 
|
Page 3 of 4 |
[ 49 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
Questions:
Did you use the aircraft to snipe synapse units? Seems like the Hive Tyrants would be an easy way to take out 2 formations in that manner with last activations.
See the report - it just wasn't in the cards. Also,
I've added a general response to aircraft sniping. This player was not only aware of the 'sniping my big bugs' tactic and planned for it, but it really wasn't feasible when I tested those waters on turn 1. Too much of the 5x AX-1-0 tactic relies on the long term success and punishment of the bomber. Losing them sacrificially early would not be a good thing. Aircraft sniping is not a power of the AX-1-0, its just an area of the main rules that allows anyone with fliers to try and ruin the nid synapse in a gamey manner. Furthermore, there were many runs where the AX-1-0 in question missed or only got a single hit. That's a very risky prospect.
Aircraft sniping in general: FYI I do agree that it is an extremely gamey tactic, that I would prefer had never been (mistakenly?) allowed by the core rules.
Tactics using the "5 Aces": I found that it is a generally better to run the aircraft attacks after activating the ground forces. Against Nids I think it becomes even more important, as they can respawn if they can still activate. If they can't move or respawn then its much easier to "punch a hole" through to the synapse units.
It is possible that this is one of these situations where different playstyles reading the same battle reports etc see things differently. When I read TRC's batrep, his tactics seemed to mesh with my overall conception of how to fight a battle with those units and strategies. Maybe your experience and playstyle means that those tactics dont mesh as well with your style, thus when I tried using them it worked better for me than it did for you.
You wouldn't normally take as big risks with the planes as you might against the Nids. This is because the normal attrition doesn't work on the Nids that well. However, if you can eliminate the synapse at the end of the turn then you kill a whole formation. Higher risk, higher reward. Its something that I would have been looking to achieve if I'd been in your position, so I wondered if you had tried and/or if it worked.
How many Nid players use 10 Zoanthropres, no WE-bugs and no (or few) AV-bugs? (It's not something I've seen in any of the batreps in the Nid section, but perhaps with the new list that will change)
Cw,
Its a fair question. Since I don't play bugs as a main list, so I don't know. The couple times I have fielded them myself, I tried to take the all infesting all smaller bug horde - but I couldn't get it to work in the old lists. Local bug players feared the shadowsword then. We were trying to find a way around it as at the time, the big bugs were mandatory for the list to be effective - like you've already said.
I know its been a big complaint amongst several locals that they don't have to take SHT bugs in 40K, but when you go to epic - your list doesn't work and you 'have' to take the big bugs "in the older bug lists".
Jaldon's new rework of the list may afford a more versatile way to play the bugs competatively. I definitely applaud that effort if its intentional!
I can tell you this - having that many wounds on the field is like playing against even more aggressive orks. For me playing a list that couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper bag, it was very daunting. One lictor unit killed my entire crisis formation with SC!!
I ask this in respect to the conclusions drawn regards the effectiveness of the "5 Aces" list. The main thing that is unusual (IMO) was the 10 Zoanthropes. As one of the Nid playtesters mentioned he tended to run with 3 or 4, even accounting for your opponent taking more AA due to knowledge of your style 10 seems much higher than the "common" Nid army.
As for the lack of big-bugs, I agree that if Jaldon's new list makes that army viable it is a good thing (I only say if as I'm not a bug player myself so I dont know). That said the big bugs are pretty cool, so I would expect a lot of Nid armies will use them for tactical or for aesthetic reaons.
There's no winning that attrition game if you can't get into the synapse fairly quickly and decisively. Even then, the bug player can move another synapse to 'reclaim' the remenants of a recently killed synapse swarm - so the synapse become increasingly harder and harder to kill as the game progresses when coupled with spawning.
Which is why the air strikes must wait till the end of the turn. As normal formations can marshal to prevent breaking and Nids can respawn. Waiting till after activation means they cant do this, formations can be hit repeatedly till they break or synapse are killed.
