Honda,
I enjoyed your bat rep.
H: I?m glad you enjoyed it. We had a lot of fun playing the game.
Before I get started - if you know Greg Lane - tell him to get on the ball and post the new experimental rules update would you!? Many of us have been waiting a LONG time for that! ? ?
H: While I was there, he mentioned that he was working on that. Real Life ? was keeping him really busy.
You've convinced me to look into this some more:
1 x Dragonfish + Scorpionfish
H: I was very happy with how this formation performed. Firepower was good when we figured out how to optimize their missiles and I can?t say enough about the two re-rolls. That ability alone was worth the price. Coordinated Fire was also beneficial, but I had assigned a higher value to that ability prior to going into the game than we actually experienced. Still, I?m sold on the formation, even after one game. I see a lot of potential in the formation.
I've never tried out the Dragonfish but always loved the idea of an alternate command version and conceptually I've always liked the unique nature of the piece rules-wise.
H: Well, after following all the posts on Crisis suits, I wasn?t convinced that they would be hardy enough to do what I wanted. Also, a Dragonfish is 200 points. You can not get similar capabilities for that same expenditure in our list. Near equivalent functionality costs a lot more.
Also from a fluff perspective, the Dragonfish supports my Mech approach.
I have to admit, I've avoided it due to it getting moved to the collectors side of things. I don't recall why it was moved there other than I think we were trying to do too many new things without the core list working yet at the time. Seems like that was at the time of all the heavy mooray discussion. Perhaps worth a revisit to the actual list. I wouldn't be opposed to that discussion.
H: I think it should be discussed. I see absolutely no reason to have it in the Collectors closet.
Scorpionfish itself - I'm not so sold on at all.
H: I shall endeavor to show you what I see in the unit. Not to try and convince you to change your list, but to show you why I value it?s abilities.
Glad to see you gave this a go:
1 x Hammerhead contingent (3 x RH, 2 x IC, 1 x Swordfish)
H: Oddly enough, the way we used this formation, the IC became BM absorbers. They never got to shoot (or shot infrequently because of range) and the formation ended up being fairly fragile. Given what we needed, I would most likely drop the IC and get two more RH. The Swordfish was sweet.
I'm curious as to which of these you found more valuable and if the stealths helped out at all:
1 x Tetra contingent
1 x Pathfinder + PF upgrade + Stealth upgrade
H: As to which was the more effective, the Pathfinder+Stealth was the winner hands down. It not only provided very important ML support, but was also able to inflict casualties on a tactical squad. The tetras were more mobile, but in the end were just ML?s.
I'm wondering if these got into situations where the lack of AT was hurting you due to the points invested:
1 x Gue'la (12 inf + Leader)
H: I wouldn?t do this again. Doesn?t fit into my plan.
2 x Fire warriors + DF cadres + 1 x drones
H: One did quite well, the other got mauled in HtH. So, split decision. More testing needed, though in my list these units are intended to support the ML umbrella that Jaldon refers to, they are very important.
Your impression of the Gue'la is the same as mine actually. Even more no AT infantry is not what the Epic:A Tau need IMHO.
These three formations are not typical for me at all these days though I used to play each heavily. I'm wondering how you faired. The broadsides seem like they would break easily. The crisis have to get close, and the dones can be a nusance, but also go away easily enough...
1 x Broadsides
H: this unit hit hard from a long way away, but eventually succumbed to assault, so we got about two turns out of it. The extra armor does help though against long range shots.
1 x Crisis cadre + Stealth upgrade + gun drones
H: I was less impressed with the performance of this formation. Considering what it accomplished and how much it cost, I would have preferred another HH formation.
1 x gun drones
H: We had extra points left over. It did Ok, but broke easily and didn?t add a lot. However, it would be interesting to see how a ?swarm? of these might behave.
As a general comment - knowing your 40K style, this isn't nearly as HH heavy as I thought you would be out of the gate - LOL ? ?
H: Well what shaped our list was the fact that I had a 3K list, Greg had a 3K list and we melded them together to come up with a 4K list. So we took elements of each to build a composite.
On a more serious note, your reliance on AA was rather limited from what I usually take. However, I usually expect more aircraft too. No skyrays in your list. I see this as a common thread as skyrays in Epic:A are not what they are in 40K - they are definitely not what they are since the new FW:IA3:TC book came out. Skyrays deserve a face lift for the current points being paid, or they deserve a reduction in price IMHO
H: Part of the strategy was to depend on the Barracudas to take control of the air (ala USAF) and if that didn?t work out, rely on the HH-IC + Scorpionfish/Dragonfish ?for local support.
.
The Ultras that you faced are not the typical list that I run into. I usually encounter a bit more 'alpha strike' mentality players and one lander is amost a give it seems. Land raiders and predators are rarely encountered on my side. I usually encounter 2x whirlwind detatachments with AA upgrades as well. Bikes are also very common. When I do encounter predators, they are usually on board a lander and are used for FF support believe it or not.
