Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 1 of 1
  [ 14 posts ] 

Are Tau really weak in assaults?
asaura
 Post subject: Are Tau really weak in assaults?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:03 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:34 am
Posts: 481
The common thinking is that Epic Tau are good in shooting but suck in assaults. Our recent playtest experience shows a somewhat different picture.

I've played several games with three auxiliary formations: two humans and one Kroot, all min-size. All these have considerable staying power against assaulting enemies and, in the case of the Kroot, considerable offensive abilities. When I shield my Tau core forces with these three formations, I've had no trouble against LatD cultist hordes or various Space Marines. Eldar have caused me trouble, but still the auxiliaries have bought much time in every case.

I've come to the interim conclusion that an auxiliary-heavy Tau army is not vulnerable to assaults. I consider this a flaw of the army list. The Tau should be vulnerable to assaults. In practice, they are not, if they just use auxiliaries.

I realize that many people like pure-Tau forces, but the list includes the auxilia, and, as it stands, not using them is just poor planning.

To fix the situation, I have three undeveloped ideas:
1) Up auxilia cost. 200 is probably the only possibility here.
2) Lower the size of auxilia formations (lower cost as well). Perhaps 8-strong formations.
3) Lower the amount of auxilia choices allowed. Perhaps 0-2 overall limit.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Chroma
 Post subject: Are Tau really weak in assaults?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(asaura @ Aug. 04 2006,21:03)
QUOTE
I've come to the interim conclusion that an auxiliary-heavy Tau army is not vulnerable to assaults.

I thought that was the whole reason Tau inducted auxiliary formations and races into their armies: to make up for their own weaknesses and shortcomings.

That doesn't seem like a flaw to me, but a purposeful decision.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
asaura
 Post subject: Are Tau really weak in assaults?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 4:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

(Chroma @ Aug. 04 2006,21:35)
QUOTE
I thought that was the whole reason Tau inducted auxiliary formations and races into their armies: to make up for their own weaknesses and shortcomings.

That doesn't seem like a flaw to me, but a purposeful decision.

Well, obviously. My point is that they work too well in that role. Using auxiliaries is almost a no-brainer.

Add a 4th suggestion to fix:

4) Make auxiliary formations count against contingent choices.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Xisor
 Post subject: Are Tau really weak in assaults?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm
Posts: 515
I'd also agree with the purposeful decision. It doesn't seem to me, though my playtest experience with them can be written on a thimble, that the Tau list has a power in assault that it *shouldn't* have. If the Kroot and Humans are great in assaults, then good, it's designed well.

However, I do understand the concern it could raise. Much of the 'upped' firepower is based partly on the premiss that the list as a whole *is* weak in assaults.

I'd be keen to follow the discussion on this alot further, as it could be a crucial issue.

I suspect this could once again raise comments that perhaps the Gue'vesa formation simply isn't fit for purpose within this style of army list. I still feel that a 'Grenadiers' style formation feel would be better adopted than a stationary infantry platoon.

A generic 0-1 Auxilliary Garrison formation (covering human PDF equivs, civil-kroot, *other* Vespids than the stingwings, the Galg etc) could be introduced too, thus removing the potential overhwelming ability to swamp/lodge lots of things with Gue'vesa. And from that an alternative Gue'vesa formation could be created with a focus somewhat different to that which we see currently. Perhaps not though, this is a sort of ramble anyway, and is based on my perpetual desire to change things more than me having a proper problem within the list.

