Why Take Any Other Weapon?

How does Games Workshop incentivise T’au players to take other weapons on their Crisis Suits?

The logic is simple. If taking different weapons doesn’t affect the cost of the unit, there is no disincentive to take the best weapon.

In previous editions of the game, Battlesuit weapons were priced differently. If the T’au player wanted to take the best weapons, he would pay a price to do so. Usually, this price was worth paying.

GW, however, clearly wanted to disincentivise this behaviour. In 9th edition, T’au players paid more for a weapon the more it was taken on a Battlesuit. For example, one fusion blaster cost 10 points, but taking another would cost 15 points, and taking a third would cost 20 points. The total cost for three fusion blasters, therefore, was 45 points.

I can’t recall exactly how much a fusion blaster used to cost, but it was somewhere around there. In any case, you get the point.

This system, then, incentivised T’au players to take a variety of weapons. Generally speaking, Crisis units were often armed in order to destroy one particular type of enemy unit. For example, a Crisis Suit with one plasma rifle, one fusion blaster, and one cyclic ion blaster would be reasonably effective against heavy infantry.

Swap the plasma for a burst cannon and the fusion for a flamer, and that model is much more effective against light infantry.

Ironically enough, the CIB was a strong choice for most cases because of its high rate of fire, good Strength and respectable AP.

This brings us to 10th edition. Weapon choice doesn’t affect unit cost, and we see the effect of the changed incentive.

And incentives matter.

How can GW change this? How will GW incentivise players to take other weapons?

It’s a tricky issue. The problem itself is built into the game system. Why would a T’au player not take the best guns? If the best weapon isn’t a CIB, it’ll be something else. When the codex is released, we might see T’au players taking three missile pods on their Crisis Suits. The problem isn’t the stats on the weapon; the problem is the design of the game.

But there is a favourable trade-off that GW could make. GW could make the CIB less appealing by making other weapons better.

Note that GW shouldn’t make another weapon significantly better than the CIB. As I mention above, that would just cause T’au players to take that weapon instead.

Instead, GW must force T’au players to make difficult decisions when it comes to list building.

For example, what would the burst cannon have to look like for T’au players to take it? At the moment, it’s not particularly interesting: 18”, 4 Attacks, BS 4+, Strength 5, AP 0, Damage 1. Lots of Strength 5 shots with no AP isn’t very appealing to a T’au player. There’s plenty of that in the army already, and it’s not all that effective against many targets.

Adding AP -1 certainly makes the burst cannon more tempting, but is that enough to make it a more effective weapon that the CIB? I’m quite sceptical of that. In addition to AP -1, could we add a couple more shots? Now we’ve made the burst cannon into the advanced burst cannon, which is the variant found on the Devilfish and the Hammerhead, and at this point it would certainly be worth a look.

A guided unit of six Crisis Suits each armed with three of these burst cannons would hit an average of 72 times. Into most infantry units with the defensive profile of a Space Marine or poorer, this is going to do some work. Those 72 hits translate into 48 wounds. The AP takes the Marine down from a 3+ to a 4+, resulting in 24 failed saves, killing 12 models.

Okay, that’s way too good. We’ll have to dial in down a bit.

At the moment, Crisis Suits armed with CIBs, shooting at the standard profile, kill six models under the same circumstances. Of course, the T’au player can probably remove the squad if the chooses to overcharge the CIBs, at the cost of 12 Mortal Wounds on average.

Twelve dead Marines, then, is too good, and it goes without saying that lesser infantry wouldn’t stand much of a chance at all. Just call them an Uber.

These two upgrades — Attacks and AP — seem a little too much for the burst cannon, then. But does the weapon work if we take away one or the other.

Into Marines, removing the AP results in eight dead models. Removing the two extra attacks also results in eight dead models.

This game balance thing isn’t as easy as it sounds.

Let’s take another example. The fusion blaster isn’t a popular choice at the moment for a variety of reasons. For a start, the range of the weapon is 12”, which means that T’au players don’t get the in-built Melta rule unless the target is within 6”. Simply put, Crisis Suits have to get danger close in order to get the full effectiveness of the weapon.

And what’s more, with a Strength characteristic of 9, there are just too many big targets that don’t really fear the fusion blaster.

How could we improve it? I think that increasing the range to 18” would be a good start. This would bring in the Melta rule at 9”, which is at least a little more on the safe side. Furthermore, increasing the Strength wouldn’t hurt at all. The fusion blaster really needs to be able to do some work against big targets in order to make it a viable choice, and Strength 9 simply doesn’t offer that at the moment.

Indeed, with the rate of fire of CIB, T’au players can rely weight of dice to do the work against very tough targets. Increasing the Strength and range of the fusion blaster would make this option less appealing.

But here’s another angle: the CIB is just too good. It’s not really bad at anything. Its strong profile — both standard and overcharge — coupled with the sheer number of dice that the T’au player is rolling makes it extremely efficient.

Indeed, the Kauyon detachment rule favours rolling more dice. The more dice than the T’au player can roll, the more likely he is to roll 6s, which, if the Kauyon rule is active, add one or two more hits to the pool, depending on weather the firing unit is guided or not.

Each Crisis Suit armed with three CIBs is rolling nine dice. A unit of six, therefore, is rolling 54 dice. And we haven’t even talked about the addition of a Commander to the unit.

Here’s the long and short of it: the index is designed to make CIBs the best choice. Whether this was done intentionally or not is not relevant. This is just the way it is.

This is what I think will happen. The T’au codex will add a few more detachment abilities to the faction, meaning that Kauyon won’t be the only choice. If the book is written well, there will be a handful of interesting detachment options, which will make other weapon configurations more palatable.

It’s not only updated weapon profiles, then, that will make the difference. The CIB might retain its strong profile, but if a potential Mont’ka detachment ability favours, for example, taking three different weapons on a Crisis Suit, then it’s certainly possible that we’ll start to see more variety on these models.

As I said at the beginning of the article, making one weapon significantly better than the CIB isn’t the way to change things. We need two or three interesting, engaging ways to play. This is, I would argue, the best way to incentivise T’au players to use their Crisis Suits differently.

And remember, Frontline Gaming sells gaming products at a discount, every day in their webcart!