Talk:Codex - Tau Empire Angry Communist Edition

Introduction

• Start each of your posts with *

use : when stating a new line. This way * marks that it´s a new users post and we don´t have to get the mess where

we waste half the space because it´s the seventh reply in a reply chain.

If you use a name, which I would appreciate if you did, just post it at the end of your last line.

I will try to regularly minimize discussions to make it clear what is currently being discussed, if I have minimized your post before replying just remove the minimizing code. - AngryPirate

Misc

Recent Changes

• Deleted the old vers. to prevent clutter, also 90% of it isn't relevant anymore (feel free to revert)

Just wanted to remind you to put up a heads up for your idea of using the old/new models for XV88 and 89...

The pricing seems also a bit heavy... there are price raises and nerfs troughout the board though... I really oughta finish my table to get a better overview

The Smart-Missile System Description has the rule "Drone-Controlled" which isn't described anywhere.

Additonally Homing is still explained below the profile?

• Thanks for proof reading, does this fix things?

As for balancing, it might be all the way out there. A lot of this stuff is just firing from the hip. One thing you have to keep in mind is that the target is a 13 pt marine, not a 300 pt Wraith Knight.

Hit & Run

• Not an actual discussion:

Since commonly used rules are not explained in their respective entries, here is a summary of any other rules: Hit & Run A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule that is locked in combat can choose to leave close combat at the end of any Assault phase. If the unit wishes to do so, it must take an Initiative test. If the test is failed, nothing happens and the models remain locked in the fight. If the test is passed, choose a direction – then roll 3D6. As long as the distance rolled, in inches, is sufficient to allow the entire unit to move over 1" away from all of the enemy units they are locked in combat with, the unit breaks away from combat and must immediately move a number of inches in the chosen direction equal to the 3D6 result, ignoring the models they were locked in combat with. No Sweeping Advance rolls are made. Enemy units that are no longer locked in combat immediately Consolidate D6".

A Hit & Run move is not slowed by difficult terrain, but takes Dangerous Terrain tests as normal. It may not be used to move into base or hull contact with enemy units, and models instead stop 1" away. If there are units with this rule on both sides who wish to disengage, roll-off to determine who goes first and then alternate disengaging them. If the last of these ends up no longer in combat, it Consolidates instead.

New Formation Tables

• I reformatted the Formation tables and fixed a bunch of writing misstakes especially the unit suffixes were mostly wrong
  do the formation tables look good (should I do them for the rest of the codex)Cool3303 (talk)

• I don´t like the new tables, I don´t know how to format them and I neither want to reformat every other formation in the Angry Initiative nor have one be an odd one out. This format also does not clarify whether you can take 1-3 of each of the items from the list or 1-3 items from the list.

The changing of unit suffixes is intentional, I think it sounds better to call a unit of Battle Tanks a Battle Tank Squadron instead of just Battle Tanks. I just called everything Team because that was what the Tau were already using. I suppose there wouldn´t be anything wrong with calling the skimmers squadrons but it was mostly for the purpose of making each codex feel different. Like IG have squads, Tau have teams, Orks have mobs.

It´s also different from what is presented in the official codices, I don´t really think there is a need for changing it, even if it looks a little neater. - Pirate

• Ehhh it kinda makes even less sense.. a single Riptide isn't a Team...neither is a Stormsurge,Ghostkeel,Broadside etc...I think it's confusing, and infact it was inconsistent between formations...

The formatting of the other tables was easy,you just set the number of colums(horizontal)or rowsize(vertical)...gets complicated with resized and unresized things together though[1]

Can I atleast add back the links to the unit entries and use {{TOC_Right}} to move the table of contents to the side ?

In-site links are just[[#NameofanyHeader|Title]]... I would color them black but the high above unfortunately doesn't leave me that option --Cool3303 (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• You are right about a single Stormsurge not being a Team, but it´s not a Stormsurges either. I don´t really see how one is more right than the other. Calling all of them Teams makes it super clear when I talk about a unit and when I´m talking about a model. I can´t really say

- 1 KV128 Stormsurges

I´d have to say:

- 1 unit of KV128 Stormsurges
- 1 KV128 Stormsurge Team is just the shortest option. 

How difficult it is isn´t the biggest factor, it´s just a pain in the ass to change all tables, it also doesn´t match the official releases, so even if you were to do it I don´t think it would be better. Although I do think the boxes look nice.

Adding that back is a good idea, it was a bad idea on my part to remove that. Angry Pirate (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• So since you didn't let me have it my way I want to make a table/list wich quickly sums up all the changes...

I assume I am allowed to put it on the bottom of the page?

Pretty empty Template (which I will expand/edit) is here:AngryTauMegatable

On a sidenotes is Farsight supposed to lack the "Commander" namerule? I would also love the rule being rephrased to "Is treated as X-Unit for the purpose of Detachments and Formations."

Furthermore, I suggest to include the current choices for the Hunter Contigent as new "Contigent Headquarters" (Commander,Ethereals,The Eight) and "Titanic Support" ->KX139

Only for organizational reasons --Cool3303 (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• I don´t see how it could hurt, but I´m not going to make it or edit it... - Pirate

Mechs=Walkers

• Isn't this the right time to change at least the larger Mechs to Walkers, following the Creature Fixes? TheWiseDane (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• I wasn´t aware of that page, but that was indeed the intention. Tau is currently a little bit on the backburner, I´m trying to finish up SM which have taken a fair bit longer than I anticipated and it will probably continue to take loads more time. Angry Pirate (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• If no one minds, I'll do some work on it in my spare time. You can check it before I wreck it when you've got the time. TheWiseDane (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• I´m somewhat worried about the drones though, I haven´t previously thought of the problem and I don´t think the patch Creature Fixes have made adequeately represents a Suit/Drone team. Angry Pirate (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You could make them into essentially their own unit (so you either attack the suit (if it's a Walker - Crisis Suits should be regularly targetted) or the drones), but if the Suit eats it, the drones are removed as well? - Dane

• Isn't just changing them to "Jet Pack Vehicle:(Super-heavy)Walker" self explanatory?
  Jet pack is an additional unit description and still works for Vehicles
  Other units also cannot join Monstrous Creatures ordinarily, the Tau Codex is very clear on this:
  Vehicles with Pre-included Drones do not count to the unit. Anything else counts them as part of the unit for both coherency and Victory points
  For clarification on the walkers a rule stating any drones do not count as attached would suffice (only Ghostkeel has pre-included drones BTW)
  Oh additionally,including a special rule for free targeting is needed Cool3303 (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah just saying Jet Pack Vehicle should be enough for the walker itself, I´ve decided to just make the Drones vehicles when they are taken by vehicles just to make it simpler.