Finally - did you look at the bug list Cw? The warp blast zoanthroape is a great purchase in the current list! Its 30cm AP4+/AT4+/ AA4+
(Finally? is that mean to be at the end
)Tyranid Warriors 1
- with 2 Exocrines, 4 zoanthroapes and lots of common & uncommon bugs
Without knowing what uncommon bugs there were I couldnt be sure where the main Nid ranged firepower was coming from. It could have been the more usual biovores or from the vemon spitting tank bugs. From what I remember the Zoanthrope isnt the most cost efficient form of Nid ranged shooting, its value being the AA. I agree its one of the better ones when doubling though.
When you are always on the move, who wouldn't want these things - if you can always spawn them back into any formation as needed! (especially if you know aircraft sniping means quick death for your synapse - and your synapse are AT targets while the majority of his formation is AP targets - you have to put some kind of AT insulation there... what would you put there in the bug list if you were playing them Cw?)
I'm not a Nid expert, but I haven't seen the thropes being used in such numbers in the other batreps in the Nid section. It used to be biovores and the acid spitting tanks that formed Nid fire support.
How valuable is that 1-0 result considering the context? That's for you guys decide.
well one game is never going to be decisive in a debate like this. But we are getting more and more batreps about this. TRC wiped the floor with the IG, I thrashed Beil Tan Eldar, and someone else also scored an major win with it (sorry I cant recall who off the top of my head). Honda reported less sucess against Orks, but his lesser number of planes nearly took out a gargant in one turn. I think that your game shows that even in highly unfavourable matchups the "5 Aces" list can still hold its own (ie not get soudly beaten, where there was no dice roll that was going to help).
I think we would all agree that it is possible to put together a list that the "5 Aces" isn't great against ('Nid, LatD or Ork horde, Necron pylon-heavy list), but there are a lot more that are (SM, IG, Eldar, OGBM, AMTL, BL and their variants).
OGBM and AMTL may never even make it to 'actual' lists. AMTL and OGBM can take a load of AA too BTW (unless things have changed since I last played with/against these lists - which is quite possible). Also, many locals would challenge that the BL list falls in the Nid and Ork category. Their strongest version - IMHO, is the almost all infantry and daemon version.
Your point is well taken, the AX-1-0 will underperform if not become marginal against ~50% of list or list variants out there and has the potential to be quite effective against ~50% of list or list variants out there.
I fully agree with that.
OGBM and AMTL are being discussed as being too good (hard to beat, or whatever). But these "too powerful" lists are vulnerable to the "5 Aces", what does that say?
(Both have short range AA 45cm hydra batteries or 30cm Carapace Lasers in AMTL and flakwagons and grot weak flak from some gargants)
BL suffers the same fate as Eldar infantry lists, it has a high unit cost so targets give a better return value for kills. Most BL lists I've seen also have fewer activations, so its easier to take out formations one at a time at the end of the turn with repeated air strikes. The demon shield isn't as good against aircraft that can attack from different angles.
I would also reiterate that the split is not 50/50. I didn't mention the specific variant lists that are also vulnerable to the "5 Aces". In addition the lists that are resistant are particular selections from some armies, like Orks, the infantry horde is ok, but if you take a lot of stompas, fortresses, etc then you will be vulnerable, equally the Nid army with plenty of WEs will be vulnerable.
So in terms of a percentage of all the armies I have ever seen fielded or read army lists posted I would say that the ratio is more like 80/20 (the 20% being the ork inf. hordes, LatD horde mainly)
In fact, with the ability to spawn destroyed AA units, and immunity to BM, the Nids are possibly the worst possible opponent for the "5 Aces", one might expect that against the worst possible scenario the "5 Aces" should expect to be soundly thrashed. IMO, the Nids in general present one of the most difficult match-ups for the Tau, with the disrupt weapons being nullified and losses not building up due to respawning, and, of course, the strangth of the bugs is the Tau weakness - assaults and especially CC (infiltrate...).
