Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 111 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

Tau Fio'Ka - SUPERSEDED BY XAR'KA list

 Post subject: Tau Fio'Ka - SUPERSEDED BY XAR'KA list
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:11 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
EDIT: THIS LIST HAS NOW BEEN SUPERSEDED BY THE XAR'KA ARMOURED STRIKE LIST.
Thanks to everyone for the input on the Fio'Ka list.
-------------------------------------------------------------

As I've been putting together the Tau Army Section for the Army book this weekend I figured it wasn't too difficult to put the armoured list together as I went.

Hope a few folks are interested to give it a run.

Cheers!

Tau Fio'Ka Armoured v0.1

Update:16/11/11

Update: 5/11/13

Update: 14/8/14


Attachments:
TAU FIO KA ARMOURED STRIKE FORCE ARMY LIST 0.4.pdf [336.14 KiB]
Downloaded 544 times


Last edited by Dobbsy on Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:56 am, edited 6 times in total.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Fio'Ka Armoured Strike Force
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:47 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
Where's the Moray? :)

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Fio'Ka Armoured Strike Force
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:33 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
That old chestnut?

Image

;D

I never really liked the fact there wasn't a model and it was made up to fill a gap, but if people really want we can entertain thoughts on it ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Fio'Ka Armoured Strike Force
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 2:44 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:33 am
Posts: 340
Some initial thoughts as this is the Tau variant list I would like to try out.

HH's
I would start with 6 HH's as the basic formation size and allow an upgrade of up to 10.
Allow every variant of HH.
Possibly vary costs between them.

Scorpionfish
I would add the scorpionfish to the air/space section.

Moray
If you include the Moray I would loose both of the the Tiger Sharks.

Recon
I would include the recon but perhaps leave out pathfinders. Recon formations fit the theme better than pathfinders do.

FW
The Mech FW formation should be the same size as the core list. There is no real reason to change it.

Skyseep
Skysweep formation is not really necessary. It frankly competes with the stingray formation and is not as good. You would be better off adding Skyrays to other formations.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Fio'Ka Armoured Strike Force v 0.1
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:58 pm
Posts: 598
Looks fine, personally I agree with Jstr19 that the core Hammerhead formation should start at 6 Hammerheads with an upgrade to 10.

Also it might be an idea to throw in the other variant weapons load outs for the Hammerheads.

Such as
Twin Manta Burst Cannon - 30cm AP5+/AA6+
2 x Twin Missile Pods - 45cm AP5+/AT6+
Twin Tau Plasma Cannons - 30cm AP3+/AT3+


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Fio'Ka Armoured Strike Force v 0.1
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
No worries on the HHs. Will add the changes. Might leave the Missile variant out though as they make good Stingrays :) Of course they could always supplant the Stingrays if armed with different missile types.

I put in the Path Finders as an infantry support/recon element and because they were mechanised. I can take them out if that's necessary.

Not sure I agree on the Fire Warriors. They are different because I want the focus to be armour not infantry. I figure there should be reduced numbers to allow more tanks but there will always be Fire Warriors present in Tau forces. Think of it more along the lines of a modern day Tank regiment/brigade with only smaller numbers of Mech infantry in support available. I also remember the arguments about Stingrays replacing Fire Warriors in the old version of the list, so I wanted to limit how many Fire Warriors were available so they would fill a niche but the Stingrays would take precedence.

Agree with the point on Skyrays.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Fio'Ka Armoured Strike Force v 0.1
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:33 am
Posts: 340
Dobbsy wrote:

I put in the Path Finders as an infantry support/recon element and because they were mechanised. I can take them out if that's necessary.

Not sure I agree on the Fire Warriors. They are different because I want the focus to be armour not infantry. I figure there should be reduced numbers to allow more tanks but there will always be Fire Warriors present in Tau forces. Think of it more along the lines of a modern day Tank regiment/brigade with only smaller numbers of Mech infantry in support available. I also remember the arguments about Stingrays replacing Fire Warriors in the old version of the list, so I wanted to limit how many Fire Warriors were available so they would fill a niche but the Stingrays would take precedence.



