I received this late last night, and it gives us some insight on Tau playtesting that is going on at the moment. Everything from a Tau Dreadknight type walker to a new Kroot Huge Monster is here.

Please remember that these are playtest rumors.

via the Faeit 212 inbox
I have been seeing a lot of play testing for the tau empire and have seen some new models as well. They look so new and epic it makes me really excited. Now I did my hands on some rules and names for units, If you are to pass these on then PLEASE send it to only reliable rumour sites.

I will start with the new sky ray orbital blast ability. From what I can remember on top of my head is that the sky ray has to forgo his full turn of shooting for a single unlimited range blast that is:

strength X AP 3 (wound on 2+,plasma corrosion, blast)
plasma corrosion - any enemy model hit under the blast rolls a d6 every turn for the remainder of the game on a roll of 1-3 the unit or model suffers d6 strength 4 AP5 hits. On a roll of 4-5 the unit suffers 2d6 strength 5 AP 4 hits. On a roll of a 6 the unit is hit with 2d6 strength 6 AP 2 hits with the blind special rule. (these are test rules and subject to change)

Tau fire warriors will have the OPTION to upgrade their tau fire warriors to bs 4 (I put option in bold to show it is an option for all those fluffy players)
I believe the upgrade at the moment is being called 'advance training'

battle suits are getting/got new models but have the same profile as now with the inclusion of an option to make them toughness 5 (cost or name is unknown)

The kroot is getting a HUGE monster that looks like something from fantasy. It has kroot riding it but is under going constant rule changes due to either dying to quickly or for lack of usage. From what I remember seeing it has 5 wounds but only a 5+ save and was over priced IMO.

kroot gain furious charge and move through cover and start with a 6+ save that can be upgraded to 5+ with shaper for an additional 2pts per model (making them 8pts per model) - remember this could change!

finally their is options to make all your battle suits have 2+ saves for 20pts per model - all war gear that is in the current codex has been reduced slightly.

the tau dread knight walker rumours you have read are 100% TRUE - I have seen the concept art/profile and from the top of my memory it is something like this.

WS  BS  S   T   W   I   A   LD   SV
 4     4    6   8   4    2   4    8    2+/4+

I will not share rules because they were on the next page of document of which I did not see. I did see the points which were : 210pts

note the points were highlighted in red marker which means they are subject to change at next play testing.

89 Comments:

  1. T8? I am little bit sceptical about that...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wraithlords has it, so why not?

      Delete
    2. Reason enough for the Tau not to have it.

      The Eldar already have a walker, a jump-jet walker and skimmers. The Tau have their own identity and big walkers are not it.

      Delete
    3. A big walker would be a stupid departure from the Tau 'style' and fluff, so I fully expect GW to do it.

      After all, can it really get stupider than wolves riding wolves >_<

      Delete
    4. Tau already have battlesuits, so why would an even larger version of a battlesuit seem so out of place?

      Delete
    5. I've always seen the Tau as being based on Imperial Japan. There was one point where the Japanese started eagerly adopting foreign ways of culture/war, so maybe the Tau are just adapting the concepts of wraiths and titans to their own philosophies.

      ~Muninn

      Delete
    6. Nice post this, I have a nice Tau army that could do with these!!

      Delete
  2. I'm always glad to see some Tau rumors. Especially this batch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup, they're fun to read even if they're completely wrong.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I SUPPOSE I could see T8. And my Wraithlord would kill for 2+/4++...

    ReplyDelete
  5. while i hope these rumours are true, the plasma corrosion seems a bit too mega, BS4 firewarriors would be ace but i remain sceptical and the DK..... Wow, i know poster mentioned that the stats were as best he could remember but for 210ts ill take 5!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, the plasma corrosion does seem a little over powered. I would hope it is a once a game option, otherwise you could use this for the first two turns, and no one other tau needs to shoot for the rest of the game.

