Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Tau 6.3 v NetEA Steel Legion
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=18736		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Tau 6.3 v NetEA Steel Legion
Played a game last night, Tau vs Steel Legion.


Forgot to take my camera so I've not got a proper report, sorry.


My army list was:

Reg HQ with Hydra, Snipers & extra Chimera -
Mech Inf.
Russ Tank Co. with Hydra

4x Sentinels
4x Sentinels
Shadowsword
Baneblade
3x Basilisks

Warhound
Thunderbolts

Total 3000pts



Ryan's army was something like:

Fire Warrior Cadre in Devilfishes with Skyray & 3x Piranhas - 400
Fire Warrior Cadre in Devilfishes with Skyray - 300
Crisis formation with Supreme Commander - 350
Pathfinder Group - 175
Pathfinder Group - 175
Broadside Group - 300
Broadside Group - 300

Barracuda Squadron - 150
Manta Dropship - 650

And, uh, something else to finish off the 3000pts. Can't remember what it was though. I think it was a third Pathfinder Group. Ryan'll be along to confirm what it was anyway.


=================


Anyway, the game finished 2-0 to Ryan's Tau on turn 4 (3 in his half, no unbroken enemies in his half).

It would have been a draw on VP's if my formation in his half had have rallied to push the game to 1-0, I think.

==================

My impressions from the game were that:

- The Manta looks good at the new points and stats. Having played against it in a couple of games with these stats I'd provisionally say it's now a solid choice and is "fixed".

- The army list as a whole worked well, and was tactically interesting to play against. I could possibly have won the game but for a run of bad luck in turn 2, and flawless gameplay by Ryan. By turn 4 I still had chances to force a draw, but made a mistake that resulted in my formation in his half breaking, leaving the game at 2-0 to him.

- After the game, Ryan didn't believe me as to how good the Manta actually is, so we played 4 "sample hammer" artificial versus games to show how good it is at pure combat (Leaving aside other factors). So it faced:

- A Warhound (Which was allowed to start in Sustained Fire range, with SR5)
- Two individual Warhounds (Which were both allowed to start in Sustained Fire range, with SR5)
- A Reaver (Starting 90cm apart, with SR2)
- A Reaver (Starting 90cm apart, with SR2)

And the Manta won every "game", even after I started gifting the Titans with Supreme Commander re-rolls.
So, I'm now quite happy with the Manta and believe it is indeed now worth 650pts.


=====

Overall, it was an enjoyable game.
Author:  Jstr19 [ Sat Jul 17, 2010 3:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tau 6.3 v NetEA Steel Legion
Yep the last formation was another pathfinder formation. In hindsight I would have been better off replacing it with a recon formation with a 4/2 piranha/tetra mix.

Additionally I really should have lost that game. E&C failed 4 activation rolls in a row towards the end of turn 2. And I still maintain you should have spread the tank company out more in turn 3 to contest both of thr objectives in my half which would have ensured that the game had to be decided on VP's. I think I would have been ahead on those however as I would have been forced to play turn 4 differently.

- I still consider the Manta overpriced as I can get considerably more firepower for the points with Ax-1-0 and barracudas. I would like it to be 600-550 points to be a competitive choice.
- I also don't agree with the points change to the recon formation as it doesn't stop missile spam and reduces activation count which the list tends to rely on. It also makes recon formations the same points as pathfinders.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Sat Jul 17, 2010 3:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tau 6.3 v NetEA Steel Legion
Quote:
Additionally I really should have lost that game. E&C failed 4 activation rolls in a row towards the end of turn 2. And I still maintain you should have spread the tank company out more in turn 3 to contest both of thr objectives in my half which would have ensured that the game had to be decided on VP's. I think I would have been ahead on those however as I would have been forced to play turn 4 differently.

Yar, because doubling up to stand between a Manta and the rest of your army (Putting myself in crossfire) would have been the best plan ever. :-)

Sure I failed 4 activations in turn 2, but I didn't fail any in turns 1 or 3...
Author:  zombocom [ Sat Jul 17, 2010 3:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tau 6.3 v NetEA Steel Legion
Jstr19 wrote:
- I still consider the Manta overpriced as I can get considerably more firepower for the points with Ax-1-0 and barracudas. I would like it to be 600-550 points to be a competitive choice.


Then that says more about the AX-1-0 and barracudas. If the Manta beats a Reaver Titan in a straight fight, and also has transport capacity, planetfall etc, for the same price, then it's more than good enough. If the other units are too good or too cheap, fix them, don't just make the manta more awesome.

Quote:
- I also don't agree with the points change to the recon formation as it doesn't stop missile spam and reduces activation count which the list tends to rely on. It also makes recon formations the same points as pathfinders.


Tough, recons were too cheap. So pathfinders are now a viable choice compared to recon then? That's a good thing, no?
Author:  Jstr19 [ Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tau 6.3 v NetEA Steel Legion
The Tau list in my opinion is still underpowered and utterly reliant on getting the 1st activation in turn 2. My to win stats are probably about 70% when going first in turn 2 and about 20% (if that) when not. This is largely why they have such a tough time against marines IMHO. In last nights game if E&C had have gone first in turn 2 I would have lost an entire flank and ultimately the game as E&C would have won it easily.

