Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 4
  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

[BatRep] Tau vs Alaitoc Craftworld
Chroma
 Post subject: [BatRep] Tau vs Alaitoc Craftworld
PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:51 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
Quote: (mattthemuppet @ 22 Mar. 2009, 23:39 )

what stats did you play the FWs with and what are your thoughts about them?

I used the stats in the v5.1 DRAFT document... and, for the points, I find them near useless.  I'd much rather spend the points on something else than a mechanized Fire Warrior formation.  

Having a large, fearless formation is nice... but it's a lot of points that just wind up being a temporary roadblock to the enemy... I'd rather have a formation or two that's doing *damage* to the enemy.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dobbsy
 Post subject: [BatRep] Tau vs Alaitoc Craftworld
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:59 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Dobbsy - Are you concerned about any vehicle with a GM attack or just those where it is the primary weapon?  I have found my HHs are still plenty useful, but stingrays and scorp are tougher to use

Shmitty my concern is about all GM weaponry and the need to waste other formations to use them.

For example, let's use the lowly pirahna. You have to have a ML formation in proximity to the enemy to use its GM. It has a 90cm range but that's pointless unless there's a forward ML formation. You get perhaps 1 (at max 2 if you have another ML formation on table) turn vs a good opponent before your ML unit will be destroyed/broken etc., leaving you with a 150 point 1xAP4+ 15cm attack formation. Not the idea of spiffy in my books. To be effective with the pirahna you have to assign tetras to the formation to provide it with its own ML. To use the GM in this case you have to be within 30cm! Bang goes your 90cm attack that you paid for.

Let's step it up to look at the Stingray. See above ML destruction scenario. You just spent 225 points on a formation that only hits targets at 30cm. Wasted 90cm attacks and also it's primary weapons (AP ignore cover)

On the Scorpionfish why would you want to take a missile boat that doesn't get to fire its missiles most of the time in a game (once all ML units are dead)? You just spent 250 points on a war engine that fires 2xAP/AT weapons at 45cm and can fire a couple of AA attacks....

The HH is slightly counter to this debate because it carries a solid main weapon, but like Chroma said, it's not the shootiest tank on the park in his recent testing. It's seems it's not the deadly shooter that we are aiming for it to be. In fact a Leman Russ looks better on paper now. Same range and better armour. Hena and Mephiston's batrep reinforced (to me at least) that skimmer doesn't mean that much when a ground based tank can still manouvre to fire on a HH formation. In this case out shoot a HH at 45cm (add the las canons in).

This is all still theory, but backed by recent batreps posted.

What appears to have been done with this change is weaken the army more than intended. In trying to stamp out the gunline, we've reduced firepower in certain instances by making GMs harder to use and require MLs (with no MLs left and having to take fewer combat units in opposition to ML units), but we haven't ramped up the true shootiness of the Tau (minus GMs) and left them with their weak assault ability. I'd much rather see Tau gain more shooty and lose the GMs than have a cascading firepower set up (the more you lose the less able you are to play on after turn 2).
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
shmitty
 Post subject: [BatRep] Tau vs Alaitoc Craftworld
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:42 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 4:36 am
Posts: 207
Gotcha, thank for the explanation.

I have to say that I like the new rule, but have run into some of those problems you mentioned.  I haven't tried Stingrays or a Scorpionfish yet (no models), but they do seem to be the worst off for it.  I have always looked at GMs as secondary weapon systems, so it has rarely bugged me if they couldn't shoot.

I have seen those same issues in the battle report and will be curious how it plays out in my own games, when i find the time for some.  My preference would be to lower the costs of GM units or up their other firepower rather than return to the previous setup.  We'll see how that looks down the line.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Onyx
 Post subject: [BatRep] Tau vs Alaitoc Craftworld
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:53 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
The need to throw away ML formations (that the new rule has created) is totally against Tau doctrine and is exactly why the Tau use ML Sentry Towers.

This isn't really up for debate and was warned of during the list development.