I would agree with much of this, not all. I don't think the bugs are the worst match up for the 5 aces. I think the all infantry list of 'whatever' would be the absolute worst for the TS AX-1-0... that could be eldar, that could be bugs, that could be orks, BL, LatD - there are a host of such lists that could be 'worse' for the "5 aces" list.
I think we might need to agree to disagree on this one, I can't think of a worse matchup to my way of thinking. All the other lists, once you have killed the AA you have free reign to hit whatever you want with all weapons (even the burst cannons). Nid AA comes back...
(On a side note I believe you once mentioned that it would be a better test of a new list to try it against one, or more, of the establised lists, from the rulebook, or perhaps Swordwind. Something to consider.)
Also a fair request.
I'd like to play it against eldar actually. Unfortunately, the guy with Eldar in our group has recently seperated from his wife and the armies are all at the old house and well, you can imagine that whole situation. This is the guy's house we normally played at so we are without a large portion of our armies right now as he had many of them.
I own Tau and IG myself. Andy owns bugs and marines. So, I can play against any of those.
Since marines are really a flawed list anyway IMHO - I would fully expect to beat them with most anything I played.
That leaves IG. So in the short term, the only thing I can play the "5 aces" against would be the IG. TRC already posted what you can do against IG. I guess it would be neat to see if another player can generate a different result.
I'll have to look at setting that up perhaps.
I agree that SM would probably not be the best choice (yet another problem for the poor Astartes...
)I hope you do get the chance to try the "5 Aces" again, I would be interested to see how you get on against the IG.
Thanks for the opportunty to discuss your game.
| Jaldon |
|
||||
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 6:38 am Posts: 720 Location: Utah, pick a Pacific Island the other half of the year. |
|
||||
| Top | |
||||
|
|||||
| clausewitz |
|
||||||
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland |
|
||||||
| Top | |
||||||
|
|||||||
)| Tactica |
|
|||||
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241 |
Fair enough. I don't think I would have made the same call, but I can understand the reasoning. Hmm... well, it depends if you are factoring in the intentional use of the 30cm AT 5+ shots or not. If you are - OK... I'll concede that I took on more shots than needed, but if I recall, that risk netted a single hit and 2-3 extra blast markers. |
Yeah, I was counting that because it caused a lot of shots. That aggressive move cost you 4 approach AA shots in the first turn (2 on A, 1 each on C and E). I think you probably also gave up the ability to disengage without triggering fire from the Zoanthropes farther away, which would be another 2-3 attacks.
All well met NH. I can't disagree with any of it. Definitely not saying I made the right calls, just what I thought of in the heat of battle.
Keep in mind, the first plane entered just right of center tau table and flew left and then off table. The two that flew up the tau left flank... had to move another 30cm into the fray...
I really don't understand this. Why did you bring them on at those spots? Are you pre-plotting aircraft entry points or something? That entry/approach cripples the attack run and allows far more flak shots than are necessary.
Well, I have a feeling I'm not explaining it very well. I took what I felt was the minimum amount of shots at me when I was trying to get 30cm range shots in or not - and that was when considering what moves the tyranid player would even possibly take to counter other moves on the field.
I'll admit the tyranid player didn't necessarily take all the moves I expected. Example, I expected him to move toward the wood more than he did... however, all in all, I think I avoided the majority of his shots with each plane and used my turns to their maximums to avoid the AA where possible.
====
Also, I think (hope) we can safely agree that E:A game system needs flak to be able to move and counter aircraft as a game system mechanic.
Actually, I don't think it is necessary. I think it is insanely unrealistic and feels horrible that a ground unit can zip across the board and "intercept" an air unit. There are other mechanics that could be used to address balance issues.
I'll agree that the movement of flak needs to be in, as long as the rules are written the way they are. If we are going to create a larger rewrite of the aircraft rules, i.e. addition of other aircraft and anti-aircraft mechanisms within E:A, then I think we could also eliminate the massive movement of AA to redeploy and fire at aircraft. I fully agree the current mechanism is a drastic abstraction of what's going on.
