Tau questions

[Vangrail]

Question on the tau book. When equipping crisis suit with weapons there are two sets of numbers. For example a plasma rife is 15/20 so 15 for a single and 20 for two(twin-linked). Now If I pay 15 twice can I in the shooting phase shoot 2 plasma rifles? Because I don't want twin linked I just want two of them.....so.....Does that work? I do not see why it wouldn't work.

[memnarch_129]

Don't have the book yet, hate GWs idea of pre-orders starting on Saturday, but from what Ive heard about the weapon systems in the new book that would be correct. Now keep in mind that you may have 4 shots but the twin-linked two shot has a slightly better chance of hitting. Also keep in mind the old 4th Codex didn't say anything about not being able to take two singles but if I remember later in a FAQ or something they said it was either a single or a Twin-linked, you couldn't buy two singles. So I wouldn't get to used to the idea of double single plasma rifles on suits as the could change, then again you also couldn't put 3 of one weapon on a suit in 4th and that supposedly isn't in the new codex either, who wants a 3 single Plasma Rifle suit for 77 points.

Edit: NVM just checked the FAQ from January before they pulled it down and there is no mention of not being able to buy two singles even in the old codex.

[ElectricPaladin]

Question on the tau book. When equipping crisis suit with weapons there are two sets of numbers. For example a plasma rife is 15/20 so 15 for a single and 20 for two(twin-linked). Now If I pay 15 twice can I in the shooting phase shoot 2 plasma rifles? Because I don't want twin linked I just want two of them.....so.....Does that work? I do not see why it wouldn't work.

That didn't work in the old codex - it probably won't work in the new one. Let me check...

The wording is "the second is for two weapons (counting as a twin-linked weapon of that type)."

That seems to me to strongly imply that if you buy two of the same weapon, you buy it for the number after the slash, and the weapon is twin-linked, just like in the old codex.

[memnarch_129]

That didn't work in the old codex - it probably won't work in the new one. Let me check...

The wording is "the second is for two weapons (counting as a twin-linked weapon of that type)."

That seems to me to strongly imply that if you buy two of the same weapon, you buy it for the number after the slash, and the weapon is twin-linked, just like in the old codex.

yeah I thought I remembered something about that just thought it was an FAQ. Depends on how you read it it can technically go either way. It reads as though its saying you can buy singles for the first and the twin-linked double for the secon, this being the 4th as I don't yet have the 6th, but could also be read as you either buy one for the first or two for the second price and the two are twin-linked instead of separate. Locally I think most people wont mind the single buying but for anything like tourneys with out of towners or any big tournament events Id steer clear of the more than one single weapon on suits until it pops up in a FAQ. Though by the new codes as far as I know a Twin-linked Plasma Rifle and a Third single Plasma Rifle is legal so go nuts with 2 TL shots and 2 regular, which is oddly enough only 5 points more than the two SINGLE Plasma Rifles.

[Gir]

No where does it day you can't take two of the same weapon. It just says the twin-linked version takes up two slots.

[ElectricPaladin]

No where does it day you can't take two of the same weapon. It just says the twin-linked version takes up two slots.

It says "the second cost is for two, which count as twin-linked."

This implies that if you have two, you use the second cost, which means they are twin-linked. It never says "if you want two separate weapons, use the first cost twice." It says "use the second cost to have two, and they are then twin-linked."

[energongoodie]

The last codex was very clear on this point. It was not an FAQ it was right there, that you couldn't have 2 weapon systems the same without them being twin linked.
I will not be getting my codex for a while as I ordered it through Wayland games and the shortages mean a 2 week wait minimum so I can't check it :(

[pauljc]

Just sold out too, so I can't tell you either. :D

But yeah, as has been said, in the previous edition of the Codex, if you tried to buy two of the same, it became twin-linked for the TL cost.

I don't think it will be any different in this edition. Let me re-phrase that to 'one hundred percent certain'.

[Wildeybeast]

The last codex was very clear on this point. It was not an FAQ it was right there, that you couldn't have 2 weapon systems the same without them being twin linked.
I will not be getting my codex for a while as I ordered it through Wayland games and the shortages mean a 2 week wait minimum so I can't check it :(

From someone who does have the codex, EP is 100% correct. You can buy two of the same weapon but doing so automatically makes them a twin linked weapon.

[Vangrail]

That saddens me because i wanted duel missile pods or plasmas and have tons of shots. oh well all I know is I like this book alot.

