Tanks - what a disappointment

Discuss tactical and strategic development for 40K/Tau.
Nymphomanius
Shas
Posts: 119
Contact:

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#55 » Sep 26 2017 01:33

KuroRyu wrote:Piranhas with fusion are fast and cheap. sure they're still point for point not as efficient as commanders but you can't have 5 commanders in one FOC slot.

Supreme command detachment?

Unit classification literally has nothing to do with list availability now you can make almost any combination of FOC slots

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3073

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#56 » Sep 26 2017 01:54

FOC slots are REALLY no issue anymore. Actually more is better because it helps you fill detachments to get more CP even.

Also Piranha unfortunately aren't really good. They are faster and more squishy Crisis suits with less damage output and none of the Crisis utility (can't use Saviour protocol or deep strike).

Nymphomanius
Shas
Posts: 119
Contact:

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#57 » Sep 26 2017 02:47

The FW piranha seems good on paper it's twice the price but instead of a BC that you can get loads of, and 2 gun drones which you can get loads of and tbh stealth suits are better equipped to work with both.

You can give it 2 rail rifles it's got +1 T, +1W 3+ armour

Seems like a decent choice actually has anyone used one?

User avatar
KuroRyu
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 284
Contact:

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#58 » Sep 26 2017 12:38

Except they have twice as many wounds so they're not really more squishy and with that movement speed you can be a lot of places you can't deep strike.

Like I said. I admit they're not as powerful or efficient as our crisis or commander suits but I don't think they're a complete write off.

User avatar
QimRas
Shas'Saal
Posts: 244

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#59 » Sep 26 2017 12:58

KuroRyu wrote:Except they have twice as many wounds so they're not really more squishy and with that movement speed you can be a lot of places you can't deep strike.

Like I said. I admit they're not as powerful or efficient as our crisis or commander suits but I don't think they're a complete write off.


I used two trios of them in a game against Craftworld Aeldari recently. They straight up chewed up and spat out two wave serpents, a trio of Vypers, and a squad of guardians on an objective. In three turns. They were also able to strategically deploy 10 Gun Drones to that same objective and firmly hold it.

And I only lost 1 Piranha.

Plus there is a nice trick with the Piranha when you are going against a transport. Pop the gun drones off before you move, then use the Piranha to pop the transport. Now the troops are standing out in the cold, and the gun drones (as they are now a separate unit that did not have to declare its shooting at the same time as the anti-tank weapons on the piranha) get the then barrage the infantry who just got melted out of their metal box.

zawyvern
Shas
Posts: 15

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#60 » Sep 28 2017 11:10

Arka0415 wrote:It's absolutely tough. You either need to use Commanders w/ 4x Fusion Blasters to take care of the Predators, or XV8s/Commanders w/ Cyclic Ion Blasters in larger numbers.


They are good, but as a one trick index most people will learn how to counter it.

Arka0415 wrote:Yeah, that's exactly the issue. I guess Broadsides get a little niche as they can take Velocity Trackers, or HYMP w/ ATS, but yeah they're shockingly expensive. Unless the points come down a lot in the new Codex no one will use them.


I struggle to find a place for broadsides, perhaps in a suit heavy force where other units are priority over them. but then they use up a huge chunk of points.

Arka0415 wrote:I mean, with this loadout you're talking about 1000+ points worth of dedicated anti-tank, worse yet 1500+ points if you add XV8s. We need to use cost-effective solutions like Fusion Commanders and battlesuits with Cyclic on Blasters. I bring one Hammerhead at 1500-2000 points and two at 2000+ points; in my opinion they're not a spammable unit but rather they provide a versatile, long-range gun that's good at finishing off targets your XV8s and Commanders didn't quite kill.


yup. but as a guy with 8 devilfish hulls, a bunch of hammerhead turrets and not too many suits. I really don't see the point investing too heavily in models just yet.

zawyvern
Shas
Posts: 15

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#61 » Sep 28 2017 11:16

just wanted to comment on all the other posts.

some good comparisons were made to other army's units. but I didn't see any within the army.
maybe because it's obvious, but simply knowing which units to take over others. example: strike team with carbines vs. stealth suit with burst cannon. 2 firewarriors have same firepower at same range. so 12 firewarriors to 6 stealthsuits, 96 to 180pts. what do you get? same wounds, 1 better toughness and strength, better save, -1 to hit(huge), faster, infiltrate, and fly keyword. can also take suit systems for better performance (but costly). (stealth, but depends on situation)
Or gun drones to the carbine firewarriors. (Basically gun drones better in everyway, if no character support)

Point is the index feels like they didn't balance the codex internally. obvious ways to make builds are few and anything "fluffy" is junk.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3073

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#62 » Sep 29 2017 12:22

zawyvern wrote:just wanted to comment on all the other posts.

some good comparisons were made to other army's units. but I didn't see any within the army.
maybe because it's obvious, but simply knowing which units to take over others. example: strike team with carbines vs. stealth suit with burst cannon. 2 firewarriors have same firepower at same range. so 12 firewarriors to 6 stealthsuits, 96 to 180pts. what do you get? same wounds, 1 better toughness and strength, better save, -1 to hit(huge), faster, infiltrate, and fly keyword. can also take suit systems for better performance (but costly). (stealth, but depends on situation)
Or gun drones to the carbine firewarriors. (Basically gun drones better in everyway, if no character support)

Point is the index feels like they didn't balance the codex internally. obvious ways to make builds are few and anything "fluffy" is junk.

You never take Firewarrior with Carbines. The Pulse Rifle is already much better for the same points. If you want Carbines you either look at Pathfinder (because they already have them, not because they are good on them) or Gun Drones because they get two Carbines for the same cost as Firewarrior with one.
The comparison with Burst Cannons is also off. Everybody knows that Burst Cannons are bad. ^^

However that's not the point of this thread. It's not about how bad the Codex is balanced internally. It's about our tanks.

zawyvern
Shas
Posts: 15

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#63 » Sep 29 2017 02:54

Panzer wrote:However that's not the point of this thread. It's not about how bad the Codex is balanced internally. It's about our tanks.


Fair enough. Got a little distracted with another thread. Kind of crossed over. :smile:

I'll just add one point. I wish the tanks were more customizable. Able to take better builds. That might help.

Return to “Tau Tactics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Harkus959 and 3 guests