      Also, I dont see why tau fire warriors need to be BS4, even with an upgrade. Perhaps if it was an elite choice unit then yes, but as basic troop selection they have some of the most powerful and long ranged rank and file weapons in the game at S5, which wounds T3 on a 2+, and with a 30" range.

      Delete
    2. versus marines, it's basically a bolter with 6" more range.
      Firewarriors hit on 4's and wound on 3's whereas marines hit on 3's and wound on 4's.
      Except Tau are not a jack-of-all-trades army like marines, they are supposed to have superior firepower in exchange of being made of wet paper.
      6 pts cheaper per model and 6" in range arent's really worth +2WS +1BS +1S +1T +2I +1 Ld -1Sv and all the marine goodies (ATSKNF, combat squad, combat tactics, grenades, special and heavy weapons, etc ..)
      Also, they have the stat line made for big squads (see guards, guardians...) but the max squad size of trained, semi-elite commandos (Vets, avengers, etc ....)
      So BS 4 on those guns really isn't a stretch, especially if it's an option you ave to pay extra to get.

      Delete
    3. But the Space Marines Tactical Squads can have a meltgun/plasmagun and rocket louncher/laser cannon and blow up heavy tanks or screw Elite units, and Firewarrior needs support of other specialist unit. If Firewarriors may have BS 4 would be best against Plague Marines (and Elite infantry).

      Delete
    4. Those of us with Shuriken Catapults hear your cries of Tau NEED BS4 because they suck without it & just laugh...

      Delete
    5. Those of you with shuriken catapults :

      - are not forced to take it as a 1+ troop choice

      - are slightly cheaper, while having slightly better stats (especially Ld and Initiative, so better chances to survive running away from combat, and better chances to not flee when someone looks at you funny)

      - replace the good infantry guns with a heavy weapon that doesn't loose its oomph until you've wiped out the entire squad

      - most importantly, have very descent alternatives as troop choices, including 3 that are BS 4 and who can actually do what is required from troops : scoring objectives

      - are still entitled to complain about those shuriken catapults. Asking for crappy units to be brought back to descent standards is not a race with only one winner.

      Delete
    6. But Bob, they are not marine equivalents, and nor are they bolters. Marines with bolters cant scratch toughness 8, they can only glance armour 10, and that 6 inches is important, since tau can shoot and kill most bolter/lasgun/plasma gun/splinter rifle troops before they get in range to bring their own weapons to bear. They also get an extra 3 inches over most rapid fire weapons for their rapid fire range. Marines need a 6 to wound toughness 6 monstrous creatures, tau need 5+. I play against tau regularly and they have no trouble with killing at a distance, so their basic troops do not a BS upgrade. Besides, that's what the marker lights are for. So now, with a marker light, that is easier to hit with at BS4, a standard troops unit could potentially shoot with strength 5 weapons with BS5? Can you imagine 10/20 shots against Imperial guard (who wont get a save) with those stats.

      Making them BS4 for standard troops (even if as points upgrade) is not needed in my opinion. I have no objection of having BS4 firewarriors taking up an elite section of the FOC.

      Delete
    7. Problem is those Bolter/Splinter Rifle guys have access to 36" Range weapons that can hide in vehicles with weapon ports/open topped, so that makes the Pulse Rifle's extra 6" over the 24" range weapons moot. Fire Warriors are T3 so will be wounded on a 2+ on most heavy weapons.

      Delete
    8. "FW can wound T8 and glance AV 11" : And that is why marnes have acces to heavy/special weapons, guardians have heavy weapon platforms, DEldars have splinter cannons (for AV, since MCs aren't a problem for them)

      "FW have an extra 6 inches range" : which is fine if you play on an infinite table, or if your opponent is too dumb to move, but in a game where everyone and their mom got more mobile since those 30" range were balanced (4th edition), that extra range isn't giving us the extra turn(s) of shooting required to do the job like it used to (not mentioning everyone got cheaper, hence more targets to shoot down with the same volume of fire as before, but less turns to do it before getting charged). Raising the volume of fire that actually hit by upping the BS is one way of bringing back balance in an army that has one phase per turn to do the killing (shooting phase) where everyone else has 3 (shooting phase, own assault phase, opponent's assault phase)
      Also, as Enigma crisis said, some armies have 36" range special/heavy weapons in their basic troop units, some of which can move and fire (either by themselves or on cheap vehicles with fire points)