[gcsmith]

That saddens me because i wanted duel missile pods or plasmas and have tons of shots. oh well all I know is I like this book alot.

nothing says you can't take twin and single

[Wildeybeast]

Or even 2 twin linked weapons on your commander if you really want to OD on the firepower.

[Vangrail]

nothing says you can't take twin and single

Nothing says you cant. Thats why i think you can personally.

[Uncle Nutsy]

This is one of those threads where everyone is right.


the first number is for a single weapon. the second is for two when they are twin-linked. So yes, you can load up on two twinlinked systems if you want. Dual twinlinked plasma? yeah sure. Dual twinlinked burst cannons? LOL go for it. Dual twinlinked missile pods? hell yeah.

Or... Dual twinlinked Fusion. AWESOME.

Only on your commander, though.

For the regular crisis suits, you're still restricted to three hardpoints, so you'd be toting around one twinlinked burst cannon and a single burst cannon.

[Phototoxin]

Nothing says you cant. Thats why i think you can personally.

Nothing says that you can't slap your opponents head when he fails an armour save... =p

It's really a Day0 FAQ issue. Hopefully it will happen fast. I would like to think that you can.

[mallet_man]

just a question about bonding, I can't find the Heroic Morale rule (guessing its in the main rulebook) what does it actually mean?

[wbravenboer]

it means that you don't need double 1 for regrouping after your squad is below 25% (you can find on page 39, independent characters)

[Anggul]

While the codex doesn't say you can't, I'm going to assume you can't because I doubt they would make it so something that looks the same on the model could be either TL or dual wielded. I think it's ridiculous that they're Twin-Linked rather than dual-wielded considering they clearly aren't Twin-Linked on the model, it's just restricting the power of Crisis Suits for no particular reason.

[Vangrail]

I emailed gw about it because i think it would be cooler to duel wield instead of twin linked. Plasma rifle 2 shots a 24 inches and 4 at 12 damn. or burst cannons 8 shots!!! Would be cool because tau are a shooting army and every bit would help.

[Tynskel]

I emailed gw about it because i think it would be cooler to duel wield instead of twin linked. Plasma rifle 2 shots a 24 inches and 4 at 12 damn. or burst cannons 8 shots!!! Would be cool because tau are a shooting army and every bit would help.

Just follow what the book says: 2 = twin-linked.
Personally, I think Twin-Linked Burst Cannons and a Flamer is a good choice for inexpensive defensive suits.

That's 126 points for 12 TL-Burst Cannons shots and 3 Flamers.

[Wildeybeast]

Just follow what the book says: 2 = twin-linked.
Personally, I think Twin-Linked Burst Cannons and a Flamer is a good choice for inexpensive defensive suits.

That's 126 points for 12 TL-Burst Cannons shots and 3 Flamers.

This. Why is this still a discussion point? The book very clearly says, in plain English, if you buy two of the same weapon they become twin-linked. You can then add a third of the same weapon type, meaning you effectively have 1 twin-linked and 1 non-twin-linked weapon. If you buy 4 of the same weapon on your commander then you have 2 twin-linked weapons. It doesn't need FAQing because it's very clearly written in the book. They have put out a day zero FAQ and didn't mention it, so clearly it wasn't an issue they felt needed addressing (because, and I can't emphasise this enough, the codex clearly explains how the process works).

[Warp dust]

I don't have the codex, but you can only fire one weapon unless you are a monstrous creature, walker or unless otherwise stated.

[Learn2Eel]

I don't have the codex, but you can only fire one weapon unless you are a monstrous creature, walker or unless otherwise stated.

Any model that is in a Battlesuit (excluding Shadowsun as she has her own special form of multi-tracker) has a multi-tracker, allowing them to fire one more weapon than normal. Though it doesn't make a difference to the Riptide, it allows Broadsides, Crisis Suits and Stealth Suits to fire two weapons if they have them, though from memory Stealth Suits only ever have one weapon.

To the already addressed issue at hand, it is cool to note that a Commander can take two twin-linked weapon systems, though I feel that is probably a waste as the support systems are pretty important for them.

[DrBored]

It says 'Where a weapon has two point costs, the first is for a standard, single version, and the second is for two weapons (counting as a twin-linked weapon of that type). A twin-linked weapon counts as two choices from this list.'

It doesn't say you are unable to take two single weapons, only that the second COST is for a weapon to be twin-linked, and that twin-linked weapons take up two slots.

I don't really see where the problem is, because taking two separate weapons costs a pretty penny more in points, so it's not like we're talking about something unbalanced.

