Following on from the CANCON thread I've been trying to come up with a list I think could do ok at a tourney and so far the closest I've gotten is 11 activations which is slightly too small given the discussion about the optimum activation count for Tau being 12+. So, I thought I might see what Tau lists other folks can come up with that I might want to use in a tournament. So if you feel there's a Tau set up you think could win a tournament, I'd like to see it.

I have a few guidelines:

1/should be 12 activations or more
2/Must have a Crisis cadre with SC
3/must have an AX1-0
4/must have 3 skyray upgrades for air defence

Personally I don't think it can be done with effective formations that can last very long in long a game, but this is what I've come up with so far. The main problem I have with it already, is that it doesn't adhere to a 12 activations design.

Mech FW + Skyray
Mech FW + Skyray
Mech FW + Skyray
Crisis + SC
Broadsides
Broadsides
Stealth
Recon
Recon
Recon
AX1-0

Pros:
A/ has a fairly good AA umbrella for the AX1-0 to survive
B/ 2x OW Broadside garrisons to deter fast armour attacks with decent AT shooting and RA
C/ plenty of ML formations (4 independant and 3 in-built)
D/ reasonable Co-ord fire options (3 recon, 1 SC)

Cons:
A/ All formations are minimally-sized to boost activation count but which is bad for sustainability

B/ Any useful upgrades (e.g pathfinders added to FW formations or extra Crisis suits) further reduce the activation count. Any minor adjustment to the list i.e. by replacing some formations with other formations or upgrade types, means a key element of the list is reduced - the whole Tau list is fairly unforgiving in this aspect. e.g If you need to insert a couple of extra crisis suits to boost that formation's sustainability you have to remove a Skyray or a Recon formation(being the cheapest whole formation available).

C/ No large-scale shooting volleys besides the Broadsides

D/ Minimal MW shooting from ground units

E/ Minimal FW shooting per formation, including in engagement situations

F/ AT formations (Broadsides) are small sized and LV so concentrated attacks reduce their shooting power and the army's AT capability tremendously. Having no command and control hurts them further as they are usually the first targets to be damaged in my experience and collect a lot of BMs for suppression effects

G/ No fast armour with long range shooting

H/ WE/RA killing is done by planes which may stay off board a lot and don't have the ability to take "Hold" actions which allow them to shoot regardless - which is a big problem.

I/ Apart from the battlesuits, armour is very thin  on other formations (without the suits it's essentially a light armoured list)and does not sustain much damage before being wiped out/broken and 12 activations won't save you. Also, having smaller formation unit numbers means you can't soak fire/assault damage like a big infantry formation could

J/ Army has real problems decisively hurting/breaking large enemy formations, even with co-ord fire involved. Using co-ord fire also reduces your activation count each turn unles you can put in more recon units wihich in turn removes your actual fighting formations which do the damage....


So then, many more Cons than Pros in my list design. I could drop out a FW formation to add 2 more Recon formations but then I lose a Skyray for air defence and substantially reduce the amount of AP in my list.

A bit of perspective:

Even if the touted cost reduction of Hammerheads and Crisis suits comes down to 200 per formation and Stealths down to 250, I only save 100-125 points if I take these formations in a list, which is the sum total of 1 skyray + bonded team OR a single pathfinder upgrade(3 units...) added to the army.

So far, this is all pretty much leading me to believe that the Tau don't need cost reduction but firepower upgrades to be more effective for their current costs.

How about you? Can you come up with a list?

I think criteria 4 is a huge hinderance to the list. In essence, you're forcing a minimum 10% of the army to be upgrades, so wanting 12 activations out of 2700pts. That's a bit iffy.

Here's an army I'd consider, that accomplishes most of your goals.

450  Mech Fire Warriors + Pathfinders
350  Crisis + Supreme
250  Pathfinders + Pirhana
150  Recon
150  Recon
350  HammerHeads + SkyRay
350  HammerHeads + Skyray
300  Broadsides
350  AX10
150  Barracuda
150  Barracuda

Pathfinder formation combines the need for ML with some of the Firepower of the Fire Warriors once you add in the Pirhana (for suppresion soak) and add some additional firepower. Also allows for an adequate 5 Seeker barrage from anywhere if necessary.

Using the Skimmer aspect of the Hammerheads to snipe from behind cover should provide enough support for the AX10s. As long as you can avoid heavy firepower, and don't advance them too quickly, they should provide some decent support.