My intention is actually to not write any rules whatsoever for Drones. So characters won´t be able to buy them unless they take a bodyguard unit. It seems redundant to have a character bring 2 additional drones to a drone squad and write half a page´s worth of text just to allow it, when I can just increase the max unit size of drone units. The only rule I´ll need is an "attached" rule for the vehicles which carry drones, which should be much shorter than the alternative.

I don´t really get what you mean by free targeting? - Pirate

• Walkers have when you apply RAW (Weapons mounted on the Walker) a 45° Firing arc...and since stormsurge cannot move AT ALL....would be less inconvenient for the smaller walkers with less weapons Cool3303 (talk)

• Can´t their torso rotate? Would it be enough if it was made clear in the rules that its main gun should be able to go up and down and it´s torso should be able to go clockwise and counter-clockwise?

• Common sense would dictate that arm mounted cannons can be moved... This is about RAW though

• There is one issue with monstrous suits being turned into mechs: it makes them fragile. Generally speaking most "gun" walkers in the game are quite cheap for the firepower they provide - this is because in current edition S8-9 single shot guns are also cheap, and multiple-shot S6-7 guns are extremely abundant, so those units are not expected to survive for long. The only exceptions from this rule are Forgeworld walkers. Because FW has no idea about how rule design works. So now we have Tau with 180-200 pts walkers that have a firepower slightly above rifleman dread, while being almost equally as fragile (arguably even more fragile, when exposed to low-AP, where AV matter more then HP) and WAY worse in close combat. Adding to this we also have tau without a unit to use as a bullet-magnet, as they are now inclined to hide their monster-suits from enemy firepower, rather than using them as a big threat to soak it and save your fragile units.

• The codex is in its alpha stage, this means that I am confident that certain things are going to be changed, another thing I am almost certain of is that a number of things are going to be imbalanced. The reason why the Riptide in particular might be unbalanced is because it is hard to compare to Dreadnoughts which are the basic walker.

Comparrison

Dreadnought with two twin-linked autocannons is 100 pts vs. standard Riptide is 180 pts.

Dreadnought has 4 attacks WS 4 S 6 AP - at I 4 - vs. Riptide has 3 attacks WS 2 S 6 with Smash at I 4.

4 twin-linked S 7 AP 4 shots at BS 4 vs. 7 gets hot, rending S 6 AP 4 shots, 3.5 S 6 AP 4 shots, 4 S 5 AP 5 ignores cover shots at BS 3. Being in an army that allows it to get markerlights is huge, but sadly hard to quantify mathematically.

Scout (tested in the CSM codex, will be implemented for the Smurfs soon) vs. automatically deep striking turn 2 without scatter as well as jetpack, giving access to jump shoot jump tactics.

Objective secured and It Will Not Die vs. generating a free markerlight, Hit and Run, Night Vision, Supporting Fire and the option of using nova charges in 3 alternate ways.

AV 12/12/10 3 HP It Will Not Die vs. AV 12/11/11 5 HP with Nova Charges possibly removing HP and a 6+ invul. It depends on what you face, but the extra rear armour is going to come in against some enemies more and against other enemies the side armour is going to come in more. The mobility of Riptides mean they should be able to often protect their side armour against most enemy types, but against Drop Pods here rear armour is important.

Comparrison conclusion

There are two things that make this comparison hard. Mobility and in particular the ability to JSJ is huge, I have no idea what it is worth and it will very much depend on the game you are playing. I imagine it is useless when facing drop pods and flyers, but awesome against a gun line or a melee army. The second is markerlights, not only can increase its hit rate by 66% with a couple of markers, it can also weaken if not remove cover saves entirely and reduce the chance of weapons getting hot.

Discussion

There is one issue with monstrous suits being turned into mechs: it makes them fragile.

It is intended they become more fragile, to put them in line with other walkers, them being able to soak at least 4 lascannon shots while walkers are not guarenteed to survive past the first shot did not make sense to me.

Adding to this we also have tau without a unit to use as a bullet-magnet, as they are now inclined to hide their monster-suits from enemy firepower, rather than using them as a big threat to soak it and save your fragile units.

Using expensive and experimental tech as bullet magnets seem like a bad idea, speaking in fluff terms. This is why I reduced Riptides' invulnerable save in order to encourage JSJ tactics and using terrain instead of just going gung-ho with your mech. Playing smart and not doing things which would be considered dumb in the real world seems to be a Tau thing, while painting your armour in a bright colour and charging into the enemy to cut him with a chainsword and other such silliness should be left to the more fantastic races (humans among them).

WAY worse in close combat. and almost equally as fragile (arguably even more fragile, when exposed to low-AP, where AV matter more then HP)

They are quite a lot better than dreads with two ranged weapons at least and close combat, even after giving CSM Dreads Scout is still a hard thing to achieve for a Walker that can only move 6" each turn. You could compare the basic dread to a Riptide, but the basic Dread wants to get up close, the problem with that is in short: melta. The Riptide might not be more survivable in the simple sense, its survivability comes from its ability to move away from threats and JSJ.

Generally speaking most "gun" walkers in the game are quite cheap for the firepower they provide - this is because in current edition S8-9 single shot guns are also cheap, and multiple-shot S6-7 guns are extremely abundant, so those units are not expected to survive for long.

I would argue the reason why gun walkers are cheap is because they are less mobile and carry less firepower than their tank counterparts. Riptides on the other hand, are more mobile than most tanks, which is why I left their price as is, which is exactly what I did. The reason it is 180 is because that is what it is in the official codex, not because of some illaborate piece of math or because of a number of playtests. The Riptide and the other MCs turned walkers are the primary reason why this codex is still i alpha, I would like to eventually test them out myself and find a good spot for the Riptide, but my number one issue right now is that I do not have anyone to use my Angry Codices against and my number two problem is that even if I did I would have to proxy or loan a Tau army.

