Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 86 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Most significant implication of Codex: Tau Empire

 Post subject: Most significant implication of Codex: Tau Empire
PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm
Posts: 515
It seems, from reading the new codex[specifically pages 22-23] that the current 'Third Phase Expansion' Epic List is woefully innaccurate as to how a Tau Army would actually function at the Epic Level.

I've had a wee think, but I'm still not too far[if at all] further forward with a solution. I wonder if any of you see the same problem I see. The list just doesn't seem to represent the Tau!

It could 'probably' be solved with a bit of abstraction, a 'rejig' of the unit restrictions and a renaming of a few things.

For one, you could have it thus:

Shas'Tio've[Fire Caste Contingent]
The Tau Contingent consists of Cadres. Your contingent may consist of any amount of Cadres.

A Cadre consists of the following:


In addition, your contingent may be assigned assigned a portion of Kor Support vessels. Up to one third of the Contingents points cost may be spent on Kor Support formations:


Finally, Contingents are almost always accompanied by formations of auxilliaries, alien or otherwise.
Wing]>

Now, for that last bit, I think a serious emphasis was totally missed out in the earlier lists. That is: Tau themselves cannot form effective Battle Lines. To represent this, I heavily suggest that Fire Warriors[basic Shas'la] be kept to alot smaller numbers than the current list allows. That is: a maximum of 8 or 10 stands of Firewarriors[I'd say 8 maximum, with most 'new' Cadres having a basic starting point of 4].

I know this entails a hefty juggling of the army list, but since most of the unit stat lines have been 'roughly' pinned down for a while now, it's not *that* much of a problem.

Thoughts?

_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Most significant implication of Codex: Tau Empire
PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:27 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:34 am
Posts: 481
You're placing too much importance on 40K fluff. 40K in it's current form is designed to work around the Force Organization Charts in that game, and there's no reason to think in those terms when playing at another scale. In our case, the other scale is the battalion-level Epic scale. The 40K tau fluff is written for the platoon-company scale of 40K.

Note that the older (V3, IIRC) Epic Tau list was based on Cadres pretty much like you described. It was quite inflexible.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Most significant implication of Codex: Tau Empire
PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 1:47 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm
Posts: 515
Ah, either you or I misunderstand. The fluff explicitly deals with *larger* sized forces. Including battalion sized levels. It deals with the whole Shas structure up the scale of it's interaction 'overall' with all the other Castes. That is: On a Sept/System level.

Unit- Obvious. Units on 40k scale.
Cadre- Size of a 40k formation, sounds like an Epic:Armageddon formation.
Coalition- An Epic:Armageddon army, pretty much. Typically a handful of Cadres.
Battle- The largest of Epic:Armageddon armies. The largest ever deployed by the Shas in one go.
Command- The top level of the Shas
Coalition- The Entire Empire's forces in one locale. Typically the only part of the command structure that deals fully with other castes.

IIRC that is.
The descriptions put forth in the Codex really do allude to some military setup that V4.4 does not show at all.

Xisor

_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Most significant implication of Codex: Tau Empire
PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:47 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
For those that lack the codex (and anything else that requires you to be in a country other than Bangladesh like IA3) can you elaborate?

From what I'm reading in your post you are saying the basic formation is the Squad (20 or so chaps) as oppossed to platoon or company (to use non Tau speak).

Or are you saying something else? No one seems to use many firewarriors and you say a current formation is the same size as a proposed formation - is it its maxed out formation?

What does the battleline comment mean? With the exception of hordes no-one forms battlelines instead they have mobile spearheads and defensive positions.

To be fair I use Tau like the Steel legion, with the cheaper gear meaning higher numbers and activations and try to blow away the opposition before they do me. But I've always thought thats just my play style.

Incidentally whats the ratio of armour to infantry? And what is the most basic Tau formation? 4 man fireteam? 5 man squad? 7 srong worshippers of unnamed chaos god (whoops)?

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Most significant implication of Codex: Tau Empire
PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:50 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36989
Location: Ohio - USA
Good points, TRC !

