| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Tau vs Chaos BL 3k http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=10780 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Dobbsy [ Sat Oct 20, 2007 8:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Tau vs Chaos BL 3k |
Tau list 4.4.1 with a few 4.4.2 changes added for testing AMHC 500 +Network drones +Skyray FW Cadre 200 Crisis Cadre 250 Stingray form'n 375 +Upgrade Broadside form'n 375 +Gundrones Pathfinder Tetras 175 3 ML Sentry towers 50 Barracuda Squadron 250 A-X-1-0 225 Scorpionfish 325 +SC upgrade Stealth Suits 275 Black LEgion something like Decimator Reaver Deathwheel Retinue + lord Retinue + lord Chosen Forlorn Hope Raptors Swiftdeath squadron + Daemon pool Tau 0 : BL 2 (BTS & Take and Hold) Dice rolls and bad tactics (read: forgetting basic stuff due to rustiness) aside, there are a few of points about the new Tau that came up in my loss today. 1/ The new skimmer rule hurts us immensely. Putting up points on the Hammerhead does not now make sense. Our ability to pop up to attack something has been greatly nerfed. Ok, I agree we should not be able to pop up and see the entire board but now the rule has the opposite effect. Essentially, If my opponent is 50cm! from a terrain feature and sitting in the open and I am 50.5cm from the feature I cannot see him if I pop up! If this rule stays in place then Hammerhead skimmer ability is now not worth as much as people say it is. With this new rule Hammerheads will have to rely on having other units with MLs in harms way or purchasing Sentry towers to hit units in any sort of cover. The other option is to throw them forward into line of sight of course, thus making them vulnerable to assault. 2/ The A-X-1-0 is very fragile. No RA on this war engine means it can be easily knocked out - as happened today. 2 enemy interceptors accounted for it quite easily. I am unsure why this wasn't given RA (or had it taken away) 3/ the downgrade on Stingrays is a fair one. Even with only 1 sub munition weapon they are potent. 4/ the adjustments to Broadsides is also a fair one. apart from the fact mine only fired in anger twice today (once in direct fire and once in support fire) they hold up fairly well. i also upgraded them with gun drones which was immensely helpful in this, however. take that as you will but they will now be included in my army list with more frequency i think. The held up a couple of my opponent's formations just by being around. 5/ML Sentry towers seem to work as intended now. the individual units make a big difference to how they survive but the removal of teleport seems a fair trade off as you can't just pop em down once your opponent has set up which gives them the chance to avoid them if they wish. keeping their numbers limited by cost is also helpful in avoiding their over-use. I struggled to keep them in my list due to unit costs being what they are. 6/Firewarriors are excellent in co-ordinated fire plans! Mine were on foot and I think making them mechanised would be a better choice but when I used them in a Co-ord attack they cut up enemy infantry splendidly. If people aren't using them in this fashion, give it a crack and see how they go. You'll be pleasantly surprised. They don't last long to assault but this is as it should be - even though I lost all 8 units to an 9-strong Chosen assault they accounted for 2 of them in return. One thing I learned today was they don't need to sit on an objective like so many people think. Overwatch can be a useful deterrent to infantry moves also. 7/I am unsure if there is enough MW weaponry available. Dealing with titans and war engines is very difficult when your opponent can field 3- 4 War engines/titans. The problem of cost when fielding Morays or Mantas and A-X-1-0s means you get less ground troops and when your troops are very brittle and fall down in assault fairly easily(and I am of the very strong belief that you cannot avoid assault in EA these days) you have precious little to hold objectives etc. once the game is in full swing. In general it feels that the Tau don't have enough to hold onto objectives in game now due to restrictions in unit costs. I am always clawing through games trying to hold onto territory peicemeal - struggling to do things with any degree of strength. Others will undoubtedly shoot this view down but bad luck, that's how I feel about this army as it is now. |
|
| Author: | CyberShadow [ Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Tau vs Chaos BL 3k |
Thanks for your comments. I will get back to the majority of them, and would be interested in other peoples opinions. However, a couple of points... 1. I suspected that this may require a bit of thought... 6. Thank goodness someone else seems to like these guys. I was worried that it was just me!  7. I do take your point... although part of me says that the Tau should find it difficult to hold objectives.  I will need to think about this further.Thanks again. |
|
| Author: | Jstr19 [ Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Tau vs Chaos BL 3k |
1. I agree completely HH are about right as they are. 2. I don't really have an opinion on these as I find morays are a much better choice. 3. I agree again. 4. not so sure about this one. I always uses them but with the increased price I'm not sure it sits right for six shots even if they are at AT2+. They are a very specialised unit only really for tank hunting. 5. don't know never use them. 6. I don't know about their role in co-ordinated fire as I think Ion Heads are much better at this. ie you send a formation of Ion heads and battle suits to either side of a formation and reduce them to dust. When FWs are in transports they can cost more that ion heads for about the same number of shots. I usually find that FW are best used by garrisoning them on overwatch to deny certain approaches to enemy infantry. 7. I don't have any trouble getting rid of War machines. Morays are excelent at this. I personally prefer the Ion cannon variant. But both configurations seem to kill a war machine a turn. Battle suits are also very good in this role. Advance towards the enemy fire 6 AT4+ shots and 6 MW4+ shots then if you've been careful disapear before your opponent can assault you. Holding objectices in my opinion shouldn't be part of Tau thinking. I don't normally think about holding them till turn 3. I normaly play like this using my Tau. Turn 1 get rid of my oponents fast moving assault units and infantry transports. Turn 2 get rid of any units that may be in a position to interfere with my objective grabbing and position my units so I can grab the objectives I need. Turn 3 LAND GRAB. It has always been my experience that when I try to hold the line or hold objectives with the Tau I get my ass kicked so i don't bother to try. I think that Tau tactics in EA should be fluid not static. |