However, given the rules we have to work with presently, I think it needs to remain. That's my point perhaps better stated.
On the other hand, aircraft sniping can be resolved with a simple clarification to the present rules to say... hell, even a FAQ would clear it up...
Q: May aircraft models stop over other models, for any reason?
A: No. Aircraft models must end their approach on the field of play. Note, aircraft models cannot be positioned on top of other units on the field in play. Also note that aircraft models may pass over other models during during any movments.
NH - your on the console and have JJ's ear, why not make the recomendation... heck, maybe one of you could talk it over with Greg Lane?
_________________
Rob
| Tactica |
|
|||||
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241 |
 This is a nice way of saying you thought I used the planes wrong, right? Its OK, I can take it. That's why I posted the report. I wanted to be honest and show you guys what I did. I've already explained my thought process at the time - for better or worse. You wouldn't normally take as big risks with the planes as you might against the Nids. This is because the normal attrition doesn't work on the Nids that well. However, if you can eliminate the synapse at the end of the turn then you kill a whole formation. Higher risk, higher reward. Its something that I would have been looking to achieve if I'd been in your position, so I wondered if you had tried and/or if it worked. |
Fully agree with the tactic. That was my approach from turn 2+ (perhaps not executed they way you would have).
I ask this in respect to the conclusions drawn regards the effectiveness of the "5 Aces" list. The main thing that is unusual (IMO) was the 10 Zoanthropes. As one of the Nid playtesters mentioned he tended to run with 3 or 4, even accounting for your opponent taking more AA due to knowledge of your style 10 seems much higher than the "common" Nid army.
I have no way to gauge what the common Nid army is Cw. I really don't have any way to respond to this. I hope you are not insinuating something here. I can only tell you what happened. I proposed the game, told him I going to write a batrep and take pictures, told him I was playing tau, told him I had a new tactic to unleash. I also told him to build an army I would like to play when we turned the tables. Told him he could play my IG or his marines or bugs, didn't matter - my list was already built.
He knows I like air, he knows Tau have a reliance on air. He also knows people try to snipe the synapse ASAP. He also doesn't own any FW models and the army was given to him by the guy that owns the house we used to play at (Andy's uncle) so he has a limited amount of the large bugs and has no heirodules and the alike to the best of my knowledge. So, I'm guessing he looked at the v6.0 list and built the best list he could with the models he could represent.
One caveat to this now that I'm writing it. We did originally agree to 3,000 points and then when reading through TRC's old posts, I noticed he proposed that I run a 2700 point list. So Saturday Andy showed up with a 3K list and I asked him to cut it down to 2,700 points. However, I think he cut out more small bugs - not for sure, but I think his list was built as one gigantic small bug horde.
What would be interesting to see is whether or not the bug list he played held up to other lists. I don't know that. I assume he played a sound list. Perhaps other 'bug' fans could comment on that area if you think the integrity of his list is an issue Cw... don't know what else to say there.
As for the lack of big-bugs, I agree that if Jaldon's new list makes that army viable it is a good thing (I only say if as I'm not a bug player myself so I dont know).
Agreed no list in E:A should be dependent upon SHT or whatever. It makes the list quite predictable and static to defend against.
That said the big bugs are pretty cool, so I would expect a lot of Nid armies will use them for tactical or for aesthetic reaons.
I thought the same thing about Orks. However, Victor (phindar00 on SG ork boards) proved to me that an ork army can take almost all infantry and LVs and make one hell of a mean tourny list.
The gargant, stompa, fighter-bomba's and landa are a big part of the draw for me. That many orcs can be hard to deal with. My group has a large and extensive 40K background. Bigger is not always better, just falls harder.
Which is why the air strikes must wait till the end of the turn. As normal formations can marshal to prevent breaking and Nids can respawn. Waiting till after activation means they cant do this, formations can be hit repeatedly till they break or synapse are killed.