      "Markerlights are there for BS upgrade" : except they don't have the aviability required to be a real solution to the problem, and they are not cheap either. It's funny however how people are always "OMG sky-is-falling" at the idea of BS4 firewarriors, when in fact, they already exist in the game, and all we're asking is having them in a more convenient way (baseline instead of MLs) for the sake of having more varied and flexible army lists, and for slightly cheaper (and I dare anyone say that 4th ed codices are not overcosted compared to modern standards)

      Delete
    9. Marines have access to heavy weapons yes. But in one tactical squad they can have two of them, and so yes they can wound T8 and penetrate armour 10. But that is two models with the potential to do that. You can have 12 fire warriors in one squad, which can all do the same.

      The fact is that we do not know what the tau 6th edition codex will hold. For all we know, Fire Warriors may get some special weapon options, in which case by your own arguments a BS increase would be moot. Indeed,perhaps they will get some close combat specialist units. If you want your tau to be more like marines, then do a marine army. Everyone wants their armies to be better at killing things. Wouldnt it be better for all guard to be BS4, or basic guardian units?

      To be frank, if the points for a BS upgrade is fair, then fine let the troops have a BS upgrade, but the point is that as much as you may wis them to have an increased BS, they dont actually need it given how deadly their weapons already are to the majority of armies.

      Delete
    10. Majority of armies? The only thing Pulse Rifles are deadly against is light infantry which if I recall is only Ork Boyz and Grotz, Small Nids, most Dark Eldar, Eldar Guardians, any Guard player that didn't upgrade to Carapace Armor, Chaos Cultists, Tau Kroot. That is 7 armies that have units the AP will deny armor compared to 12 armies that have units with better armor saves than 5+.

      Pulse Rifles are good but they aren't this awesome end all be all weapon when the carrier of said is a BS3, T3, I2, LD7 Sv4+ model that can't reliably hold objectives. I would trade the pulse rifle any day to have a more durable troop choice say Eldar Pathfinders.

      Delete
    11. Enigmas,
      Pathfinders are much more expensive than Fire Warriors. I'll take 24 Fire Warriors over 10 Pathfinders any day. I would also gladly trade Guardians for Fire Warriors. Yeah, they may not be great but the benefit from Markerlights and their guns are long enough range that they can contribute shots nearly every turn.

      Delete
    12. Enigma, it doesnt just come down to the AP value. If we wish to compare a bolter to a pulse rifle, they are identical except that the pulse rifle has 6 inches more range, and a strength of 5. You cannot argue then that the pulse rifle as a weapon is more effective at killing things than a bolter, even if the target does get an armour save. The very fact that the pulse rifle has a higher strength means that every hit is more likely to force a unit to make a save, and thus has a greater killing potential, and greater threat range than a bolter.

      Lets compare the maths with respect teh probability of a pulse rifle in the hands of a BS3 and BS4 Tau hitting and killing a unit with a save of 4+, with that of a marine armed with a bolter, for toughness 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

      Toughness, Tau BS3, Tau BS4, Marine
      T3: 0.208, 0.277, 0.222
      T4: 0.167, 0.222, 0.167
      T5: 0.125, 0.167, 0.111
      T6: 0.083, 0.111, 0.056
      T7: 0.042, 0.056, 0.056
      T8: 0.042, 0.056, 0.000

      What this shows is that BS3 tau are as good as Marines in killing units if not actually a bit better for higher toughness targets. That is, BS3 tau can kill toughness 4 or better equally well if not better than Marines. For toughness 3 targets, marines have only a slight advantage (it amounts to a difference of 16 in every 72 shots for marines will kill, compared to 15 in every 72 for BS3 Tau). The marines also have a slight advantage shooting toughness 7 targets, but this is traded off by the fact that they cannot wound toughness 8, whereas the tau can.