I know you don't like them, but Barracudas do fill two roles. They make adequate AA defence, but more importantly, are a relatively cheap activation burn. They're also good for broken hunters.

Morgan Vening

Not bad, not bad.   Interesting it's still 11 activations though, eh? I haven't been able to find a 12 activation list that would work well enough IMO.


I see the Hammerheads are close to minimum size - sadly they're so easily broken and killed off. This size formation was one that I found to be lacking at CANCON unfortunately. Not enough firepower for the points. Also when they break you can't use your skyrays for air defence.... Broadsides put out better firepower and survive longer I've found.


Yep true. Pity I only have 3 planes though ...  anyone got a spare they don't want?

How about

Mech Fire warriors + Skyray
Mech Fire warriors + Skyray
Mech Fire warriors + Skyray
Fire warriors + Broadsides
Pathfinders
Crisis + SC
Recon
Recon
Recon
Barracudas
AX-1-0
Orca

From your parameters is just lacking 1 broadside - and came 2nd in the winter warmer

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Who actually said that?

I and Ryan suggested that 11-12 activations was about optimum for a 3000pt Tau list, not 12+.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

How did the list get to 2nd? Was it more the forces it played against e.g was it playing vs low activation count lists or was it largely vs infantry lists?  Or was it a truly kick ass army?  To me it lacks a lot of higher end to-hit values with no rail guns apart from 3 broadsides and the AX1-0. Seekers are plentiful but their to-hit values are pretty poor.



Sorry, I may have misread but 11 wouldn't be enough to out activate by much(one of the IG lists at CANCON had 11 and I often see Marine lists of 10), so co-ord fire options would be minimal - perhaps 1 or 2 a turn if you don't mind giving up the activation count. Most of the formations are light on shooting as well, so I can't see how he did so much damage. Good dice rolls for him, bad rolls for opponents? I'm very interested to know how it got where it did. What was terrain like? Plentiful or sparse?

It faced
- Biel Tan Eldar
- Warhound heavy Marines
- Steel Legion (with two tank companies)

And beat them all. Yme-Loc (the player) leaves his thoughts here:

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/forums....y360136
and here:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/forums....y359131

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Couple of points regarding those games.

1. They were not using the standard GT scenario.

2. The Tau had AX-1-0s versus light air cover twice and killed an awful lot of stuff.

Aye, though two of the scenarios were fairly close to the Tournament scenario.

That list is also pretty close to the lists that we've been seeing perform well locally too.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Disclaimer: Given the history of the Tau list development I thought it best to add this. I don't mean to cause offense or anger with these statements rather reply to some of the points raised in the initial post in a constructive manner.  

The Tau list as far as I'm aware from discussions with E&C in the E series development is very similar to how the BFG list operates. Tau ships 1 on 1 are no where near as good or as resilient as their opponents. They don't have the same mass firepower and they require less damage to destroy. However they get around this problem by controlling where their opponent moves by funneling with bombers and torpedoes and by slightly outnumbering them. This list for me shows how GW envision the Tau. Even in 40K a FW is not as good as a guardsman but he has numbers and tech on his side.

The epic list attempts to do the same thing. You use area denial formations such as foot FW's and Broadsides to funnel movement and normally get one or two extra activations. What Honda said about needing to out activate more in turn 2 and 3 than turn 1 is also very true. Tau need to maintain the "effective" activation advantage and do this by removing transports or breaking formations. One problem the list has always had in this regard is that shooting is no where near as effective as engaging. But it does require less risk on the part of the attacker and therefore IMHO should not be as effective. It should also be noted that Tau shooting in effect ignores cover and weapons which already have ignore cover effectively get a flat +1 to hit. As such I fail to see how a 9 strong unit such as Mech FW which has 18 shots is not a "large-scale shooting volley".    

The list I came up with is similar to yours;

6 Crisis + SC
3x Mec FW + Skyray
2x Broadsides
3x Recon
Barracuda
Ax-1-0

I agree with some of what you say.