So now we have Tau with 180-200 pts walkers

At what points level do you feel it belongs at? When would you start thinking "wow 3 Riptides, that is cheese" and when would you think "damn I really want to bring a Riptide, but it just seems very poorly costed"? Angry Pirate (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• At what points level do you feel it belongs at? When would you start thinking "wow 3 Riptides, that is cheese" and when would you think "damn I really want to bring a Riptide, but it just seems very poorly costed"?

The real problem with the MC Riptide as it is in 40k is that is scales too good when spammed - single Riptide or Y'Vahra feels good and balanced and actually gives you a set of interesting tactical choices, but when you start bringing multiples it quickly grows into cheese no-skill autowin shit. Putting hardcap of 1 class 10 suit per detachment would both fix it and fit the fluff of "cutting edge super-rare experimental tech". I used to play Enclaves with super-mobile lists, like 4+ ta'ro'chas, tetra teams, barracuda or two and Y'vahra, and it was fun, but not as power ful as 'crons or Eldar, which was fine, since I mostly played against Guard, CSM and FW siege marines my friends played - and it was ballanced and fun (except against Chaos, we ended up giving Chaos guy extra points, since his codex was so shit, then it was fun all way back).

Using expensive and experimental tech as bullet magnets seem like a bad idea, speaking in fluff terms.

Except throwing Riptides into the fray, while more fragile units take the opportunity to flank or bypass the enemy is pretty much what Tau did in all canon conflicts where they deployed them, going all the way to using one riptide with nova-boosted shield to soak a whole volley from multiple Baneblades and entire line of Skitarii troops. The point of Riptide fluff-wise is shock-and-ave assault - drop in, blast shit, absorb some heavy fire to demoralize enemy with the illusion of invulnerability and jump out when it gets too hot.

• The real problem with the MC Riptide as it is in 40k is that is scales too good when spammed

No, there are no units that are only good when spammed and all units benefit from being spammed. Having an army made up on only one type of unit does make that army good against all comers lists because the enemy army will waste some of their firepower or use it ineffectively. On the other hand your list should be really weak to counter lists because they can dedicate their entire army to destroying your one type of unit.

But the size 10 suits are not only good when fielded en-masse, it is just hard to see the effect of 1 8th of your list. Even if it overperforms it might be hard to spot what exactly is pulling the most weight for its points, it becomes much more noticable when half your list is big suits and your army is worth twice that of your CSM opponents list and you end your games in quick crushing defeats.

Putting hardcap of 1 class 10 suit per detachment would both fix it and fit the fluff of "cutting edge super-rare experimental tech".

They have gone away from them being super unique though and have gone on to make both knight and titan class suits, it no longer makes sense to limit them. It would also be unfair to people who own a lot of Riptides, even if they might deserve it.

drop in, blast shit, absorb some heavy fire to demoralize enemy with the illusion of invulnerability and jump out when it gets too hot.

The same can be said for Terminators, but you do not get to have a unit that is both offensively good for its price and defensively good for its price, I also will not accept it being neither OP nor it being absurdly pricy.

With its current profile it can already weather the firepower of a couple of Baneblades when it nova charges its shields. It is just no longer more or less guarenteed surviving them like it was before.

While Land Raiders and Dreadnoughts are vehicles, Riptides should be as well. Angry Pirate (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Don't like the swap, because mechs (at least Riptides, not Surges) more agile than walkers and it should be depicted. But better "turn" all vehicles to infantry and give Riptides traits of both, like Mechanicum automatas (a roll of 6 on Haywire table = wound).
• Well they are definitely more mobile because they are jet pack walkers, so when you say more agile are you talking about their firing arcs, which is pretty much the only thing less agile about them now. I have actually thought about allowing all walkers and super-heavy walkers have increased firing arcs, possibly 360* like MCs. I can see that especially against flyers it's main weapon hanging too low is a problem.

They definitely should not be MCs or Infantry, them being more vulnerable to poison or fleshbane than Dreadnoughts and less vulnerable to armourbane and haywire than Dreadnoughts does not in any way shape or form make sense.

Ion Cannon/Accelerator Swap

• A common fix for the Accelerator and the Cannon is to swap the two weapon's S and AP stats, making the Hammerhead the shootier option and the Riptide the aggresive infantry killer. I propose this:

	Range	S	AP
Ion Cannon	48"	9	2	Heavy 3.
Ion Cannon (Overcharge)	48"	9	2	Ordnance 1, Get's Hot, Large Blast.

And...

	Range	S	AP
Ion Accelerator	36"	8	3	Heavy 2
Ion Accelerator (Overcharge)	36"	8	3	Ordnance 1, Gets Hot, Large Blast.

• What about the Nova Charged Ion Accelerator?
• Oh right... That thing people use xD

I dunno, are we going to keep the Nova Reactor in general? If so, you could make the Blast of the Overcharged Ion Accelerator either AP 2 and/or S 9 again, or increase the Blast size 7? TheWiseDane (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah the Reactor will definitely be kept, it´s a core part of the Riptide.

I personally don´t care much for what the Nova Charged Ion Accelerator does, but making it AP 2 makes the Hammerhead w. Ion Cannon a lot less special. Angry Pirate (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - Perhaps just Large Blast, Armourbane? To give all three attacks a speciality? - Dane

Ion Cannon has better range (48"? Barracuda has 60") so Accelerator should have way to gain AP2 to deal with heavy infantry.

Ion cannon should go way of the tri-axis Ion cannon: fire either 3 AP3 shots or 1 AP2 (without Gets Hot!).

Let's Talk Rail Weapons

• Just that. Most of the Rail weapons are at this point just high S, AP 1 weapons, which would be nice, if it wasn't so standard at this point. Therefor, like the Lascannon, I think we need to change them up.

Possible changes could be Armorbane, Lance, and/or propably D for the Railgun itself, since the Vanquisher Gun is D, too, and is a physical shell gun. - Dane.

• I think they are perfectly fine as is, I actually don´t think there are a lot of high strength high ap weaponry. Eldar have lances, which are medium strength and high ap but extra good against AV 13+14. Crons have medium strength and no ap and automatic glances. Las cannons are pretty much the same as eldar lance weaponry. I don´t think any other army has a S 10 AP 1 weapon with a large range.

