@yme-loc - My apologies, but I have stepped in and deleted a number of posts that had zero constructive content for the topic of this thread.

To those who find posts deleted, please be aware that the head-butting that is going on this thread and beyond it wont be tolerated, irrespective of perceived status.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

Assume for any testing that the re-roll applies to the Drones as well. I will amend the text at some point to highlight this.

A Manta air assaults, containing a Fire Warrior formation joined by an Ethereal and a Kroot formation. For the duration of the assault they count as one formation and therefore due to the Ethereal are all fearless and can't take extra combat damage for assault resolution. This is correct, yes?

If so but the Ethereal dies during the combat would the Kroot, Manta, and Fire Warriors each take a blast marker?

Can you choose to leave a Kroot Warrior behind if you want to fly a Kroot formation plus Krootoxes in an Orca? If so do they start with a blast marker or not?

Well the Manta is fearless anyway, but yes while they all count as one formation the Ethereal giives fearless to all units involved in the assault. So you won't take any additional casualties in this case if you lose the assault.

If the Ethereal dies you just take the one extra blast marker, which would go to the Fire warriors once the assault is completely resolved (assuming is this case you won and are therefore not broken, if you lost and broke the extra blast marker rule has no effect).

I can't give a definite answer on the last maybe something is in the FAQ, I know EpicUK do not allow this but I think there was some debate on taccomms and I don't remember which way it ended up.

Thanks for getting back to me! I wasn't sure how viable a Kroot, Ethereal and Manta air assault was tactically, but it seemed possible so I thought I'd ask.

How are people finding the Skyray formation out of curiosity? If any of you actually use them? The upgrade one looks fine, but the formation seems overcosted for what you get. It scores 2 AA hits on average, same as a Hydra formation. True it's at 60cm range and it has guided missiles too, but it's still just as easy to kill one and break it and at 250 points its a significant investment. For that price in the Eldar list you get an much more useful and survivable Falcon formation with 2 Firestorms. Ionheads + Skyray for 275 seems a much better option for only slightly more. Perhaps Skyrays would be better costed at 225? I suspect they wouldn't be that fantastic for that cost either, but would be more likely to be occasionally used.

They are a good formation but fragile, you have to see them more as artillery with inbuilt very good AA. At 225pts they would certainly start to become a bit spammable and allow the Tau to shut down enemy air.

I never use Skyrays in trios for exactly the reason you mentioned. The AA would be formidable, but they simply break too easily. It's an issue with fragile 3 unit formations though, rather than simply a price issue -by which I mean I don't know if I'd take them even if they were 225pts.

I suppose what Yme-Loc means by seeing them as artillery with AA is that they can fire seeker missiles while hiding (correct me if I am wrong), but that does require markerlights within 30cm of the target and doesn't fire a barrage template so when it comes to value your mileage may vary.
I personally prefer them as upgrades so they stay unbroken longer.

I plan to field Tau in a game soon and am a bit split between testing the new 6.7 and the 1.1 Viorla list.
Sounds like a reason to play TWO games

I know how you feel, I was hoping to see some of the Viorla 'toys' in the 6.7 list.

As for the Skyrays, I can't see me using them as a group, again due to fragility not cost, maybe if I could throw in some gun drones to strengthen the unit?

_________________
Mickey's Minis Painting Service: http://www.mickeysminis.com
Mickey's Minis on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MickeysMinis
Mickey's Minis Blog: http://mickeysminis.blogspot.co.uk
My Personal Blog: http://mickeysminishome.blogspot.co.uk

I'm aware of their 6 AT 5+ guided missile shots that require marking. A formation of Ionheads with attached Skyray also gets 6 of these shots also for only 25 points more though. It only hits with 1/3 as many AA hits but this is balanced by being harder to suppress or break.

The update had me planning on using Ionheads and Krootoxes where I wasn't before, so it is successful and I'm pleased with it generally despite still thinking the Skyray formation overcosted. I can understand not wanting it spammed and maybe the cautious approach on it is best I guess, though other lists have comparatively worse contenders e.g. the Barran AA formation, having 3 x 60cm 5+ AA and a 6 strong formation for 100 points.

Hi, here are some of my thoughts about the changes in the new version:

Hammerheads:
From a fluff perspective - and looking at the Railhead in isolation - I would prefer Lance (and no, "it's Eldar" is IMHO not a valid argument: it is simply using an established rule to mimic the game effect you want to achieve, just like Stealth suits teleporting although in fact they are unable to actually teleport. There just is no point to make up a new rule "sneaking up on the enemy", if Teleport does the same. And the same applies to Lance and any new "Railgun penetration shot"-type of rule)
However, from the point of view of gameplay, I think allowing all armour saves against the Railgun is a quite elegant way to achieve a better distinction between Railhead and Fusionhead, so I am ok with the current version of AT 3+ without Lance.

I am not so happy with the reduced price for the Ionhead, having all three varients at the same price is more elegant and flexible. If the Railhead gets AT3+ due to poor performance against armour, cannot the Ionhead just get AP3+? It would still have the shorter range and less favorable configuration (AP vs. AT), but would have the better secondary weapon (I really like the change of limiting the Railhead to the Burstcannons by the way). If the Ionhead still feels too weak, one could for example increase FF a bit. Also keep in mind that this would make the Ionhead more specialized as anti-infantry tank, rather than jack-of-all-trades. Currently its AP value is one better than AT, which is often offset by the fact that infantry more easily gets the -1 cover modifier.

Ethereal:
I think the drawback of a single additional BM is too weak for the benefits. More fitting might be one BM for each Tau formation with line of sight to the ethereal. I also like the suggestion someone made to give the Ethereal Inspiring.

