It's easy if there's one or two Chimeras, but if you're face with 3-5 and they're all lined up so you can't actually get their flanks it's really not fun. AV12 spam is a killer when you can't hit their flanks. The 5th Ed codex made it even worse with lower cost Chimeras, Valks/Vendettas and higher side armour on the Russes.

I apologise if you think I have lead the thread OT, but if you read the last 2 sentences of my earlier post then I think we are on the same page

Edit: Or not, because I am now on page 2

Apologies for the necro-post, but no one had really stressed the pinning aspects of Sniper Drones and it was still on the front page (and therefore perhaps leaving the thread worthy of CPR?)

Since there is no restriction on only taking one pinning test a turn and probability is great at turning probably events into improbable ones once you start lining them up.

In order to make the chance of failing be more likely to happen than happen;

for Ld10 you need 8 separate wounds*,
for Ld 9 you need 5 separate wounds,
for Ld8 you need 3 separate wounds,
for Ld7 you need 2 separate wounds.

The biggest issue is then getting the pinning wounds you need, as unless you have a specific target in mind - sniper drones are expensive. However you do only need one wound each time, and markerlights can reduce LD down a lot quicker than you can cause wounds. I've not tried it, and admittedly Tau heavy support is one of the most competitive slots in the game - but if you're markerlight heavy and can afford a heavy slot then perhaps there is a role here for a set of three sniper teams to play. Going to be very heavily reliant on your local metagame but potentially I could see if pinning a close combat mega unit in place whilst you dismantle the army around them. Following which, the mega unit is a big risk as you're always gambling on whether or not you've picked the 3 sniper teams.

Obviously 3 teams are expensive at 240 pts, but against a MEq opponent outside of cover you're looking at a 41% chance of failing to kill with each drone (without ML support), corresponding to a 7% chance of failing to kill a single MEq with three drones. Therefore, the chance of 3 kills from three separate squads (who might cause more than three wounds, but will at least cause three wounds) is 80%.*

This is enough to pin a Ld8 unit more often than not, and with the 1.5 ML hits a turn from the controllers can be improved further. On a good role, or with a bit of assistance (that remaining 0.5ML if needs be) this means you can half the number of turns an enemy gets with a marine HQ level squad.

Might be more interesting to Farsight players looking to fill that last slot, or to Empire players fighting non-marine armies (at which point regular drones or the AFP can chip in as well) who might suddenly realise there is some value in getting that third pinning kill which random devilfish fire can't quite produce. It's very easy to get one or two pinning kills with the Tau army - to the extent it's almost a hallmark in Epic, but once you reach three and have markerlights the magic can start happening since it's so much easier to reduce Ld than to cause those extra 2-3 casualties.

In summary, and with the massive caveat that this is theoretical only (I would love to use sniper drones but commonly play against Orks and Nids, and are a little wary at the moment of Finecast Tau), maybe the neglected sniper drone teams are worth a look - they aren't going to do a lot of damage on their own, but there certainly could be value in using them to tip a few stats over the edge, knocking them under that magic 50% value.

*edited to show working - nice and simple, sort of, these values are based off (1-P(being pinned: [3:36 for Ld10, 6 in 36 for Ld9, 10 in 35 for LD8 and 1 in 15 for Ld7])^x where x is the number required to get answer of less than 0.5.
**edited to show working - stats are being calculated as "1 - P(abject failure)" in this case "(1 - (1/2 [miss] + 1/2 x 1/6 [hit, fail to wound]))³"
This is the chance that a sniper drone squad causes at least one casulty, we then see what the chance is of 3 teams failing to do anything (each team is sucessful at least once) - P(no abject failure)³.

On the same note of SDTs... everyone says they are not very mobile. Are Sniper Drones not jump infantry? I know the spotter is not, but wouldn't the drones themselves benefit from relentless?

They are not jump troops because they have the same unit type as their controller, which sadly is just a lowly fire warrior.

Czar Ziggy

What makes the other drones (specifically Markerlight drones) relentless is the fact that they are inherit the Jetpack Infantry unit type from their controller. This is why Markerlight drones attatched to Broadsides are not relentless, even if you give the XV88s ASS.

Except there is, in the official 40k FAQ (and supported by RAW):

Q: How many Pinning tests can a squad firing multiple
Pinning weapons cause on the enemy it is
shooting?(p31)
A: Each unit can only cause a maximum of one Pinning
test on each enemy unit wounded, per turn, regardless
of the number of wounds caused, unless specifically
stated otherwise.