      So now compare this with BS4 tau. In every case except for T7 targets, the BS4 tau is more lethal than a marine with a bolter. This is why I argued that the tau do not need a BS increase for troop selection.

      Of course when it comes to points values you have to factor in their profiles, and how they perform in concert with additional units and options. But based solely upon a shooting argument, the fire warriors can kill better per point of cost than most other units in the game.

      Delete
  6. plasma corrosion: roll every turn ?! More markers and annoying abilities which slow down gameplay ... :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Roll dices everytimes (new rules, new stupid events to roll more dices).

      Delete
    2. Man, you are just a cup of sunshine...

      Delete
    3. Maybe you should stick to tic-tac-toe or four-in-a-row if you don't want to keep track of silly things like number of wounds/hull points/on going effects?

      Or you could get, I dunno, maybe some counters to put on the table...
      It's really not that hard...

      Delete
    4. You don't get the point at all.

      &th edition has already slowed down gameplay due to new wound allocation etc.
      Hull point markers have been introduced.

      So, my DE wyches are pined (marker) have a pain token (marker) the attached Haemonculus has a wound (marker) and got his abilities reduced by some Blood angel HQ (marker).
      Now 4 wyches are hit by the plasma corrision. 2 die, and the other 2 get a marker each. Great ..

      My point is that they should streamline the gameplay again and not put even more stones in the way. That's all I wanted to say, and since those are only rumours, don't be so serious, cheer up =)

      Delete
    5. They will fixed in 7th edition in the year 2016.

      Delete
  7. It Tau get T8, I want ALL my Nidz MC-s to be at least T7 with the Tyrannofex being T9 2+... Come on, everyone and their dog it 2+/x++ now. Give Nidz a proper new update... Sorry about whining but I think even 4th Tau are more competitive then 5th ed Nidz...

    However, a friend of mine is a big time Tau player, he will be pleased :) That plasma corrosion seems a bit OP to me id it cannot be removed. However, seeing Tau rumours are always great :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't forget about your psychic powers. I've been super frustrated against 'Nids when you get Iron Arm on your Tervigons. Plus regen.

      Delete
    2. The Swarmlord with Iron Arm is the bane of my life...

      Delete
    3. I really have to take my Nidz for a walk from the shelf I think...

      Delete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Since the rules are being playtested I'm not going to make an opinion on them. Rather wait for the Codex so that I don't look stupid in a few months.

    Liking the sound of the miniatures, and the fact we're getting such rumours means the Tau won't be far off being released.

    Hope to see more Tau rumours as I'm curious about them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good we are hearing more rumours about Tau. I hope they receive a decent and balanced codex with lots of options for various armybuilds.

    Though the rumours are still based on early playtestingrules I'm still skeptical about it. If the Dreadknight-a-like-thing is going to get statlines (w/ toughness profile), then imho GW is making a huge mistake. Neverless from my pov it's still a big machine. So why giving it a monsterprofile rather than a vehicle one? If you're wondering about survivability then there are various ways to solve this. F.e. add sth like a plasma shield/force field, which ignores the first glancing or penetrating hit on a ranged attack.

    Anyways, what I'm trying to say is GW should stick to machines, such as Dreadknights or this Tau model, being vehicles...not monsters.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ...and yet no mention of markerlights?

    ReplyDelete
  12. But, if this is a recent playtesting, surely we'll not see the new Tau Empire in May...
    this is a fake or the date is a fake u.u

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I was going to say the same. Surely if play testing is still going on Tau are still way off. Like, another year or something?

      Delete
    2. No idea on whether or not this is recent playtesting. Generally playtesting ends, and there is a 6 month window until codex hits the shelves. But the playtest info could still be floating around, or could be running late.

      Delete
    3. Also note, that playtest versions can change rather rapidly, often with different groups testing slightly different rules.

      Im not sure how much more on that I can go into.

