Talk:Warhammer 40,000/Tactics/Tau(8E)

General

Just a note, make sure to differentiate between abilities that increase your ballistic/weapon skill, and ones that add to the hit roll. They both increase your chance to succeed, but the bonus to hit roll's, also increase the chances of special abilities triggering.

This is especially important with strength/toughness/wounding rolls. As +1 to wounding is far superior to +1s or -1t. Acherousia (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, I stomped the twin-linked stuff, as those are no longer unit options. Some of the old legacy weapons remained twin-linked in name, but we do not have the option of taking twin linked versions of non-twinlinked guns. Acherousia (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Someone's come through and changed half of the inline ability names to italic rather than bold, but left some of the others bolded. Does anyone have a strong opinion either way? Personally I stuck with bolding them in the first place because the names are bolded on the datacards, and because it lets you spot them more easily, and I'm less of a fan of the italics because I find it less readable. If I'm in the minority then that's fine too, but I'd rather not leave it half one way and half the other like it is now.--PercussiveMaintenance (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It kept bugging me so I made them all bold again to unify the page. If people want to argue about it/change it back we should probably do that here instead of edit warring over the page.--PercussiveMaintenance (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

either Kroot and Vespids need to be moved out of septs, or the category needs to be renamed. not sure whats bestSpider (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Why? Those are the <Sept> that those units belong to. Acherousia (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

you can't choose Kroot as your sept for commanders, so it's not a sept,just a keyword. Spider (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

RAW, you can. It is a valid faction keyword for our army and there is no listed rule excluding it from the <Sept> choice. The FAQ only prevents you from using the faction keyword system to circumvent army restrictions, ie Ultramarine Imperial Guard units.

We only have two faction keywords, "Tau Empire" and "<Sept>". The rules specifically state we are capable of taking "Farsight Enclaves" as a <Sept> even though it does not contain the word "Sept", so there is currently no restriction on taking Kroot or Vespid.

Something something year and a half playtesting. Acherousia (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

TL;DR:

I added a tldr section for unit analysis. This is going to be subjective, so instead of just constantly editing it, we should probably talk about any disagreements and come to a consensus. Acherousia (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd argue against the Stormsurge's inclusion in Viable, and put it down in Questionable, rather than trash, it still retains a 3+ save, T the same as the Riptide, and becomes worse the more hits it takes, which it will take on account of it being such a huge fire magnet. The Riptide can now (theoretically) save against an AP-4 weapon (save 6+ isn't much of a save though). The Riptide however can (and mostly will) self-destruct at some point, and is rather over-costed now. It's a toss-up which I'd take plain, but a Rip-Tide can at least be easily modelled to be crouching and behind cover. The Greater Meh (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That is a definite possibility. Just for clarity as to why I chose to put it in viable, you can give it a shield gen for a 4++ over the riptides 5++, the volume of fire it puts out is far better than the riptides (which increases the return on ATS), it can give itself +1 to hit to mitigate the poor BS, and you can easily re-purpose it as an effective anti-deepstrike unit, in an edition where deep strike charges on turn 1 are a thing.

Just some quick math vs MEQ; The Stormsurge when braced, will do ~8.9 wounds. The Riptide will when nova charged HBC, will do ~4.6 wounds. Almost twice the wounds, for +30% cost, and no risk of damaging itself.

For about the same points as the Riptide you can instead get 8 stealth suit's w/ATS, and put out ~5.3 wounds, with no risk. Or ~4.6 and 0.6 fusion blast wounds.

All that said, it is of course just theory-crafting math. I unfortunately don't own a Stormsurge to test it intensively in game. So I am open to moving it!

Acherousia (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

An additional category should probably be added, as currently there are a lot of things in the viable category of variable strength, I propose we make it; OP, Good, Mediocre, poor, Trash, ?????? Spider (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I will add in a Viable-Good, and Viable-Mediocre. I propose anything that should be in poor, is just trash. Also if you add four tildes (~), it will sign your comment so we know who is talking. Acherousia (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