This restriction is what kills the idea of relying on pinning as a strategy (at least without LD-reducing effects). If you're ever in a position where you are focusing multiple units on a single target without actually killing it, you're either just doing the last cleanup before tabling your opponent, or you've screwed up badly and you're about to lose.



Which is just an absurd waste of markerlights. In virtually every plausible scenario you'll be much better off using those markerlights to improve your firepower and just kill the target instead of trying to pin it.



The problem is that this is almost never going to happen. In all but the smallest games, your heavy slots are going to be the first to be filled. And in a 500-point game, you won't have the support elements to make a pinning-heavy strategy even close to reliable.



Or I could just feed the death star unit a minimum-strength Kroot squad instead of wasting my heavy support slots. Also,

1) Lists based around death star CC units are terrible, so dedicating your list to fighting an opponent you will already dominate is a pretty bad idea.

2) Death star CC units are usually fearless and/or LD 9/10, so you're looking at much worse odds of pinning.



Err, just what MEQ HQ squad has only LD 8?

Also, 250 points for the drones is getting pretty close to the cost of a (non-terrible) HQ unit, so you're paying easily 75% of a unit's cost to maybe pin it. Why not just spend 250 points on more firepower and KILL the unit?



Unfortunately, Farsight is terrible (this is one of many reasons), and if you use him you're probably going to lose**. I suppose taking sniper drones can't really hurt you at that point, but that doesn't make them effective.

**That is maybe a little harsh on Farsight lists; they are different, they force you to 'manage with what you can have', but I have won quite a number of my games with a Farsight army. It is important to learn the restrictions and capabilities of an FSE list, and to keep your mind on the game! ~ E.

That's what all the maths above is for - each unit inflicts one pinning test, so how many separate units need to score one kill to pin a unit. The answer for LD8 is 3. The second part of the maths is seeing how likely it is that three teams will actually achieve this. Additionally, the pinning tests are taken when each unit fires, so the stats above are just the chance for at least one unit to end up pinned.

As for multiple units not killing the target, firstly I think it's a little harsh to call sniper drone teams multiple units - they cost just a bit more than a three man Fireknife unit with drones, they're both going to be chipping away at a squad before wiping it out in one go. I'm saying that a full set of sniper drone teams will fairly reliably pin a target of Ld8 and below, Ld9 and below if you aren't directing their ML hits elsewhere. At range, you're causing more kills than Fireknives and taking at least one unit out of the equation next turn (either forcing units to advance without support or stall the enemies battle line). Don't forget the maths includes killing at least three marines a turn on top of taking them out of the game for a turn.

I'm certainly not saying they are good alternatives to Fireknives though, as they play very different roles. It's a unit with the at-range damage output of a crisis team, that also assists in isolating enemy units, allowing your real damaging troops to use otherwise more risky strategies (extra turn for the crisis suits to stay at short range, or perhaps giving them a chance to use dual flamers without the inevitable assault, a chance to be a bit more brazen with your own ) on top of the psychological impact on the opponent of you dictating which unit he probably can't use next turn. You can play with riskier strategies, whilst he now has to play a lot more conservatively, sending additional troops to do any job that definitely needs doing (routing out Crisis teams from cover, taking an objective) as he can't be sure which of his troops is not taking part next turn. A reliable pinned unit, on top of a modest number of kills, is definitely a force multiplier.

Obviously, a lot depends on who you're fighting (how much fearless is there etc) and the biggest question is whether you can live without that second unit of broadsides (or it's apocalypse and that's not an issue). They aren't really suitable in a generalist list though, so I wouldn't recommend taking them in a tournament list. But most games aren't tournament games, something I think often gets forgotten on the internet - they are against a group of players who are unlikely to have all the armies or even styles of armies represented equally. Some of our units are quite frankly useless, but I don't think Sniper drones come under that heading, instead just being situational. They actually do what they are supposed to do quite well, with the safe bet being on them pinning a Ld9 marine unit.

I think they could be worth a look against marines that favour non-tank heavy support (Wolves, Chaos and Grey Knights - perhaps Eldar too, assuming they're not mechanised).


I'm not advocating that you direct Pathfinders to assist with pinning, the sniper drone squads on their own are very likely to score a kill each and one is all we need because I think we can all agree that sniper drones aren't a particularly efficient way of taking out a marine squad. You've now got 3 ML spare from the controllers - it's these that I'm suggesting are enough to take a Ld9 squad down to 8, and therefore making the target being pinned the most likely outcome from that round of shooting.