The vanquisher is a shaped charge filled with high explosive rather than a fast projectile. I don´t think S D should be given lightly, it has a huge impact on GCs and SHs, I don´t really think Tau have a problem with big things, am I wrong?

Another thing is the cost of a hammerhead and its ability to jink, jinking with a S D weapon is way too big a deal so it basically won´t jink any longer and it´l have to go way up in price. Further titans would have never been a problem if Tau had easily mass produced D ground to ground weaponry. Angry Pirate (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• I have to say, that's extremely biased. The Vanquisher is definatly a good tank hunter, but S D? It's just a shell, as you say, not like a Vortex weapon. Give it S 9, Armorbane or whatever, but defending D for a regular Tank cannon is a bit erh.

On the other hand, while we might disagree on the valicity of this, the Railgun is exactly as awesome as you describe. In fluff, Leman Russes are taken out quickly by Railguns, one story describing how a Hammerhead got nine tank-kills in one battle due to terrain, range and simple, ballsout power. Hammerheads are absoutely used as anti-titans (at least the small ones; larger ones are funneled down by fliers with Rails instead).

To me, it's important that this thing is what it's described as - scary. I think making it Ordance would be better, so you can't move with it, and set the point cost up. The Hammerhead is rarely taken because everything else does it better, so it needs some sort of role; in this case, long range removal of vehicular and monstrous threats. TheWiseDane (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• The Vanquisher is rare pattern of anti tank pattern described as being powerful against titans: http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Vanquisher_Cannon. There is a difference between what type of shell you are firing, also how does a clump of metal>an explosive charge?

Propoganda for the greater propogande, a single SM can take out a titan legion with enough plot armour. No they are not, which is why the Tau had to make bigger railguns (with strength D) and mount them on flyers to combat imperial titans.

I geuss that´s fine I suppose it will make it fit into its anti-heavy tank role better, but it still isn´t an anti-titan gun. - Pirate

• I... Just don't get you sometimes. How can you not see how biased this is? You're willing to give Lascannons, a go to, en masse anti-vehicle weapon, which can be taken in large bundles at a time Lance and Piercing Power, and the Vanquisher Cannon just straight up D, despite being a tank-hunter, while the Railgun, a weapon that shoots a solid slug around 6-10 times the speed of sound, which can burst through ANY armor (as in, all tank armor the Tau has ever met, including smaller titans - as you say, the larger ones needed the Rail Cannon-wielding fliers); the weapon that literally turns Leman Russes inside out and reduces the insides to slag and liquified bodies... Is apparently so standard and weak that it's just the old Lascannon +1? How can't you see how extremely biased this is?! If a shaped charge WW2-style cannon can be an anti-titan weapon, I think a futuristic railgun with range so large Imperial tank scanners can't detect them can too. I mean seriously; Necrons can get a Large Blast D AP 2 weapon, and DE and Eldar can get somewhat weapker D weapons en masse, and Tau can't even get D for what's clearly described as one of the most powerful weapons on the battlefields of 40k?!

There's a reason a lot of old-guard Tau players are mad about all the new mechs; the old fluff made it very clear that Tau didn't need to use mechs, because Tau weaponry was just fine against Warhounds and, in a pinch, Reavers, and after encountering Warlords and Imperators, they just made the Railcannon and put it on a Tigershark. That's the Hammerhead's niche, and it has always been that way. Should the price go up accordingly? Propably. Should there be some rules to balance it out? Surely - Not moving to fire it would be fine, and fluffy. Should a Hammerhead be able to jink it's way to victory with a D weapon? Of course not! I'm jsut saying, if all those weapons can get the D, the Railgun should too.

BTW, just read the fluff for the Vanquisher Shell. It shoots a comparatively small, solid dart by basically speeding it up a lot while going outside the barrel of the gun. So it works exactly like the Railgun, only worse, since it's still sub-sound speed, where the Railgun is around 6-10 times sound speed. - Dane.

• Hypervelocity is around mach 6-8. Let´s assume the railgun fires at mach 10. When an atom undergoes alpha decay it shoots out a helium nucleus at 5% the speed of light or mach 44000. So why doesn´t the rad-weaponry of the mechanicus or the ion-weaponry of the Tau instantly vaporise everything they hit? The key is mass, how does a railgun shoot out a 100 pound piece of metal five times each minute without overheating? That´s the secret to why it isn´t strength D and why it doesn´t overheat, it doesn´t. It shoots smaller pieces of metal, so while the speed of the projectile is truly great, it´s mass is very small. Which is why it´s good against tanks, but medicore against titans. As reflected both in the rules and in the fluff. I haven´t read anywhere that railguns are even capable of taking out titans (including scout titans), especially not with any kind of expertise.

Lascannons aren´t strength D, which is what I´m reluctant of giving out. Even with piercing power the lascannon is only slightly better than an eldar against heavier vehicles, which is weighed up by them being slightly worse against lighter vehicles, it´s really just a bright lance, which the Eldar have en masse as well. As for Eldar having strenght D-weaponry, they are the oldest race in the galaxy, nuff said. Does the new DE blaster-weaponry break the game? No it´s good for the game because the DE have no other D-weaponry and -2 on the table makes it a lot weaker than a regular D-weapon. I suppose the railgun could have D-1, but the only thing that does is make it better against MCs. Also the Necron D weapon is mounted on an open-topped vehicle and it is not a Blast, it has a secondary profile which is a strenght 8 ap 3 blast. Neither of which make much of an impact since the D-ark quickly turns from a medicore AV 12/12/10 Open-topped tank (since jinking makes it useless) into a close to death AV 10/10/10 Open-topped skimmer than won´t ever get to fire its weapon since it has to jink as soon as anything other than a flashlight takes aim at it. I like railguns as well, but you´ve got a bit too much of a hard-on for them.

I´m aware that both the Stormsurge and the Supremacy are fluff-rape, but that doesn´t mean the tau had a good time with killing titans, where are you getting this from? I´ve only supplemented my memory with a couple of wiki pages and the entry in the book, but nowhere can I find stories of titans being slaughtered by railguns.

