Board index » NetEA Development » NetEA Tau

• Board index
• Search
• Register

Top

nealhunt	Post subject: Tau vs Eldar Batrep w/maps Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:06 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	Jaldon:  I'm curious as to why your forces were close enough to be decalred intermingled for assaults when you have a 15cm CFA range.  To me, it seemed like that was your major error(s).  Those were crushing. Barring that, it looks like you would have dominated. _________________ Neal
Top

colonel_sponsz	Post subject: Tau vs Eldar Batrep w/maps Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:38 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:14 pm Posts: 390	Requiring players to use the ML/GM combo for AT shots was a change in v4 that was agreed by majority consent.  (If you look at the v3 list ML have one AT5 shot on their stat line.)  The change was made so that players had to think carefully about unit placement in order to make the most of their assets - much as a 'real' Tau commander would have to - even if this did make an army a bit harder to use, this isn't intended to be an easy to use beginners army. Orde _________________ "I'm smelling a whole lot of 'if' coming off this plan." Tau Army List Archive
Top

Honda	Post subject: Tau vs Eldar Batrep w/maps Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 6:48 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm Posts: 1891 Location: Katy, Republic of Texas	?The Way of the Tau? I apologize upfront. Should we formalize this series and make it known as the : The Tao of Tau _________________ Honda "Remember Taros? We do" - 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Top

Tactica

Post subject: Tau vs Eldar Batrep w/maps Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 7:41 pm

Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241

Quote (Jaldon @ 02 Nov. 2005 (04:17)) You know Tactica, I do find your post insulting, sorry but it is. Then I'm sorry. I wondered if I should even have responded that night as I didn't have time to tune and tweak my thoughts. I just enjoyed the bat rep and wanted to give some feedback and thoughts while I read through. I shouldn't have stayed up to read the report. I definitely shouldn't have stayed up to respond. You are right for being offended and I was careless for posting. I sincerely meant you and your group no disrespect. The Moray DID NOT fire for three turns it was dead in turn ONE. In the first batrep it didn't fire it's railgun for three turns it was a typo, live with it mistakes like typos do happen.

Jaldon, its ironic that you should say this, "live with it, typos happen" and what not...  because it was I that had the typo I think. FYI, my response was very poorly worded. I was _not_ referencing your First batrep at all. I fully appreciate that the Moray had already fired in turn 1 of this batrep, and I fully appreciate that it died in Turn 1. You couldn't possibly have been expected to understand my comment though - so I completely apprceciate your anger.

If you'll give me the chance, I'll try to explain my typo's intent...

In your batrep in this thread, I sleepily said, In v4.1, the Moray was Rail - slow firing and had done its damage until turn 3!!!

What I meant was, In the Tau v4.1 list, the Moray's Rail weapon system was slow firing. In your bat rep, it had already fired in turn 1 and therefore it had done its damage. Therefore, it wouldn't fire again until turn 3.

So where I was going with the thought was - why would the Moray therefore be a prime target for the Eldar Titan formation when it had the potential to do damage to something that either hadn't activated in turn 1, or react appropriately to something that go in their sites - and thus putting themselves in marked harms way?

AVs are not the answer to everything, we went through that phase ourselves, it worked until opponents started getting small cheap fast attack formations to take them out.
You erroneously imply that I'm in that phase, but I appreciate the intent, perspective and very viable alternative tactical approach.

Give it a try against your Tank Heavy friends and watch them start to get more infantry to screen those vulnerable tanks.
I have and do on occasion. As you are well aware I'm sure, all infantry does not do well against all tanks. Your point is nonetheless understood and well received.

You have stated twice you don't like markerlights and CFAs,

If that's what came across, I appoligize. My meaning is not that I don't like them. My meaning is that I don't like those two concepts to be the sole modus operandi of the Tau. I do think these concepts should be utilities or tools that the Tau can use, however, I do not think they should have to rely on either of these concepts every turn, every activation of every game - to be competative and formidable.

I see this to be no different than Orks don't have to take loads of grots to be formidable, IG don't have to rely on a good roll for commissars to be formidable, Eldar don't have to use hit & run or farseer multi-retain every turn of a game to be formidable, chaos doesn't have to summon daemons with every formation to be formidable and space marines don't have to take teleporting terminators to be formidable.