_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dobbsy
 Post subject: Are Tau really weak in assaults?
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:28 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Not bad points from Asaura and Xisor. If Tau gunnery is upped to compensate then maybe points for assault ability could be raised. Of course, I haven't actually used Auxilia yet - having no models for them.... I guess an argument in the negative could be raised that Kroot have no armour/Gue'vesa light-to-non-existent armour and are very fragile in assault too.... maybe the numbers could be lowered somewhat to maybe 10 for Gue'Vesa?? That isn't a huge size formation really.
I dunno...
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ilushia
 Post subject: Are Tau really weak in assaults?
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:58 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
I dunno.. For 250 points (The price of a 13 stand IG Infantry formation) I can field a 19 stand Gue'vesa aux formation. Yes I have to buy a core cadre before I can... But that's not a big deal, I need core cadres for other things and they're useful formations. A unit of Crisis suits and a big formation of Gue'vesa. Two groups like that and you have the core of a Tau army with 2 huge damage-sponges which can soak up quite a lot of hits without dieing. 1000 points for 38 un-armored human auxiliary to garrison and 8 Crisis Battlesuits to run interference. Then whatever else you can cram into the army for the other 1500-2000 points available. Sounds like a fairly nice deal to me. And even with 5+ to hit and no armor if you're getting 19 attacks the enemy will feel it. It's no different then an IG Infantry Company with extra Infantry Platoon, save that they're worse at ranged combat having lower range and only AP 6+. Oh, and they cost 100 points less. Great line-holding units for the Tau. And while sacrificial units may go against the tau standard tactica, it won't stop people from using them that way. And they make excellent foils for enemy attacks I'd expect. Put them out on your flanks to slow the enemy down for a few turns. Enemy will have to fight their way through a lot of infantry men to get to your lines and you can hammer them while they try to.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Honda
 Post subject: Are Tau really weak in assaults?
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:41 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
I don't use either type of unit, preferring the "purist" approach. However, some of that is due to the Kroot roles and responsibilities not being clearly defined and that was something that was going to be addressed in a later version.

I don't know if CS is ready for what will be a fairly interesting discussion.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Tactica
 Post subject: Are Tau really weak in assaults?
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:10 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
Asaura,

I think the Auxilia should be counted as part of the contingents in the list - always have.

Many here will recall when we entertained that idea a LONG time ago.

JG wanted to reward purist lists and he wanted to make sure that the purist approach was viable.

That was why we had the 'free contingent' idea for the purist list.

I disagreed with the free contingent concept then and luckily, public opinion agreed after JG left and we did away with that concept.

I'm glad to hear we are no discussing putting the auxilia back into the main contingents and not making them essentially out of that force org.

On the other hand, I think we also need to be mindful of something JG was very right on about. Asaura's premis in this thread is that NOT taking auxilia is poor planning. I would disagree.

JG recognized the Tau history in that many Tau Septs and individual armies simply don't have access to auxilia or perhaps choose not to field with the Auxilia. Perhaps if only for their personal distaste of the Kroot's carnivorus habits or they don't have access to the Vespid worlds and maybe they've yet to come into contact with a human world.

We must[ preserve the concept of Tau purist force being formidable. E:A tau must not be become a poorly planned force if they choose not to take auxilia and they should not rely on the auxilia to adequately perform and overcome the enemy. Auxilia should compensate for some h-t-h combat inadequacies, but it should not be the end-all to Tau combat problems.

Anyone that has played against a Landa force of the orcs... Air assault from the eldar.... black legion chaos podding plus aggression combat play... or even a massive bug horde - OMG the bugs... the Tau significantly suffer from a hand to hand weakness.

If LotD and SM suffer a bit in their h-t-h against the Tau while the Eldar still give troubles, as Asaura noted... I think that's OK. These are not the most aggressive h-t-h lists.

Tau still have to be able to answer the h-t-h threat and of course shouldn't be overrun just because a particular tactic or army is encountered, but the horde style of assault from bugs and orks really are tough for the Tau. Take an elite combat force tuned for air assault like Eldar or black legion - or even Orks - and I think the Tau have real problems regularly that the auxilia couldn't hope to counter on their best of days.

So, making the auxilia limited to 0-2 or making them contingents is fine with me. I'd prefer just to see them contingents.

Adding points is not called for here.

Assuming Tau cannot function adequately or effectively without auxilia is a mistake and if true, should be corrected as that is NOT true to the Tau design philosophy.

_________________
Rob
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
asaura
 Post subject: Are Tau really weak in assaults?
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 6:38 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

(Tactica @ Aug. 07 2006,19:10)
QUOTE
On the other hand, I think we also need to be mindful of something JG was very right on about. Asaura's premis in this thread is that NOT taking auxilia is poor planning. I would disagree.



We must[ preserve the concept of Tau purist force being formidable. E:A tau must not be become a poorly planned force if they choose not to take auxilia and they should not rely on the auxilia to adequately perform and overcome the enemy. Auxilia should compensate for some h-t-h combat inadequacies, but it should not be the end-all to Tau combat problems.