      Delete
    4. Or maybe it will take until january to see Tau coming out of their closet... who knows.

      Delete
    5. hopefully we dont have to wait that long.

      Delete
    6. Why would you be so pessimistic? I'm sticking with Hastings' timetable. Apart from some WoC shuffling, it's been correct in every case...

      Delete
    7. Yeh, to be fair, I'm suspicious of these rules due to the DK. Not that it doesn't exist, more that it only has one set of stats.

      I'd put money on it being a dual kit for a short range anti infantry and then a scary XV-88 type.

      Delete
    8. A release six months from the end of playtesting? That is quite a quick turnaround.

      Maybe they have most of the codex written, subbed and proofed while they still tinker with the rules.

      I never knew they went that close to the wire. From the outside, it always looks like they make and then print a codex, before sitting on it for months before releasing it.

      Delete
  13. Still not buying the Big Tau Walker stuff. It's just not their MO to have them. Leave it to the Eldar.

    The large Kroot monster is a natural progression of the Knarloc family so that works fine for me. BS4 on FWs is all good. A Sky Ray getting an orbital strike? Why would a missile tank have something that command-level officers would have access to and our HQs currently don't? Makes no sense.

    Nice rumours on the Kroot though, they do need a fair bit of help in 6th.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Still not buying the Big Tau Walker stuff. It's just not their MO to have them."

      While it isn't a Ward-dex, since when has GW kept from doing stupid shit like this?
      Just look at those stupid Thunder Wolves -_-

      I can definitely see the Tau Walker happening, I just think it's a sucky idea...

      Delete
    2. And was a giant walker in the GK's MO?

      Delete
    3. hey, love those wolves, they are awesome, just the space wolves on them look horrible.

      I really hope that when the Black Templars get redone, they'll receive something like cybersteeds :D

      Delete
    4. It may not be a Tau walker, it could be an ally race with Tau upgrades.

      Delete
    5. Ahem,

      What are Battlesuits and Broadside Battlesuits? Are these not Walkers?

      They boost the characteristics of the ordinary Tau who pilot them. Surely a race not afraid of advancing their tachnology could come up with a bigger battlesuit.

      Delete
    6. I've been over this about five times this week, I'm getting a bit tired of it. Short version:

      The Tau have mobility as their strength, they use this mobility to deploy quickly, strike quickly and withdraw quickly. They do not hold ground, they do not use or need heavy units to hold a line. This is all in black and white in our codex.

      All our walkers have to fit into an Orca to extract. A Broadside just about fits. Just. The top railguns slide into grooves in the ceiling. Anything that doesn't fit into an Orca has to keep up with a Sky Ray, which at 70kph is the slowest Tau skimmer, and extract via a Manta. A Crisis Suit has a top speed of 50kph (and don't think that's sustainable) so I can't see a heavier walker fitting into any of this at all as it would be slower still, and would rely on highly valuable Mantas for transport. I cannot see the Tau developing a new transport just because a heavy walker needs it, a single unit.

      Don't even get me started on how a heavy walker doesn't fit in with our combat doctrine. I'd love to see one, but not at the expense of our unique fluff. Bigger walkers are for the Eldar. Our Epic units back this up 100%, beyond a Broadside everything is a flier.

      Delete
    7. Aesthetically, a Tau Gundam suit thing would fit... maybe not fluff wise, but hey, before their last codex, Necrons didn't even talk. Now they have culture!

      Delete
    8. Why would all the 'walkers' have to fit in an Orca?? I wouldn't drive my old mini if i grew old and fat, because i wouldn't fit in it anymore. I'd buy a new car and its the same with the Tau. Especially when they're supposed to be the fastest adapting race in 40K. For heavens sake develop a bigger craft so that the walkers fit!

      The walker will most likely be fitted with a jet- or jump pack so to make it more mobile, or have heavy guns similar to those of the Broadsides. No-one can argue that the XV88s are mobile units can they?? So what is wrong in having another option in this field? Because that's what the Tau need right now, Options.