Markerlights and Coordinated fire are tools to me, not the only way to make the list work.

well Jervis does, it is how he wants the list to work, he is the boss, has the final word,
You are agitated here and I appreciate that. I agree with Jervis that Markerlights and CF should be in the list. I agree he has the final word. I agree he's the boss. I don't know if he wants the list to solely rely on those concepts every activation of every turn of every game for the list to function in a game. I don't think you are implying that either. However, as I've never had a discussion with Jervis on the topic, I'm ignorant to his perspective. Personally, I'd like to get that opportunity one day.

and he will not allow anyone to give the Tau the ability to carry out a true assaults effectively. Sorry but you are probably going to have to learn to live with it.
I'm not really sure I know where this came from at. I don't think I ever insinuated that as I don't personally feel that way. I don't think I ever said something to the effect taht Tau should have the ability to carry out 'true assaults effectively' but if I gave that impression, again I appoligize. It was not my intention to state or insinuate that as I really don't think that's the way the Tau should function.

Your friends don't like markerlights and CFA, and my Tau friends like the way the list is. We are trying to work with what the boss man wants *shrug*
I'm sorry, the first part of this statement is incorrect. Perhaps I've not been painting a clear picture of my group. If you allow me a moment, I'll try and clarify. We do like markerlights and CF. We think their great abilities. What we don't want to see happen is a pure reliance on those two abilities alone to make the list work.

Put it this way, I wouldn't want to see the eldar vehicles have no armor but all have hit and run ability. This would force them to always use terrain and always use hit and run to be viable. I wouldn't want to see that at all!!! I like that hit and run is an ability that can be used to make the Eldar list better and gives them an option to use on the field. It's not a manditory use or lose ability.

For the record, I don't think there's anything wrong with building a tau list that relys on marker lights and CF. Tau can use lots of marker lights in 40K. Tau can use lots of marker lights and seekers in 40K. However, I _also_ don't think there's anything wrong with building an E:A Tau list that's representative of the way Tau function when they are less reliant on Markerlights and CF. Basically the principle that too much of a good thing can be bad - or don't put all your eggs in one basket.

You invoke "what the bossman wants." You have a privilege that I do not. I don't know what Jervis wants beyond what I've seen him post online in public forums. Perhaps some renewed and updated public guidance from the bossman would be beneficial for all of us.

Jack did not know what army he was going to be facing, nor who the opponent would be until AFTER he had handed in his army list for the battle. So why do you keep asking why he took this or that to kill Tau? Because he didn't know he was going to be facing the Tau which is stated clearly in the battle report.

I simply overlooked that concept. I agree its clearly stated. I just missed it or probably more accurately - I forgot it in my response. Again, all the more reason for me not to critique posts that late in the evening. I'm sorry.

That said, the Eldar army was infantry heavy to me for a tourny situation that I'm used to encountering for Epic. Different strokes... Nothing wrong with the army if it works for him. I've heard of others who play infantry heavy Eldar in other lists, I think MC23 even recomends it in some of his tactica.

Tau weapons short ranged! What, is 75cm a short range?
v4.1 Tau's best guns have a max range of 75cm - I agree with you. Note: they will commonly have to do a double to get into range against another shooty army as the other army typically has other weapons which are even longer in range and ususally have more than one of those weapons to provoke the Tau. Furthermore, the Tau markers are at 30cm can be relied on, as you have expressed, as a core tactic of the Tau way. _If_ one uses this as a core tactic, one must be then relying heavily on a 30cm core range to his force.

Therefore, my experience is that against a marker heavy force, one may consider picking off marker formations as they advance to get their 30cm markers in range. If one employs this tactic, longer ranged overwatch and sustained fire usually do a nice job to stop an E:A tau markerlight rush from my experience. If one has hit&run, teleport, or other tricks at their disposal, they may have further options to stifle a force that's relying heavily on the ML tactic. They may even use these same tactics to simply focus on the formations intending to use ML if there are not very many and the ML are having trouble getting in range and staying unbroken.

