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

FW+DF+HH = something I'm going to explore more
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5367		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Tactica [ Mon Aug 29, 2005 6:45 pm ]
Post subject:  FW+DF+HH = something I'm going to explore more
Last week I ran FW with DF + HH and found the formation interesting. The FW bring the markers for the DF's and the HHs. The HH's and DF's give the formation some AT elements.

We were using GM's as 5+ instead of 6+, but as a result, the formation had some versatility that I usually feel is lacking the Tau list.

I'm going to explore this formation a bit more.

I'm wondering what kinds of formations others are taking to get AT/AP flexability in their Tau formations.
Author:  Steele [ Tue Aug 30, 2005 8:19 am ]
Post subject:  FW+DF+HH = something I'm going to explore more
Quote (Tactica @ 29 2005 Aug.,19:45)
Last week I ran FW with DF + HH and found the formation interesting. The FW bring the markers for the DF's and the HHs. The HH's and DF's give the formation some AT elements.

We were using GM's as 5+ instead of 6+, but as a result, the formation had some versatility that I usually feel is lacking the Tau list.

I'm going to explore this formation a bit more.

I'm wondering what kinds of formations others are taking to get AT/AP flexability in their Tau formations.

Hi,
I wonder myself that you took so long to discover this little tactic. You may even augment with a Skyray further, or some Crisis. But preferrable is an Ethereal for fearless, along with the HH.

Cheers!
Steele
Author:  Tactica [ Tue Aug 30, 2005 4:03 pm ]
Post subject:  FW+DF+HH = something I'm going to explore more
Steele,

In fact, I've tried it on more than one occasion, but it never matched up well perhaps with the army I was playing or the field position it occupied. Perhaps I just dismissed the formation before due to actual results in game at that time.

If definitely doesn't make the formation even close to one of my favored, strong, or must have formations but it does offer some ideas against certain armies I hadn't considered before. It also helps a bit to work towards solving a big problem in the tau list - all AP formations - blech!

So if I augment the way I think about using this formation, I may find that I like it more than I used to. We'll see.

Although I didn't have great results with it in the last game, I was at least encouraged by the idea of not having all AP in a FW formation.

More games must be played - not enough time in the week for gaming...

:)
Author:  Philosophical Aun [ Tue Aug 30, 2005 6:39 pm ]
Post subject:  FW+DF+HH = something I'm going to explore more
Mechanised Fire Warrior cadres with Hammerheads are my "stable" formation. I base my entire battleplans on them. I'd recommend toying with Drones (to keep them from walking) and other units to boost their AT potential.
Author:  Tactica [ Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:48 pm ]
Post subject:  FW+DF+HH = something I'm going to explore more
Most recent game where we were playing the following special rule modifications
1) GM's at 5+ across the board
2) Crisis and broadsides as infantry
3) alternate - whoever's closest pop-up rule mod

...I took one of each of the following:
1) 8 FW, 4 DF + 1 Rail-head + 1 Swordfish + 1 SkyRay
2) 8 FW, 4 DF + 2 Ion-Head + 2 crisis + Shas'o Upgrade

...I also had 2 of these formations:
3 Rail-head + 2 ion-head + 1 Swordfish + 1 SkyRay

I like these formations not because they are tanks, but because they give me versatility the tau seems to lack by comparison to other lists I really enjoy playing.

The other lists I play (IG and Chaos - and inching into orks and eldar slowly - though I only play my friends lists here, I don't own them) I get versatility out of each of my formations that I take in these lists. I can go after AT or AP with any of my formations that I take in these other lists. I have h-t-h elements if needed, I have shooting elements if needed. I have speed if needed. Most importantly though - I don't pinch myself to only be able to shoot at AP or AT... I hate that.

The FW formations are taken because the cadres are mandatory. Being able to add 3 tanks helps the formation a bit. GM enhancements (trial rules) are also starting to help a bit here and there. Not as much as I would have liked, in some cases, but the formations are viable and have options this way.

The hammerhead formations above easily are my favorite as I get flexability I'm after in this list. With the GM trial rule, the skyray actually has some use outside of AA occasionally, and its GM AA means it has an AA value to me more than what I receive from the ion-cannons. I'm glad the ion-cannons give me the 6+ AA so formations like my crisis with cadre above actually have some AA will having some lessor AT potential.

The more I play with this list, the more I see that the things that work in 40K are almost the same things that work in the Epic:A... the things that don't really work in 40K, really don't work for me in epic.

The 40K Tau codex is getting a face lift in April 06 though... to bad we're not privy to what those changes are going to look like. :(
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/