Page 1 of 1

[ 13 posts ]

Review of Tau Assault on IG
nealhunt	Post subject: Review of Tau Assault on IG Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:18 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	We played a Tau v IG game.  The idea was to test some of the statements and hypotheses that have been bandied about in the Tau discussions. The scenario was weighted against Tau.  It required the Tau to succesfully engage an administorum building to capture some thingamajig or another.  The board was 10'x4', with a dogleg, and required the Tau to cover about 8' of table length.  Obviously, 4' width somewhat limited the maneuver advantage of the Tau also. Basically, a meatgrinder to test durability versus a very heavy armor force to test AT capacity. IG: All-Basilisk arty co SHT co + russ Russ co + demolishers Warlord titan Reaver titan HQ 2x Stormtroopers in valkyries 2x T-bolt formations 4x Hydras (1 with each company) Tau: FW in DF w/ Pathfinders and Ethereal Crisis w/ Hvy drones and SC Armor Cadre w/ HH - 8 IC Stingrays w/ stingrays and Piranhas Piranhas w/ piranhas Heavy Drones Stealth w/ drones Scorpionfish/Narwhal 2x Guevesa w/ guevesa 2x Manta FW formation w/ FW, Heavy Drones, Piranhas loaded in Manta Barracudas 2xTigersharks, railcannon versions It was ~6500 Tau v ~5500 IG, but I promptly forgot to put out the Stingray formation, so it ended up being about 6K. As I said, it was basically a meatgrinder for the Tau and the force was definitely not tailored for the scenario.  Even at the full 6500 it was a long shot at succeeding.  They decided to retreat for the Greater Good after about 6 turns.  In that time, they destroyed both titans and most of the SHT co, while losing all the HH, Stealth, and Piranhas, and most of the Ethereal formation.  In addition, one of the Mantas was alive only by the slimmest of margins (1 DC left) and only because the saves were simply unreal. General observations AT:  AT is okay, if slightly low.  As I said, I forgot the Stingrays.  The Piranhas were an early IG target and broke on Turn 1.  An unfortunate intermingling of the Ethereal formation and the armor formation led to their doom because I didn't see the Valkyries behind the trees and they were swamped by Stormtroopers.  It was only at that point that I felt I was suffering for AT ability and even then I saw some ways to do some damage to AVs with Guevesa assaults. In return for the slightly weak AT, they are obviously very good at taking out infantry and have a lot of access to TK weapons.  Overall, I think that's an okay setup with respect to balance. GMs:  As noted, none of the GM-heavy formations saw combat.  Had my stupidity not left 500 points of GM-toting pieces off the board, I think the Titans would have been toast in a fraction of the time because the GMs would have stripped shields that the TK weapons ended up dropping. Mantas:  Great Googly Moogly!   A company of 120cm direct firing Basilisks that can always see you is... shocking to say the least.  I can't think of anything that might possibly be more brutal than support craft trying to cover 8' of board against that.  Bleh.  Still, overall the toughness of the Manta felt about right. The firepower is better than a titan.  The AA value was highly useful as I brought aircraft in between the two of them to protect them from interception even after all the IC HH's died.  The total point cost seems just about right, but I did post about the FF value in the thread on support craft and I do think the Initiative should be 1. Aircraft:  Both my opponents felt that the air might be a bit too tough.  The Railcannon Tigersharks were the biggest concern, but it was more the point value than the abilities that were bothersome. Crisis Suits:  Can't comment on the infantry/LV balance.  I goofed it up.  We targetted them as LVs, but I constantly forgot to take terrain checks, essentially moving them as infantry.  Just too many new things to keep track of. Drones:  We need some clarification on the intent of the drone targetting rules.  My understanding was that the "can be assigned AT hits" was strictly so they could shield AVs or LVs in the formation with them - that it was not to allow them to be  targetted in essentially the same way that LVs are.  In light of that, we played it so that drones in an all-infantry formation were not vulnerable to AT fire.  If I was correct, that needs to be clarified.  If not, well, I cheated my opponents out of ~8 AT shots. Command and Control:  I did find that they kept BMs.  Basically, with so few leaders, within a couple turns of fighting most of the formations had a lingering 1-2 BMs that made activations much more difficult.  In later turns I almost never retained initiative because it was virtually always a 4+ to activate.  That would have happened much sooner in a GT scenario.  I even felt most of the time that the IG had better C&C than I did. Maybe I'm off on this, but I tend to think that is just plain wrong.  There is every reason to think that Tau ought to have C&C ability somewhere below Eldar/SM but solidly above IG.  At the very least, the Mantas ought to have an Initiative of 1.  I could also buy into an argument that the "elite" battlesuit formations should have Initiative of 1. Overall feel:  The list felt in many ways like a lighter, faster version of the IG.  I ended up unable to use some of the typical Tau-ish bits (only one CF and the GM formations essentially evaporated) and wasn't able to capitalize on the maneuver advantage due to the scenario.  Basically, right now I'd put them as something between IG and Eldar. _________________ Neal
Top