The barracuda and Ax-1-0 are in no way too cheap. Their points and stats are extremely well done in my opinion. Additionally recon formations have never been too cheap the only problem came when you were able to take masses of guided missiles. The problem now is that they cost the same as pathfinder which are better in most (not all) situations. And before you argue for it pathfinders are not too cheap. They are priced appropriately as they are tied to devilish so can not make full use of their scout ability as they can only disembark 5cm from them.

The Manta as a transport is not viable as it is too fragile and a ground borne war engine. Its not really a gun platform as it lacks the serious firepower of other parts of the list which can be bought for the points same cost. The only real benefit is that your opponent normally spends 2-3 turns fixated on removing it so the rest of the army can do their damage. However a critical or 2 TK attacks normally sees it annihilated. The critical on it is perhaps a little too harsh and a table should be considered instead.
Author:  zombocom [ Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tau 6.3 v NetEA Steel Legion
Ryan; The manta now costs the same as a Reaver, yet is better in a straight up fight (which is all reavers can do), and has transport capacity, markerlight, planetfall etc.

If the manta is too expensive then the Reaver is too, because the manta is flat out better than a reaver now.
Author:  clausewitz [ Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tau 6.3 v NetEA Steel Legion
zombocom wrote:
Ryan; The manta now costs the same as a Reaver, yet is better in a straight up fight (which is all reavers can do), and has transport capacity, markerlight, planetfall etc.

If the manta is too expensive then the Reaver is too, because the manta is flat out better than a reaver now.


I think it is stretching the comparison to far to say that "because a Manta can beat a Reaver in a direct confrontation it is flat out better".

A Reaver is superior in other ways.
Voidshields make it less vulnerable to early TK attacks.
It is a better FF support unit.
With marshalling I would bet it is more generally durable.
As a non-support craft it has the ability to hide if it has taken heavy damage (to deny BTS in many cases).
It can make use of cover.

That said I have previously said that a large WE cannot be much cheaper than the Manta already is. Yes, it may be possible to buy greater firepower with air assets, but they are less durable (generally), cannot claim objectives etc.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tau 6.3 v NetEA Steel Legion
The Reaver comparison was semi-silly, just because Ryan was saying stuff during the game about how the Manta couldn't take any decent ammount of punishment, or dish out the pain either. So we ran a couple of quick "what if?" 1v1 scenarios, and whaddya know the Manta beat the Reaver... once in the context of their repective army lists their roles are different, but the point does stand that the Manta is not entirely fragile, nor toothless.
Author:  clausewitz [ Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tau 6.3 v NetEA Steel Legion
Dare I say it but.. I agree with E&C. :o
Author:  Dobbsy [ Sun Jul 18, 2010 12:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Tau 6.3 v NetEA Steel Legion
zombocom wrote:
Tough, recons were too cheap. So pathfinders are now a viable choice compared to recon then? That's a good thing, no?

Sorry Zombo but Recons were NOT too cheap. Their structure made them over-gunned and thus over used in a role they should not have been used in. And no, they are not a viable choice in terms of what recon does as they lack the mobility that MLs need to be effective. Lose one DF and those PFs are way too slow. However, they do shine in other roles and they do shoot well in general.

Also, I'm very glad someone else agrees that the list is cost-sensitive - I've been banging on about it for ages and it seems to be largely ignored.

BTW Ryan, why no Hammerheads?
Author:  zombocom [ Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Tau 6.3 v NetEA Steel Legion
Recons previously cost the same per unit as sentinels for example, and are better in every single way.

I know, cross-army comparrisons, blah blah blah, but they're not just slightly better, they're MASSIVELY better.
Author:  Dobbsy [ Sun Jul 18, 2010 5:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Tau 6.3 v NetEA Steel Legion
And IG armour is massively better. Swings and roundabouts.... Like you said, cross-army comparisons.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Sun Jul 18, 2010 11:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Tau 6.3 v NetEA Steel Legion
Dobbsy wrote:
And IG armour is massively better. Swings and roundabouts.

Yeah, and now it costs more points.
Author:  zombocom [ Sun Jul 18, 2010 1:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tau 6.3 v NetEA Steel Legion
Dobbsy wrote:
And IG armour is massively better. Swings and roundabouts.... Like you said, cross-army comparisons.


Which was the main reason the points were dropped on hammerheads.
Author:  Jstr19 [ Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tau 6.3 v NetEA Steel Legion
Dobbsy: Even though broadsides have received a points drop they are not really a viable choice compared to broadsides. The 15cm movement of broadsides has never really been a disadvantage due to the 75cm range shot which gives them an effective range of 105cm. That is the same as a HH on an advance and has the same to hit value since the broadsides rail guns are twin-linked. Combined with the ability to start the game on o/w, walker and reinforced armour I can still see no reason to choose HH's over broadsides as they are the same points.

Zombo: I fail to see how tetra's are massively better than sentinels. I regard them as about the same. Piranhas I admit are a problem but I still think the best solution for them was a hard cap rather a points rise which doesn't solve the problem of the massed missiles and penalizes every other type of build in a list that heavily relies of activation count.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/