancinHobo and 4 guests