That's probably the best course of action, also I think the remora should go in the main section as even though it is a drone it acts more like a regular unit, not having saviour protocols. and not being used as a companion unit. Spider (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Plausible. I have them split off right now, half just to make each list a little easier to parse, by keeping the number of entries for each down. Plus it makes it a little easier if you go, "I wonder how the Remora Drone is doing." then you know to just look at the drone section. I am open to changing it though. Acherousia (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I think pathfinders should be moved to trash, or at least questionable, as they aren't particularly points effective, due to how weak markerlights are this edition. with only 2/5 of the table being usefull for the majority of the army (1 and 5) and with reroll ones not being too uncommon for Tau (Multiracker, Command Link Drone, Kauyon all giving it) and +1 BS being so hard to gain (10 man squad have a 62% chance of getting it, lose two men and it is down to a 36% chance) makes pathfinders less useful than the equivelent points of any other unit the average section. Spider (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm gonna flat-out disagree with you there. Pathfinders are critical to the viability of Longstrike/Hammerheads. Why? Because vechiles DO NOT HAVE RELENTLESS ANYMORE. If a Vehicle moves all it's to-hit rolls suffer a -1, offsetting Longstrike's bonus. With 3 Markerlight tokens, that penalty for moving is gone. This also helps keep your suits mobile as all their weaponry is Assault, 3 Markerlight token is gonna keep them bouncing around without the need for a Target Lock, so they can take ATS's instead. That 3rd Markerlight Token is damned near essential to keeping your army both MOBILE and ACCURATE, which the T'au desparately need to be. The Greater Meh (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Put Y'Varna in good, this guy can burn Gorkonaut/Morkonaut in one turn. Yes, it damages itself, however others have rather hard time damaging it if played carefully. Guns n Droids (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Also may I humbly ask why people are convinced that Ghostkeel is any good? Its stealth rules suggest it should be 18+ away from anything which shoots at it, yet its only good weapons want to be within 9-18 (fusions), as Raker either lacks damage (normal profile) or shot count (overcharged profile). It is supposedly stealth, yet you need to both hide its drones and run away from those who want to come close and shoot you. For similar points you can have 6-men stealth squad with more staying power (due to having proper stealth), more shots and ability to call in help in form of drop-crises. Only way to efficiently use Ghostkeel I see is infiltrating near lone artillery on a poorly defended-flank (so that most of threatening weapons are outside of 12"), which shouldn't happen anyway, and has issues with cost efficiency - Guns n Droids (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

So, the TL;DR section is rapidly turning into the edit war clusterfuck it was always destined to be, because nobody writes or reads edit comments and because nobody checks or posts on the talk page before changing things. Personally I think this is only going to get worse over time. That, along with the hugely subjective unqualified nature of the list meaning it's of debatable usefulness to anyone (and the relevant useful discussion being found in the following unit discussion and here), makes me think this section should go the way of the TL;DR sections in every other Tactics page recently and just be removed. At the very least, it needs a massive "DO NOT EDIT WITHOUT VISITING THE TALK PAGE" hyperlink along the top or something. --PercussiveMaintenance (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, once more with feeling. I added a note to the top of the section telling people to stop being fuckwits and fighting over shield drones. Personally I'm still in favour of deleting the entire section to prevent exactly this sort of shit from happening, and because it doesn't really add value to the page. This is meant to be a detailed tactica discussion, with multiple viewpoints and explanation/justification of positions which a TL;DR can't do. --PercussiveMaintenance (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

WIth the new FAQ where does the AX-1-0 fit in? Also where does default tiger shark fit in? Seems pretty good for value over a barracuda.

The AX-1-0 fits in pretty well as a LoW hunter especially high T titans, the problem it has is the 2 shots, meaning it struggles against those with Invul saves and if your opponent decides to take multiple units instead of the big one it will also suffer. Basically it's highly focused, which is good, but it's focused on something that's not super common. Probs don't take one for tournaments unless you know who you are playing against will use titans. Spider (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I was asking more for the tl;dr section of the page, since the AX-1-0 is currently "Trash(RAW)". Also there has been almost no mention of the fighter bomber variant, why is that?

