Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Tau Army List vs 6.8 (Approved)

 Post subject: Re: Tau Army List vs 6.8 (Approved)
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 11:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:10 am
Posts: 38
On the topic of revisions for the 3rd Sphere , lending from the Vior’la list work.

Is the 75p skyray upgrade to formations also something that is , could or should be considered for the 3rdS list?

3 such upgrades spread over 3 formations would end up being 25p cheaper than a full Skysweep formation, but you are loosing an activation if you spread em out among the other formations.(even if putting marker lights directly in a FWsquad is no joke).

It’s probably just me, but I find using that upgrade ends up costing activations quite dearly at 100p each ? Even tho it’s kinda golden having one in there, it’s a classic case of having and wanting to eat the darn AA cake


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Army List vs 6.8 (Approved)
PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:40 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:48 am
Posts: 815
Location: NJ, USA
Cyguns wrote:
On the topic of revisions for the 3rd Sphere , lending from the Vior’la list work.

Is the 75p skyray upgrade to formations also something that is , could or should be considered for the 3rdS list?

3 such upgrades spread over 3 formations would end up being 25p cheaper than a full Skysweep formation, but you are loosing an activation if you spread em out among the other formations.(even if putting marker lights directly in a FWsquad is no joke).

It’s probably just me, but I find using that upgrade ends up costing activations quite dearly at 100p each ? Even tho it’s kinda golden having one in there, it’s a classic case of having and wanting to eat the darn AA cake
The Vior'la upgrade is going to be brought up to 100, to keep it in line with 3rd sphere.

Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk

_________________
Grey Knights AC: viewtopic.php?f=130&t=33750

Tau AC:
viewforum.php?

The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Army List vs 6.8 (Approved)
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:31 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2442
Location: UK
I still wish we could do something for the crisis, I don't feel they play right, I only ever see them as supreme commander babysitters and would like to see them out on the flanks hunting stuff, even going for the blitz. If they could access markerlights they'd be cool.

By the way can they go in devilfish in 40K?

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Army List vs 6.8 (Approved)
PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:10 am
Posts: 38
Fair enough on the 100p per Skyray(they are pretty darned good).

I’m gonna track back a bit to the Hammerhead Railgun unit.

After it was discovered the official NetPack list still had them with Smart Missile systems, and
The switch to Burst canons was never officially voted on (I know this is being addressed now) I haven’t been able to stop wondering about these burst cannons, and also the Railgun itself. The fluff says they either shoot
armor piercing slugs, or explosive rounds, that punish infantry packed up too close together.

Now , All you far more experienced Tau players here, how often do or would you pick the 75cm AP5+ version
of the Railgun? Looking at it, to me it seems fairly pointless, when the cheaper ionheads does it better, be it at a little bit shorter range, but, also has the versatility to actually fire at AT targets as well.

And how often do you take your Railheads and cruise up within 15cm , to blast off your burst cannons? I realize they are there to nerf the unit , as it must have been deemed too strong. But I wonder if the nerf could be made in such a way to at least retain some kind of logical usefulness within it?

What if, you remove Burst cannons as well? And give the Railgun an AT/AP instead.
AT4+L/AP6+ or even AT4+L/2xAP6+ To represent the explosiveness of the AP rounds??

I don’t know. I just feel like at some point this 4+ Lance at 75cm seems to have brought down
The fear of God in people XD , when it doesn’t seem all that hysterically scary. A good old MW does
the same thing to AT and AP. Was it the range?

Anyway, as per usual I’m blabbing on about things I have yet to gain a better understanding of. If anything, I hope it at least makes for an amusing read with an “oh dear” head shake or two.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Army List vs 6.8 (Approved)
PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:14 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2442
Location: UK
Even with Lance I don't think that the stats stack up particularly well for the hammerhead vs other units. Yet because they were such bad value before, the gain has made them a lot more popular.

I have never fielded an ionhead and don't think i've ever seen anyone else do it either - they're just worse than railheads and there are other AP-heavy formations in the army.

But I think you're misinterpreting the stat line for the railhead. It already has AP5+/AT4+, you don't have to choose which gun at list building time. The reason it is written the way it is is to avoid the AP shot gaining Lance. Before Lance was added, it was just plain AP5+/AT4+. All this being said, if I've used the AP shot it's been rare.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Army List vs 6.8 (Approved)
PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:58 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:10 am
Posts: 38
Thanks for clearing that up! An OR like that usually means you have to pick your poison when putting the list together , and then that’s it.
But that does make it a lot better from how I had it interpreted. Even if, as you say, the number of times you’d actually pick an AP target are rare at best. How about FusionHeads? Do you bring them out for a spin?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Army List vs 6.8 (Approved)
PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:16 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2442
Location: UK
Yeah the distinction is subtle, where there's an OR between weapons then it'd be a list choice (for example the original listing for the Hammerhead had all the weapons listed together with a 'choose one' directive) but unless stated otherwise, an OR within a weapon would indicate alternative firing options. It's not obvious though, and not very common. The precedent was set with the Basilisk in Steel Legion I guess.

I do use the fusionhead sometimes yes, usually with a skyray.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Army List vs 6.8 (Approved)
PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:37 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:10 am
Posts: 38
For really big models , ( a Manta for example ) , can the base for these models be bigger than 40x40mm ?
Or would that still be illegal? ( even though 40x40mm wouldn’t really cut it)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Army List vs 6.8 (Approved)
PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:31 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:48 am
Posts: 815
Location: NJ, USA
Cyguns wrote:
For really big models , ( a Manta for example ) , can the base for these models be bigger than 40x40mm ?
Or would that still be illegal? ( even though 40x40mm wouldn’t really cut it)
Not sure how big you're planning, but keep in mind measuring from war engines occurs from the weapon itself, not the base. Likewise, for hitting, you measure to the model. Were you thinking of a size larger than the manta?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

_________________
Grey Knights AC: viewtopic.php?f=130&t=33750

Tau AC:
viewforum.php?