The Vanquisher fires "shaped, high explosive shells" - Codex - Astra Militarum. BTW a shaped charge easily goes super sonic, while the projectile might not, the charge certainly does.

EDIT: made an x=UP entry here Angry Pirate (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Fair enough, ain't gonna beat up this horse no more then.

That said, I still think there's reason to do somethig to make them work somewhat uniquely compared to other weapons. Something like Lance, or maybe something that allow you to roll additional damage upon glancing hits on regular vehicles.

On the MC thing; I get why Plasma would only deal a wound to an MC, but any MC will have a large freaking hole when shot with this thing, so I don't thing additional damage is too bad here. - Dane.

• I think Ordnance 1 S 10 AP 1 represents them nicely, except for the whole monster thing. But that´s more of a general thing than a rail cannon issue, sort of like the whole blast weapon only inflicting a single hit to a MC. So while it would make sense for a railgun to inflict multiple wounds, it would make even more sense if all high strength weapons did. I don´t think the railgun needs it or deserves it a lot more than a lot of other weapons, so I think I´ll forget about it until I find a more general solution. D-x is a weird best because it´s fairly bad against AV 10,11 and 12 compared to how powerful it is against AV 13 and 14. So your weapon loses a bunch of utility when it becomes D-x. Because it just becomes very strong against high AV-vehicles and MCs but only gains very little power against low-AV vehicles. Angry Pirate (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Saw what you did, and I think Primary Weapon is just great for this. Still miffed that the Vanquisher Shell gets D out the bat, but that's another discussion (Maybe ordnance treatment as well?) - Dane.

Command Squad

• Awesome idea, fluffy and stuff; but I think the Shas'O should be its own HQ IC, and the Command Squad should proably just be named Bodyguard Squad. - Dane.

• Why?

Tau Empire

HQ

Command Squad

• I changed the Shas'o's BS to 4, because that's what it comes with in the codex. I don't see any reason to change it, either. - Dane.

• It comes with BS 5 in the codex. I think all Tau units should be BS 3 (which in time will include vehicles, pts adjustments will occur when that happens). Tau have poor eyesight they must rely on their targeting systems in order to aim true. No matter what you do you won´t ever teach a blind man to be a sniper, this is kind of my thinking. It also further reinforces Tau´s reliance on working together and interlocking their aims in order to pinpoint their target. This is also why I gave the Shas´o Preferred Enemy, he´s not be good at hitting with his weapon, he is good at persevering and leading his troops to victory. Angry Pirate (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
• Damn. BS3 for ALL (even skilled veterans) IS too much. Tau don't have BS 6+ unlike some Spes Marines. And if you realy caring about eyesight, then you should make markerlights networked.
• Why should all markerlights be networked? Angry Pirate (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• How they can relay on targeting systems from other units but not their weapon?
• Well you do have a point, but that has nothing to do with eye sight does it? Right now what I think I am gonna do is change the BS values of all models to what they are in the official codex and make drone controller only increase the BS of drones to 3. I think I'm also going to make all markerligths networked (I'll just change the base rule) as you suggested. Angry Pirate (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• I think better increase BS to bearer's BS - 1, minimum 3.

Ethereal

• 65 pts - TheRavenousEye

• 45 pts - Angry Pirate

• 65 points

WS 5, W 3, I 4, A 3, 5+.

Ritualistic Duelist:

If using Equalizers or Honour Blades in Challenges, Ethereals re-roll failed To Hit rolls and gain Rending. If using an Honour Blade, gain Rending on a 5+.

• Options:
  • Equalizers: AP 4, Shred, counts as two weapons.
  • Honour Blade: S +2, Two-Handed, Rending.
  • Etherstaff: Twohanded, Concussive, Unwieldy.
    • A model with an Etherstaff increases their Invoke the Elements range by 6".

• Made changes an' shit. - Dane.

The Greater Good as a Religion and Ethereal rank names

• Can I get rid of the whole "Holy one" stuff? ...Tau do not have a religion so why would they call them holy?

• No you cannot. Their religion is The Greater Good and the Ethereals are the (to the Tau) the physical embodiment of their religion. Beyond that it is also their official title (assuming that the ones you include in your list are 1 rank below Aun´va). http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Caste_System

Holy is also not necessarily supernatural, so holy describes the Ethereal caste perfectly. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/holy

• Ehhh I left it for now... Aside from being clunky AF I think it conveys the wrong perspective

The Greater Good is also no Religion, it is a Utilitarian world view...

Thus conveying the image that Ethereals are revered or praised for their position alone is wrong

What Shadowsun did when Aun´shi was killed is a good example: Instead of loosing her mind and doing something stupid (like anyone of the Imperium would) she stayed calm and prevented the rest of the populace from learning of it (since great suffering is against the Greater Good)

• I don´t see how it does, it also does not seem clunky to me. Caste, then rank, then name. It´s a pretty simple system. Do you mean when writing your list? Because nobody is going to force you to call it an etheral holy one, just like nobody is going to force you to call it a fire caste commander.

It is a religion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion A philosophy can also act as a religion, when it is what provides meaning and purpose to its followers.

They are praised because they are the embodiment of the greater good and unification of T´au and the end of the Tau dark ages. I would geuss the El and O of the ethereal caste are those who struggle the most for the greater good, which I would assume is why they hold their ranks.

But that isn´t what most Tau would do, which is why the old Tau dex forced an LD test on all friendly units whenever an Ethereal died.

Cadre Fireblade

• 50 pts - Angry Pirate

• 65 Points

XV05 Experiemental Armor: 3+, has a Field Amplifier Relay like the Breachers, has 5++ standard. 6++ FNP (?)

May take a Pulse Carbine, Rifle or Blaster.

Volley Fire functions with Blasters as well. Still only works when you stand still.

• 50 pts with the experimental armour is a better idea IMO.

I don´t think FNP is a good idea, I´ll be changing Stimulant Injectors so Tau will no longer have FNP.

I'm generally fan of that, but just the Fireblade, front-line warriors as they are, could have injectors in the Experimental armor (perhaps because no one else wants to test such an inhuman (intau?) invention? TheWiseDane (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Nice.