One that has had it's Ld reduced by the drone controllers ML.

I have only a single SDT (and that might be the problem), but I generally find that their BS just isn't enough to reliably force the amount of saves that I need to get the job done. I'll give them a go in the next few lists that I throw together, but I would much rather have Vespids in an Anti-MEQ role than SDTs, if only for their agility.

Peregrine speaks truth. one unit causes no more than 1 pinning test to any 1 unit. but theres no limit to the number of units that your one unit can force a check on. This is an important point to remember if ANYONE ever fields SDT's.

if you're taking 3 teams, you can still force 3 tests on the squad. The drones all come with target locks so you can split each of their shots across multiple squads. The sniper teams pinning shouldn't rely on markerlights to reduce the LD as much as it should rely on weight of fire to force as many checks as it can. 3 teams force 9 checks across up to 9 different squads, provided each drone in the team splits fire. If you were to use sniper drones, thats how to get the most out of them for that particular purpose.

This is, of course, assuming that they all hit. Wounding isn't usually a problem for Rail Rifles, but at BS3 any model with a Rail Rifle is notoriously innaccurate. And if you're spreading out your shots like that, then using any markerlight to improve the accuracy is a horribly inefficient use of those lights. Yes, that's how you get the most of them in a general engagement, but I think the best use of them would be to focus fire on a single target that you want out of action for a turn (fast assault units or long range support units ideally).

I just ran some numbers regarding the (mathhammered) effectiveness of 2 SMT's against a skyray - they work out to be the same pointswise.

Since both have 2x bs4 markerlights their marker efficiency is the same at 1,33 hits per round.

What interrests me more is the raw firepower the SMT's bring on the board.
0,625 railrifle kills against MEQ in cover per team (1,25 total) without any markerlights used is pretty decent compared to the measly 0,88 of my Skyrays SMS. The rifles also cause the above mentioned pinning tests.

This train of thought discounts the skyrays seeker missiles of course - they can ID MEQ and below, have "unlimited" range and can hit tanks more easily than the railrifles.


My question is:

Would it really be feasible to replace the skyray with a pair of sniper teams?

Pro Skyray: Can move 12" and fire all weapons.
Immune to anti infantry fire
Harder to take out in CC since it's hit only on 6s and comparably hard to "wound".

Con Skyray: Limited number of shots on the seeker missiles, aka one round wonder.
Lack of pinning tests forced.
Single target.
Can always be fired at normally (does get a cover save though).


Pro SMT: Can split fire more effectively.
Forces pinning tests.
Two seperate targets.
Can, theoretically, continue firing infinitely.
Hard to take out with long range weapons.

Con SMT: Can easily be killed in CC or by anti infantry weapons.
Is subject to morale / pinning checks as well.
Is, comparably, immobile.


Thanks for your help in advance

You forgot the major problem with both units: they don't carry railguns. It doesn't matter which one is the better markerlight platform, you're never going to take either of them if you care about winning.

Thanks for the advice Peregrine, although you're not exactly giving me the answer I was looking for I guess I'll post my list in another thread for general discussion, no need to derail this thread.

My question still stands though.

Depends on your opponent, in a tournament you'll probably want the full set of railguns but in most friendly games you'll know if you really need them in that third slot. Railguns (particularly Broadside railguns) are a weapon where you may need them in all slots, and will suffer if you don't have enough, but aren't versatile or cheap enough that you'll always want them. If he's got less than three tanks, there's better things you can do.

As for your question, they have very different roles to be honest, I'd say if you already have a lot of markerlights (pathfinder squad or two) then a Skyray can build off them and also provide a mobile platform. Seems to me like even under the circumstances where you're looking to take one or the other, the Skyray isn't giving you a lot you can't get elsewhere and kind of requires itself to be slightly redundant to get the most out of it (the Alpha-strike). The same number of seeker missiles and markerdrones accompanying a Crisis team would pretty much serve the same role and leave a heavy support slot open (if you'll forgive the awkward interpretation that they take on the type of the unit - jetpack infantry and therefore relentless, but don't have the specific shortcomings of being an XV8 battlesuit, i.e the drone (or stealthsuit) gets relentless with it's heavy weapon even if hypothetically a XV8 crisis suit wouldn't).