Honda

Post subject: Review of Tau Assault on IG Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 4:08 am

Brood Brother Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm Posts: 1891 Location: Katy, Republic of Texas

We played a Tau v IG game. ?The idea was to test some of the statements and hypotheses that have been bandied about in the Tau discussions. The scenario was weighted against Tau. ?It required the Tau to succesfully engage an administorum building to capture some thingamajig or another. ?The board was 10'x4', with a dogleg, and required the Tau to cover about 8' of table length. ?Obviously, 4' width somewhat limited the maneuver advantage of the Tau also. Basically, a meatgrinder to test durability versus a very heavy armor force to test AT capacity. Interesting choice of missions. As a Tau player, you'd always want to maneuver your forces away from this type of scenario, however, war being what it is... IG: All-Basilisk arty co SHT co + russ Russ co + demolishers Warlord titan Reaver titan HQ 2x Stormtroopers in valkyries 2x T-bolt formations 4x Hydras (1 with each company)

Only comments I would make is that I'm surprised that you didn't take Manticores and I probably would have maxed on tanks and SHT vs. titans. Still, a very solid force.



FW in DF w/ Pathfinders and Ethereal
Crisis w/ Hvy drones and SC
Armor Cadre w/ HH - 8 IC
Stingrays w/ stingrays and Piranhas
Piranhas w/ piranhas
Heavy Drones
Stealth w/ drones
Scorpionfish/Narwhal
2x Guevesa w/ guevesa
2x Manta
FW formation w/ FW, Heavy Drones, Piranhas loaded in Manta
Barracudas
2xTigersharks, railcannon versions


So basically, a buffet of units. Is there a reason that you took the IC-HH vs. RG-HH? If the test was for AT capability, then the RG-HH would have seemed the logical choice, plus it switches to an infantry hunter rather quickly after the transport/tanks have been taken care of.

Also, since the Stingray is geared to take care of infantry, I don't understand the pairing up with the Pirannhas. Not my choice, so it would have been interesting to hear how it performed.


AT: ?AT is okay, if slightly low. ?As I said, I forgot the Stingrays. ?The Piranhas were an early IG target and broke on Turn 1. ?An unfortunate intermingling of the Ethereal formation and the armor formation led to their doom because I didn't see the Valkyries behind the trees and they were swamped by Stormtroopers. ?It was only at that point that I felt I was suffering for AT ability and even then I saw some ways to do some damage to AVs with Guevesa assaults


Again, the Stingrays are AP shots (obviously, I'm not counting the Seekers), so they wouldn't have helped out in the AT area that much. Where they probably hurt you though is their ML's not helping with the other units.

As far as the other stuff goes, intermingling happens...



In return for the slightly weak AT, they are obviously very good at taking out infantry and have a lot of access to TK weapons. ?Overall, I think that's an okay setup with respect to balance.


