 
|
Page 2 of 2 |
[ 25 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1, 2 |
What units aren't "cutting it"? |
|||||||
| Breotan |
|
||||||
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 12:49 pm Posts: 34 |
|
||||||
| Top |   |
||||||
 |
|||||||
| Tactica |
|
||||
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241 |
|
||||
| Top | |
||||
|
|||||
'suffering' may be a strong word.
JG already said these two units are working as designed so all reply is really wasted time at this point - however, out of courtesy - I'll respond to your question.
I'll try to reiterate - broadsides and crisis cant go into terrain other infantry can as they are vehicles. First, it seems a bit illogical by comparison to 40K and for the fact that they are basically smaller dreadnoughts. Broadsides with walker does help a bit, crisis don't have that.
Not being able to even deploy into a building puts these models at a terrain disadvantage. Gaining cover modifiers for the enemy to shoot at these formations where other infantry can get it also makes things like our supreme commander more suseptable to death as more shots will in essence hit the formation compared to an infantry formation that's in cover.
I'm not able to get milage out of the stingray or scorpion missle ships. The Range is almost not long enough with these things, and the GM component just isn't low enough to be effetive.
I must say, I find it rather odd that you should find my very favorite units (units I even feel might be a tad too strong, Stingrays) are too weak.
Wow
really? Definitely not what I would call my MVP by any stretch.Perhaps it is my opposition, but I feel Disruptive, Ignore Cover, 2x 5+ missiles is more then enough, especially with move +shoot range)
I'm not saying I'm the end all strategist to the tau - that's for sure, I'd love to see what your typical 3500 and 4K lists look like. Maybe I could learn something from the way you play the Sting Rays.
Enlighten me.
_________________
Rob
| KivArn |
|
||||||
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 9:51 am Posts: 487 |
|
||||||
| Top | |
||||||
|
|||||||
| Philosophical Aun |
|
|||
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 1:01 pm Posts: 20 |
In my humble opinion, the fact that they're light vehicles -does- show that they're mini dreadnoughts. Having them be unkillable by AT would go against this image. I have also thought about giving Crisis Suits the walker ability, but thus far I've not had time nor place to test them with it! I'm a treadhead at heart, and as such I find myself gravitating towards the units based on the beautiful devilfish-chassis. I'm not saying I'm the end all strategist to the tau - that's for sure, I'd love to see what your typical 3500 and 4K lists look like. Maybe I could learn something from the way you play the Sting Rays. |
I wouldn't concider myself a "master strategist" either, and should my ego ever grow to such bloated proportions, the fellas I play with would surely swat me down with a horrible defeat.
I play an army that is largely based on the Guided Missiles, and as such my Stingrays have a very prominent role in it! Of note is that me and the gaming group loves playing with quite a lot of terrain and loads of infantry, and thus the Ignore Cover ability of the Stingray is heaven-sent!
The main "trick", if one can call it such, is the ability to engage and destroy a portion of the enemy, whilst keeping the majority of your forces relatively safe from retribution.
The way I do this, is by speeding forth my Markerlight Units, typically my Shas'la formations, but oftentimes my Tetra contingents. These then call upon Coordinated Fire (if I feel certain that this would destroy or neuter the formation being fired upon), or just mark the formation.
The Stingrays (2x 3+ Ignore Cover is nothing to frown at! ((Sustain Fire +Guided Missile)) typically tend to make a mess of any formation they fire upon, even entrenched units that the Shas'la cadres would struggle against.
I tend to use one Singray Contingent for every markerlight capable unit in my army, to ensure that whatever is marked... dies. The main thing, I have found... is that half-measures don't work. Either you go with a -lot- of guided missiles, or you focus on something else!
Now, this strategy does have its flaws, should one come up against a heavily armoured foe in open terrain, but no force can ever cover all possibilities!
Hopefully, this rambling had some use for you!
| Tactica |
|
|||||
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241 |
In my humble opinion, the fact that they're light vehicles -does- show that they're mini dreadnoughts. Having them be unkillable by AT would go against this image. I have also thought about giving Crisis Suits the walker ability, but thus far I've not had time nor place to test them with it! I'm a treadhead at heart, and as such I find myself gravitating towards the units based on the beautiful devilfish-chassis. |
I think my comment above was poorly worded. My point was in 40K, a dreadnought is a 12 armored vehecle that doesn't have a man inside, it has a mortally wounded individual that was of no use physically - as a battle brother, he was intombed into a vehicle mounted two heavy weapons or a heavy weapon and a powerful close combat weapon plus he sports auxilary weapons for dealing with crowd control.