The range comment was in context to other shooty lists.
Basalisk, vulture, Defiler, eldar scorpion, volcano cannons, etc... the list goes on and I'm sure you are familiar with the weapons I'm talking about.

Eldar can further employ like ranged weapons, and use hit and run against the tau to move out of cover closer to the enemy, then fire, then move back behind LOF blocking cover. In 40K Tau, this is a core tactic if one is going to use Crisis Battlesuits. In 40K, this is the classic tactic for battle suits. It really aggrevates opposition as you take a 36" range weapon on a crisi and turn it into 40+ inches, then go back into hiding before one can shoot back at you. Eldar have this luxury in E:A, though they do not have to relay on it. Tau do not have this luxury in E:A and have the potential to really have problems against Eldar on a board where the Eldar take advantage of the terrain in this fashion.

The point was only to say that *IF* the eldar wanted to out range the Tau, they have the means. As you clearly stated in the bat rep and again pointed out in your reply, I was erroneously assuming that the IG player was playing against you specifically with a list built to challenge the Tau. I'm  very sorry for that assumption which I now fully realize was completely incorrect.


20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it, it allows people to slam another players tactical decisions with impunity. If you are going to insult my friends then the least you could do is explain what you would have done different and just how it would have changed things.

I was clearly out of line and tired. Its not an excuse, just an offer of explanation. So please, to you and your friends, I extend my most sincere appoligies. I will not critique a batrep in the early AM again. I really was excited to give it a read through. Your contributions to the Tau development are great.

Although admittingly poorly executed, I did not mean for my critisism to be harsh. I really am sorry I offended you and your group Jaldon. I wish I could take my post back. I've made a mistake, and I'm genuinely regretting my actions.

Regarding the suggestion for alternate Tactics, I was was trying to do that actually in the early AM. I failed.

Considering the lists, the biggy for me was the sacrificial use (in my opinion) of the Eldar titan formation. That formation is really powerful. I would probably say that would be the easiest formation to consider using differently in the future, and I don't think it has to do with hindsight being 20/20 or monday night quarterbacking, I think it has to do more with one of Honda's favorite terms, _Fire Discipline_. Let me generically explain...

In my games, work towards objectives but in doing so, I'm constantly conducting threat analysis. What are my immediate threats? What are the threats next turn? What are the game threats? Where are the power formations that can ruin my immediate, next turn, and/or game plans? Have they activated yet this turn? Can I disable any that haven't activated? What's my risk for doing so? What is my next favored target based upon threat level and activation status.

Thumbing through these _Fire Discipline_ questions in my mind, If I understood events that transpired correctly, to take an Eldar titan formation and move into the Tau ML lines, then fire at something that had already activated and wouldn't be a threat again for 2 turns, and that could always be seen, and that doesn't move very fast, just so that hammerheads could in return _not move_ and sustain fire back on you this turn and possibly next - well, I don't know - but there 'seems' like there should have been better targets for the significant firepower that Eldar titan formation could bring to bear.

So that would be my first suggestion, in general, shooting formations and armies should maintain Fire Discipline to best support the rest of the army plan. Unnecessary risks or not taking into account threat levels will typically spell doom for a list. Eldar managed to still percevere in this case, so all was not lost.

Eldar particularly can force the Tau to come to them. they have quite a few weapons to draw the tau out. They can be on par with Tau's activation. Moreover, they can combine their move with their weapons to get significant table coverage.

This is one of those types of statements, it only points the finger without explaining how one is supposed to force the Tau top come to them. Considering two Hammerhead formations have a table coverage of 300cms maximum(75cms to each flank equals 150cms, two formations equals 300cms), just how are the Eldar going to avoid them. Again easy statement to make, much harder to back up.

Eldar longer range weaponry, pop-up attacks, indirect fire, and hit and run were the things I had in mind from an Eldar lists perspective. However, my comments wer framed from the perspective that he built the list knowing he was playing against you and the Tau. I was in error.