Nice. Angry Pirate (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Kroot Great Shaper

• WS 5, I 5, T/S 4, W 2, Ld 9.
• Acute Senses.
• Path of the Kroot: Rolls a D6 at the start of the game - All Kroot units, including the Shaper himself, in the detatchment as the Shaper gain the upgrade:
  • 1: Human Strain: Stubborn, +1 Ld.
  • 2: Eldar Strain: +1 I, Hit and Run.
  • 3: Tyranid Strain: 4+ Armor Save.
  • 4: Space Marine Strain: +1 S.
  • 5: Ork Strain: +1 T.
  • 6: Apex Predator Strain: WS/BS +1, Fleet.

• I´m currently considering making Kroot a seperate codex. The Kroot also seem to be more into a council sort of thing. Angry Pirate (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

R'alai

• WS4 S5 4A seems not bad for close combat, but furious charge seems very weird. Better give him "Precision of the Skilled Hunter" (no "look out, sir!"). Add options: be a lone warrior (2 Blacklight drones and get Precision Shot) or take team of XV9 (and ONLY XV9) Shas'Vre (maybe without Sworn Protector) with Preferred Enemy and Split Fire.
• The intention of giving him Furious Charge was to make him a bad choice for a general. "Having an old suicidal commander as your warlord should be a bad choice", was the thinking. The new warlord trait seems unneccessary due to the new execute action you can perform with markerlights.

Why should he be unable to join a regular unit of XV8s, when he can do so with the official rules? Why should they not protect him? They are still his bodyguard and it seems he needs bodyguards to protect him more than other commanders do due to his mildly suicidal tendencies.

As far as special drones go, in the official rules the fact they had night vision made no difference. Giving him an advanced targeting system would make more sense. The reason he didn't have that is because he lacks it in the official release.

• He's fearless, not suicidal. This lead to Stubborn rule. With Furios Charge he's wasting of points.

Execute works only with Sniper weapon, which Assasin don't have and Look Out! still can be used.

Rule "Lone Warrior" is official and prevents from joining both ordinary suits and bodyguards (Taros campaign, 2 ed).

Official drones there useless ablative wounds (markerlights not networked). Those drones made to be more usefull with "networked" markerlights and reason to carry them around.

• "There are some however that whisper that the solemn warrior no longer fights for the greater good but for vengeance for those he has lost, and that there lurks in him a glimmer of madness and the Mont'au." Clearly this here fella is not right in the head (at least according to rumours) I think it is fitting that this should be displayed by him having a bad warlord trait.

I originally read his rules in Imperial Armour Apocalypse 2nd edition which lacks the lone warrior rule. I do not think he should have it, it makes very little sense for him to be unable to join other units. There is simply no fluff justification for it, the writers of Taros 2nd edition probably just thought it was cool. I think the previous incarnation of him made more sense.

There is no need for his Drones to give him the precision shots special rule when he could just have an advanced targeting system.

• Mont'au and madness is about his individualistic behavior, not suicidal melee charge. Farsight actually fights in melee with sword, but no one claimed him mad.

Lone stubborn commander in XV9 battlesuit accompanied only with 2 drones already seems strange, there is not need for further changes.

Advanced Targeting seems well (since XV9 teams must buy support system), but it don't come in books so it's uncertain.

• There was nothing individualistic about him when what I quoted was written. He did not have the loner special rule in Apoc 2nd edition but was still described as rather crazy.

Why should he be a lone Warrior though? Giving him the special rule seems arbitrary and is not core to what he is or what he does according to the fluff.

I think it makes perfect sense to give him at least some ability to assasinate characters when his monicker/nickname/title is assasin.

• Well, Lone warrior maybe removed since adding team of XV9 is expensive and can't be added every time. But better first add XV9 and their weapon.

Preffered Enemy + Precision of the Skilled Hunter + Advanced Targeting Systems isn't good for assassinating?

• Advanced Targeting System is IMO enough, my point was that it is fair to give him an advanced targeting system due to him having the name assasin. - Pirate
• R'alai lacks AP2 (the only one he has is Rending with Gets Hot!), so his warlord trait is compensating and good, especialy with such name.

Fast Attack

Pathfinder Team

• 10 points per model

All Pulse Carbine-wielding Pathfinders may buy Markerlights for 2 pt per model.

• That would make the Scout special rule free...

I´m not too sure about making MLs optional, that´s what defines Pathfinders, not really the Scout special rule. It´s not that it would break anything, it just seems redundant to have a unit that x unit + the Scout special rule. Angry Pirate (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• I suppose, but what if I want to use the experiemental weaponry without the Markerlight tax? It makes the unit more scizo that the standard Land Raider.

You could split the Pathfinders up into two units; Pathfinders (the standard ML unit) and Firewalkers (or something), which can take all the experiemental stuff, as in, all of them can take them, but can't take MLs to compensate. TheWiseDane (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• I´m convinced. Although I think they should be 10+2 instead of 9+3.

No need to split them up, I hadn´t thought of the special drones and the rifles.

• What about merging pathfinders with Stealth suits, they have same role (infiltration, sabotage)?
• I do not understand what you mean? I do not think there is any problem with two units doing infiltration and sabotage or light infantry and light tank destruction for example, in fact I think it is very positive that roles are filled by multiple units, allowing you to choose exactly how you wish to perform a certain role.
• Pathfinders gets camo cloaks and receive options to take Stealth suits, fusion blaster, burst cannon, ion and rail rifles and spam markerlights.
• Why? I do not really get why you think it would be better. Giving them camo cloaks conflicts with the fluff and models and will therefore not happen.

XV9 Hazard Suits

• Is there any particular reason that the XV9's from IA:3 aren't here? The Greater Meh (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• No, I'll add it to the to-do list for Tau. Fun fact: CSM got their Rhino after something like a year, even after quite a few playtests, everyone just knew the profile by memory. I'm going to upgrade the Codex when I've finished up doing some minor work on Daemons and finished copy-pasting from IG and CD into the Renegades and Heretics codex. You don't need to spend time doing grunt work, having things pointed out is really helpful though. Angry Pirate (talk)

Heavy Support

Hammerhead

Railgun

• Give me a reason why it shouldn't be AP 2, that or we are going to have to take it up with an admin. Given that I made this page and that I've given you plenty of chances to talk and you seemingly just want to troll, I think it should be obvious that I'm in the right in this situation. Angry Pirate (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sniper Drone Team

Last time on Mathhamer40k:

• Spotters - 14 pts per model
• 60 points base for team

• I don´t think a nerf is necessary.