|
| Author: | Dobbsy [ Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Tau vs Chaos BL 3k |
This is very questionable. Using 100 points gives 6 targets that the enemy needs to eliminate. That's a lot of wasted activations. Especially as they can cover quite nicely the deployment zone and it's surrounding area. Well I don't hear people complaining about artillery with a 3+(sustain) to hit that ranges over a metre that no one can stop from firing.... at least you can eliminate the towers. Don't forget that Tau don't get the artillery option. You're also forgetting that you can move away from them.... Do you think that Firewarriors should have markerlights? The situation never really arose where they needed to use their MLs as my opponent was marked by a sentry tower nearby. Of course, if my opponent had bothered to kill the tower (he ignored all 3 during the game) I would have needed them.... Holding objectices in my opinion shouldn't be part of Tau thinking. I don't normally think about holding them till turn 3. And it isn't until my 3rd turn ... when the problem of trying to hold them comes up.... |
|
| Author: | Jstr19 [ Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Tau vs Chaos BL 3k |
I see what you're getting at as Tau formations don't have much of a chance in an engagement and as such are easily pushed off the objective. But I have found in my games that I usually don't have much of a problem taking objectives on turn 3. I use long range firepower from HH and Morays to essentially pin down the enemy whilst my Battle suits take the objectives. I do use alot of battlesuits in my armies. EvilandChaos and I have been using an adapted Jump pack rule which has made this a little easier. It is essentially the same as the 40k rule where formations with jump packs get an aditional 10cm rule after they have finished their order instead of when you're oponent delcares an engagement on them. This enables me to advance and fire on the nearest enemy formation to the objective usually break them and then jump back onto the objective. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Tau vs Chaos BL 3k |
I really like Jstr's version of the jump back rule... and it does sort out the intermingling problems. |
|
| Author: | dptdexys [ Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Tau vs Chaos BL 3k |
(Evil and Chaos @ Oct. 22 2007,21:14) QUOTE I really like Jstr's version of the jump back rule... and it does sort out the intermingling problems. What intermingling problem EandC ?? |
|
| Author: | Chroma [ Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Tau vs Chaos BL 3k |
(dptdexys @ Oct. 22 2007,22:11) QUOTE What intermingling problem EandC ?? Someone declares an engage against a Crisis Suit formation and another intermingled formation. The Crisis suits jump away and are no longer within 5cm of the other Tau formation. The enemy formation assaults... but are the two Tau formations intermingled? |
|
| Author: | dptdexys [ Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Tau vs Chaos BL 3k |
This was resolved a while ago on another forum. If any number of formations are intermingled in an assault then they are treated as one formation and they have to stay in co-ordination so the crisis suits couldn't jump more than 5 cm away from the other intermingled formation. 1.12.10 Occasionally an attacker will wish to attack a position where units from two enemy formations are intermingled together. When a player declares the target for a charging formation he can choose, if he wishes, to include any enemy formations that are intermingled with the target formation as being part of the target of the charge. Two formations are intermingled if they have any units within 5cm of each other. If there are two or more formations within 5cm of the target formation, then the attacker can choose to include one or more of them as the target, he does not though have to include any of them. For the purposes of the assault, the intermingled formation is treated as being a single formation. All of the intermingled formations are allowed to make counter charges, and hits may be allocated to all of the formations involved. Once casualties have been worked out, a 2D6 roll is used to resolve the assault. Add together all of the Blast markers on the intermingled formations when working out the result of the assault. If the defender loses then each formation is broken and must withdraw. If the defender wins then each formation receives a number of Blast markers equal to the number of casualties it suffered in the combat (ie, if one defending formation lost two units and then another one, then the first would get two Blast markers and the other would receive one Blast marker). |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Tau vs Chaos BL 3k |
This being the critical line: For the purposes of the assault, the intermingled formation is treated as being a single formation Which does seem to define things. However, I have to say I still prefer Jstr's 10cm extra move post-shooting, as it can only be used once per turn, not infinitely. |
|
| Author: | Dobbsy [ Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Tau vs Chaos BL 3k |
*cough* thread hijack in progress....
|
|
| Author: | dptdexys [ Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Tau vs Chaos BL 3k |
This wasn't the problem that I pointed out after reading the rule back when I first read it. My original problem still remains (CR = Crisis, FW = Fire Warrior, E = enemy). Before engage you have E <- 15cm -> CR <-6cm-> FW Enemy engages Crisis suits, which then jump E <-21cm-> FW <-4cm-> CR How can enemy now assault Crisis suits as Firewarriors are in the way? Does the attack stall as you can't reach Crisis suits and can't assault the Firewarriors instead? My solution was allow redeclaring intermingling after the move. On a game level, the current system is a lot better than giving any "extra" move to suits after orders. In this case the assaulting formation would then do a FF assault at long range with the FWs in between ready to support. If the Crisis suits can get out of assault range or have the path to them blocked so the assaulters cannot get into a position to assault ?then yes the assault would stall. It's just the same as playing without pre-measuring,declaring an assault but finding out after movement the target is out of range. The opposing player should know which tau troops can jump away and should plan their assaults accordingly,its similar to when using the scouts 10cm ZoC for intermingling, players learn quickly how it works and rarely make the mistake more than a couple of times. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|