Tau changes |
|
Steele
|
Post subject: Tau changes  Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:59 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany
|
Hi,
in respect to the large amount of discussions about possible Changes to the Tau List, wouldn?t it be nice if someone ( preferred Tactica) could summarize all in a list and update them regularly as they change?
Steele
_________________
Quid pro Quo
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Honda
|
Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 2:00 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
|
From what I'm hearing, the process of assiging a new champion is in progress and it would probably be a good idea to consolidate the discussions into one concise document for all to review.
Tactica: You feel like taking a stab at this?
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 2:12 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
Happy to take a stab at consolidation.
I will get to work on it.
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 3:22 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
|
While we are discussing these various possible changes, I'd like to ask what the reason behind not having separate Piranha contingents is/was?
Other than the Skyray, it seems to be the only unit that doesn't come in its own contingent.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 3:50 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
Cw,
I don't know why they were overlooked as a stand alone.
Would you use them as a stand alone contingent?
Everytime I've used them (as an upgrade today), I've been left unimpressed. Their role was reduced to extra wounds for the tetras. However, since I'm really not impressed with the tetras today vs. the pathfinders, I just don't really find myself over joyed with either unit.
For what its worth, I personally wouldn't have a problem with pirahna's as a stand alone contingent.
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 4:58 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
|
I see an independent Piranha formation as a cheap way to provide non-LOS GMs without wasting other firepower. As most units with GMs really dont want to use the non-LOS option as they would not be able to use their other LOS requiring weapons.
The Piranha formation could sustain fire and launch GMs at 4+ on marked formations.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 5:06 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
...which is why I keep saying that adding them to Stingray Contingents seems like a blantantly obvious good idea to me. Adds bulk and AT firepower to what is effectively an artillery formation.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 5:11 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
|
I thought of that. But the problem is that you have a formation that has its firepower split between AT and AP. Which is wasteful if not presented with mixed formations to fire at.
Perhaps this is meant to be a problem, but it is why I would try independent Piranha formations.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Honda
|
Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:25 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
|
I don't see a reason why we shouldn't add the contingent.
We're still at a point where it could be dropped later if a reason comes up.
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:10 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
I hate to keep agreeing with Cw ?
...but again I must.
Putting Pirhanas with stingrays bolsters the stingray formation - true... but...
1) the stingrays are really good at AP and stink at AT
2) Pirahnas are LV so make the formation suseptable to AP fire where it wasn't before.
3) Pirahnas have next to no AP and stink at AP unless they can sustain with markers close to the target already.
The proposed formation becomes somewhat of a headache to manage, and becomes more susuptable to breaking due to LVs in the formation that can die from AT or AP fire.
Bad combo IMHO...
Somebody made comment about pirahna as seperate formation still (honda) again, I'm happy to test this unless there is significant opposition. I don't think I personally would use it much due to my general disdain for the pirahna in both 40K and Epic, but nonetheless, I don't presently see what it would hurt to try the formation out as stand alone with some tetra like upgrades.
Thoughts?
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:30 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
|
If it really was just an over-sight that there is no separate Piranha formation then I see no harm in adding it.
Same upgrade options as Tetras?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:36 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
It is a de facto artillery formation. The primary purpose is use of GMs. Any direct fire that the formation might get is purely incidental.
The added vulnerability of LVs is exaggerated constantly. In most cases, even if a formation takes more potential shots, the added numbers from LVs still make it more durable overall.
The only significant increase in vulnerability for this formation should be in the case of an artillery duel because they should remain out of LoS.
Not only do the Piranhas add numbers, they can be used to soak BMs if the formation does come under fire. Suppressing a 1 GM shot Piranha is much preferable to soaking off 3 GMs on the Stingray. In a deployment, put a couple in front to soak the first hits and a couple in back to soak the BMs. Both ways protects the better units.
The total firepower against AV-only or Infantry-only formations is comparable to an equal amount of artillery. The formation can tear up AVs, averaging 5 hits on sustained fire against a marked target from 75cm away, out of LoS. That makes it some of the best AT artillery in the game.
Against a mixed formation there is no contest and the Stingrays/Piranhas put significantly more firepower on the target than similar artillery from other races. This is no different than any other formation of Tau outgunning similar formations in other armies and should be expected.
What you call "a headache to manage" (presumably because you feel it lacks focus) I call tactical flexibility. Tau rely on concentrating firepower and this arrangement allows them to pile on to any target regardless of composition.
Late in a game, it's better at grabbing or defending objectives due to size. Most forces rely on assaults to push a force off an objective and 4 more units is always good.
Finally, it's cheap. So what if the benefits are arguably small? It doesn't cost you much. Piranhas are some of the cheapest units in the Tau army.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Honda
|
Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:43 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
|
Oops! I didn't say what I was agreeing with. I was saying that we should consider adding a Pirannha contingent, not that Stingrays and Pirannha's go good together.
Sorry about that.
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:48 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
| Quote (clausewitz @ 28 Oct. 2005 (15:22)) | While we are discussing these various possible changes, I'd like to ask what the reason behind not having separate Piranha contingents is/was?
Other than the Skyray, it seems to be the only unit that doesn't come in its own contingent. |
Cw,
While mentioning the skyray... (and not that anyone suggested it, but as a pre-emptive strike...) 
For the record, I personally don't think Skyray should come in its own contingent.
They really aren't fielded that way according to fluff that I can find in IA3. From my understanding, they support other cadres in main support tank roles and are commonly fielded with the "Armored Mobile Hunter Cadre" for superrior AA coverage.
Points wise vs. effectiveness, i think there's some issues with them presently, but from the way their included in the list - I think they are working.
Tis all,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:01 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
|
Tactica, I agree no stingray conttingent is necessary or desired. Plenty of AA in the Tau list already.
Neal, I agree Piranhas have their use in a stingray formation. As always there are advantages and disadvantages to choices like that. Separate formations means you can apply the AT/AP shots to appropriate targets more easily and gives you another activation, combined together gives the advantages you mentioned.
As Piranhas can already be added to Stingray formations would you not want a separate Piranha formation?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