Although I can agree with the overall statement, I think it's a little dangerous to make the "lot of access to TK weapons" statement as that isn't necessarily true at lower points levels. At 6K-6.5K, you don't have to be as stingy with your points and you can afford to do things that you can't at lower levels. I'd be just as interested in seeing you run the same two types of forces at 2700 pts as those types of battles are more likely to be played, than the really big ones.




GMs: ?As noted, none of the GM-heavy formations saw combat. ?Had my stupidity not left 500 points of GM-toting pieces off the board, I think the Titans would have been toast in a fraction of the time because the GMs would have stripped shields that the TK weapons ended up dropping.


So are you saying that the Scorpionfish had no effect or did not perform to expectation?

What did you do with the Stealths? Did you teleport them to take advantage of their ML's?


Aircraft: ?Both my opponents felt that the air might be a bit too tough. ?The Railcannon Tigersharks were the biggest concern, but it was more the point value than the abilities that were bothersome.


I could see where the RC-Tigershark could be priced at 200 and still be a decent investment for the points.


Command and Control: ?I did find that they kept BMs. ?Basically, with so few leaders, within a couple turns of fighting most of the formations had a lingering 1-2 BMs that made activations much more difficult. ?In later turns I almost never retained initiative because it was virtually always a 4+ to activate. ?That would have happened much sooner in a GT scenario. ?I even felt most of the time that the IG had better C&C than I did.


I think this is an extremely important point that you bring up. I think that when we talk about effectiveness of a unit/formation, we must consider it's abilities beyond the first turn. As you point out, later in the game, the Tau tend to start accumulating BM's which starts a degradation of their units capabilities. It's not just about how many shots you are able to take on Turn 1. It's also important to know whether or not your units are going to be around for Turn 4.

What I have seen so far is that if the Tau are capable of taking advantage of masking terrain, then they tend to give as good as they get. However, because the units are susceptible to fire, and we don't have a lot of leaders around for the armored units, then by the back half of a game, you sometimes find yourself struggling to put effective units in action.

This past weekend, we observed an Ork unit pull off 12 BM's becuase of the numer of leaders and good rolls. The Tau don't have that capability, so when we do get BM's on us, as you observed, some of them start sticking around and towards the end of the game, we get sluggish.


Maybe I'm off on this, but I tend to think that is just plain wrong. ?There is every reason to think that Tau ought to have C&C ability somewhere below Eldar/SM but solidly above IG. ?At the very least, the Mantas ought to have an Initiative of 1. ?I could also buy into an argument that the "elite" battlesuit formations should have Initiative of 1.


Again, I think I agree with your general statement, but I'm not so sure I agree with the solution. Part of my reasoning for saying that is again, at 2700 pts, how many people are really going to take a Manta and should you not take crisis suits (and to date I have not), then the C&C you propose doesn't really help.

So maybe this needs to be addressed, maybe not. I think we need more testing.


Overall feel: ?The list felt in many ways like a lighter, faster version of the IG. ?I ended up unable to use some of the typical Tau-ish bits (only one CF and the GM formations essentially evaporated) and wasn't able to capitalize on the maneuver advantage due to the scenario. ?Basically, right now I'd put them as something between IG and Eldar.

Except that we still can't fight our way out of a paper bag should we get assaulted (which I'm fine with).

Personally, I think CF is over-rated as an ability. Yes, it's nice to have, but the trade off in activations has not seemed worth it to me just yet.

As far as GM's go, mine tend to spend a lot of time popping up, so they stay fairly healthy, but my ML's tend to suffer accordingly. The way I try to compensate for that is judicious use of Sustain and I'm exploring the use of Crossfire in conjunction with our mobility.

However, that means luring someone in, so that those situations can be created and then capitalized on. Assuming that I still have to deal with BM's and my command rolls, it isn't a given.

So, a lot of words on my part. I want to thank you for putting this exercise together as it sounded like a lot of fun, but also a fair amount of work.