Forgot to actually save changes so this will be a half arsed response. The Tigershark is good in its role but it's not a super common roll unless you know the army lists prior. I put them both in average feel free to move them if you disagree. Not sure why the Bomber variant wasn't there also placed in average. would be good bit is too hefty points wise for most lists. Spider (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I hid the TL;DR so it's more apparent that it's a side piece rather than the be all and end all for tau tactics, hopefully now people will get that it's not for hardcore players but more for people taking a glance at an army for whatever reason. the non hidden paragrah could use some work thoug Spider (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Heavy Gun Drones should probably go in Trash. They're hugely overpriced. You can get 50-100% more firepower and more wounds (that are less vulnerable to multi-damage weapons too) in regular gun and marker drones for the same points, and HGDs have no redeeeming features save for maybe their Force Org placement, which likely isn't worth their obscene price tag. --PercussiveMaintenance (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems like the section ended up being removed; admittedly, the revealed Codex information alone was rendering most of it out of date. --Newerfag (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Good riddance too. The thing was useless and good only for the people too stupid to actually look at the unit entries. It wasn't even good for reliable comparisons, as this talk page has illustrated quite nicely. --2600:1003:B018:F638:19DE:9834:9BBF:97EB 21:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Spider, please stop putting the TLDR section back without making even a token effort to justify it. Battlegrinder (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

As he refused to give his argument, I shall give my arguments for removing it:

• No other 8e tactics page has them, showing that there is no demand for such a section. If there was, then far more popular armies would've had their own a long time ago and maintained them without any controversy.
• The criteria for listing any unit in a given tier are arbitrary, opaque, and provide nothing that would give any idea on how to use those units.
• As a corollary to the above, it is worthless in providing any real tactics and appears to be kept on only because Spider is willing to start edit wars to keep it there. He has also obstinately refused to engage in any attempt to justify its existence, and has instead tried to shift the burden of proof away from himself even when the consensus is visibly against keeping the section.

I rest my case. Newerfag (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 : I don't think we desperately need a TL;DR section, I think it provides more good than harm but if others are so against it then so be it, my main issue is removing a section of a page without justifying it first. I also agree with The Greater Meh that it may be more difficult to place units now due to the Sept tenets. Spider (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe the original arguement was to keep it until the Codex actaully showed up because without the introduction of Sept tenets, and commands, it was remarkably easy to provide a point value comparision on the various units, and the entries were detailed point by point breakdowns of their strengths and weaknesses.

Now we've actually got / are about to get our codex, it's iffy value can't be justified in the face of the sheer variety that we have. Broadsides jump up and down the table if you're taking them with Bork'an, Crisis suits shine when used by a Vior'la sept force, and the Tl;DR section just doesn't work under the weight of all the options. The Greater Meh (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Infitration is not Deep-Strike

XV25s and Shadowsun have their own deep strike in Infiltrate.

You mean the rule that works like Infiltrate from 7E and before, rather than a Deep-Strike? Working only in the deployment phase, rather than arriving from reserves. Yeah, that's incredibly like Manta-Strike The Greater Meh (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there is definitely a difference between the infiltrate and deep strike. Infiltrate will still allow them to move on during their movement phase, and leaves them as a target on the opponents turn, if they go first. Acherousia (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Fireblades

How sure are we that the extra 'shot' makes it 4 shots total as opposed to 3? General consensus outside of 1d4chan and regular old 4chan is that it's only 3 shots - two for rapid fire plus one extra.

Personally I'm 99% certain it's 4. Someone else proposed it on this page originally, and when i went and checked the case seems pretty airtight. If you run through the shooting rules, you "shoot" a weapon, and that gives you some amount of "attacks" with it based on the weapon's rate of fire. Number of Attacks section in the CRB: "Each time you shoot a ranged weapon, you make a number of attacks", emphasis mine. The prior section also talks about "resolving all the shots", before this one goes on to describe how the shots are converted to attacks based on the weapon's profile. As such, it stands to reason that an extra "shot" with a Rapid Fire 1 weapon results in either 2 or 4 attacks (always 4 for the Fireblade, as his ability only triggers at half range or closer anyway), because you make two separate shots with the weapon which are multiplied depending on range. GW are pretty lazy with specific language and keywording though, so this might not be intentional - but I'm not sure how you can reasonably argue the other side given the text as it's written. --PercussiveMaintenance (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, as an addendum: If the Fireblade's "another shot" ability only gives them 1 attack, why does (as a specific example, there are several of units with the "shoot twice if you don't move" thing) the Exocrine get to roll 12 dice for its Bio-Plasmic Cannon when it "shoots it twice"? By this reasoning, it should only get 2 (if a shot is an attack - which it's not). If the Exocrine gets 12 attacks (Heavy 6, two shots for 12 attacks), which I believe everyone is universally agreed on, then the Fireblade grants 4 total attacks (Rapid Fire 1/Assault 2, two shots for 4 attacks in both cases). --PercussiveMaintenance (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

