Isn't that the whole point of Kroot? 10 Kroot in an Orca seem like that'd be the way to go. Side note, what is the definition of "Kroot" in the Orca's definition? Does it mean just Carnivore, or does it include Hound?

Anyways, either done as an orbital drop from a spacecraft (Planetfall plus Infiltrator = good), or done ballistically (landing in the middle of a formation and spreading from there should allow a fair amount of beatings), should work if it's played out right. With some initial firepower, you should have +2 to +4 before rolling attacks.

I really dislike the idea of Fire Warriors being the engage machine. I assume you mean Firefight specialist? Because then they really would just be Eldar.

Morgan Vening

No worries   right back at ya  


The MFW fight inf; the tanks(the small formation were RG and Fusions the large) fight armour; The recon co-ord/crossfire for the crisis, mark things and put AT fire on targets; while the broadsides shoot things from an OW garrison covering the forward area to deter enemy armour. The Stealths mostly interdict in my lists to help deal with teleporters - more like a flying squad to fill an emergency hole.

I remember he faced Gavin's Eldar army, other than that I don't recall. He ("Yme-Loc") may chip in with his opinion if he reads this.



I feel that 11-12 is optimum for the Tau. Yme-Loc's Bristol list was 12 activations.

9 (like your list) is on the average-to-low side for any army barring AMTL.


=====

I agree there are problems (most concerningly with Hammerheads being unattractive, IMO), but not to as great a degree as is being alledged.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Just two points here.

Regarding the first, I think it shows a tactical doctrine you're following that doesn't (and shouldn't) work. I'll admit I've only played a few games with Tau, but I've never had an issue with AX10's performing magnificently. Simply put, I keep them within range of my own air cover (SkyRays) until all opposing AA has been taken care of (which should be a priority). Having a unit that powerful that can fly into the opponent's rear with impunity would be a serious mistake from a design perspective.

Regarding the second, the maneuverability and speed should be compensating more, Rail doubling Popup 1st turn, and in a position to advance/sustain from the second on. If you're going to double into the open, it should be the last thing you do, and hope to win Strategy on the following turn. The other big issue, raised by others (and one I agree with), is that Reinforced should be a numerical value. Leman Russ should be 4+/5+ (or 5+/4+?), so comparing it to a single unit that is already overpowered, seems to be an issue. How does the Hammerhead compare to the Falcon/Land Raider/Stompa*? Seems pretty alright.

* Stompa's seemed like the closest Ork equivalent. GunWagons are way too soft, and B/G Fortresses are War Engines.

Editted : Large flaw in a previously stated argument.

Morgan Vening

[quote="Evil and Chaos,Jan. 28 2010, 14:52 "]
coudn´t resist...

So please take a look on the Minervan list.....  

I know not the topic but if your statement is true simply wreck the list, sadly... ever try getting 8 activations with them and include some LRuss companies....and compose an tournament army competing one of the lists played at cancon....

my 0,00002 cent

RS

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy

You're quite right, the Minervan list is also a low-activation list. The DKoK are slightly low on activations normally too.

The Tau however, are not that kind of list. They function best with an average or slightly above average number of activations. They function worse with a lower number of activations, specifically due to the need for Markerlight formations.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

At heavy Bolter I entered with Minervan list, and I won.  i even had an AMTL that out activated me, I still beat it. Low activations should not be a hinderance to any force, you should never be forced to take lots of activations.

If you are forcing an army to take lots of activations to make the force playable, then you are limiting the effectivness of each unit.  

Cheers
Floppy

-PS I will get the doco with all the forces used at cancon together over the weekend so people can see exactly what was used.

cheers

_________________
"The Dice are killing me!"

I always think about the massive Ork Formation that would count as 1 activation.

A simple FF with a little planning will no doubt fix that as it will many other armies with low activations.

When Australia starts to see more tournaments and start to develop a type of metagame, no doubt we will see the end of low activation armies. It is inevitable IMO.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

The list I took to Bristol, did perform quite well.

Basic Plan for the army was a variation on what I do with eldar (which is harrass an opponent into possitional mistakes using void spinner artillery and then counter attack any weaknesses with eldar assault troops) here the idea with Tau was harrass with seeker missiles and then counter attack through coordinated shooting and crossfire. Used this in two games - I changed against the eldar to go more on the offensive from the beginning.

12 activations just seemed a natural number when creating the list - personally I would not use a list with lower than 10 activations (and that includes with my Orks), although some lists with access to very powerful warengines can function well with activations counts of 9.

The armies I faced were Gavins eldar, a warhound heavy marine list and a tank heavy guard list with two big leman russ companies supported by shadowswords and a mech infantry company.

From my perspective the mechanised Fire warriors seemed a very good core choice, effective infantry with a good save, able to cause real dammage to other infantry formations through shooting, at the same time FF5+ allowed them to at least cause casualties to enemy in an engagement and force some prep work on the formations before my opponents assaulted them.

Foot Fire warriors + Broadsides, this formations was very effective, both in terms of garrisoning fire power, air dropping and shooting, just taking hits on the broadsides and even fighting off assaults as well as on one occasion initiating and winning an assault.

Again I found Recon and Pathfinders very effective formations (especially 5 piranha with 1 tetra) although they were quite fragile, having 4 seperate formations of these in combination with skyrays providing the core fire warrior formations with markerlights as well meant I never had trouble marking targets or even calling coordinated fire actions (although I did forget to do this a few times when it may have been beneficial). I did however almost always lose 2 of these formations and was happy I had 4 to begin with for a level of redundancy.