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Most significant implication of Codex: Tau Empire
PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:47 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm
Posts: 515
Right. I'll do the best I can here, but short of simply quoting the codex, it may come across a bit more vague than it should[or worse, bias will slip in on my part, so others should try'n back this up if possible, and feel free to dispute!]

Squad: La'rua
This is the basic 'unit size'. In terms of Shas, this will be roughly:
6-12 Shas'la Firewarriors[Inc, sometimes, a Shas'ui][Pathfinders number 4-8]
1-6 Shas'ui 'Suits'[1-3 for Crisis and Broadside, 3-6 for stealths]
Light Skimmer Squadrons[Pirhanas]
Tank Crews

All these are the basic groupings of warriors. Together, an assembly of these, their vehicles and vehicle crews form a Cadre.

Cadre: Kau'ui
Direct Quote:
"The Cadre is a standing formation, and includes a number of infantry and vehicles units within it, including battlesuits and Hammerhead tanks. In this regard, the Tau are very different to the Imperium in the orginisation of their military, for the different 'arms' are fully integrated at the tactical level and are considered in all respects part of the same unit."

This is the crunch time bit. This implies to me that, on an Epic:Armageddon scale battlefield, each formation would be roughly a cadre[plus or minus what they wish to take in addition/leave behind].

That is, a single formation typically consists of:
X Battlesuits[any kind]
Y Shas'la Infantry & Devilfish
Z Tanks and Light Vehicles

Further:
"A Cadre keeps a large stock of equipment and vehicles, allowing it to operate in a variety of roles. By fielding an equal amount of Devilfish-mounted Fire Warrior teams and Hammerhead tanks for example, the Cadre may operate as an armoured unit. By fielding Fire Warrior teams on foot as support for specialised Stealth and Pathfinder teams for example, the Cadre becomes an infiltration force."

Now, you may disagree, but this strongly suggests to me that the Tau army appears *very* differently to how it is currently modelled in v4.4. That is: where v4.4 has individual cadres for Crisis/Firewarrior/Hammerhead, the Empire itself almost always has these all bundled together. They are widely variable, almost to the point that the entry for a 'Cadre' would take up a page in itself detailing the ins and outs of it's expense[it wouldn't be too complex, there'd just be a fair few options].

Now, for more.

Contingents: Tio've
The basic discription of these is a grouping fo Cadres. Usually 3-6. It is roughly equivalent to an Imperial Guard Regiment. By roughly equivalent, I read it as in terms of 'levels of organisation' rather than 'levels of power'.

In this sense, it seems appropriate that a typical Epic: Armageddon Tau Army will be of the rough form of a Contingent. It is generally not a fixed grouping, though it notes certain Cadres will often become experts when working together, so it is not uncommon for it to stick for prolonged campaigns.

Battle: Kavaal
A temporary grouping of contingents gathered for the express purpose of taking a given objective. Once that's done, the grouping is dissolved. This is the largest level of Shas 'organisation' that has even been put to the field.

Command: Uash'o
"The term for all the forces of a given caste, in a given location." Quite simple. Eg "Fire Caste Command Nimbosa"

Coalition: Shan'al
"...all Tau forces on a given world or system, or the forces necessery to take such an objective."

Now, as I indicated in the Cadres section, the very least problem with the v4.4 list is that it is inappropriately named across the board. Contingents is a misnomer, and Cadre doesn't seem truly representative. Not only that but it's a Gun Drone Wing damnit!  :p  :blush:

The diagram for a 'Hunter Cadre' gives the following:

1 unit of 3 Crisis Suits in the 'Command Team'
3 units of twelve Firewarriors
2 units of ten Kroot
1 unit of 3 Crisis Suits
1 unit of Vespids
1 unit of Pathfinders[+ Devilfish]
1 unit of 3 Piranhas
1 Sniper Drone team.
1 unit of 2 Broadsides
1 Hammerhead Gunship

By the current 'unit' stats in v4.4 and the rough basing guides that is easily:
2 Crisis stands
1 Broadside stand
1 Hammerhead
1 Devilfish
3 Piranhas
6 Fire Warrior stands
4 Kroot stands
1 Vespid stand
2 Pathfinder stands
1 Sniper drone stand.