This is also my Take, but I am not sure whether GW will keep it going forward with the FAQs, as it might just be someone using the terms shots and attacks interchangeably, so don't get too attached, but for the time being it is 100% Correct to have it as Rapidfire 2. Spider (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I would actually contend that it's not even in doubt - the rules use "shot" rather than "attack" because the rules for shooting explicitly enumerate what the difference is between the two. Siege weapons get to "shoot twice", Fireblades grant "an extra shot" (which are functionally identical in this case). The shooting rules explicitly define the stages of making a ranged attack as: Select unit to fire -> select target enemy unit -> select weapon to shoot -> look at the weapon's profile to determine number of attacks -> roll 1 die to hit per attack -> wounds -> saves -> look at weapon's profile to determine damage per wound. Shooting and attacking are well-defined as separate things, just like wounds and damage aren't the same thing. The rules writers are aware of the distinction and it's deliberate. The main source of ambiguity in the shooting rules is actually that "wound" describes two separate things that used to not be separate (a weapon successfully hurting a target, and the target losing health as a result of damage) that should probably have been called different names when Damage divided them (wounds and hit points, or injuries and wounds or something). --PercussiveMaintenance (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I have found by use of ctrl-f every entry of the word shot (this include shots and Sureshots) in the codex it is used 3 times in the rules (and a handfull of times in the lore) first under choose ranged weapon second under weapon types in a lore way and third under the example turn and this is the one I want to focus on it refernes the 4 bolter's that fire 8 shots becaus the are in rapid fire this is in my opinon a conclusive evendce to read attacks and shots as the same thing. Sorry for my bad english BibiFloris (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Forge World

So the Forge World IA index's appear to be incredibly rushed and full of terribly written rules (one of our flyers cannot fire it's main gun, as it is lacking the titanic keyword necessary to do so). Just a heads up, in case you see something odd in the description for one of the units. It may be correct as written, even if it makes no sense logically. Acherousia (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Honestly the saddest thing about the Forge World stuff is most of it would be an easy fix for any professional Game Developer. This is what happens when 8 average guys in a garage try to make a wargame The Greater Meh (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Weapons

Do we want the different weapons listed, or just the Crisis/Commander/XV9 options? Acherousia (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

It should probably be any weapon where you have multiple choices, so xv8, xv9, and vehicles secondary weapons?

Sounds good. Also, use 4 tilde (~) to sign your comments. Acherousia (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Can we get a good breakdown on pathfinder special weapons?

ATS

I think it would be useful to note that the ATS support system seems to be worded to work in close combat too - providing crisis suits et al with some piercing in melee. --Shymer (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

It does not work in close combat unfortunately. As the base unarmed melee weapon has a "-" for its AP, it cannot be modified in either direction. If we ever get the Onager Gauntlet or Fusion blade back, then it will then work. Acherousia (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

This seems to have been corrected in the first FAQ for 8th which has said to replace the AP - with AP 0 for close combat weapons. --Shymer (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Yep! I updated the ATS entry earlier. It's a nice boost for our Stealth Suits, and makes our Commanders even more viable in melee. Four WS3+, S5, AP-1 attacks isn't too shabby. For Tau.Acherousia (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Tactics and Strategy

I added a place to put sample lists in the competitive armies section, I will fill them in based on lists that have been proven to work in a tournament setting. Spider (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes to melee

There are some persons how edit it back to Don't go into melee This is wrong!
Tau is not a army that can kill there opponents in melee. But against certain enemy's (guard, ad mech, necrons, other tau) going into combat with their gun line units is good and even encouraged. Against almost every army charging a tank is a win win (unless it has fly).
So Stop adding the don't go into melee because it is not a bit wrong but VERY WRONG IN 8TH