The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Army List vs 6.8 (Approved)
PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 10:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:10 am
Posts: 38
I’ve experimented with base sizes, and any and all measurements are always from model or model weapons. So , although I like to have for example Commanders and what not on a bit larger bases for looks, or size some up to 30x30mm on vehicles but again, that’s just for the esthetics, so you can do a bit more decorating on the base.

For game play, I find the smaller and more efficient the base the better, cause again, all measurements are always taken from a model on the stand.
But in this case, my Manta is 16cm from wing tip to wing tip, and quite heavy. As I’m going to elevate it, a 40x40mm base, well, it would fall over as soon as you touch it. I’m working on a round base for it that is 80mm across, and that is still well within the model size. I was looking for some exception in the rules , for bigger models, but couldn’t find any. So I’m asking just to know what to expect, if I’d show up to a tournament event for example.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t5ehvkkb208dm ... 1.jpg?dl=0

Here it is next to a crisis unit and hammerhead.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Army List vs 6.8 (Approved)
PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2019 1:14 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2442
Location: UK
You don't have anything to worry about. Those guidelines are intended for infantry, basing vehicles isn't even mandatory and GW's own titans are supplied with 60mm round bases. So it's a non-issue, your manta is by no means restricted to a 40mm base, and nobody is going to tell you you can't play with it.

Most people do try to keep the base size for large models roughly the same size as the bulk of the model for practical reasons, and it can get a bit tricky determining when something is in 'base contact' if the sizes are way out, especially for a flyer. The manta unfortunately is one of those models that makes this quite difficult, it is probably the largest model in the game by footprint.

My bases are a custom shape (similar shape to a manta ray), and the manta's is larger than 40mm with a short stem to keep the centre of gravity low. The base is pretty much irrelevant in game terms as the model is still bigger. It is probably worth going over measuring with your opponent before the game though as with this model the range difference is significant depending on which part of the model you measure from.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Army List vs 6.8 (Approved)
PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2019 1:48 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:10 am
Posts: 38
Thanks , yeah it didn’t make sense it would apply to bigger models, just wondered if there was any other NetEA restrictions or established measurements.

I suppose for the Manta , the base to base contact kinda takes care of itself since it’s always airborne.
But when setting up, I have to make sure the nose of the model is within the 15cm deployment zone, if I’d put the base 15cm ( as it is now) the model would lean in another 4-5cm. But also as you say , fire range can really be “manipulated” if you don’t measure it from the same spot on the model every time. I think I’d prefer measuring from the “head” , How do you usually go about it? Maybe the weapon racks in the middle of the wings could work too?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Army List vs 6.8 (Approved)
PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:11 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2442
Location: UK
Cyguns wrote:
Thanks , yeah it didn’t make sense it would apply to bigger models, just wondered if there was any other NetEA restrictions or established measurements.

I suppose for the Manta , the base to base contact kinda takes care of itself since it’s always airborne.
But when setting up, I have to make sure the nose of the model is within the 15cm deployment zone, if I’d put the base 15cm ( as it is now) the model would lean in another 4-5cm. But also as you say , fire range can really be “manipulated” if you don’t measure it from the same spot on the model every time. I think I’d prefer measuring from the “head” , How do you usually go about it? Maybe the weapon racks in the middle of the wings could work too?

To be honest I never use it, but I would just ask my opponent what they thought. Personally I tend to measure ranges (both to and from) using any part of the model as that makes it east for both parties and you avoid "cant see but can be seen" oddities, and similar situations where there is line of sight from one part of the model but not the part that is in range. It means you can see a lot, but also be seen by a lot, especially as it is a support craft so pretty much always visible from everywhere.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Army List vs 6.8 (Approved)
PostPosted: Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:48 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:10 am
Posts: 38
When roughy will the proposed cost cut to the Manta as well as the cost cuts to multiple XV8s (2 for 75) be officially looked at, and what do we think the likely hood of them being accepted are at? I’m going to play a tournament at the end of the month , and I wouldn’t mind a 575p Manta. it’s a fairly chill event, so if the change is deemed likely to go through , I’m sure I could play by it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Army List vs 6.8 (Approved)
PostPosted: Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:29 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:48 am
Posts: 815
Location: NJ, USA
Cyguns wrote:
When roughy will the proposed cost cut to the Manta as well as the cost cuts to multiple XV8s (2 for 75) be officially looked at, and what do we think the likely hood of them being accepted are at? I’m going to play a tournament at the end of the month , and I wouldn’t mind a 575p Manta. it’s a fairly chill event, so if the change is deemed likely to go through , I’m sure I could play by it.
Well, it's really two different questions. The Manta reduction needs more play testing still. A couple of us in the US have tested it, but I'm not sure what type of testing and reaction is happening abroad. Worst case, I'll aim to have it approved when Vior'la goes up for approval.

Theres a few other smaller changes, XV8s and railhead weapons, that will go through sooner. That won't be before Worlds I. September though to keep things stable while people prepare their lists.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

_________________
Grey Knights AC: viewtopic.php?f=130&t=33750

Tau AC:
viewforum.php?

The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net