In 40K, a crisis suit is hardly a comparison. It's power armor. The suit looks big for the tau guy inside, but is just armor that is stable enough to support rapid firing weapons ie. plasma or assault weapons like missle pods. It's nowhere near the VEHICLE that a dreadnought is in 40K.
However, in epic, we see the crisis suit become elevated to a light vehicle. As a result, there are limiting effects. I'm all for the crisis taking dangerous terrain tests for entering buildings if necessary - like 40K, but to say it's a light vehicle - well, to what advantage do we owe this rather depreciative value of the crisis in epic?
All moot though - JG stated they are working as designed in epic so ...
I'm not saying I'm the end all strategist to the tau - that's for sure, I'd love to see what your typical 3500 and 4K lists look like. Maybe I could learn something from the way you play the Sting Rays.
I wouldn't concider myself a "master strategist" either...
Still, I'd like to see the composition you go with at the levels suggested so I could see what compliment of formations you took to support the sting ray to the point where it's a favored choice in your lists.... if you don't mind sharing anyway...
I play an army that is largely based on the Guided Missiles,
OK, so large/massive commitment to GM - got it.
and as such my Stingrays have a very prominent role in it!
Just so I can reference as I don't take it much...
The Stingray has lighter armor (5+) than a hammerhead (4+) and comes with its own Marker Lights.
The submunition missles are the only "GM + Ignore cover" weapon it has. that is 2x AP5+ at 75cm.
It also has a single AT shot. 75cm AT 6+ GM.
Finally, it has a SMS that's 30cm AP4+ ignore cover only
Of note is that me and the gaming group loves playing with quite a lot of terrain and loads of infantry, and thus the Ignore Cover ability of the Stingray is heaven-sent!
OK, well that would make quite a bit of sense to me. I've recently played against almost all AT target Eldar which all had pop up and had almost no infantry. As a result, the AP value that you see in the stingray, I typically don't see as many of my opponents go vehicle heavy in their lists - just like the eldar player did... IG usually has tank co's, vultures, valkyeries, titans, planes, with a sprinkling of a couple infantry co's and maybe rough riders. Orks usually are all meched up and are taking as many battlefortresses as they can come up with - not to mention gargants, stompa mobs and planes always make a good showing. Marines are probably the most infantry centric, seconded by chaos, but marines stink and chaos in present form is broken so we've given up playtesting them much. So my main opponents are probably more AT centric targets than AP centric targets.
Perhaps that alone is why you see more value in the stingray than I do.
As far as cover goes - boy do we have some cover and LOS blocking terrain. Our campaign is based around a massive hive city we've built for epic, complete with kings road, massive quay on one side, fortified walls on three sides, and limited entry and cause ways, buildings galore, massive spire that rises over our heads when on the table, and several modular boards making up basilica, manufactories, hab blocks, munitions, space port, wrecked tank factory business district, recon outpost, etc... I think we can match you on the 'ypically a heavy cover and LOS blocking terrain covered table.
The main "trick", if one can call it such, is the ability to engage and destroy a portion of the enemy, whilst keeping the majority of your forces relatively safe from retribution.
The way I do this, is by speeding forth my Markerlight Units, typically my Shas'la formations, but oftentimes my Tetra contingents.
So since you say GM is the strategy and you rely on other units to mark for the Stingray formation (or formations?) - I would presume you typically aim keep this thing 31cm - 75cm range away from your targets. Would that be accurate?
These then call upon Coordinated Fire (if I feel certain that this would destroy or neuter the formation being fired upon), or just mark the formation.