That is 22 Units in one 'set'.

Now, it notes this is the typical Tau Empire army as seen in WH40k

To cut it back a bit, I put as a general cadre proposal:
1-4 Crisis units
2-8 Fire Warrior units [inc max 4 Devilfish]
0-4 Pathfinder units [inc max 2 Devilfish]
0-3 Stealth units
0-4 Hammerhead or Broadside units
0-5 Piranha units
0-6 Drones

Now this is basic, and loosely off pure 40k. Auxilliaries can remain seperate formations for now[though the Codex makes a good argument for Vespids being part of the above formation]

Now, some other constraints should be imposed on the 'Cadre'. One, I think, is to enforce a minimum of 6 units per cadre. The second, obviously, would be to enforce an upper maximum of units in a Cadre. 16?

Unfortunately, this means that the whole costing system may be thrown totally off as you are quite likely to be forced into more 'hybridy' formations than you'd like.

If that makes *any* sense at all...

[A quick and straightforward answer to TRCs closing Qs:
Min Fire Warrior size is 6
Ratio of Armour to infantry: 1 Devilfish per squad of between 4[Pathfinder min] and 12 [Fire Warrior Max], up to three 'Hammerheads' per FO chart[Force Organisation] and up to 15 Piranhas!]

_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Most significant implication of Codex: Tau Empire
PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:44 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
It does make sense and....... its Epic 40k! :)
Essentially they have based the army organisation on what makes a fun 40k force. All the 40k armies are like this. 3rd edition tried to reflect it and to those (like me) who liked it, it was quite fun. However you did tend to build formations with a purpose in mind.

How is that different from the marines army? And yet again we have 'artifical' epic detachments.

Looking at any TO&E modern troops have the nice clean formations like they've always had. But the German Kampfgroup (how do you spell that word) is still what happens in the thick of things.

Epic, like any other 6mm game, tries to take this into account with fomrations made up of an abstracted 1 or 2 unit types to create a formation that fulfills the purpose intended. It also gets round min maxing and shuffling units a lot on the battlefield.

The Tau already have one of the most flexible formation builds in their army - but still in practice I find myself going for the core formations, specialising them more, giving support to cover any weaknesses and off to war we go.

If you built a number of the above multi-role formations would you find things a little fiddly/bland? Would you find yourself gravitating towards mono purpose formations as assumed by the current list? So to engage enemy armour wouldn't you construct something similar to a hammerhead formation plus friends (extra railcannon varient, skyray if wanted etc).

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Most significant implication of Codex: Tau Empire
PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:07 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
Xisor,

Originally, I was suprised that our our use of Cadre and Contigent are a bit backwards from Tau fiction in 40K.

That one desparity could be easily fixed by just switching all Cadre and Cointingent references.

Beyond that, I think E:A Tau adequatley represents this scale of fighting as well as any other race does.

I think all armies have the argument that E:A takes an abstract of what would really be a 'formation'. Lets face it - a formation is a concept to make it easy to manipulate a group of like effort troops. Not really the way the units would actually even operate. However, JJ said it best, a formation losely represents the effectiveness of a 40K force in E:A and a thus an E:A combat also loosley reflects a 40K game. He never said the E:A formation was meant to mimic a 40K force org.

If it was a pure port. All formations in E:A in all races would have units from the entire 40K list all together in a single E:A activation.

Therefore, I'm with Asaura. Core design fiction is our guide, but we need to stay within the realms and guidelines of the Lead Designer on this one.

As he gave us the basis for what the current Tau list still looks like today - I'm pretty comfortable that we are on the right path, in his eyes anyway. The list doesn't say "created by JJ" for nothing. ;)

'wave'

_________________
Rob


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Most significant implication of Codex: Tau Empire
PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 2:39 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:34 am
Posts: 481
Quote (Xisor @ 30 April 2006 (01:47))
Ah, either you or I misunderstand. The fluff explicitly deals with *larger* sized forces. Including battalion sized levels.