Very nicely put, Tactica! I agree wholeheartedly that the list should not punish people who do not use Auxilia. They should be as valuable as other choices a Tau player can make for the same points. In this regard, the idea of making them count as contingents would take away one of the current incentives to use them: cheap activations. The remaining incentives are staying power and HTH ability.

Purely based on speculation and non-test analysis, I believe making Auxilia formations count as Contingent choices is a good idea.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
CyberShadow
 Post subject: Are Tau really weak in assaults?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 12:57 am 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9349
Location: Singapore
There is a very delecate balance here. On the one hand, the auxilia should in some way compensate for the Tau weakness, but on the other they should not then be necessary for the force.

I like the idea of making the auxilia a contingent. Icould also see a case for auxiliary formations have a reduced initiative or forcing a reduced strategy rating for the Tau force due to C and C issues.

Something to think about...

_________________
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.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dobbsy
 Post subject: Are Tau really weak in assaults?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:57 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Anyone that has played against a Landa force of the orcs... Air assault from the eldar.... black legion chaos podding plus aggression combat play... or even a massive bug horde - OMG the bugs... the Tau significantly suffer from a hand to hand weakness

This is very true. You can have all the firepower you need but stopping a formation from assaulting isn't so easy.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Xisor
 Post subject: Are Tau really weak in assaults?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:33 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm
Posts: 515
Whilst I largely disagree with the perspective on Tactica's assertion of 'The Purist Approach', I can't argue with the validity of it, or the final conclusions in terms of actual Epic Gaming. (I would say though that integrating Auxilliaries should make the Tau force better, in that : Tau With Aux>=Tau Without Aux, but that's a different kettle of Vespids)

Practically speaking a bit of thinking has led me to reiterate this:

- A Tau force without Auxillia simply lacks the additional possibilities that Auxilla bring.
Or perhaps better:
- A Tau force with Auxillia has more/different options that are equally valid and useful to those of a Tau Force without.

If you see my meaning. Without auxilliaries Tau shouldn't have access to a particularly great Garrison for, but not having a Garrison force shouldn't be a particular problem for such a force. That not to say it should have the option of 'utilising' a Garrison force, just that that sort of 'option' is closed off to it. (Fire Warriors should be a worse Garrison choice than an equivalently costed Auxillia, for example).

That is, afterall, one of the big uses (fluffwise) of the Tau's Auxilliaries, to garrison things whilst hunter cadres get the glory. I'd quibble that too, as a matter of truth. I think, much like Gary Carney(Nerroth) that something like the Gue'senshi should be a more in-line auxilliary for the Tau than simply including what's close to a Guard Platoon. Or perhaps, if you're to transport *anything* from the Guard list, it should be Stormtroopers, given that the illustrate a more 'inline' form of Tau thinking.

But, then again, what exactly would the offer that's not already in the (massive) Tau list?

I think what I've said is a different way of saying what CS thinks. It's not a case of it being a deliberate *offset* of a weakness, nor 'plugging a hole'(though in many cases that is what they do), their purpose should be to keep the army list with a bit of vitality and a huge dose of variation/potential, not to have 'necessary' units that allow you to win.

More thinking I guess!

_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Tactica
 Post subject: Are Tau really weak in assaults?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241


5 guys with guns dressed in blue stand 6' away from 3 guys in red.

The guys in Red have 3 guys with the same guns, but they also have 2 brutes in armor with power weapons as well. The red brutes are ready to charge.

The guys in blue are short for this life.

+ + +

The same two forces are now 30' apart. We now see our blue guys have better chances of survival.

+ + +

We now see the same two 5-man forces 60' apart, and seperated by a deep cavern with a river at the bottom. The guys in red are screwed.




Now, if we look at the brutes as auxilia and the guys in red and blue as Tau purists we can see that its true, auxilia can situationally add value to a force.

We can also observe that in order to add auxilia, you have to sacrifice something else from the list.

We can also see that situationally, there is value to either having Auxilia... or... NOT. Terrain, Deployment, and Tactics will determine whether or not Auxilia and the Sacrifice they require will truely add value to a particular game.

Cheers,




_________________
Rob
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 1 of 1
  [ 14 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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