On the other hand, I did mention that his list is not what I typically see in highly competative Eldar lists. So my view is skewed in what I think the Eldar in general can do to the Tau vs. what was fielded. At any rate, I appoligize for not explaining my statement. Hopefully I've rectified that in a respectable manner. It is my intention to do so anyway.

I don't care what you think about his use of Revenants using 20/20 hindsight,
To me it was ore than 20/20 hindsight as I try to explain above in Fire Disciplne. For me, its more of a general modus operandi rather than he missed a key play or rule. I would call the latter 20/20 hindsite. I won't belabor my perspective though, and I deserve your tone in the response, no offense taken.

I have watched Jack walk these things out into the middle of a battlefield and rounds just bounce off them because of the Holofield.
Only because you ask for alternative tactics above (in the slam my friends comments) I would counter this statement and say, "just because one can risk, doesnt' mean one should risk." I consider the Eldar a very elitist force, not a brute force. However, if the tactic works for Jack... then so be it. When evaluating the Tau's effectiveness vs. enemy armies though, I do believe its valid to point out less than ideal tactics for a situation - if one presents itself. If we do not, then we may receive a false representation of what the Tau can or cannot do against the opposing army.

I do not know Jack. He sounds like a hell of a good guy to game with. I would love to get the opportunity to meet many on this list and get a game in with them. Although I critiqued the batrep poorly and did not give any regard for the level of typos, I do want to clearly note that I mean Jack, or anyone else involved in your bat rep, any ill will. I do not mean to disparage him or you. I was simply looking at the batrep as validationg or a point for challenge against statements made in the report. I clearly didn't adequately consider the emotional sensativity from actual players of the report.

Then they proceed to eat the enemy up, just because Jack has the guts to throw his forces around and take chances (and have fun in the process) like this don't knock it. I have seen it work far too many times.

Fair enough. Nobody can argue with fun. I'm very happy the game was a blast. From a development perspective though, I hope you appreciate that we do have to take less than optimal lists or tactics into consideration from development perspectives. We also have to take into account the inverse. All playtest results are valid and all have something to offer to development IMHO. Optimum lists and play or not, the consideration for results must take these variables into account - that's all.

Look we are not 'power gamers' we are only intrested in having fun, besides I have wiped the table up with 'power gamers' because they don't have the guts to take chances like leaving troops loaded. And they often lose because of it.
Nothing wrong with that. Our group loves fun games too.

On the other hand, if we are trying to answer a question of is this too strong, is that balanced, or is a list broken strong, or what is the real potential in this list - we play more aggressively with top built lists. So, decisions like too shooty vs. not shooty enough, balanced or not, priced right or not, effective special rules or not has to take into account the context of which that perspective is created or derived from. If only derived from fun games filled with errors on one or more sides, perhaps the conclusion is worth challenging as other factors caused for a skewed perspective.

*Hypothetically speaking* - If tactical errors are made on one side but not the other, that has the potential to skew the perspective of rules in devlopment. My only goal is to factor suggestions for rule or their balance, when the suggestions are based upon less than optimum play by one or both sides. I'm not saying that's what happened here. I'm not saying that's what you guys were doing.

You had a fun game and had a battle to report, I appreciate and applaud that. There is value in that game.

Enough, please. The object of the reports is the use of CFAs, Guided Missiles, and Markerlights, not who won or lost.
I think there is value from your report on all fronts noted. Well done.

All right we know you don't like them, so write JJ a letter and tell him, and stop telling me because until JJ changes this I am going to work on them.
See above.

Not everybody plays like you, that would make for real boring games if we all played the same way,
I agree and would say the same thing. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear when I attempted to describe my ML and CF perspective. I'm glad we agree here after all.

and the Epic-A system is more then flexible enough to negate any advantages you think you might gain taking certain formations. this is a fact.


Sorry if this sounds insulting, but I am done ranting.
You were right to do so, I was rightly deserving. I hope I've articulated myself better above.

I do thank you for the compliment, on the work on the report.
You are very welcme. I'm envious of the reports your group puts together. Its a sign of a really dedicated and fun group to play with.

End of rant. I have responded enough, and will not respond to any more insulting remarks in this post, but I will answer questions to the best of my ability.

Jaldon
Cheers for the reply,