CF requires some pretty close units from various formations. You are calling CF with tetras and crisis formations I assume in your usual role. The crisis - if they can get close enough - can definitely deliver the MW and AT punch along with some supported AP fire - if they can get close enough. I'm suprised the enemy lets you get right up on top of them with the ML's in the first turn allowing you to pull off the CF you speak of which presumably happens on the second turn (and beyond) in your ideal battle strategy. Even so, without knowing how many of different types of units/formations you take - it's hard for me to get a feel what is doing the brunt of the work. If you are relying on the crisis to do the majority of the work and the sting rays are acting as clean up only - OK, but again - it sounds like you are mainly only dealing with infantry targets. I can see where the ML and tau infantry formations can aid in that role. I expect the cover negative is all too common on boards with as much cover as you speak of - of course, your skimmers arent' affected by cover, but all the infantry with ML's rushing forward would have their challenges. However, for dug in AT targets, you might be talking about a double move negative plus a cover negative and infantry in tau typically don't have much of an AT target answer.
The Stingrays (2x 3+ Ignore Cover is nothing to frown at! ((Sustain Fire +Guided Missile)) typically tend to make a mess of any formation they fire upon, even entrenched units that the Shas'la cadres would struggle against.
Infantry formations again is what you're talking about - right?
Please bare with me while I try to clearly understand what you are describing - the ignore cover and sustained fire bonus assumes you have a fair amount going for you - right?
In your scenario - you have a ML formation(s) in range that successfully stayed alive through first turn and may/probably moved into position on the second turn... it also assumes the Sting ray got into position to fire on turn 1. So that it could use its sustained fire in turn 2+, which probably means a double if you are firing at a dug in target, it also assumes the opponent didn't move from his position in turn 1 or 2, and that he couldn't use a pop-up attack of his own or some other formation to take a single or double move or an indirect firing unit and wipe out your 5+ armor save tank... as you must sustain fire on turn 2+ with said Stingray to get the bonus' described.
In my games, this is a bit of a tall order just to get a couple shots per unit in the stingray formation on AP targets. If I understand your situation and use correctly that is.
I tend to use one Singray Contingent for every markerlight capable unit in my army, to ensure that whatever is marked... dies.
I see, I'd like to get a feel for how much you are committing to AP then. Two formations (ML + Stingray) can add up in points pretty quick, and you still have to deal with the AT assuming you can pull off all the AP shots you are describing successfully while avoiding the counter punch and/or assaults.
The main thing, I have found... is that half-measures don't work. Either you go with a -lot- of guided missiles, or you focus on something else!
Now, this strategy does have its flaws, should one come up against a heavily armoured foe in open terrain, but no force can ever cover all possibilities!
Sure, and that explains quite a bit to me and also begins to answer the question or comment you originally posed - in that you found it Odd that the unit I really was having trouble getting mileage out of, you considered to be a favorite.
Frankly, I still don't see how this strategy comes together exactly and I'd like to see a list if you have time to produce, but the commitment to AP damage in your Tau list is far more than I bring to the table. Our tables are likely covered as much if not more with terrain, so no issue there. For me and my experience though - I'm alarmed at the amount of AP offense you seem to take and are successful with.
I just don't see those kind of adversaries and my opponents take a healthy dose of highly competative formations in their armies. The "all comers" mentality is built into our lists. We expect both a high level of AT and AP targets in our engagements and we try to build a list that can adapt to either scenario. Long range (chaos, IG and Eldar) or major h-t-h (Marines, chaos & orks) are the common enemys in our realm. Tau don't seem to be great at either by comparison. They seem more middle of the road in our games.
Tau seem to be great at dealing with the infantry threat of the assault armies, but the armor aspect of the assault or long range shooty armies seems to have definite problems for the Tau in my experience.
Setting up the kind of Stingray strategy you describe - at least as I understand it - would be quite challenging for me to be successful with against the caliber of players and/or type of army constructs I'm encountering.
_________________
Rob
| Philosophical Aun |
|
|||
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 1:01 pm Posts: 20 |
Actually, if I remember the Designer Notes for the Tau correctly... they did toy quite a lot with the Crisis Suit as a 10/10/10 vehicle, before deciding it should be an infantry model in 40k. The reason, was game balance. Ah, yes... here it is! Our earliest efforts with the Battlesuits didn't go at all well as we initially treated them as small Dreadnoughts (rather like Killer Kans with knobs on!) instead of large infantrymen. Given the large number of Crisis suits the Tau could field, this led to very one-sided games where bolters and lasguns were useless, while anti-tank weapons were overstretched due to the plethora of targets. |
But as you already said, its all moot.
I'll start a seperate thread to answer your, very lengthy, reply to the Stingray issue, tomorrow!