• Tau units are never optimized for melee; getting an extra round of shooting is generally preferred. The enemy gunline has the same luxury of falling back out of combat as you do, and the "shoot you in the face" aspect is no less true for Ultramarines or a formed Guard line. Aside from the meme magic, which is still as true as ever, focusing on strengths and utilizing assets proactively is generally a better use of your army's time.
  • Except T'au have flying so charging with our units is often the correct move.... because overwatch damage is smaller than full shooting damage and the opponent who falls back probably doesn't have flying so they either give up an entire turn of shooting/attacking or else do a tiny bit more melee in exchange for letting us back off, fire without overwatch penalties to hit, and then charge them all over again.
  • All Tau do not Fly. Those that do have to weigh a round of close combat and an overwatch against a unit's ability to shoot. They only get this choice if they are actually close enough to risk the charge to begin with. It sounds as though your army is as optimized for melee as Tau can be, but it's still not a strategy that I would broadly advocate for all, or even most, Tau players.

On Sniper Drones

For context, the following was the old entry on Sniper Drones that was on the main page for way too long and is the prime example of something that should've been settled on the talk page instead of the main page. It's a lot of argument and bloat with no real concise opinion and isn't helpful to anyone. At the time it was moved here so that the anons could settle their discussion here rather than on the main page. -- Triacom (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• MV71 Sniper Drones: Possibly the most controversial unit in the codex. Overcosted but somewhat useful, or utter trash? Their BS is terrible (helped by a Firesight Marksman, but still only 4+), but their weapons are Rapid Fire rather than Heavy, and longer ranged than a standard sniper rifle, and Strength 5. They also can't be easily shot back at unless they're within 12" (Raven Guard Chapter tactic for free. But still weaker than the Ghostkeel or Stealth Suit's effect). 18 (i.e. you'll need to be within 24") S5 shots that hit on 4s is very easy for most characters to ignore, since they're still only at AP0 and such a unit costs 162 points without the Marksman, and as of the Codex, they have extra mortal wounds like real snipers! They'll struggle against the defenses of targets, and other armies have better snipers. However, you don't, so it's either these or none whatsoever. As with all drones, their LD is garbage, so field them MSU style - all of the buffs they can receive are auras, anyway.
  • Note that Cadre Fireblades may or may not work on these guys - they have "Longshot pulse rifles", and the Fireblades buff "pulse rifles"; assuming the rules work like similar buffs to things like "flamer weapons" in other codices, presumably a longshot pulse rifle is a kind of pulse rifle, so the buff applies, but we'll have to wait on a FAQ for full clarity.
    • Sep 2018 FAQ says Longshot Pulse Rifle is not a Pulse Rifle for the purposes of volley Fire
  • With their low BS and lack of AP, these are points ineffective at even killing an IG Psyker, one of the weakest characters. A full squad will average just over 1 Wound against a GEQ at range, and will run you over 160 points before any supporting units to increase their effectiveness.
    • Which is exactly why you pair them with a Marksman for +1 to hit, and if you're building a decent firebase, something like a Broadside with a drone controller for a cumulative +2 to hit. Still not great, but not exactly costing a bomb given their ability to hit Characters despite intervening models, which pretty much no other Tau unit can do.
    • Actually, that does cost a lot of points for what you get. A full unit of 9 Drones with a Marksman costs 187 points. With a nearby Drone Controller (not included in the cost) you'll get on average just 12 hits, 8 wounds (against T3-4) and two Mortal wounds. That's a lot of points to take out a 50p AM Psyker. Tougher characters will just shrug off those 8 AP0 wounds.
      • The effectiveness of the SDT is very subject to where the target is and how marked it may be. At 48" they're one of the best sniping units in the game simply because Marine, Ratling & Ranger snipers can't hit anything beyond 36" and Deathmarks are limited to 24". To that end they're one of the most useful units for limiting the freedom of movement for enemy Characters regardless of distance because there is always that risk that they'll knobble some poor fancy-hat up to the far end of a long table edge over a few turns. At 36" the SDT may struggle to match the effectiveness of most other snipers bar Necrons (haha) then at 24" rapid-fire range they're back in the game again. The issue isn't their armament because the LSPR is possibly the best sniper rifle in the game at S5 but the drones just cost. So, 120pts nets us 5 MV71s + Marksman + nearby Drone Controller (usually on an XV-88 and that's doing it's own thing so I'm only including the 5pts for the Controller). Rounding up 120pts of other sniper units at 36"...
      • Vs Pri Psyker
        • 17 Ratlings: 17 shots, 11 hits, 7.5 wounds, 5 unsaved = 1.3 dead Pri Psykers
        • 10 Rangers: 10 shots, 6.7 hits, 4.4 wounds, 3 unsaved = 0.8 dead Pri Psykers
        • 8 Marine Scouts: 8 shots, 5.3 hits, 3.6 wounds, 2 unsaved = 0.5 dead Pri Psykers
        • 5 Sniper Drones: 5 shots, 3.9 hits, 2.6 wounds, 1.7 unsaved = 0.4 dead Pri Psykers
      • Vs Marine Captain
        • 17 Ratlings: 17 shots, 11 hits, 5.7 wounds, 1.89 unsaved = 0.4 dead Captains
        • 10 Rangers: 10 shots, 6.7 hits, 3.3 wounds, 1.1 unsaved = 0.2 dead Captains
        • 8 Marine Scouts: 8 shots, 5.3 hits, 2.7 wounds, 0.9 unsaved = 0.2 dead Captains
        • 5 Sniper Drones: 5 shots, 3.9 hits, 2.6 wounds, 0.9 unsaved = 0.2 dead Captains
      • Vs Pri Psyker (24")
        • 5 Sniper Drones: 10 shots, 7.8 hits, 5.2 wounds, 3.5 unsaved = 1 dead Pri Psykers
        • 6 Deathmarks: 6 shots, 4 hits, 2.6 wounds, 1.7 unsaved = 0.4 dead Pri Psykers
      • Vs Marine Captain (24")
        • 5 Sniper Drones: 10 shots, 7.8 hits, 5.2 wounds, 1.7 unsaved = 0.3 dead Captains
        • 6 Deathmarks: 6 shots, 4 hits, 2 wounds, 0.7 unsaved = 0.13 dead Captains
      • FULL MARKERLGHT STACK 24" (halve results for 36")