Let's take something else as a precedent. In order to buy two Lightning Claws for a Chaos Lord, you have to buy the single weapon twice, there is no entry for 'pair of lightning claws' any more. You simply pay the cost for each lightning claw separately, and then get the bonus for having both (+1 attack in this instance).

It may be FAQ'd, but there is nothing that explicitely limits your options in this matter.

[ElectricPaladin]

It may be FAQ'd, but there is nothing that explicitely limits your options in this matter.

How about this as a "limit" to your opinion: the old codex was phrased almost exactly the same way, and the FAQd that to make it clear that if you had two of the same weapons, they were twin-linked.

[DrBored]

How about this as a "limit" to your opinion: the old codex was phrased almost exactly the same way, and the FAQd that to make it clear that if you had two of the same weapons, they were twin-linked.

But they haven't yet, even though they released a FAQ the same day as codex release. My thinking is that they're opening up the options for Tau players, instead of sticking to the same old rules. New day, new Tau.

[gcsmith]

But they haven't yet, even though they released a FAQ the same day as codex release. My thinking is that they're opening up the options for Tau players, instead of sticking to the same old rules. New day, new Tau.

The wording is the same, intention is the same. Sigh, I love how people think this is ambiguous. If you learned English you would know that it says take two before twinlinked, in other words, if you take two of the same weapon it then becomes twin linked. No choice.

Besides, options have been opened up, they removed the "no three of same type" rule.

[DrBored]

The wording is the same, intention is the same. Sigh, I love how people think this is ambiguous. If you learned English you would know that it says take two before twinlinked, in other words, if you take two of the same weapon it then becomes twin linked. No choice.

Besides, options have been opened up, they removed the "no three of same type" rule.

I'd still like to see an explicit explanation, "No, you cannot take two of the same weapon without counting them as twin-linked." would be all that you would have to post in a FAQ, but they didn't do that, did they? They made it nice and ambiguous.

Either way, if you really don't want to do it that way, or if they do FAQ it, there still isn't a huge problem. If you want long range, you take a missile pod and plasma rifle, if you want lots of shots, you take a burst cannon and plasma rifle, if you want high str you take missile pod and fusion blaster, and you just get as many shots as you can. If you want reliability, then just take the twin-linked stuff. So really, it's not like I have a lot of investment into the argument, but explicit clarification would be nice.

PS: I don't like how you implied that I don't know English. That was kind of rude.

[gcsmith]

I'd still like to see an explicit explanation, "No, you cannot take two of the same weapon without counting them as twin-linked." would be all that you would have to post in a FAQ, but they didn't do that, did they? They made it nice and ambiguous.

Either way, if you really don't want to do it that way, or if they do FAQ it, there still isn't a huge problem. If you want long range, you take a missile pod and plasma rifle, if you want lots of shots, you take a burst cannon and plasma rifle, if you want high str you take missile pod and fusion blaster, and you just get as many shots as you can. If you want reliability, then just take the twin-linked stuff. So really, it's not like I have a lot of investment into the argument, but explicit clarification would be nice.

PS: I don't like how you implied that I don't know English. That was kind of rude.

Seeing as how you think the bit in brackets allows you to take two single ones. You don't know English. Not about being rude, and didn't intend to, but you're trying to argue a non point and get your cake and eat it too.

[DrBored]

Seeing as how you think the bit in brackets allows you to take two single ones. You don't know English. Not about being rude, and didn't intend to, but you're trying to argue a non point and get your cake and eat it too.

Whoever it was that decided that having cake and eating your cake was excessive needs to be pulled out of the grave and shot again. I do not understand that phrase. If someone gives me a cake, why can't I eat it? Am I supposed to eat other people's cakes, thereby eating a cake that I didn't have? Am I supposed to just keep the cakes that I have and store them until they rot?

And the phrase, *parenthesis* or not, is still ambiguous enough to warrant debate until otherwise specified.

At the very least, despite whatever you say to me, this argument is going to come up again and again until there is a definitive FAQ, and until then all we have are community debates and house rules.

[gcsmith]

Whoever it was that decided that having cake and eating your cake was excessive needs to be pulled out of the grave and shot again. I do not understand that phrase. If someone gives me a cake, why can't I eat it? Am I supposed to eat other people's cakes, thereby eating a cake that I didn't have? Am I supposed to just keep the cakes that I have and store them until they rot?

And the phrase, *parenthesis* or not, is still ambiguous enough to warrant debate until otherwise specified.

