Librarium Online Forums banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am new to Tau and would like to include some in my army, but I just can't find any advice on how to model them or what they look like, either on the codex or the internet. If I'm missing something obvious, let me know. But how do you gues represent targetting arrays?
 

·
Nerf Dave's avatar
Joined
·
391 Posts
really in any way you want mate. You can use the target lock as its pretty logical. A good conversion is Imperial LasGun Barrles to give a laser sight effect.
 

·
Gone
Joined
·
1,286 Posts
I use a cut up flamer as my Targeting array. This works because we should never really be using too many flamers, or any.
So, just make up a bit, as GW did not release one for us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,417 Posts
Cut up a flamer. This is a standard targeting array.

Cut off the front bit and the fuel block. Cut the little hemisphere bit off and glue it to where the front bit was.

To be more clear, the front bit is the front bit of the gun. There are two bits (barrels/pipes?) sticking out of a block. Cut both bits off the block, use the block as the targeting array.
 

·
The deep down truth
Joined
·
5,714 Posts
Cut up a flamer. This is a standard targeting array.

Cut off the front bit and the fuel block. Cut the little hemisphere bit off and glue it to where the front bit was.

To be more clear, the front bit is the front bit of the gun. There are two bits (barrels/pipes?) sticking out of a block. Cut both bits off the block, use the block as the targeting array.
Is it standard? who says? I have never seen anything remotely like this used as a target array.
I just use one of the aerial pieces for the XV8's usually the one that looks like a crystal with the multiple nodules on it (multi tracker in the codex). As long as you let an opponent know what it is there is no problem usually.
Hammerheads have them as standard anyway, so you do not have to model them and for DF I would just use the normal multiple aerial array you get on the sprue (the three aerial array).
 

·
Gone
Joined
·
1,286 Posts
Obviously, Riki. However, the cut up flamer is so frequent and so logical (we never use flamers anyway) that is as close to standard as it gets.
 

·
The deep down truth
Joined
·
5,714 Posts
Obviously, Riki. However, the cut up flamer is so frequent and so logical (we never use flamers anyway) that is as close to standard as it gets.
Well actually no it is not obvious Blue, because we have someone saying the flamer conversion is 'standard'. To someone like the poster of this thread, who may not have experience with 40K and its modeling and wargear representation conventions, Oni's comment could be taken to mean that you have to use a flamer as it is 'standard' which it is not.

It ain't frequent where I come from dude. Really you can use what you want, As long as you have listed all the wargear/upgrades in your army list and you have 'represented' them on the model, its all sweet.
In fact you do not have to use any of the named wargear (listed and pictured in the back of the codex) you can convert and use anything you dang well please.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
rikimaru said:
Hammerheads have them as standard anyway, so you do not have to model them and for DF I would just use the normal multiple aerial array you get on the sprue (the three aerial array).
Gotta be careful about that, and make sure your opponent doesn't think is it what it actually is (sensor spines).
 

·
The deep down truth
Joined
·
5,714 Posts
Gotta be careful about that, and make sure your opponent doesn't think is it what it actually is (sensor spines).
There should never be any problem, if you have your list and you can explain and prove what is on the Hammerhead etc, then you can use what you want to represent a piece of wargear for which no generic part is available.

Oni being common does not mean it is standard, just because you 'think' it is does not make it so.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
655 Posts
Normally I disagree with Riki (sorry Riki), but here, I'm with him.

I don't believe that we can call anything "standard" unless there is a specific piece made by GW. Mods of that would then be non-standard. In all of my games, I have never seen the flamer used to represent the Targetting Array (even though it is a great idea). I, personally, used the target lock to reprsent the TA because I don't use TLs, and I like the look of that bit.

As long as you are consistent across the army (i.e. all the TAs look the same), then you can make them whatever you want if the piece doesn't exist by GW.

Just my two cents.
 

·
Striving for the right
Joined
·
941 Posts
I, personally, used the target lock to reprsent the TA because I don't use TLs, and I like the look of that bit.
This is exactly what I do to - and none of my opponents has ever commented to the contrary, far less complained. It seemed to make eminent sense to use a modelling piece that already existed and was freely available. If I ever do have to use a target lock then I'll just have to find something else - perhaps the drone controller from the XV25 sprue since none of the other XV8s will have anything remotely like that.

~ Raven ~
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
Is it 'legal' to equip a Suit with a Targetting Array and a Multi Tracker, and use the Multi Tracker bit to represent both?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,417 Posts
Yes of course, (remember, you don't have to represent a targeting array at all).

Now multitrackers, I would look down on you if you didn't represent it, but will not take any action in a tourny or friendly.

It might have seemed like I misunderstood your post so let me make this clear. You can say the multitracker bit is both a multitracker and targeting array, that is fine.
 

·
The deep down truth
Joined
·
5,714 Posts
Yes of course, (remember, you don't have to represent a targeting array at all).

Now multitrackers, I would look down on you if you didn't represent it, but will not take any action in a tourny or friendly.

It might have seemed like I misunderstood your post so let me make this clear. You can say the multitracker bit is both a multitracker and targeting array, that is fine.
This is absolutley true, as long as you 'represent' the piece of equipment/wargear and you make it absolutely clear to your opponent what you do have it is fine and this includes using one component to represent two bits of equipment.
What is more frowned upon is having lots of parts on a model that have no use, this can lead to confusion, say an XV8 with all the aerials and various wargear parts but only listing for instance a multi tracker as equipment, it is not illegal but is frowned upon.
 

·
The Fallen
Joined
·
7,745 Posts
I think most non-Tau players couldnt tell you what a multi tracker, targetting array and target lock look like, nor, whilst they can tell you what the effects are collectively, could they tell you which does which, Tau elitism seems to be colouring the discussion (not saying that Tau players are not elites, but that you are worrying in an area far beyond what most opponents would
 

·
Striving for the right
Joined
·
941 Posts
Yes of course, (remember, you don't have to represent a targeting array at all).

Now multitrackers, I would look down on you if you didn't represent it, but will not take any action in a tourny or friendly.
I'm not sure I can agree with you here, Oni. If we are to abide strictly by the rules as written, then the the targetting array (TA) is only available as a support system which must be shown on the model. On the other hand, the multi-tracker (MT) can be hard-wired, so an XV8 could have a MT without it being in any way apparent, which is not the case with the TA. Accordingly, if I were to use models against you which did not have MTs represented, you would have no grounds whatsover for assuming a lofty moral stance on the issue.

However, as Chered has entirely correctly and reasonably pointed out, only other Tau players are likely to know what represents what on an XV8, so the whole point is rather moot.

~ Raven ~
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top