On the otherhand, two stealth teams is enough to reliably pin a Ld7 unit each turn and a Ld8 one if no one else wants it's markerlights. But if you're taking them as markerlight platforms then the value of the sniper drone is quite significantly reduced - as MEq killers they are very expensive. The number of Ld7 armies is pretty slim at the moment though (bring on the rumoured 6th ed "Near Pass" rules!), so they aren't going to worth particularly well as a markerlight platform since they're hogging most of the hits them generate or are acting as overpriced Fireknives.

Any list with fewer than three targets (remember, Broadsides kill more than just tanks) for your Broadsides is a terrible list, and you've already won the game. Why bother planning for that situation?

Again, I disagree - there's numerous competitive lists that don't have three tanks for which you need XV88s, and plenty that have no real tanks at all (unless you're holding to some "no true scotsman" fallacy in which they can't be a competitive list because they've not got lots of tanks in it.). Almost every write-up I've read from people entering 'Ard-boyz and other tournaments involves at least one unconventional army and almost none have the level of AV13-14 vehicles you seem to suggest is standard. Mech is admittedly common in tournaments but it's definitely not the only list you'll fight, and come on, destroying 6 rhinos/razorbacks or 4 chimeras in 2 turns from XV88s alone is not lacking in anti-tank.

And by 'kill more than tanks', you must mean the SMS? Since the drones are better than the plasma rifles, in that they also disable units whilst causing a similar number of casualties. The competition with a railhead is fierce (I'd usually take the Railhead for the submunitions anyway) but I don't think there's many lists that would consdier a third broadside unit is a necessity.

On top of that most games are not against tournament lists but what the other guy has at the moment (which was my main point there - that you are aware of what the enemy has in their collection and are both looking to expand. If you want to talk about tactics against one specific type of list that causes trouble then fair enough, but you're blowing the need for anti-tank way out of proportion, which mean the only advice you're giving for the average gamer is heavily optimised against a list they aren't fighting. This is the major problem I've got with netlists and overly-generic tactica, they are far too specific and almost never actually talk about context.

I'm not talking about AV13-14 (which Broadsides aren't even very good at killing), I'm talking about the 15+ Chimeras (and Chimera-based tanks) an IG player can bring, the 15+ Rhinos/Razorbacks a marine player can bring, etc. Virtually any competitive list is going to have large numbers of transports that need to be killed, and the few that don't are going to have other good targets for the Broadsides (2+ save infantry, MCs, etc).



When that means that the other 15 Chimeras/Hellhounds/etc survive, killing two Chimeras a turn is nowhere near enough. It's a start for your XV8s to build on, but it's certainly not so impressive that you can say "good enough" and waste your heavy support slots on bad units.



Or the plasma. Either one is going to mean plenty of things for Broadsides to shoot at.



Until your sniper drones run into 2+ saves and/or FNP. You know, the things that good non-mech lists tend to have.



That's why I said "railgun", not "Broadsides". Railgun Hammerheads are a perfectly legitimate choice (in smaller games at least). But this doesn't change the point that Sky Rays and sniper drones have no place in a serious list.



So let me get this straight: your strategy is meant to be used when:

1) You only have a single opponent to play against.

and

2) Your single opponent has a limited collection of models, which does not include many vehicles.

Doesn't that seem like a pretty specific scenario, and a pretty irrelevant one for talking about tactics in general? Also, it still doesn't answer the question of why you own the Sky Ray or sniper drones in the first place. If you're both trying to expand your collection, shouldn't you be focusing on good units instead of units which are going to suck once you get to a final list?

15+ is extreme, it's not 'large'. Most armies have no where near that number of chimeras or equivalents. Mech IG take melta vets, so 6 would be near the upper limit, maybe with some Valks as well. They aren't taking mechanised infantry platoons. Likewise with marines, they just aren't taking that many tanks. 15 rhinos/razorbacks has assault troops and devastators working out of rhinos.
That's not a realistic number of tanks to base an army around.

You're taking broadsides to deal with the 2+ saves? Against FNP on anything other than 2+ saves, they are equal - 1.875 kills apiece, unless you're taking multitrackers or are within 12". Aren't we having a discussion elsewhere about this, you seem to disregard the use of Broadsides there when it comes to counting up the plasma shots? As I argued there, if you want plasma broadsides, two units is enough there as well.

Skyrays I can't see the point of, there is nothing they do that you can't get elsewhere for less or better (i.e not taking a heavy support slot) short of a ML shot from 12" in on the first turn and 24" the second. Sniper drones I think do have their niche.