At the very least, despite whatever you say to me, this argument is going to come up again and again until there is a definitive FAQ, and until then all we have are community debates and house rules.

When the wording is the same as wording that has already been FAQ'd... then no FAQ is really needed, at least not for vets.

[Gir]

Whoever it was that decided that having cake and eating your cake was excessive needs to be pulled out of the grave and shot again. I do not understand that phrase. If someone gives me a cake, why can't I eat it? Am I supposed to eat other people's cakes, thereby eating a cake that I didn't have? Am I supposed to just keep the cakes that I have and store them until they rot?

It means you can't eat the cake and still have the cake afterwards. You either keep the cake, or eat the cake.

[Tynskel]

It says 'Where a weapon has two point costs, the first is for a standard, single version, and the second is for two weapons (counting as a twin-linked weapon of that type). A twin-linked weapon counts as two choices from this list.'

It doesn't say you are unable to take two single weapons, only that the second COST is for a weapon to be twin-linked, and that twin-linked weapons take up two slots.

I don't really see where the problem is, because taking two separate weapons costs a pretty penny more in points, so it's not like we're talking about something unbalanced.

Let's take something else as a precedent. In order to buy two Lightning Claws for a Chaos Lord, you have to buy the single weapon twice, there is no entry for 'pair of lightning claws' any more. You simply pay the cost for each lightning claw separately, and then get the bonus for having both (+1 attack in this instance).

It may be FAQ'd, but there is nothing that explicitely limits your options in this matter.

I am confused by what you are saying: you have the rule word for word there. if you buy 2 weapons that are the same, they become twin-linked. It is all in one sentence! No break in thought!

[Nabterayl]

I am confused by what you are saying: you have the rule word for word there. if you buy 2 weapons that are the same, they become twin-linked. It is all in one sentence! No break in thought!
He's observing the grammatical fact that "two weapons (counting as a twin-linked weapon of that type)" is all the object of "for." The last time GW phrased this rule this way, they clearly read it as if the only object of "for" was "two weapons," but that is simply bad grammar.

In other words, you are correct that what counts as a twin-linked weapon is "two weapons," not "the second [cost]." However, it is not true that we have a clause in the rule that states that two weapons count as a twin-linked weapon of that type. The rule is structured as, "The fifth [cost] is for eighteen oranges (counting as a Washington apple)." If under that rule you somehow find yourself in possession of eighteen oranges, it does not follow that they count as a Washington apple. That only follows if you paid the fifth [cost].

That said, the rule was last interpreted as if it was structured, "The fifth [cost] is for eighteen oranges. Eighteen oranges count as a Washington apple." Under this structure, no matter how you come by your eighteen oranges, they count as a Washington apple.

I think it's a valid point. I also think it's most likely that GW does, and will interpret it the same [grammatically incorrect] way it has in the past.

[Tynskel]

I am not sure this is poor grammar. The twin-linked is a parenthetical, a qualifying/explanatory remark. So, you could read the sentence as follows: Where a weapon has two point costs, the first is for a standard, single version, and the second is for two weapons.

The parenthetical just lets you know that 2 weapons is considered twin-linked.

The second sentence is a clarifier statement, too, stating that when you purchase 2 weapons, the weapons take up two slots.

[Daemonette666]

Since this thread has until now been about tau battle suit weapons and how many they can take, and how much are they, and discussions about parenthesis, etc, I thought I would add in another question about a new tau rule, that has not been fully explained in the rules, and which can be misinterpreted, and argued over in games to be played in the future months.

So the Support fire rule allows squads to over watch as if they were also the target of a charge if they are within 6" of a unit being charged. Do you have to declare all supporting shots at the same unit? If a unit does get into close combat with the target unit, and a second unit is declared as charging it, can nearby units that are within 6" of said target unit that have not fired yet, still add their overwatch fire against the second unit of declared chargers or does the fact that the original unit is locked in combat stop them from shooting?

[Nabterayl]

So the Support fire rule allows squads to over watch as if they were also the target of a charge if they are within 6" of a unit being charged. Do you have to declare all supporting shots at the same unit? If a unit does get into close combat with the target unit, and a second unit is declared as charging it, can nearby units that are within 6" of said target unit that have not fired yet, still add their overwatch fire against the second unit of declared chargers or does the fact that the original unit is locked in combat stop them from shooting?
I think it's pretty clearly the latter case. Even though the actual target is locked in close combat and thus cannot fire Overwatch, the supporting fire unit can fire Overwatch as if it, not the actual target, were the target of the charge. Notably, it does not get to fire only if the actual target could, or as if it were in the actual target's place and circumstance, etc. Thus, so long as the supporting fire unit isn't locked in combat itself, it can still fire its supporting Overwatch.