I'm familiar with pages 22-23 of the new Tau codex. There's no battalion level mentioned, just like IG and SM organization fluff never seems to even mention battalions. Either the people writing fluff at GW understand nothing about the way militaries work, or they have deliberately chosen to omit the battalion level in pretty much everything they do. I'm fairly sure it's a mix of the two reasons, with an emphasis on the first, since battalion fluff would make for good goals for 28mm collectors ("I need to buy 80 more Cadians to get my battalion to full strength...").


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Most significant implication of Codex: Tau Empire
PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 3:15 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:14 pm
Posts: 390
This has come up before when IA3 came out.  Here's the summary I did back then:

Taros TO&E

There was only one Aun confirmed as being present on Taros, Aun'Vre, who was killed by an Imperial assassin during operation Deathblow.

"The Tau Fire Warrior Command, under Shas'o R'myr, consisted of of approximately 80 to 100 Hunter Cadres. These Hunter Cadres were organised into larger battles for specific roles. Whilst flexible and fluid, so Battles can be formed and dissolved quickly, their main role throughout the campaign were either spoiling counter-attacks against the Imperial Guard frontline, or infiltration and sabotage operations against the Imperial Guard's rear echelons. Other Battles were formed for garrisoning duties, using human auxiliary forces, and Kroot Kindreds were used to occupy the Pyyra Heights."

Detailed information on the Fire Caste presence is limited to the projected table of organisation for Contingent El'Shi'Eldi. This is described as as being "a temporary organisation of between three and six Hunter Cadres" with command being "granted to the most experienced Shas'el" which may also "be accompanied by promotion to Shas'o." Each Hunter Cadre is lead by it's one Shas'el (and each is listed as having one of the Crisis commander variant suits). The full TO&E for the contingent is listed as follows:

   * 6 Shas'el (1 per cadre)
   * 12 Shas'vre (2 per cadre)
   * 124 Shas'ui
   * 428 Shas'la
   * 175 Kor'vesa (Drones, heavy drones, sentry turrets and sensor towers)
   * 14 Hammerheads
   * 15 Devilfish
   * 4 Skyrays
   * 5 Piranha
   * 10 Tetra
   * 60 Crisis
   * 15 Broadsides

I'm not going to list the all the six cadres (you'll have to buy the book for that) but they are all similar in nature to Hunter Cadre Shi'Eldi which is as follows:

   * Shas'el Shi'Eldi (XV84)
   * 2 Shas'vre (XV8)
   * 21 Shas'ui (12 XV8, 6 XV15, 3 XV88)
   * 8 Shas'la pathfinders + 2 tetras
   * 68 Shas'la Fire Warriors + 3 Devilfish + 1 Piranha
   * 2 Rail 'heads, 1 Plasma 'head, 1 Skyray
   * 24 Drones, 6 Heavy drones, 2 Sentry turrets

Air caste assets are less clearly defined. Imperial estimates put the number of Barracudas at 120 and 40 Tigersharks. The projected TO&E of a single Air Cadre is listed as:

   * 36 Air Caste
   * 2 Mantas
   * 4 Tiger Sharks
   * 10 Barracudas

Orcas are not listed as being part of either Air or Fire caste TO&E but are mentioned as being used to insert Stealth teams in Imperial rear areas under cover of night and one was used to land a small team on an Imperial air strip.


I think the naming issue is an easy one to agree on and fix - it's purely cosmetic and requires no play testing.  Other than that, I don't see a problem here.  An Epic force is a contingent and the buliding blocks used in the list are a slight abstraction to allow the flexability and balance required for a fun game.

[As I see it:]  The cardes in a contingent do not necessarily fight as individual cadres, they will group similar troop types together as needed to form sub-units which equate to an Epic formation.  So an Epic formation of eight Firewarrior stands may consist of the troops of more than one cadre temporarily united for the greater good whilst the Crisis troops of these cadres similarly operate together and so on.

Basically I see an Epic army as being several cadres brought together with their squads operating in unison.  Sort of a squad level mix and match.

