|
I have considered the changes described in previous threads regarding the structure of the Tau list in Epic, and the names used to describe the formations. There are two parts to this.
Force Structure.
There have been a few voices calling for a restructure to the Epic Tau force list. This focuses on the fact that the established background points to very ?mixed? battle groups, often consisting of Fire Warriors in Devilfish, Crisis battlesuits, Pathfinders and attached Kroot in the same group. I am sceptical about this. I don?t see it working so well, and while it does leave the battle group flexible, it is also inefficient. While a group such as the one mentioned above, does allow it to be fielded with no armour as a garrison force, or as a scouting group, this means leaving half of the group behind.
In addition, even if this is how the Tau work in the background literature, I simply don?t think that this will carry across to the Epic battlefield well. A formation like the above would lead to the entire group being slowed down by the Kroot, the transports picked off by AT fire and the entire formation being fairly ineffective.
I am still open to discussion on this. However, the fact that I will need persuading, and the fact that this change would completely shake up the list at this point, leads me to think that it is simply not viable.
Naming Convention.
Secondly, it has been pointed out that the names that we use for things does not sit totally in line with background sources. Up to a point, I agree.
Probably the least contentious issue is that of the contingent. In the past, we have used it to mean the smaller formations, while both the Tau codex and IA3 labels a large campaign force as a contingent (roughly equivalent to 2000 points of Epic Tau). Therefore, I have changed the terminology and what was once a ?contingent? is now a ?support group?. I feel that this fits the way in which the Tau view these units in the larger battle plan.
In addition, there have been suggestions that the use of Cadre is inappropriate. My current position on this is that this is complex. I am sitting with the sources around me, and it seems that the Tau 40K Codex and IA3 have a slight disagreement with this. IA3 places a Tau Cadre as a large force, the example having 68 Fire Warriors, Hammerheads and other units. The Tau Codex states that a Cadre is ?roughly equivalent to an Imperial Guard company?. This codex descriptions places the use of the term Cadre as appropriate for a larger Tau formations in the force (8 units of Fire Warriors in Devilfish is equivalent to 13 Imperial Guard infantry units in Chimera). In fact, the IA3 description is also not too far away. The example given has the equivalent of a Fire Warrior Cadre, plus a Hammerhead support group, and SkyRay, Pathfinder, Stealthsuit and two Crisis Battlesuit upgrades (one with a commander). Sure, this is too large to fit into the current EA Tau structure, but I don?t think that it is wildly out.
_________________ https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond. https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.
|