• Where is the 60th point coming from though? 14+3*15 is 59 in my book.

I think they need a massive rework or buff

Why they suck:Kroot and Suits easily get precision shots with bigger,bader guns

They do less DPS than Firewarrios against MEQs

And Drones cannot move away from their 6" Anchor and can only glance transports with a 6 to hit and 6pen... so they do jack shit

What I propose (and I hope this doesn't seem too insane):

Cost:Sniper Drone 18,Marksman 15 Marksmans BS goes down to 4,other values stay the same

Firesight Marksman Wargear:
Drone Control Interface(+Pistol and Drone Controller)
All Drones in this models unit ignore unit coherency as long as they are in the line of sight of the model If they leave line of sight they must take a Leadership test or immediately return to the line of sight of the model Any Special Rule that affects the entire unit only gets distributed over 12",with the exception of the Drone Controller and Dedicated Drone Controller
MV71 Sniper Drone Wargear:
Longshot Burst Rifle (It should not be affected by ethereal,thats why it isn't "pulse" anymore)
24" S:X Ap:4 Assault 3

This of course means the drones will be a huge threat if they approach a squad with short range 24" weapons but they still can be ripped apart should they be pursued or focussed with heavy weapons (which snipers should, and since heavier suits often stay out of 48" for the first turn (or two)

Additionally they still do jack shit against transports so not too much salt should be had

• We can easily agree that they are bad, the first listing was The Ravenous Eye, I answered that I thought nerfing them was a bad idea. I agree they need a buff, although I think that should be in the form of a price reduction.

Making sniper drones be the only ones which are immune to ethereals rituals would be kind of silly, should it just be all non-Drones?

• Actually you are right with the ethereals, RAW: 1 additional shot (So Assault 4 not Assault 6).... why not (Where did the effect on Fire Blades/Knights go?)

I simply cannot see a healthy way to make them viable with a cost reduction...

The only way it would work is by essentially making them Out-Dakka Firewarriors by dropping them to 10points or so which doesn't sit well with me

So either: Mobility,Effectivity(bonus against MEQs and Transports) or other rules .... maybe Low-Altitude Deployment (no scatter Deepstrike turn 2)--Cool3303 (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• The Cadre Fireblade special rule was unnecessary, I think Preferred Enemy achieves the same effect to a large degree.

I´m not sure about what their cost should be. The Marksman seems fine at 13 pts, he is basically a BS 5 pathfinder with an inbuilt drone controller. Sniper Drones have a couple of things going for them:

- Jump, shoot, jump. 
- Range
- Better at wounding T6+
- AP 2 1/3 of the time
- Stealth

and fire warriors:

- Mobility (Since the Marksman has to stand still to not be a waste of points. 
- Better at wounding T 2/3/4

The thing that makes it a little difficult is that they are going to win any ranged fire fight if the terrain suits them. They are essentially invulnerable when you combine their high range with J,S,J.I would like to test them myself before I buff them a whole lot, in any case I don´t believe they need more than 2 pts (which is percentage wise is still rather large). The fact that they can put the formation markerlight on targets further away than Fire Warriors might also matter. If you play Tau I suppose you could do it as well? At any case I need 2-4 more CSM games to determine just how bad CSM CC units are. - Pirate

• Unfortunately I currently lack opponents and time... I will see if I can do it...So 13 for Drones and 13Marksman with calm rules?

Drones have a couple of things going for them?:

- Jump, shoot, jump. - Unit coherency must be maintained at all times,Marksman is grounded
- Range - THEY ARE HIDING IN METAL BAWXSES THE FOOLS THE COWARDS...
- Better at wounding T6+ - There are extremely few T6+units Marines only have Derpknights,IG has none,Eldar&Crons-3/2 (variants),DEldar-2,etc...

Nids are no excuse here

- AP 2 1/3 of the time -Snipers only get precision shot & Ap2 on a 6
- Stealth -Their wound costs far over average, so this is no real upside--Cool3303 (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• You don´t have to do it, we are in no rush. This project won´t be done before 2017 and if we are finished (as in all units have rules and pts costs listed) within the first 6 months of 2017 I´d be very happy.

The Angry Dreadnight will be T5, so that makes things even worse. Sure enough the number of ideal targets for Snipers is relatively low, but there are also a number of merely good targets. SM have Termies (without shields) and Cents (needs markerlights if they are in cover). DoC, Crons and Eldar all have a few monstrous creatures and Tyranids have loads. You basically can´t get around the fact that targets for them exist, the question is what range of costs is fair for them. I think the comparison that needs to be made is between Hammerheads with ion cannons and then with fire warriors.

The thing about transports is that you can get another unit to destroy it. While Snipers alone are useless against transports they are much more deadly against armoured units without cover, S5 against transports is another one up for the Strike Team though. But is S5 really that good against AV 11? You need 324 pts of Fire Warriors to destroy a Rhino in 1 turn, compared to Crisis with two missile pods at 156 pts. Of course they are pretty good at destroying AV 10, but not only is that somewhat rare (more so with angry DE and Harlequins), it still gets done cheaper by missile crisis teams (provided you aren´t within 15", but if you are... Well you are going to have a lot of dead fish communists soon).

Further range matters a lot because you get a much greater choice of targets, along with JSJ you can pretty much target anything on the board. So while your Fire Warriors are wasting their shots doing a suits team badly, the Sniper Team is more likely to actually be targeting an ideal target.

Beyond Stealth you also have T4, if you grab a 4+ cover save then you´ll be more than twice as durable against S3 shooting compared to Fire Warriors.