[Uncle Nutsy]

It says it right in the 'dex, quite clearly too.

as soon as two weapons are equipped on a suit, they become twinlinked. no getting around it. Any other interpretation is simply using technicalities in an attempt to exploit a loophole, and bound to piss off a lot of people.

To answer the other question, yes. Multiple units in the supporting fire range can declare their shots towards the target charging unit. Once your and the target unit are locked in combat, no supporting fire. In fact, it says in the BRB that you can't fire into CC at all.

[Nabterayl]

Once your and the target unit are locked in combat, no supporting fire. In fact, it says in the BRB that you can't fire into CC at all.
Not sure what you mean by that, but as I read the rules, the following is legal:


Tau One is locked in close combat with Ork One. Tau Two is within 6" of Tau One and is not locked in close combat.
Ork Two charges Tau One.
Tau One may not fire Overwatch at Ork Two.
Tau Two may fire Overwatch at Ork Two.

[DarkLink]

Just so people in this thread know, you don't have to Reply With Quote if you're the post immediately following the post you're quoting ;) :p.

[Uncle Nutsy]

My interpretation is this: Since the targeted unit is already involved in CC and cannot shoot, supporting fire does not happen. Supporting fire can only happen if the unit in question can fire overwatch.

I'd like to be able to shoot the incoming enemy unit when a multiple assault happens, but I can't see it happening.

[gcsmith]

The rule says you can supporting fire when a unit is charged, does not say the unit being charged has to be able to overwatch

[Nabterayl]

My interpretation is this: Since the targeted unit is already involved in CC and cannot shoot, supporting fire does not happen. Supporting fire can only happen if the unit in question can fire overwatch.
Yeah, the targeted unit's status has nothing to do with Supporting Fire. As the rule says, "When an enemy unit declares a charge, all friendly models with this special rule in units within 6" of the charging unit target can choose to fire Overwatch as if they were also targets of the charge."

So when analyzing Supporting Fire, you do not take the supporting unit and place it in the target's shoes, as it were. Instead, you ask yourself, "If the charging unit were charging me, could I fire Overwatch?" Hence, so long as the supporting unit is not locked, it can fire Overwatch - even if the target unit is locked.

[Uncle Nutsy]

It also says on the rule; "as if". the unit has already been charged, they're now locked and supporting fire does not trigger.

if you are going to quote rules, quote the exact rule. Don't leave anything out.

[gcsmith]

It also says on the rule; "as if". the unit has already been charged, they're now locked and supporting fire does not trigger.

if you are going to quote rules, quote the exact rule. Don't leave anything out.

As If it had been charged.... Since the supporting unit is not already in combat, it can shoot.

[Nabterayl]

It also says on the rule; "as if".

if you are going to quote rules, quote the exact rule. Don't leave anything out.
I did. It's right there in my last post. The only part I left out was "Remember that a unit can still only fire Overwatch once each phase," which is not relevant to the discussion.

I don't see how you get the conclusion you're drawing from "as if," though. The rule says "as if they were also targets of the charge."

The situation is analogous to Overwatch in a multiple charge. Suppose that Tau One is locked in combat with Ork One. Tau Two is not locked in combat. Ork Two declares a charge against both Tau One and Tau Two. Tau One cannot fire Overwatch, but Tau Two can.

The analysis for Supporting Fire is the same. Even if Ork Two only declares a charge against Tau One, assuming Tau Two is within 6" it can fire Overwatch as if it also were a target of the charge. The rule does not say that it can fire Overwatch if the actual target is able to fire Overwatch, nor does it tell us to assume that it is the only target of the charge, and proceed from there. It's treated as an additional target of the charge for Overwatch purposes.

[DarkLink]

Nab's right. There's no reason supporting fire wouldn't trigger just because the primary target is already locked in combat. That's utterly irrelevant to the supporting fire rule. All it takes to trigger supporting fire is that the opponent's unit declares a charge. Once the charge is declared, everyone who can overwatch can overwatch. The primary target is locked, so sure, they themselves can't overwatch. But you're making up rules if you think that means other units within 6" can't overwatch as well.

[Wenrun]

My question is about the Sun Shark Bomber drones:

Since a flyer is considered moving at cruising speed at anything above 18";
And passengers can only fire snap shots from vehicles moving at cruising speed;
Then, if the flyer move over 18" they can only fire snap fire shots and can not use their overcharge blasts (templates)?