Not saying I made all the right decisions, just saying what decisions I did make and why.
The indirect fire was a deadly prospect for me. I didn't want to deal with that early on in turn 1 so I tried to get rid of it.
I also thought the AX-1-0 was going to smash home much more than it did.
I agree in hindsight I suppose... I should have waited to use them until the last activations in every turn. I don't know how much better or worse that it would have been as he would have been across the table a lot sooner, and I would have had to deal with assaults earlier and possibly on a larger front as his activations probably would have been doubles to keep his AA active.
Can't say how that would have impacted the game. I do know I would have taken more damage to the rest of my army by holding back the planes to deliver a hammer in the end phase while I tried to sit back and consentrate on one formation with planes navigating the AA umbrella. His AA was so tightly nit though, I think I would have had to deal with it at least on disengage as I have to move 30cm straight ahead in disengage before I can turn again per the rules.
Without knowing what uncommon bugs there were I couldnt be sure where the main Nid ranged firepower was coming from. It could have been the more usual biovores or from the vemon spitting tank bugs. From what I remember the Zoanthrope isnt the most cost efficient form of Nid ranged shooting, its value being the AA. I agree its one of the better ones when doubling though.
Good point, I didn't analyze the bug list so I don't know if there are better choices for the points if you want to shoot. For an all around flexible piece, the zoanthrope in v6.0 seemed to be worth while - more than worthwhile even! I truly don't know how much it cost though.
Better for a bug player to answer whether it was a worthwhile choice or not.
I'm not a Nid expert, but I haven't seen the thropes being used in such numbers in the other batreps in the Nid section. It used to be biovores and the acid spitting tanks that formed Nid fire support.
I'm not one either Cw. I only know what I faced. I'm still trying to get andy to respond to email (and now a voice mail on his cell) so I can give you guys and exact account of what he ran. Beyond that, don't know what to tell you. It appears you question his/my motive. Well, that sucks.
OGBM and AMTL are being discussed as being too good (hard to beat, or whatever). But these "too powerful" lists are vulnerable to the "5 Aces", what does that say?
I can build a regular IG list that wipes both of these lists too. I can also build an Eldar list that really causes trouble for either of these lists. What does that say?
AMTL and OGBM both have a different problem in E:A. Lists either do really good, or really bad against them. That's been an ongoing issue.
The plane in question was actually designed to take on the things those lists are concentrated on.
Results against these lists in their early stages of development by no means are a measure of any unit IMHO.
Clearly we don't see eye to eye here.
So in terms of a percentage of all the armies I have ever seen fielded or read army lists posted I would say that the ratio is more like 80/20 (the 20% being the ork inf. hordes, LatD horde mainly)
Fair enough, that's not my perspective, but it sounds like you have a much larger scope of the field than I do.
If that's the actual case from the full gambit of lists either done or close to done (or even if its the majority opinion on the matter), then the possibility of taking "5 aces list" @ 2700 points should be abolished from the Tau - whether that come from limit on amount of units or whether it come from unit rework.
I think we might need to agree to disagree on this one, I can't think of a worse matchup to my way of thinking. All the other lists, once you have killed the AA you have free reign to hit whatever you want with all weapons (even the burst cannons). Nid AA comes back...
Fair enough.
I think a army with aircraft fighter based counter measures would rock the 5 Aces tau list. The 5 aces list cannot defend against fighters unless the enemy army wants the tau to shoot at him. The 5 aces are all bombers. They can't intercept, they can only retaliate if the fighters fly in their front arc. The bombers have no defense against any fighter tactically engaging them and picking them off.
The 5 aces list can at least hurt the bug hord and their AA...
We can agree to disagree though. No worries.
I agree that SM would probably not be the best choice (yet another problem for the poor Astartes...
)I hope you do get the chance to try the "5 Aces" again, I would be interested to see how you get on against the IG.