      Also, the SkyRay's Corrosive effect is nothing compared to the Manticore's 'Sky Eagle Rockets'. And with the 6th rules, they WILL destroy vehicles and infanrty like no tomorrow. The tau are supposed to have the most POWERFUL guns in the game, the IG is supposed to have A LOT of guns.

      And besides, my bet is none of the Tau units in the future codex will be able to last in close combat, including the 'Walker' (Except for maybe a few kroot units), so they would have to be able to stop the assaulters before they can reach the force (Or in Close combat without hand-to-hand combat).

      The new SkyRay rules are meant for this so you can shoot at a squad before they assault and they will keep suffering from the effects of the corrosion even if they are fighting in Close combat.
      So essentially you could indirectly "shoot" in close combat in this manner and if lucky, even win the assault. (So even StormShield/ThunderHammer Terminators would have SOMETHING to fear)

      However, the thing that is bugging me a little is that the 'Walker' has to be a Monstrous Creature! I think its the wrong way, as it should be an actual walker with something along the lines of: 13 13 11 and 4 HP, 4++.

      All in all i think what the Tau need is more Options in Unit form, so no deep strike-disrupting rules or dislocation/teleporting since they always tend to be too devastating to the game mechanics, (usually for the assault armies).

      Delete
    9. Exactly. The Russians built a new plane to carry the Buran orbiter, and the Americans built the C-5 to carry battle tanks. The Tau aren't the imperium, they can actually develop new and innovative weapons. A codex that DOESN'T include new and interesting weapons is probably less fluffy than one with an enlarged battlesuit.

      Delete
    10. You're kinda generalising a bit too much there. The C-5 can carry most types of tanks, it's not been developed because of a single unit. The drive behind the concept is a tad different there. Something between an Orca and a Manta would probably be a good idea, we've just seen nothing to support that yet.

      And Spell, yup, Necrons have personalities is a good thing. There's not a lot you can do to improve "Undead in space" without having more scope. So GW flipped the lore 180 and bunged the 'Crons in charge rather than the C'Tan and fortunately this does nothing to change how they play or their uniqueness in 40k. IT was a damn good move IMO, and Ward, Johnson & Vetock justified it really well when I spoke to them about it last year.

      Delete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  15. If i could have only one thing added to the codex it would be to make Forgeworld Tetra's legal. They change Tau from an average codex to an awesome one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you mean legal? All FW stuff that isn't apoc is legal in standard 40k games.

      Delete
    2. I think they mean general tournament legal.

      Delete
    3. I don't really follow tournaments much myself. The type of people that go to them are generally try-hards, and the fact that tournament organizers don't allow FW things or even some things from the rule book is silly.

      Delete
    4. Crow, mind linking to the FAQ or BRB page number that says forge world is included in the standard rule set?

      Delete
    5. It's in the front of all the current Imperial Armor books.

      Delete
    6. What Enigma said. In current FW productions, there's two types of classifications for units. One is only useable in Apoc games (Titans and their ilk, Baneblades, etc.), others are free to use in normal games (Eldar Corsairs, etc.).

      Delete
    7. I generally don't agree with my opponents using FW stuff in regular 40k.

      Delete
    8. FW stuff is part of regular 40k now though. I don't see why it'd be such a big deal. If someone comes with well-painted FW models, lets you know they're in his army, and shows you a print-out/hard copy of the rules for said units, then you'd be hard-pressed to turn him down anymore than you would turn someone down who uses TH/SS terminators, or any other unit you don't like.

      Delete
    9. Yup, FW stuff is 100% legal for standard 40k.

      Which is exactly why we won't see them in the new codex, they already have current rules from FW and GW don't pinch units from FW anymore. See every codex since the IG for proof.

      Delete
    10. They pinched the Ork Bomma quite recently didn't they? Less than 6 months ago anyway. But anyway, Yeah FW is legal if it is 40k approved as says in the books yet you will still get people thinking they know better. If GW just said the words "40k approved" themselves, it would seal the deal but for some reason, they don't seem to want to..