How about making the firesight marksmen BS 3 (to go along with all the other changes to lower BS) and then give them a Heavy 3 integrated markerlight which can only be used for their own unit? The second part of this idea would be to make it so you can spend 2 markerlight hits to make all hits become precision shots? This way you could pump a lot of markerlights into killing characters and special weapons which would give them another role since the basic chance of getting a precision shot is rather random and not really something which can be relied upon a great deal. MCs are rare in imperial armies, but sergeants and special weapons on the other hand are very common.-Pirate

• I don't know how you are getting the 324points of fire warriors... 36,BS3,S5 shots deal (on average) 3 wounds to AV11

TLDR:It would be 256points with troops alone.If you use 20peeps with a Ethereal(Holy One,praised be his name) thats 40 Shots,costing you 190pts

And if you use the Hunter contigent you also get 1 Markerlight as free (that rule is badly written BTW) so I would argue that I can use it for the 2nd unit

So in total I will need 2x8Guys+1Ethereal giving me 16BS3 and 16BS4 S5 shots, which on average do 1,333Wounds+1,777Wounds on Av11-Costing 153pts

You do not even know how balanced your own codex is oh the irony...

Now back on Topic of sniper Drones-And their marksman, which is infantry, which you seem to be forgetting

1.Why are you STILL Mentioning JSJ??? They cannot move further than 2"from their Marksman AT ANY TIME and no, not even for theirShootingphase

2.You mean you will be 1/6th more durable than Fire Warriors in cover that costs half as much as a single drone...well you may just go to ground as well with calm Drones since they do jack shit when not rolling 6 anyway

3.Your proposal would be ok (13ptsDrone/Marks),if those shots would get ap 2 too, otherwise taking Burst Cannon XV8s with Precision Shots would be superior (45pts 8shots,precision on 6s)--Cool3303 (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• 36*9=324. My arguement is that if you only start firing upon your enemy´s transport when they are within 15" you are already fucked.

The Ethereal has a 1VP downside, I´d prefer to leave him out of this discussion.

I agree that it is written poorly, but it being usable for the second unit is intentional and I hadn´t thought of that. So my math was wrong, but it was equally wrong for the missile crisis, so it really doesn´t affect my arguement. You are still better off using S 6+ against AV 11.

I have hardly touched the codex, all the walkers are rough estimates based on Dreads. The Contingent is just a worse version of the official one. I have played 1 game against Tau since 5th edition ended, give me a break would you? I have been working on the Cron dex for 2 years, that is my codex, this is just a copy of the official dex with a couple of changes.

I retract my JSJ arguement, they are effectively heavy unless you want to waste 13 pts on the marksman, whose points cost would then have to be distributed among the Drones. It remains merely as a tactical option, but it is not a strength like it is for suits.

36 hits S 3 inflict 18 wounds against FWs and 12 against Drones, 9 unsaved against FWs and 4 unsaved against Drones. I know I´ve been listing off a number of the Drones strengths, but that doesn´t meant I believe they should be 15 pts/model. I´d just like to test them out myself. I honestly don´t know if they need to be 9 or 14 pts.

I was thinking it would have the Sniper rule as normal, do you think all the shots should be AP 2? That seems a tad much for 2 markerlights if that is what you meant, as in you would always use those markerlights.

• Always keep a calm codex at hand =P btw:Firewarriors are really hard to charge due to S5+30" range. Even if transports enter their fireradius from 31" After being inevitably destroyed any troops will be,at best,in 13"Range(less on rhinos, due to accesspoints on the sides)

I have been working on the Cron dex for 2 years, that is my codex Maybe I should go over there and rustle your jimmies even more ;)

....ehhh 2,25 MEQ precision wounds for 130pts maybeeeee... You are right,maybe 14/15pts would be better suited for that unit considering they would be equal to Firewarriors against MEQs with 13/13cost and the 4+Sniper rule, not to mention being above curve for Terminators

But a 4+ Suit big team would not only neuter Squads but destroy them instead with 2+Markerlights at hand ... and squads in cover would require truly outrageougs amounts of markerlights...not to mention them still being below curve compared to what Burst cannons can do to GEQs

I have to hand it to you, Tau are really hard to balance right, Jet Pack is difficult to evaluate and since they can take so many special weps infantry is a tricky subject

• Sure the Troops will be, but the transports will most likely be long gone by the time any units get within 15" of your FWs. If you haven´t even touched your opponents transports by the time they are within 15", what have you been doing? Which is why I argue the math needs to be done at range 16+, which is why I believe they are a subpar choice as a Rhino killer squad, it also gets a ton worse when fighting IG with FAV 12.

If you could find some IMBA things in the Cron dex that would be very helpful, I fear that I have become a little too soft so I may be missing some things.

I think I´m going to put the Marksmen at 16 pts and the Snipers at 11 pts.

You have a truly, truly outrageous number of markerlight shots available since each marksman has 3 shots.

I´ll get it balanced... Eventually. - Pirate

Lords of War

Arch-Ethereal

• WS 6, A 4, I 5,

Fearless, may invoke in both your and your enemies' turn.

• This won´t be happening, it doesn´t fit in with the current ranks I´ve given Ethereals, this unit also seems unnecessary.

KV128 Stormsurges

• 510 pts (need changing)

Name	WS	BS	S	FA	SA	RA	I	A	HP
Stormsurge	2	3	7	12	12	12	2	1	7

Unit Type: Super-Heavy Walker (Open-Topped)
Special Rules:

• Fall Back: The unit may retreat from close combat as if it failed a morale check despite being fearless as long as it isn't unable to move for any reason. (TheWiseDane)

Tau Empire Wargear List

Palsma rifle

Tau is shooty and has good guns, so give back our AP2 or replace Shred with Rending.

• Shred replaced with Rending. It may poses threat to TEQ but ineffective against vehicles.

Drones

• A unit with access to the Drone list make take up to two drones of any combination per model.

- Gun Drone: 12 pt.
- Marker Drone: 12 pt.
- Shield Drone: 22 pt.
  * Guardian Protocols: As long as a unit has a Shield Drone in the unit, the unit has a 4++ save. If this save is failed on a 1, remove one Shield Drone automatically.
- Missile Drone: 18 pt.
- Shielded Missile Drone: 30 pt.
   Has Guardian Protocols too.

• I actually like the fact that you have to put them in front, it makes more sense that way IMO. - Pirate

Fusion Blaster

• Rapid fire reminder to angry pirate

Also the fusion blade do you want that to have the old or new fusion blaster rules? BibiFloris (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've decided to change both plasma and melta weapons (including the fusion blade) to their old profiles. If you want to change them you can go ahead. I don't think any prices need to be changed with the reversion to the official rules, if someone disagrees I guess here would be the place to write. Angry Pirate (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)