        • 5 Sniper Drones: 10 shots, 9.7 hits, 6.5 wounds, 4.3 unsaved = 1 dead Pri Psykers
        • 5 Sniper Drones: 10 shots, 9.7 hits, 6.5 wounds, 2.2 unsaved = 0.4 dead Captains
      • Statistically the SDTs when supported with a FSM & DC are the best at 48", joint naff vs T3 at 36" (due to how our S5 gives no advantage over S4 now), more effective vs T4 and slightly better than Eldar Pathfinders at 24", second only to Ratlings vs T3 but equal vs T4 with a full stack...however when you do ever see 17 Ratlings?! The point is that no sniper unit is amazing at dropping Characters, nor are they supposed to be, so if we drop down to a single unit of each Ratlings taper off fast as their cheap price gives little benefit when they hit the 10-model unit cap. SNIPER DRONE TEAMS ARE ONE OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE UNITS SNIPING AT MEQ HQS WHEN PROPERLY SUPPORTED AND THE TAU HAVE NO OTHER UNITS WITH WHICH TO SINGLE OUT CHARACTER MODELS.
        • The point value comparison is seriously misleading though. You can't have a free floating Drone Controller, it needs to be mounted on something. Even if the other unit is targeting something else, you still need to field it in order to benefit from the Drone Controller so the points need to be factored into the build. Your absolute cheapest option is the Stealth Suits team with Burst Cannons and a single drone controller, and that brings the points value to 204, which is still a tad overpriced for the effect. Of course, you're not going to be using stealth suits this way, since they're not going to be able to do anything they're actually good at like taking objectives or dropping homing beacons. The only things that really work for this role are Commanders with 3 Missile Pods and Broadsides (You could use a R'varna or a Riptide, but those are definitely too expensive). Assuming no drones for either build to keep things on the cheap, the Commander will cost you 268 points, over twice the number previously given, and Missile Pods really aren't great weapons for Commanders anyways so you're basically wasting one of your best units on this. The broadside is a little cheaper at 245-260 points, but again that's more than twice the cost listed. It would be far more accurate to compare this to 34 Ratlings, 20 Rangers and 16 Space Marine Scouts.
          • It's only misleading if you don't have a nearby Drone Controller, which IS what I'm basing the stats on. It's the only thing that a DC is designed for so most Tau players wanting to use an SDT will have one for that purpose. If you're going to factor in the full cost of another unit bearing the DC then it's only fair to factor in the weapons of that unit too - given that we're comparing X points of one force to X points of another and weapons are in that cost - but then that becomes a rather different discussion. Factoring in a HYMP/SMS XV-88 along with the 5 SDs, a DC & FSM with 1ML the Tau force wins easily: Rangers do 6.5W to a T3 Sv5+, the HYMP alone does 8.6W, the SDs 2.2W at 36", doubled for 24" to make the overall lot twice as effective before even factoring in the SMS. BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT if a Broadside could dakka a Character from 36" away you wouldn't need a SDT+FSM really, lol. So while I agree that Snipers aren't realistically an effective unit they do fill a niche and if a player is going to be defending a location with a Broadside or similar then they have a place as useful bubble-wrap and can be a pain to shift at range.
            • You seem to have missed the point entirely, it's not that the drone controller doesn't boost their effectiveness. The other unit must be factored in because you need to put the drone controller on something in order to use its effects. In other words you are paying those points in order to be able to use the Drone Controller. If you're going to exclude the cost of the unit it's mounted on you might as well not factor in the cost of the Firesight Marksman because it's "not shooting the same target". And like you said, if the unit's weapons are being factored in then you don't need sniper drones to hit the target. So we can really only compare the capabilities of the Snipers in of themselves for their point values. By your own maths, Rangers do almost 3 times as many wounds for the same amount of points. Yes, they fill a niche that we otherwise don't have, but that doesn't mean they're actually cost good at it, especially not when compared to the options other people have. Also, Drone Controllers are far more effective when used with Gun Drones (what they are actually designed for), which make better, cheaper bubblewrap. Oh and factoring markerlights into the equation? Yeah... if you can get markerlights on the target you don't need a sniper drone team.
            • I don't think I missed the point, I was making the point of synergising SDTs with XV-88s. In a real world comparison it's far more feasible to see an SDT+XV-88s than it is to see 34 Ratlings, 20 Rangers or 16 Sniper Scouts: sure, it's fine to compare effectiveness on paper but when it doesn't scale realistically the data becomes less useful in application. That's a fine point with markerlights vs Characters though, dropping marker Drones seems like a waste when gun Drones may do a better job and only one of our fliers has a markerlight they're not great for lasing Characters either.
              • There's another elephant in the room, namely that Broadsides aren't all that effective in of themselves. They're not much cheaper than the tougher, more mobile hammerhead, for pretty much the same level of firepower. It's pretty easy to single them out and take them down, and once they're gone the SDT are down to a 4+ to hit. The problem can be mitigated with a shield generator mind you, but then you can't put a drone controller on them. You could field two of them and put a shield generator on one to help it survive... but that brings this build to 362-408 points. For that cost you could field over 51 Ratlings, 30 Rangers or 24 Scouts. Or even just the previous figures for roughly the same sniping ability plus the cost of something far better. Plus what does the Broadside get out of this build? Nada. Just because synergy can make something better doesn't mean it makes them good, in this case it just makes them suck less.
                • I'm not sure that the rest of the page agrees with your TX-7 vs XV-88 assessment there...seems a bit "Six of one...".