SM are a different issue all together. I don't think other lists should dumb down their development just to take SM into account. Eldar and BL didn't. I've yet to see a good SM player deal with either of those lists on any kind of regularity. Again, different issue there for me. IMO - the SM need fixed.
I would like the opportunity to play the list against IG. I think I would have a similar result to TRC, but probably not as bad. I think the 5 aces should match up favorably to the Tau in most variations of the SL-IG lists that I've seen.
Thanks for the opportunty to discuss your game.
NP, thanks for the comments Cw.
_________________
Rob
| Tactica |
|
||||||
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241 |
|
||||||
| Top | |
||||||
|
|||||||
| clausewitz |
|
|||
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland |
Lol, that was what I was trying to avoid saying, it's not quite what I was saying. I do think that the "ideal" way to use the 5 Aces is to do the air strikes last. But, I wasn't there, so you may well have had perfectly good reasons to act differently. From what I can tell you are an experienced enough player that I trust that you were making snesible tactical decisions. What I was thinking was that the tactics that the 5 Aces list works best with may be more like my normal tactics than yours, so easier for me to run the 5 Aces list. Making any sense? What would be interesting to see is whether or not the bug list he played held up to other lists. I don't know that. I assume he played a sound list. Perhaps other 'bug' fans could comment on that area if you think the integrity of his list is an issue Cw... don't know what else to say there. |
I have nothing against the list. It seems that model availability and your opponents predisposition towards playing you resulted in a list that was (IMO) a bad matchup for the AX-1-0. I think it would do ok in most environments, though I'm no Nid expert.
My point was that its a rather narrow selection of the Nid list that results in being resistant to the 5 Aces, horde of infantry and heavy AA. And it shouldnt be necessary to have a narrow selection of units to match up to a gamey list like the 5 Aces.
I thought the same thing about Orks. However, Victor (phindar00 on SG ork boards) proved to me that an ork army can take almost all infantry and LVs and make one hell of a mean tourny list.
Totally, agree. You can beat the 5 Aces with some completely viable lists. But its those that dont match up well to the 5 Aces that are the reason for concern over the 5 Aces concept.
I'm not one either Cw. I only know what I faced. I'm still trying to get andy to respond to email (and now a voice mail on his cell) so I can give you guys and exact account of what he ran. Beyond that, don't know what to tell you. It appears you question his/my motive. Well, that sucks.
Not my intention to question your motives whatsoever. You mentioned earlier that model availablility and his knowledge of your style coloured his selections. Which I can completely understand.
Well we won't agree on everything
But I suspect we actualy would agree if we were able to talk it over. Suffering the limitations of textual communication. We both tend to be rather wordy
Fair enough, that's not my perspective, but it sounds like you have a much larger scope of the field than I do.
If that's the actual case from the full gambit of lists either done or close to done (or even if its the majority opinion on the matter), then the possibility of taking "5 aces list" @ 2700 points should be abolished from the Tau - whether that come from limit on amount of units or whether it come from unit rework.
I think that you have summed up the worries of those, like me, that don't think the 5 Aces list should be allowed. It does too well against too many other lists. I'm not saying the case is proven beyond all doubt. But so far, my opinion is that it is an unbalanced list.
Fair enough.
I think a army with aircraft fighter based counter measures would rock the 5 Aces tau list. The 5 aces list cannot defend against fighters unless the enemy army wants the tau to shoot at him. The 5 aces are all bombers. They can't intercept, they can only retaliate if the fighters fly in their front arc. The bombers have no defense against any fighter tactically engaging them and picking them off.
The 5 aces list can at least hurt the bug hord and their AA...
We can agree to disagree though. No worries.
The trick against interceptors is to keep the bombers within the Tau flak umbrella. Two ICHH formations with a couple of skyrays create a large area to operate from and a good chance of denting all but the most determined fighter formations. (8-12 6+shots, 4 5+ shots)
But point taken a list with a large number of interceptors could effectively oppose the 5 Aces. But the lists that rely on the Imperial Navy for fighter support will struggle.