I suggested removing Pathfinders because they are an infantry version of the Recon and as such are less fluffy in an Armour list. Tetra's should really be the default choice for ML in this list. IMHO in the context of the list pathfinders don't make much sense.

With FW's they should be included in the list as they should stil bel a mainstay of Tau armies thought not a core formation in this list. If they are only four strong and you include Pathfinders then Pathfinders will always overshadow them. They will not replace stingrays as they will be the cheapest core formation and from my experience using them in the past Stingrays will still be better than FW's against most targets for less points, even with the modern FW stats.

One other thought I had. You can stilll keep the Skyseep formation and maybe even make it a core formation if the Stingrays loose its Seeker Missile. This would make the Stingray the anti-infantry tank and the Skyray the anti-tank tank. It might also be worth considering making both formations the same size. There is no need to follow the core lists formation sizes with tanks for this list.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Fio'Ka Armoured Strike Force v 0.1
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:42 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Jstr19 wrote:
I suggested removing Pathfinders because they are an infantry version of the Recon and as such are less fluffy in an Armour list. Tetra's should really be the default choice for ML in this list. IMHO in the context of the list pathfinders don't make much sense.

Yeah fair point. I like the idea of a "scout car" tetra design.

Jstr19 wrote:
With FW's they should be included in the list as they should stil bel a mainstay of Tau armies thought not a core formation in this list. If they are only four strong and you include Pathfinders then Pathfinders will always overshadow them. They will not replace stingrays as they will be the cheapest core formation and from my experience using them in the past Stingrays will still be better than FW's against most targets for less points, even with the modern FW stats.

Path Finders formation can go, so smaller FW's will still be useful and perhaps the Path finder upgrade for FWs might be ok??

Jstr19 wrote:
One other thought I had. You can stilll keep the Skyseep formation and maybe even make it a core formation if the Stingrays loose its Seeker Missile. This would make the Stingray the anti-infantry tank and the Skyray the anti-tank tank. It might also be worth considering making both formations the same size. There is no need to follow the core lists formation sizes with tanks for this list.

Removing the Seekers from the Stingray could work regardless. So I may do so.

Should the Skysweep lose its AA attacks if made a larger core formation...?

What do people think about built-in Skyrays for Hunter Cadres?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Fio'Ka Armoured Strike Force v 0.1
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:14 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
Quote:
Should the Skysweep lose its AA attacks if made a larger core formation...?
I think a Skysweep formation should always keep its AA ability.

Here are the stats for the Moray that were widely accepted just before the core Tau list was rationalised to get it finished:
Quote:
Moray - 300 pts
20cm Skimmer
Save 5+
2 x Light Railcannon | 75cm | MW3+ | Macro Weapon, Fixed Forward Arc
Ion cannons | 60cm | 2 x AP4+/AT5+ | Fixed Forward Arc
Burst Cannons 15cm, AA6+
2 x Seeker Missiles | 75cm | AT5+ | Guided, Forward Arc

DC 3, Reinforced Armour, Deflector shield (5+), Always Popped Up, Planetfall

Critical: The Morays weapon capacitors overload causing a massive
explosion. The Moray crashes to the ground and is destroyed

Seekers would become AT6+ as per the new stats. I'd also like to see it's speed increased to 25cm.
I would prefer to use this than use the Scorpionfish which is really not needed when a Tau player can take a Stingray formation.

Honda described the Moray as half a Manta without the transport ability. A good description for a usable/useful unit.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Fio'Ka Armoured Strike Force v 0.1
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:44 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:33 am
Posts: 340
I'm still not sure I see the need for smaller Mech. FW formations. I understand you are doing it for fluff reasons but I'm not sure the smaller formation would be viable. If you want to ensure that people use tanks instead and that tanks form the core of the army you could consider giving the formation a price increase or decreasing the number of support formations form 3-1 to 2-1.