Stealth suits:
I disagree with the new rule and I think it cannot be justified. Being able to just place a unit on any turn anywhere where it is needed is a powerful ability and should come with the inherent drawbacks. If the Stealth had to walk to that place they would also receive quite some BMs and probably lose some units as well. I see what you want to achieve with the rule, but how can you justify Stealth suits avoiding BMs if everyone else gets them? Sneaking around behind enemy lines is supposed to be a dangerous bussiness, and why are Stealth suits so much better at it than e.g. Tyranid Lictors? They also use the Teleport rule IIRC for essentially sneaking up on the enemy, and they do get the BMs.Solutions might be:
1) 1+ initiative, which could easily be justified by the Stealth suits being trained to operate on their own in hostile territory. For that reason I also don't think Broadsides automatically have to get it as well. About pricing, if you think they would need to become so expensive noone would take them, then they are in fact overpriced - with a fair price they would remains a viable choice.
2) alternatively, they could get a modifier for initiative rolls (but not for rallying), like the Ork Power of the Waaagh. Basically "Lone hunters: Stealth suit formation receive a -1 modifier on their activation rolls." If that is too powerful, limit it to the turn they arrive via teleport.
3) If all else fails, don't use Teleport. Maybe something more like Self-Planetfall, having to pre-plot turn and location, but avoiding BMs.

Bonded teams:
Might be ok, but it is again a rule working differently from most other armies. Usually the Leader is tied to a specific unit (could be justified as the Firewarrier who carries the Bonding Knife). And sniping of Leaders is a problem for every army, not just Tau. Alternatively allow to upgrade 0-2 units for 25 pt each, that way the loss of a single unit is not hurting that much.

Other changes I like and agree with (I never play spacecraft so cannot comment on the Protector)

Dr. Pepper

Agreed that 1BM isn't a big enough penalty. This would be a huge disadvantage in this army and lead to them not being taken though. In 40k the squad (normally 12 Tau + Drones) automatically breaks, which is why I suggest D3 blast markers would be the best way to represent it,as that's about the size of a 40k squad.


I really like the new special rule myself, think it works very well. Tyranid lictors have initiative 1+ and only 3 models in the formation, so are less likely to get a BM than Stealth Suits with 6 models were.

I had a chance to try out the AT3+ Hammerheads in a small game vs Minervans. My opinion is mixed; it did make an improvement vs their armour, but it was mainly in chewing up Salamanders and Hydras, and an improvement in accuracy when firing after a double. The salamanders weren't helped by not rolling a dice above a 4, but these things happen

Against the actual meat of the list, the Lemans, it felt better at the start of the shooting (more hits!) but was a lot less noticable in the final results (not sure if it resulted in more kills; maybe 1 extra russ killed over the course of the game).
I think it's roughly that each hammerhead becomes 16% more likely to hit the target, but that only adds 4% to the chance to actually kill a russ.

I hope to test it again in a larger game soon.



I agree about the single BM being too weak a penalty. Yme-Loc mentioned it was because the Ethereal has been too vulnerable too things like being sniped out, is that by artillery or shooring or aircraft? I did have someone try snipe mine using thunderbolts by placing them in the middle of the formation with the ethereal as the closest target, but since the rules now say to treat the angle of attack as the angle of the aircraft's approach that wasn't sucessful.

I don't think one BM per formation in sight is a better alternative because on turn 1 that might be your whole army getting a BM, and because we'd all work on developing new gamey tactics to ensure the ethereal is always placed where he can't see anyone. Well, I would anyway, so I assume I'm not the only person that would occur to

I've been pleased with the result of the ethereal as breaking the formation when killed (risky!) but also inspiring (appropriate and makes him worth the risk).




I have an objection to the new rule idea, and it's not the one you might expect. It's not a bad idea for a rule and it makes them 'OK' and a bit more reliable. However, this rule to make a fairly average unit perform a bit better is actually extremely powerful.

It changes the chance for a 6 strong teleporting formation to pick up 1 BM into a chance for a 6 strong teleporting formation to pick up a blast marker once every 6 games.

Now this hardly matters because stealth suits are not a very competitive choice even with this rule, but the introduction of a rule that makes teleporting so incredibly reliable could have a knock on effect once other armies get wind of it. Imagine some form of elite obliterators or terminators getting a version of this rule. Terminators with rerollable teleporting rules would take a BM something like once every 9 games.

Even if they paid a small price for it, it is such an efficient work-around to the risk of teleporting that a 1 in 36 chance of a BM means it might as well be 'The formation does not roll for BM when teleporting'.

So my objection isn't that it's not a good idea, or is inappropriately costed or a decent alternative to just making SS 1+ so they usually activate on a 2+. My objection is that while it might only make a weak Tau unit viable, this rule is too powerful to exist in the game.

You're comparing apples and oranges, to use the phrase. Teleportation is unreliable technology, but highly advanced Tau camouflage technology makes them very hard to detect. I don't see any other list wanting or needing such a special rule, due to their initiative 1.

So is teleportation in this case representing camouflage and not deep striking? Is that why crisis suits don't get teleport? In that case re-rolling ones sits a lot better with me.

Needing it, I agree, but wanting it? Apples often want want oranges have

Who wouldn't want it, and few couldn't come up with a better justification for having a reroll (advanced technology, arcane artifacts, blessing of the emperor whatever etc ).
Imho it would be better for their arrival to not be called teleportation at all than to introduce a method for teleportation to become a 1 in 36 chance of a bm to the game.

Newly proposed special rules have to work much harder to justify their existance which is why Yme loc posted this and asked for feedback. This is mine.