Strike Team Pistols

Before I put this up on the main page, has any FAQ undone the ability for PAC Drone's to Buff Pistol ranges, and for Fireblades to buff the amount of shots a Pulse Pistol can deliver, because if not... combining Pulse Pistols, Pulse Carbines, a PAC Drone, and a Fireblade for 5 S:5 shots at 9" range per Strike Team member is a pretty nasty little surprise, and I could see the Volley Fire rule still working through the assault phase allowing each Strike Team member to double their number of attacks (if they get them off) which isn't too shabby. The Greater Meh (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Can't shoot pistols and other weapons at the same time. --2001:8003:3895:3A00:3827:E476:B7BA:1A42 13:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

On Vespids

• I don't know who wrote the above statements but Vespids aren't great, at all. Outside of wanting to have a fluffy tau army with auxiliaries, theres not too much reason people use them especially once GW started fixing the Crisis Suits.
  • Frontline Gaming wrote "So Vespid aren’t a great unit, all things considered. Although they are no longer one of the worst units in the game the way they once were, they certainly aren’t a particularly impressive or outstanding inclusion in the book, or even in the battlefield role they occupy. And with their decades-old models that come in a grand total of two distinct poses, I don’t think anyone is rushing out to buy them or include them in a list."
  • Meanwhile Bell of Lost Souls claims they are one of the saddest units of 8th edition (and while many people disagree with the entire list as a whole, like SM Predators being on the list, many people in the comments agree with their Vespid choice) - Some anon.