      Delete
    11. I've always thought that I'd think it completely unreasonable of my opponent to not allow me to play FW stuff. Then I saw the rules for the Caestus, and I think I might feel slightly guilty unloading that on the table, knowing what it can do and how obscenely over-powered it is.

      Delete
    12. Yeah but Jagged, remember things like Vendettas and other broken units you can use. I don't really see anyone not play an opponent because they've used vendettas - unless they go overboard.

      Delete
    13. Nurgs, nope! The Bomma & Fighta-Bommer are two different units.

      Delete
  16. I'm so pumped for a new Tau Book. We've waited seven years so I can't wait to see what they do.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I don't see why people are complaining about a Tau MC walker. To me they seem like they will be more mobile than broadsides (without ASS) and Tau are all about mobility. And FW BS4 is pretty much what I already do with markerlights, if not BS5, so if it is an upgrade you can pay for, I'll probably just take less/no markerlights.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm anxious to see the new designs of the battle suits- Crisis and all. I don't currently have a Tau army but I plan on buying one once the new codex and models come out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, Tau are the army really I've been waiting for. It'll be good to see some more sleek looking suits and flyers.

      Delete
  19. I wonder if the vespid will get any love in the new codex? I can't recall the last time I heard any rumors about them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They would kind of have to if GW intends to sell any more of their models... Here's to hoping!

      Delete
  20. So. 6ed makes my beloved tanks of the Imperial Guard glanced to death. Penetrating hits will knock out weapons or immobilize. And even Leman Russes only have 3 "wounds". Now the army that can already shoot through my tanks like lascannon through grotz gets a MC with 4 wounds that is still fully operational even with only 1 wound left and gets better saves than tanks would? Thank you, GW. I'd much rather face an AV14 front HP4 Walker than this.

    At the very least GW could have introduced some sort of "gravely wounded" rule in 6ed, that once a MC drops below 50% of its Wounds, it no longer operates at peak efficiency. Alas, no.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MC's also get fucked over by poison weapons, and this one in particular can be hurt by a str 5 weapon. An AV14 vehicle will take at least something str 8 to even glance the damn thing.

      Also as Natfka says, take these rumours with a grain of salt. It's not guaranteed they're getting this MC.

      I still find it funny that there's a GUARD player complaining about 6th edition.

      Delete
    2. I play guard. Mech Guard. I like 6th ed vehicle rules. Yes my tanks die more reliably. But that's fine, because you have to kill them to shut them down, it's very hard to stop me from moving/shooting now. Also, in 5th ed the #1 killer of guardsmen was exploding vehicles bar none; no longer a problem. My Russ, while on the surface more fragile, are in use much better. You know what's popular today? Plasma. You know what Russ don't give 1d6 about? Plasma. And oh, hey, all my vehicles always have a 5+ cover save. ALWAYS, unless it's a 4+ thanks to cover or even a 2+ if it's night fight. Sounds good to me. And yes, Tau are the bane of my existence. You know what I do? I take Grey hunters instead of melta vets. They mop up Tau quite nicely.

      P.S. Vendetta Vendetta Vendetta

      Delete
  21. Thanks for the Tau update natfka! Great stuff.
    I hope its older than it appears so May is still a possibility for a codex release, I'm already planning on hiding some tax return money :-)
    I love the Walker concept, very Tau in my option.
    BS 4 fire warriors isn't going to change much, it's getting past the saves thats always been the problem for me. I can't tell you how many times I've unloaded on a tac squad and had it walk through nearly unscathed (alright! 17 hits...and good rolls- 9 wounds. Hahaha! Die you spac...WHAT?! 1 failed save?! Sigh)
    And I'm really wanting to see a flyer (besides forgeworld)
    I haven't purchased any models since before necrons new codex came out and I was really lookin forward to ending the streak

    ReplyDelete
  22. A "rumour" containing point values and full stat lines? LAWL, wishlist.

    ReplyDelete

 
Top
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...