Firstly, most people don't build towards a final list, but also pick units that look cool and will also get useful units. Secondly your definition of 'not many' vehicles is absurdly high in the context of average collections and the various armies. Thirdly you forget that most people don't build lists for the tournaments, whilst a tournament list might have to cope with the worst any list can throw at it there's no guarantee you'll get the same mix in the local environment - mechanised infantry is very expensive, and not really going to be the main choice of most gamers.

Sniper drones don't have a place in a tournament list, because you have to be prepared for any eventuality and the most extreme builds any book can make.

However 99% of real games are not these, they are in environments where you generally know what you might be up against so you can tailor your list more to match the armies you're fighting than the theoretical perfect tournament lists (lot of winning tournament lists aren't actually the theoretically perfect lists). If no one you know plays IG, then that's a lot of the strongest anti-mech influence on the metagame out of the window.

Netlists and the obsession with tournaments as the be all and end all of gaming means that units and tactics get pigeonholed as being 'good' or 'bad' with very little thought given to alternative conditions where things might not be the same. It's been 5 years since our book was out, the more specific uses of units it pretty much the only place where there is anything non-obvious to say any more short of some new and huge, game changing codex (which we'd probably be useless against due to the age of the book).

If it wasn't for competition with anti-tank units, do you see the use of sniper teams?

Fine, let's assume* 6x vet squads, for a total of ~900 points. Add a CCS with Chimera (150 points), and that's 7x Chimeras. Heavy support is probably going to be artillery or Hydras, so let's assume a fairly average choice of two Manticores and a full Hydra squadron. Now we're up to 12 vehicles and ~1600 points. Fast attack is either Hellhounds or Valkyries/Vendettas, and a 2000 point list gives us room for three of them.

Oh hey, that's 15x AV 12 vehicles without even trying to maximize Chimera spam**.


*A bad assumption. Despite what you think, infantry platoons are very useful. And even if you don't ever put them in their tanks, it can be worth it to buy them Chimeras to give to special weapon squads, or even keep the Chimeras empty and use them as mobile cover and/or spares.

**Which would involve 20+ Chimeras at 2000 points.



Or Razorbacks purchased for those devastators/long fangs/etc to add to the Razorback spam. You don't have to actually use the transport for the unit that bought it, you know.



I'm saying (in that thread) that you can't count on their plasma rifles.

This is entirely separate from your point that the Broadsides will run out of targets (and therefore you should take sniper drones), which is what I'm disputing in the quoted argument.



According to who? I'm sure most people buy the occasional unit just because it's cool, but just buying random stuff without a final list in mind is just an easy way to waste money.



Why do you assume that formal tournaments are the only place where you'll find lists designed to win games? For example, I have zero interest in playing in tournaments, but I still optimize my lists as efficiently as possible.



Except for mech Space Wolves, mech Blood Angels, mech Grey Knights, mech Dark Eldar, mech Eldar, etc. In fact, the only armies which don't benefit from mech-heavy lists (or their MC equivalent) are Tau and Necrons.



So? The fact that the Tau codex is old and well understood doesn't mean that we should come up with bad strategies just for the sake of having something to talk about. If there's nothing non-obvious to say anymore, don't say anything. Just enjoy the painting section, and wait for the new codex to bring us some new tactics to discuss.



Yes, but until GW publishes a new codex which takes them out of the heavy support slot, this is an irrelevant question.

First off - could this thread be split somehow? It seems we're diverging quite a bit from the OP, especially in regards to the whole "tourney lists must be competitive" / "why only play tourney lists?" discussion going on at the moment

Now, to answer Peregrine to an extent.

Your fixation on 2.000 points and above games helps me understand much better how you think.
Locally we only play 1.500 point games, as standard, and allow FW goodies for anything above.
The worst I have run into yet "tourney" wise, apart from Dark Eldar with a Baron blob, have been P/Las-backing spacewolves with max missile long fangs.
And against those I didn't have much trouble - missile pods shook/stunned those that didn't get shot at by the railgruns long enough to keep casualties down. (Admittdely I lost that game because, well, I was too bold with my helios team )

P.S.: Again, I value your advice Peregrine, in regards to tourneys and high points games it's very sound. However, it'd be nice if you could apply your experience to the less hypercompetitive environment at least some of us play in.

P.P.S.: (bolded, in part, by me)

a.) Because I like the models - 40k is not some RTS-bord game for me, it's a hobby and I'll also collect what I think is cool.

b.) Because in certain scenarios having them just makes sense. How are you going to safeguard yourself against enemy air superiority without a Skyray for AA for example. This might sound silly to you personally, but I like to consider those things as well. Even if it means I won't win a GT