• I didn't think that Vespids Benefited from Markerlights. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Armouries on the various army pages.

This is mostly a repost of a question I had on the main tactics page, but I'll be posting it on all the most frequently updated tacticas because it applies to all of them and I'd like to hear any arguments against it.

I've been wondering this for a while now, but what do the armoury sections add that cannot be covered by unit entries? Everything in them is either stating info that is obvious and redundant to anyone holding the relevant book (which are the people using the tactica in the first place), or it's insight that is restated in the unit entry itself, where it's actually relevant. I get why we list relics since those are usually unique to the army and can be applies to a ton of different characters for different builds, same with Warlord Traits, and both of those are usually not covered in the various unit entries, instead that advice is usually covered in the relic and traits sections which makes sense. But for the regular armouries I'm not really seeing why we keep them around at all to be honest, since they take up so much space and it's annoying to scroll past that kind of bloat. How should we improve them, if possible (so that they're not just restating profiles) or should we just remove them? Personally I'm leaning more towards getting rid of them entirely. -- Triacom (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I've put them all in expandable sections, that way the info is there for people who need it, but it also doesn't take an age to scroll down to the actually useful stuff. 14:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you tell me who needs the info there in that spot specifically, and not in the units themselves? -- Triacom (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It allows a more in depth look at each weapon that would bloat individual unit summaries, especially for things like burst cannons that appear on a dozen different units, only really useful for people not familiar with the army and what each weapon is/does, but for them it is very useful. 14:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

And the units that have access to the get different value from them, so you still need to mention it on the unit entry anyway while also bloating up the armoury mention with the different units that can take them and how valuable they are for those units. If we don't mention their role in the units that can take them then all it does is force the reader to read the unit entry, see they can take the weapon, then scroll up to the collapsed text, expand it, then scroll down it again to find the weapon. That isn't helpful and having a slightly longer unit entry would solve that problem and would not even lead to that much bloat, being a few words at most. -- Triacom (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The unit entries for Longstrike and Hammerheads contradict each other as to weapon loadouts, the armoury section is the only spot where it actually lays out the relevant differences, not that you can’t put that into the unit entries, although twice so it still affects your bloating more than simply having the armoury section state it. Why do you keep introducing this non-issue on talk pages when you bave people disagree with it? Why is it NEEDED so badly that you ignore all of the points brought against doing it? Is the server going to run out of space or something?

And if the information is contradictory then it should be fixed. Having one part of the page be poorly written doesn't mean the rest of it needs to be as well. It's also not bloating a page to only mention it in the Hammerhead and Longstrike entries, instead of the Hammerhead, Longstrike and Armoury. The reason I keep bringing it up is because it's more annoying that relevant info is split between multiple parts of a page, which makes it so you have to keep scrolling up and down to see the whole picture and it's especially bad for mobile devices. If we fixed the issue by putting the info in the unit descriptions then it becomes pointless to keep the armouries around since they do nothing but state what's already in the unit books themselves. I'd also like for you to summarize the points against removing the armoury sections, because so far I've only seen two: A) They're better for people who don't play the faction, and B) the information is there instead of where it should be. Both of these points are bad because the first of them ignores the fact that the pages aren't meant for people who don't play the army (who still cannot use the pages right without having the book), and the second is just poor design as a whole. -- Triacom (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

This page

Anons and other folks seem to be messing with the stratagems and such. We need to be more vigilant, I know that some a flat out missing, while others are filed wrong, and others still are filled with bad tactical advice. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Stormsurge Advice

Who in the sweet name of everything holy wrote that crap? Half the stuff I removed isn't even relevant to this edition, and the entry was filled with flat out incorrect info. Can someone either explain why they are suddenly so viable? --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't recall who wrote that, but I do remember it being written after the Stormsurge was given a massive price drop. I don't know what its current cost is though, and I highly doubt it's held up well against the codex creep. -- Triacom (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)