GM's are definately not secondary attacks for Scorpionfish and Stingrays. These units will be used far less now (and that will obviously please those that think they shouldn't exist in the first place).

Sorry to be so blunt but these comments have been made before.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Mephiston
 Post subject: [BatRep] Tau vs Alaitoc Craftworld
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:51 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 4262
And to add to Hena, if your opponent then chooses to attack the ML unit that has activated you are free to do the same trick later. If the attack on the forward ML unit goes wrong even more enemy formations are lit. Sure its a risk but that's what makes this a game. If all I have to do is sit still and fire missiles at long range its not much fun IMHO.

Fluff is fine, but this is a game of toy soldiers played for fun, is it not?
Top
 Profile  
 
Onyx
 Post subject: [BatRep] Tau vs Alaitoc Craftworld
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:20 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
Tau Shouldn't be sending ANYONE on a one way trip to kill a few units (that includes Piranha and Tetras).

Quote: (Mephiston @ 27 Mar. 2009, 15:51 )

Fluff is fine, but this is a game of toy soldiers played for fun, is it not?

Wasn't the ML/GM rule introduced originally because of fluffy concerns...
There's no game mechanic that requires us to have units within 30cm of a target to be able to fire on it with long range missiles - only fluffy reasons.

If all I have to do is sit still and fire missiles at long range its not much fun IMHO.

That's half the game that's not much fun for Imperial Guard players then.

I'm not meaning to be picky (and I apologise if it seems so) but I really have been turned off by all the changes to the Tau (hence why I've not had much to say recently) and these batreps are confirming some (not all) of my fears.

Hopefully, future batreps will balance things out and make everyone happy.

I'll but out again as I really can't see myself play testing the list in it's current form so I shouldn't comment further.

Steve.




_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dobbsy
 Post subject: [BatRep] Tau vs Alaitoc Craftworld
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:41 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
The last games against Mephiston pointed out that Piranha is neat addition to tetras due to two things
a) you get AT shot (sure it's 30cm, but since AP shots on formation is 15cm that's ok)
b) you get 4+AP shot instead of 5+
Those are good addition to tetras. So mixed formation in my mind is better choice than I originally thought

You get an AT shot and an upgunned AP shot. That is good I agree. What happens to your formation when you're within 30cm of say a tactical or devastator formation or an IG mech company? You'll most likely lose your ML tetras in the resulting counter attack(even just to shooting), and then what? You're left with half a formation that cannot fire its main weapon.

Also I don't understand that you have to waste the formation to fire the MLs.
Do you mean fire GMs? Sorry I meant "waste" a formation by throwing it forward in the hope you can mark stuff to hope to destroy it with GMs before the return fire kills your MLs. Stuck out on its own it will most likely get decimated. No MLs left = a large reduction in firepower from the Tau(check how many unit tyoes use GMs). Opponents are not going to ignore ML units. I wouldn't if it means the Tau get to fire about half of what they were originally.

Use coordinated fire to attack with both formations in one go.
Provided those 2 formations of yours are only 15cm apart right? In the hope to destroy the target? I agree, but that doesn't always happen with co-ord and then you have just wasted an activation in a list that has already been shrunken with less effective "fighting formations" due to having to increase ML formation purchases to make the list work.

I have been putting together lists this week to see what forces i can come up with. each time I've found that having to rely on GMs means I need good ML coverage to keep my volume of fire as close to peak as possible. This in turn has shown that I went from having roughly 75-80% "fighting formations", as I call them, to about 50-60% of those in my lists unless I dropped GM users all together where I can take nearly all fighting formations.


If all I have to do is sit still and fire missiles at long range its not much fun IMHO.
Sure i agree, and I'm not advocating gunlines either. I just think we seem to have gone too far in the other direction.