Skyrays should keep their AA shot it is one of the defining characteristics of the unit. It is primarily an AA unit and has always been described as such in 40K.

If you include the Moray its stats will need re-doing. The older stats are no longer appropriate. For starters it would need one Rail Cannon shot dropped and it should have its Burst Cannon's modified to half a Manta's capacity. You should also remove the bombers from the list as they do the same job. I also agree with Onyx I would rather see the Moray than the Scorpionfish included in the list but I could live with both so long as the Scorpionfish got a name change it's still a silly name.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Fio'Ka Armoured Strike Force v 0.1
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:22 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20871
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Here are some of my thoughts on a Tau Armoured list. Feel free to ignore them.

========================================================

Tau Armoured Sept : Why?

We can presume that a Tau Sept that abandoned its normal forms of warfare so as to concentrate on Armoured warfare is suffering from some pressure that has forced the adoption of non-standard doctrines.

For the sake of my thoughts, I have assumed that this pressure is low population.

Because this particular Sept lacks numbers, the Fire Warriors have all been trained in the use of tanks.

A high degree of automation (Drones) is also used to help fill in for the lack of population.

==============================================================



Taking Dobby's list as a starting point, I would suggest:


CORE FORMATIONS:
=============

Add Gundrone Formation - This Sept uses them instead of foot Fire Warriors because they don't have enough Fire Warriors

Add Mechanised Gundrone Formation - Gundrones in Drone Harbingers (The Drone transport variant of the Devilfish)

SUPPORT FORMATIONS:
===============

Remove Crisis Formation - This Sept does not have enough Crisis Suits to waste them in battle.

Mechanised Cadre - Remove. They do not have enough Fire Warriors.

Pathfinder Cadre - Remove. Use Recon instead as they are "scout cars".

Skysweep Cadre - 250pts. Maybe less. 275pts has never been properly costed.

Stealth Cadre - Remove. All non-drone infantry should go.


Support Formations to add:

- Heavy Gun Drone formation. Heavy Gun Drones have lots of Burst Cannons and Markerlights.

- Sniper Drone formation. These exist in 40k.



UPGRADES:
=======

Commander - Change so that it adds SC to one Scorpionfish, Moray or Manta.

Ethereal- Delete.

Fire Warriors upgrade - Delete.

Pathfinders - Delete.



AIR CASTE FORMATIONS:
================

For the air caste, we can assume the same lack of bodies that plague the fire caste. Therefore, I'd delete the following:

- Barracuda Squadron
- Tiger Sharks
- Tiger Shark AX-1-0

I would Add:

- Remora Drone Fighters
- Aerial Drone Mines

Remora Drone Fighters would have Twin Burst Cannons, a Seeker Missile, and would have a 3+ save to represent their stealth field.

Aerial Drone Mines would have a good movement speed (25-30cm), an AA attack, and would be Skimmers. Successful hits would remove the Drone from play.

Also, the Moray should make a return.


================================================================

So that's what I'd say an Armoured list should look like. No normal infantry (They're in short supply and are all driving the tanks) but a high degree of technology (Tanks, Drones, Drone aircraft) to compensate.

That would provide a variant list that has some big drawbacks (No Fire Warriors or Crisis Suits!) but also some awesome things (Scorpionfish, Morays).


-----

Other things to consider would be adding more Hammerhead turret types, and perhaps deleting the Stingray as it has a lot of overlap with other units in the list (Doesn't provide anything truly unique).