Tau Air power - Barracudas and the Orca seemed effective tools, the barracudas didnt have the opportunity to intercept anything but just in a ground attack role 2 x AP3+ and 2 x AP4+ against marked targets was useful.

The Orca just added flexibility to the list, if my opponent had limited air cover it would air drop the foot fire warriors or the crisis suits, otherwise it would just harrass, and always have the potential to dispute any objectives in the last turn.

The AX-1-0, these were brutal in the games I played accounting for 3 shadowswords, 1 void spinner and 3 warhounds - but I faced two lists with limited air cover and scout level warengines on the ground so that would be expected. I do feel that this formation alone would have a significant effect on a local environements air game, you certainly cant face a Tau army with AX-1-0's withought significant ground AA assets in combination with interceptors. If Tau armies were prevelant it would certainly increase significantly peoples air cover.

It must also be pointed out that even against an eldar list with effective air cover 350pts of AX-1-0 effectively tied up 300pts of eldar nightwings sat on CAP for three turns before eventually in the fourth turn as the eldar army got desperate on the ground and was forced to throw the Nightwings into a ground attack, the AX-1-0's flew on and destroyed a void spinner.

The one slightly dissapointing formation from the list was the crisis formation, although obviously its a must to get the supreme commander they were always a bit slow on the ground compared to the rest of the army and their firepower never felt on a par with the cheaper fire warriors.

_________________
Epic UK - Improving and Enhancing Epic Gaming in the UK
[url]http://epic-uk.co.uk/wp[/url]

Just on Tau Air, I have been increasingly using "intercept" of late because it cannot be CAPed, and it is most usefull at getting rid of enemy aircraft. Barracudas should be quite brutal doing this because they are primarily anti-air.

The AX-10 with railguns is very brutal still, and IMHO still well worth the points; especially if you combine them with BCs and operate under AA umbrella (Skyrays) as others have noted.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Yes I agree but in all the games people report the AX1-0 works great it's interesting to note that most of the time there is limited air cover vs them.


So then the AX1-0 stayed off board for 3 turns and only killed a 250 point tank? I have to say that it sounds more as though the Nightwings tied up 350 points of AX1-0s. That is not good considering you may have faced more "aggressive" WEs.


I must be one of the few who's reasonably happy with them - apart from no MW FF  


I must live in an alternate reality then as the barracudas I use function extremely poorly in the intercept role with just 1x 5+ AA and 1x 6+ at 15cm. As I've mentioned I don't bother anymore.

I've used moderate AA against the Tau in my playtests (generally at least one squadron of fighters plus 2+ AA guns on the ground).

AX-1-0s work so well by staying inside the Skyray AA umbrella (so the enemy fighters cannot attack them) and by out-ranging most enemy AA attacks with their 45cm TK shots.

I've found them uniformly excellent units.


Which becomes 1x 4+ and 1x5+ on intercept or CAP... which is a decent ammount of AA (one shot of which is "all round" and can be used defensively, which is pretty great!).

Add to that their good AP attacks (which, if the target is markerlit, is 1xAP3+ and 1xAP4+) then they're also great at strafing up infantry formations. If the target on the ground is markerlit, they have both better AP and AT than a Thunderbolt Squadron.


So they've comparable or better stats to a Thunderbolt, "Fighter" status instead of "Fighter-Bomber" (so easier to put where you want without taking AA flak), all-round defensive AA, SR3 instead of 2, and a 45cm range if they want to stand-off and just harass...

...and you think they're not worth taking?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I've played well over a dozen games with the new Tau set-up in recent months.

Tau airpower WAS brilliant to begin with because my opponents were not prepared for it.
EVERY game I play now, I'm facing multiple aircraft on CAP and multiple ground based AA units (more than twice what I was facing to begin with).

To put it simply, Tau airpower only works when your opponent isnt' ready for it. Once they've been stung, they learn how to prevent it happening again.

I've found FireWarriors to be a one trick pony, GREAT at shooting up infantry formations. Unfortunately, my opponents know that now and again, they've adapted (as they should). Now I just make an upgraded FW formation to be my BTS. It's fast, has inbedded AA and can be Fearless. I usually try to keep it out of trouble unless needed. They make a far better BTS than Hammerheads (much larger formation) and the last thing I want is my Supreme Commander to be my BTS (Crisis Suits).

I've now moved to using 4 Skyrays to give me protection and just having as many formations on the ground as possible (to havr something at the end of the game, that can claim objectives... not AX-1-0's or Barracudas).

The Manta is GREAT fun against Marines but against Guard or an army with decent firepower, it's toast.

I just need to keep trying new combos and continually changing my game plan (which is a good thing in my opinion). Relying on AX-1-0's, Barracudas etc will not work for long.

Do people use the same kind of lists in social play as they would in a tournament?

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

In a balanced tournament environment, your opponents can't afford to be investing so heavily in AA if for most of their games it's going to prove a hinderance, not a bonus; any list can be tailored against with advanced warning of what army you're fielding...

...so your opponents are stacking up on AA because they know they're facing Tau...

...well, I could stack up on ignores cover weaponry if I knew I was facing Siegemasters, and make Siegemasters look pretty rubbish in short order...

...but that wouldn't change the fact that the Siegemasters list is really a very strong list, in a "blind" environment... isn't that the same thing?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Most armies have pretty utilitarian AA units, not sure how many would be a "hindrance", as most can still effectively engage ground targets so they're not wasted if the enemy brings no planes at all.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?