I just sense that without longer range MLs or maybe open-sights GM firing (be it at half range or whatever... ) the Tau lose an awful lot of firepower when they lose their MLs. Having my army degenerate after turn 2 so it can't effectively fight, doesn't sound much fun. Having my long range unit types need to get within 30cm to be effective makes me wonder why we have long range at all. Putting my army that is average at best at assault within 30cm of enemy forces fully able to utilise that bbility is a little disconcerting. It's a gamble to win in this case. Now, I understand rolling dice is always a gamble and is part and parcel of gaming but I like to have a little bit more control of my army's results than just dicing off in a situation where I have a greater chance of loss than victory.

Am I to play this army thusly?: I must get within 30cm. I must smash the target or I get smashed if I don't.

Sounds pretty much like attrition to me. Don't know about you but that seems fairly boring. About as interesting as the gunline theory - worse because all it is now is getting up close in the hope of rolling well. There's even less manouvre in this strategy than a gunline as at least the gunline needs you to move about to avoid being caught. This way forces you to just barrel up to the opponent and unleash.

OK, I understand people wanted to ease back on Tau firepower from a gunline perspective, but I think this design has gone too far the other way like I said. We went from overpower to under power before even attempting the middle power first. We never even tried Onyx's idea of a true basic formation of turrets before we came up with this GM/ML ruling. Not even one batrep or trial.

Look dont get me wrong, I'm deeply hoping to prove myself wrong on all of this, I truly am and I'll retract everything I've said if I find I'm wrong. I've managed to actually get a game teed up for the 4th. So i guess I'll see where I sit exactly then.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Assariel
 Post subject: [BatRep] Tau vs Alaitoc Craftworld
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:51 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:14 am
Posts: 103
Location: Germany (NRW)
The question is, if its needed to get those shots off to win, or if they are just a way to improve your probabilities of winning.
I dont think they are that important, especially considering they are AT mostly, but there are obviously lists to play against where nearly every AT shot is needed. Too many variables in list composition and therefore hard to balance, as always.

Normally a recon squad or pathfinder might survive an attack of tanks, if they arent exactly against infantry. But if there is an infantry squad nearby to assault them...

Is there a comment somewhere that describes, why markerlights cant be 45 cm?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dobbsy
 Post subject: [BatRep] Tau vs Alaitoc Craftworld
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:00 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Well you can move to already activated one or retain as well. Coordinated Fire is however the Tau special rule for this specific purpose. How does this differ from say Marine Land Speeders or Eldar Guardians or any other formation with short range weapons. They all are similarly vulnerable.

The difference is Hena that those other units don't carry MLs that mean other units get to fire or not. Plus LS get a 4+ save and TSKNF....

This is one reason I think that there should be cheaper tetra upgrade. Would allow "adding" ML to formations more cheaply.
Except then you get mingled formation types and get BM for comng under AT fire and vice versa etc I think we could go one better and give all Tau MLs to help the coverage.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Honda
 Post subject: [BatRep] Tau vs Alaitoc Craftworld
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:41 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
This also supports the base idea of allowing Pathfinders without Devilfish.


This idea isn't going to go anywhere. Pathfinders have been required to field a Devilfish from Day 1 in 40K and continue to do so. Recon isn't very effective if it loses it's mobility. Pathfinders are not "hard" combat units. They are used to identify targets and then boogey out of there.

Also, you are not taking into account the consequences of having a very cheap unit, as has been in existence in previous versions. I believe it was TRC and Asaura who lobbied for and demonstrated that Pathfinders became the be all infantry formation when they got too cheap because they allowed one to establish a ML line.

So, let's just let this idea fade away. I don't see it happening.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Honda
 Post subject: [BatRep] Tau vs Alaitoc Craftworld
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 5:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
Umm.. I did mean the upgrade and not the support group (sorry for being not very understandable


Oh, so you're talking about foot PF's as an upgrade to foot FWs? Interesting idea. Let's visit the issue for the next round.

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
asaura
 Post subject: [BatRep] Tau vs Alaitoc Craftworld
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 6:33 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:34 am
Posts: 481
Honda,

That's what he meant. Foot FW can Garrison and can deploy from an Orca. In both cases, they benefit greatly from having ML, but 100 points is pushing it for an unused Devilfish.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 4
  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net