I also agree with some of the suggestions above, like increasing the basic Hammerhead formation size to 6.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Fio'Ka Armoured Strike Force v 0.1
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:52 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 2:55 pm
Posts: 611
I was going to post supporting the 4+2 firewarrior devilfish formations, but reading E&C's post I really like the all mechanised/drone flavour. My only niggle, and it's purely flavour, is I don't see why it has to be an armoured Sept. a sept is is an entire planetary/solar system population so I'd much rather prefer this be an armoured battalion or some such, as I'd imagine most if not all septs would have specific armoured formations like this.

The moray stats look Ok (assuming the change to seeker missiles to 6+). It has slowly better shooting and is slightly more resilient than a scorpion, but is 50 points more.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Fio'Ka Armoured Strike Force v 0.1
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:23 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
No worries, MikeT. This isn't a Sept. It's an armoured force within a Sept and Fio'Ka is the "doctrine." Tau fluff (that I can find) lacks any mention of a particular Sept using this doctrine alone, so it made more sense to me to tie the name to the doctrine instead and not lock the list to one Sept in particular.

E&C - given the above, the removal of the specific infantry isn't where I'd like to go with the list. No armoured force works without some form of infantry (holding ground in cover etc etc), so a minimal presence is necessary in my mind. Not to worry though, I'm going to look through your list more closely though and might pick a few ideas out. :)

What do people suggest using as the Moray model? The Tau Protector spacecraft is too small. If anything, the Custodian is about right but, well, that's already a model in the army.... <shrug> Like I mentioned this is one of the reasons I didn't include it here. At least the Scorpionfish is based on a current model....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Fio'Ka Armoured Strike Force v 0.1
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:28 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20871
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Quote:
No armoured force works without some form of infantry

The Ulani Tank Regiment list works perfectly fine without infantry.

However, I did propose several infantry types to be used:

- Gun Drones (mainstay)
- Heavy Gun Drones (Support)
- Sniper Drones (Support)


Or you could just keep Fire Warriors and Crisis Suits.
I'd expect a very overpowered army list though if that were the case (It'd largely just be 3rd Phase Tau + some powerful extra artillery and direct fire MW shooting units), and not all that "variant" IMO. Removing Fire Warriors & Crisis puts the emphasis on other units IMO, and compensates for re-introducing the Scorpionfish & Moray IMO. YMMV.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tau Fio'Ka Armoured Strike Force v 0.1
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:17 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
For 300pts the Moray should have either 2x 75cm 3+MW attacks or 1x 45cm 3+ TK (D3).

Anything else just makes the thing not worth taking. There are pages of debate about this that a simple search of the Tau forums can attest to.

For Remora Drone Fighters, Mark_Logue and I used these stats:
Quote:
Speed - Fighter
Armour - 5+
Weapons - Twin-Linked Burst Cannons 15cm AA6+
Notes - Reinforced Armour (to represent the Stealth Technology), Markerlights
We wanted to emphasize the Markerlights rather than the Seeker Missile attack (as both seemed a bit over the top).
In an Armoured List that removes Pathfinders and relies more on Drone technology, these Remora Drones with Markerlights might help fill the Markerlight gap and keep the theme going.

We trailed it in a few games at 2x Remora Drones for 100pts (with a max of 1 Remora formation per 1500pts). That seems very cheap to me now but I don't remember it unbalancing our test games in a major way.

Another way to help represent the dependence on Drones could be to include Markerlight Towers as per the fluff in the Taros book. We used this formation in playtest games:
Quote:
Markerlight Sentry Support Group 1 Tau Markerlight Tower and 3 Tau Sentry Turrets. Upgrades: None. Cost 125pts
Markerlight Tower - Light Vehicle
Armour - 6+
CC - 0
FF - 0
Notes - Markerlight, Fearless

Tau Sentry Turret - Light Vehicle
Armour - 5+
Weapons - Twin-Linked Missile Pods 45cm, AP4+/AT5+
CC - 0
FF - 5+
Notes - Fearless
I'm not necessarily asking for it's inclusion but putting it out there as it might help differentiate this list a bit more from 6.4.

Cheers,
Steve.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 111 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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