H: We were a little surprised that he didn?t take any AA defense and I don?t expect that he?ll make that mistake again. At the same time, we made a concerted effort to undercut his WW and any AA assets. As I said in the report, the list he brought was significant in that it didn?t feature any ?tricks?. It was based and fought with very solid decisions in mind and was quite effective.
You talk about Tau's inability to focus firepower. I think that's worth expanding upon. Tau need to concetrate firepower badly - very badly. They cannot afford to allow close enemy formations - even if broken - to have a single model remaining on the field. The list is very fragile when the enemy gets to grips.
H: I heartily agree. We got burned by Landspeeder detritus and a half strength Pred unit a couple times. The SM command rolls allow him to use units longer than other races, which extends their ability to influence the battle. Hence, the reason for ?killing? units completely.
Therefore, deploying in 'clumps' across the battleifield is not very good for tau if they cannot move within a single move to reconstitute a position - or unless you plan on triple-moving away from that position to meet up with another part of your force i.e. diversionary tactics. This seems to be a weakness in the Tau as not all races seem to have as much trouble as we do with 'seperating out' from deployment (for lack of a better term).
H: I?d have to play some more before I can comment more definitively.
This comment has me questioning what exactly happend, "...we charged at the rightmost tactical, achieved crossfire using the Stealth w/the PF's and broke the tactical."
Did you use crossfire while firefighting in combat?
H: No. What I meant by my statement is that instead of extracting the unit to a ?safer? ?position, we surprised the UM player by moving up to within pulse carbine range and blew the Be?jeeb?ers out of him. The seekers+pulse carbine+rail rifle+burst cannon combination was beautiful to behold. 
Plus, if that wasn?t enough, we were also had him covered in ML.
"* We should have done a better job of keeping our forces concentrated so that they could do a better job of supporting and following up decisive blows. More than once, we hit a unit pretty hard, but didn't have something close enough to finish the job."
This is something I've found frustrating myself. There are 'must have' formations to do the jobs, but in result, other formations become out of favor over time. I find that Tau list has certain formations that are flexible, but then, I end up never taking other formations because they are not 'finish the job' type formations.
H: Well, I?m still figuring out what my ?optimal? list is right now, but I am firmly convinced that placing FW+DF and PF+Stealth up close and personal so that HH and Scorpionfish can pound the C?rap out of a unit are the key.
"* SM Tactical units are really solid. When used in conjunction with other units, they become a real pain. I was very impressed with SM list."
This worries me. SM is considered the weakest list in the Epic:A game as a whole. I can get a win vs. Space marines, but I'm pretty even against them with Tau. IG, Orks, and Eldar wreck me bad.
H: Well, I suppose it may depend on how the SM are being used. From what I saw, I was impressed with their ability to shake off damage, their overall mobility, and ability to strike hard. Now that being said, their armored formations are fairly brittle, but I see them as supporting characters, not as the stars. I also think the SM?s are unique in that their list operates better when it is balanced because the sum of their parts is much greater than the value of an individual formation. JMO.
What I am certain of is that for the better part of a turn in a half, we were the bell and the SM?s were holding the hammer.
My tau seem to have the best luck vs. IG for getting a close game as I can draw against them occasionally. All three are brutal against the Tau. Chaos can do ugly things to Tau, in fact, it doesn't even feel like a game frankly. That's not hyperbole for the interested parties.
H: I can?t really speak to those yet as I haven?t played against them. I do think that each of those present some tough tactical challenges for the Tau.
Now in contrast, I typically don't lose when I play my IG against others. I'm probably 75% winning to 25% losing/drawing. I've easily played somewhere in between 70-100 games of E:A IG. I've played the same or more with Tau. I've yet to ever lose a game with Chaos - never tied, never lost. I've played about 5 games with the new list now. I've played well over 30 with the previous version of chaos.
H: Well, from what I?ve heard, Chaos suffers greatly at the hands of a firepower heavy force (as it should) and that it excels in HtH (which it should). In theory, the Tau should be able to compete with Chaos, but again, that?s just theory. I won?t be able to say for certain until I get a chance to play them.
Being that the Tau struggle to fight Marines - the weakest if not most challenging list to play in Epic:A, you can imagine the uphill climb we have against excellent generals of other lists. We all have more learning to do with the Tau as well though.
H: Again, I?ll know more as I get to play more. The person I?ll most likely get to play first will be another SM player, but then right after that, Eldar, Bugs, and Orks. I think a few people are considering IG, but no one has stepped up to date.
As you said, the current version of the Tau requires unconvential thinking.
H: Definitely. Players fielding the Tau list will need to do something else besides lining up and shooting. We?ll need to blend in maneuvering to focus firepower on localized targets, then dance away before someone assaults us. I don?t think we?ll necessarily be the easiest list to use, but I feel like once we get some solid tactical options down, we?ll become quite fearsome.
|
And tell Greg I said HI ! We did a small trade a while back and had a lot of discussions on Epic Yahoo, invite him to join here ! 