Is there any flaw here or rule I'm missing?

Also, how does the bomber's movement affect them when they disembark?
If the bomber move more than 18" and they disembark, do they still get only snap fire?

[Tynskel]

My question is about the Sun Shark Bomber drones:

Since a flyer is considered moving at cruising speed at anything above 18";
And passengers can only fire snap shots from vehicles moving at cruising speed;
Then, if the flyer move over 18" they can only fire snap fire shots and can not use their overcharge blasts (templates)?

Is there any flaw here or rule I'm missing?

Also, how does the bomber's movement affect them when they disembark?
If the bomber move more than 18" and they disembark, do they still get only snap fire?

You have that wrong.

zooming flyers: Combat Speed = 18-36". Cruising Speed = +36".
While zooming, you cannot move slower than 18".

Since 18-36" is combat speed, the Drones can fire both modes, at BS2.

Furthermore, when the drones have disembarked, they no longer are on the vehicles, and thus do not follow any of the embarked vehicle rules.

[Wenrun]

You have that wrong.

zooming flyers: Combat Speed = 18-36". Cruising Speed = +36".
While zooming, you cannot move slower than 18".

Since 18-36" is combat speed, the Drones can fire both modes, at BS2.

Furthermore, when the drones have disembarked, they no longer are on the vehicles, and thus do not follow any of the embarked vehicle rules.

According to the FAQ "If a flyer zooms it has a combat speed of 18" and a cruising speed of up to 36"".

[Tynskel]

According to the FAQ "If a flyer zooms it has a combat speed of 18" and a cruising speed of up to 36"".

Then that answers your question. Gotta be moving at Combat Speed.

[Nabterayl]

According to the FAQ "If a flyer zooms it has a combat speed of 18" and a cruising speed of up to 36"".
That's true. But the flyer is still only penalized if it moves less than 18". So the bomber can move its minimum speed of 18" and the interceptor drones can still shoot at their full BS in either mode. Otherwise, they'd need to detach.

[Wenrun]

OK. Thanks for the help. I was on the fence about which I prefer, the Razor or the Sun Shark. This kinda tips the scale for me if the drones will pretty much be firing snap shots if attached.

[ElectricPaladin]

OK. Thanks for the help. I was on the fence about which I prefer, the Razor or the Sun Shark. This kinda tips the scale for me if the drones will pretty much be firing snap shots if attached.

The thing is that more often than not, you'll just detach the drones. Since they have Skyfire anyway, there's no reason not to, and they can turbo-boost like jet-bikes to keep up with their mommy if protecting it from other flyers (thanks, Interceptor!) is an issue.

[Tynskel]

although, detaching them makes the drones easier targets.

[Daemonette666]

I should double check my typing when I ask a question. What I meant to say was. Tau unit A is being charged by CSM unit A with 3 supporting units B, C and D. Tau player elects to use Tau A and Tau B to overwatch shoot at CSM A, hoping they do not make it into Close combat, and see where the nearby CSM units B, and C decide to charge. CSM unit A gets a failed charge, and the Chaos Player declares a charge at TAua unit A with CSM B Unit. Can the Tau Units C and D fire Overwatch at them? That is basically what I meant to say. I forgot to put in the word "Not", as in did not get into close combat.

I think they do get to fire supporting fire anyway. I also think that with so many Tau units having Defensive grenades and support fire special rule, you may as well multiple charge the whole Tau front line, and tie them up in close combat.

[Nabterayl]

Yes, absolutely. I'm not sure why anybody might think differently.

[Eusebius Rex]

The Tau Codex was updated today with its first FAQ:


FAQs
Q: Can I take three of the same (not Twin-linked) weapons on my
Crisis suit? (p100)
A: Yes.

It goes on to give an example, but this (to me) is a fairly clear answer to the question of whether or not we can take multiples of the same weapon - without twinlinking - on a Crisis suit.

Pretty cool - I still think doubles of any single weapon takes away the tactical flexibility of the crisis suit though.

[Tynskel]

I agree, but now you can seriously do some interesting things.
For example:
2 Crisis Suits Velocity Trackers, 2 Missile Pods. Shas'Vre with Multi-spectrum/Command Node and flamer. Commander w/ 2 Missile Pods, Velocity Tracker, Early Warning System.

That's 12 missile shots that gain the bonuses from Command Node and Multi-Spectrum. The Commander, with BS5 can get off 4 shots as an interceptor, too.