Orde

_________________
"I'm smelling a whole lot of 'if' coming off this plan."

Tau Army List Archive


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Most significant implication of Codex: Tau Empire
PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm
Posts: 515
Folks,

Those are fair enough points. However, I find it rather more difficult to accept the current status quo given a particular quote. Whilst they *can* be handwaved away by the abstraction rather nicely, it still does not feel *right*:

"In this regard, the Tau are very different to the Imperium in the orginisation of their military, for the different 'arms' are fully integrated at the tactical level and are considered in all respects part of the same unit"

This really suggests to me that this difference should be illustrated. Where the Imperium *does* split off it's forces into nicely specialised formations, each Cadre in itself is a specialisable force it'd seem.

To reiterate: "considered in all respects part of the same unit"

It's a fairly big implication. I for one can't sit comfortably with the current disposition. There's what's easy[leaving as is] and what's, arguably, right. As I say, I can't abide the basis as left just now.

Xisor

PS With regards to 'Air Caste' Cadres, I think it is perhaps best viewed as a 'Ship's Crew'. So you'd have some rather large cadres[crews of a Gal'leath for instance] to some extremely small Cadres [Ooh! Cadre Mo'nat[SP?] for a Messenger Class starship!]. 'Units' would be individual teams: Fighter/Bomber Squadrons, Manta Crews, Command teams, kitchen staff etc...The BFG 'Squadron' of Capital Ships or escorts would make a 'contingent' equivalent whilst a battle would approximate a sub-fleet/division of a larger Kor'vattra.

_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Most significant implication of Codex: Tau Empire
PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Xisor, if you look at the FW cadre as it is right now you can build a formation very similar to the "cadre" concept.

?a general cadre proposal:
1-4 Crisis units
2-8 Fire Warrior units [inc max 4 Devilfish]
0-4 Pathfinder units [inc max 2 Devilfish]
0-3 Stealth units
0-4 Hammerhead or Broadside units
0-5 Piranha units
0-6 Drones

And from Tau 4.4
FW Cadre
8 FW units
0-2 Pathfinders
0-4 Drones
0-2 Broadsides
0-2 Crisis
0-3 Stealth
0-2 Hammerheads
0-4 Piranhas
0-3 Tetras

Looks quite similar to me.

And then in EA we add on the support formations (which are called contingents as a general term, really just to distinguish them from cadres), such as Stingrays, Scorpionfish and so on.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Most significant implication of Codex: Tau Empire
PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Cw, yes you can do that. However how many do? None?

The important thing about that statement is why noone (or at least very few people) use formations like that.

I think it is safe to say that the reason is that they are not very efficient formations.  So why would we force such formations on Tau players?  And why would Tau commanders do this from a background perspective?

The Tau have reliance on combined arms built in to the list through the markerlight and co-ordinated fire rules.

Final question.  These "mixed cadres" in 40k, what kind of unit coherency do they have to maintain?  Do the stealths walk alongside the FWs?  If not, then would we want to make them part of the same EA formation?

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Most significant implication of Codex: Tau Empire
PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:41 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm
Posts: 515
clausewitz,

Quote (clausewitz @ 30 April 2006 (21:14))
I think it is safe to say that the reason is that they are not very efficient formations. ?So why would we force such formations on Tau players? ?And why would Tau commanders do this from a background perspective?

My initial response in that vein would be that we force players to do that because a single game of Epic: Armageddon doesn't account for all the factors the 'fluff' would apply to a similar scenario. It should be a deliberate weakness built into their organisational structure.

The reason we should force it upon players? Parity with the fluff of the 'Universe' I guess. Adds a bit more Character to the list? No other E:A army forces 'inefficient' formations, and it'd force a different play style.

As for coherency: A 40k Battlefield is about the max. Each 'unit' deploys seperately. Same applies for SM Companies, IG 'Platoons' etc.

I think the fact that the fluff specifically states a distinction is more than reason enough to look at the change.

Hena,

That sounds alot closer to a compromisable solution than I've been proposing. In effect, I suppose, you could cut out majorly most of the contingents except for the ones that seem *really* different. Those that actually warrant their own formation [in this thought I'm thinking those Orca-knockoffs and things like Stealth/Pathfinder 'Cadres'].

Cheers,
Xisor





_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 86 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net