A) I don't think sustainability is necessarily what Tau should be about. I think it's more about activation advantage.
B) See A.
C) I Dispute this.
D) I agree this is a problem and has always been a problem with the Tau list. This was why the Fusion head was brought back. I think now on reflection that both the fusion head and crisis suit MW shot should definitely be a 4+. MW FF undecided upon.
E) Dispute this.
F) In my experience due to the fact they out range their opponent and are nearly always claiming cover the only way they break is if 6 formations shoot at them. If my opponent is willing to put that much firepower on 1 of my formations well I'm fine with that. I still think they could do with an initiative increase but I don't think it will happen.
G) Piranhas?
H) Dispute this. I think the problems are outweighed by the benefit of having a MW/RA killer which can potentially hit anywhere. As an aside have you flown cover with Barracuda's before i.e Initially attacking with the fighters so that the bombers are within their AA range.  
I) I Dispute this.
J) Again I agree in part. The list does have trouble with large amounts of RA AT targets. AP targets less so due to large amount of disrupt. IMHO when facing large RA AT formations Tau are best served by ignoring them and focusing on other parts of the army. They can only attack one of the Tau formations a turn.

Unfortunately, I don't think this works. Dunno exactly, the Air rules are incredibly overcomplicated.

Looking it up, it seems that depending on interpretation, it works either way.



This rule seems to allow it, if you interpret it to mean any interceptors at any time. Or it could be interpreted that it means interceptors intercepting that ground attack.

Seems kinda funny that a Thunderhawk doing a Ground Attack gets to use it's AA umbrella against any interceptors, but Thunderbolts on Intercept orders in the same area don't.

Morgan Vening

Hopefully this won't derail the thread but the fighter 'screening' ahead of the bomber would work as long as the fighter was on ground attack orders.  In other words, you resolve their AA shots (and the AA shots of the bombers if in range) before the interceptors get to fire.

Of course there are other tricksy ways to amximzing your AA coverage too.  Bring your planes on from different directions on the board so that they simply end their move tail-to-tail.  If you have multiple air formations you can effectively create an umbrella of AA around you that interceptors have to breach in order to bring their weapons to bear.  Flak coverage often prohibits this maneuver but it works great when you can pull it off.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

I have to admit that I am struggling with these conditions. It seems to me that perhaps the exercise should have started with, "Design a tournament list and then describe how you would use it".

As it is, you have set some preconditions (some of which are unfounded, e.g. #1) and it might just come down to a matter of playstyle. I'll post a couple of my lists, which meet two of your conditions and then describe how I expect to use them. I can also add annecdotes on what went right and what didn't.

I think that might provide you with some better insights.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

A/Fair enough. I'm for whatever helps them along. Right now they don't last be it their activations are too low or their formations are too fragile/small

C/Sorry I was speaking mainly about long range AT type volleys but now that I think about it, 6 FWs and 3 DF hitting on 5's (due to doubling about because of cover hopping and getting to within 15cm range) doesn't generate that much volley power.

F/No no, I didn't mean they're often broken I meant their firepower drops away with each BM. Sure cover helps keep them alive but when your opponent is dropping Deathstrikes or high to-hit MW they usually start taking them often as opponents usually see them as the biggest threat to their armour - and rightly so.

G/Sure pirhanas are long range shooting but I'm talking direct fire as you can't always rely on MLs being on the target you want to hit.

H/ Well you know that the AX1-0 is often not able to fly "anywhere" for 350 points and only 2 shots that doesn't always come on, "potentially" isn't really good enough IMO - but I'll persevere and start trying them again with the umbrella theory.

I/ Well I guess we'll agree to disagree here.

J/ Sorry, experience tells me you can't ignore 2 tank companies. You do so at your peril and what do you do when they hold 2-3 objectives near game's end. Besides when they attack one formation at atime you usually lose that formation thus reducing your activations. See the circle here?


I'm sorry no, I asked what I believed was the gist of the CANCON thread that 12+ activations was optimal (in error I admit) and that the AX1-0 was a solid performer so it needs to be there to deal with WEs as everyone keeps telling me. To help protect it you need decent AA cover and 3 skyrays provide that and I believe BCs don't provide enough cover for it.


Preconditions proven to me over however many games I've played with Tau, yes. How is it they are unfounded? Can I ask how much testing you require of people to prove things to "founded"? I think if you check any list with small-unit-number activations and weaker armour you'll find what I'm talking about. Have you played many games with the FWs at minimal sizes Honda?

.
That would be great actually. Cheers.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. The 12+ activations requirement is unfounded, or at least I don't agree with it being a condition. Also, someone's statement was misunderstood, thus causing you to throw that in. So I don't think that ought to be in the mix. JMO.

I am acknowledging that the AX-1-0's should be in there, with an umbrella. However, it is very likely that the Skysweep will come back to 250, thus providing an alternative to taking 3 x 100 pt upgrades to get the umbrella. You didn't know that at the time you posted, but even at 275, I would take them over the three upgrades.

More later...

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment