Now I know we don't generally like new ideas mixing up the arguments we have here in Tau land but I thought why not.  

A bit of brainstorming here and I know this has been proposed in some way previously, so I thought perhaps more thought could be extended to it. Thinking outside the box....

Seeing as Tau don't hold objectives could we perhaps make it so Tau (and more directly FWs) don't have to defend objectives? Perhaps it would run the opposite to Tyranids(There are different objectives when fighting them for example to get BTS you need to kill the synapses...)?

Could the Tau place objectives but use them more to draw in the enemy rather than hold them?

Given they would seem to prefer to win fights without too much destruction perhaps they get T&H? from breaking 2-3 formations that hold (within 15cms of) any objective on the board...? This would mean they don't need to defend the objectives on their side so much as just clear it and it could mean they are more mobile around the board. It would also mean opponents would need to be wary of putting small formations on an objective that could be obliterated piecemeal by concerted Co-ordinated fire actions.

It would be a very different type of fight vs Tau and for the Tau.

Any thoughts? What problems could arise? Is it viable even?

Like I said, this is just brainstorming so no need to fly off the handle with, "It's proposterous!" or "It's broken!" or "I'm going poke out your eyes with this spoon, it's so stupid"  

More ideas into this mix would be nice too.  

LINK to previously posted idea (2nd last post) and another LINK to further discussion (3rd post).

"I just had an idea (whilst sitting on the toilet and that may be where this idea belongs     ).

Whilst reading the Tau Codex, I got an even greater feel for how Tau don't value territory. So how about this...

Set up all objectives as normal (for the opposition to garrison, capture etc). Both sides can garrison normally. The difference comes with how Victory Points are calculated. Instead of capturing the Blitz to get a point and capturing 2 objectives on the enemies side for a point, how about 1 VP for destroying/breaking 1/3 of the enemies forces? Another point for destroying/breaking 2/3 of the enemy?

The Tau are all about the systematic destruction of the opposing forces. This rule would reflect that and really encourage the Tau player to get out there and kill as much as possible, as quickly as possible (rather than hide away and lob long range shots when easiest to do so).

As I say, I've not had long to think about it but the way the Tyrannids work their BTS is a sort of precident for flexibility in this kind of thing.

Is it workable?"

_________________
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.

I think the bit about Tau not defending territory is a bit overblown (hear me out!). They don't often defend territory in the fluff because in the fluff they're only fighting in what is the territory of the enemy, it's either newly conquered or they're attempting to do that at the moment. Of course they don't give a damn about an Agri World #13567642.

However, if an enemy - say Damocles Gulf Crusade II: Return of the Damocles Gulf Crusade, or a Nid hive fleet, or say an Ork Waagh aimed to get to the heart of their empire, they won't be able to just pack up and bail from, say, T'au. So they will damn well have to learn to hold ground - or die.

That's a good point, but I think Tau having to hold territory when on the defense is well represented by the opponent's Blitz and T&H objectives : the Tau don't care about holding ground, but the opponent sure does.

I don't think Tau should be denied the possibility of scoring Blitz and T&H objectives : they may not hold ground but their battle plan must include objectives to capture from the enemy, they don't attack at random.

On the other hand, if we apply the Tau doctrine by the letter, Tau should not score points for Defend the Flag or They Shall not Pas, as these two VP are really all about holding ground.

So, going further with this idea, Tau would only be able to score Blitz, T&H and BTS... and we'd have to find 2 new ways for Tau to score points.

Easy way: reverse the effects of They Shall not Pass and Defend the Flag.

>>> Defend the Flag: the Tau player scores 1 VP if the opponent does not control/contest all 3 objectives in his table half.

>>> They Shall not Pass: the Tau player scores 1 VP if at least two unbroken Tau formations are in the opponents table half.

This would encourage the Tau to launch an all-out attack (while still having to defend somehow in order to prevent the enemy from scoring points by capturing their own objectives).

Hard way: make up 2 brand new objectives for the Tau. Here are a few ideas off the top of my head:

>>> The Tau player scores 1 VP if more than half of the opponent's formations are destroyed or broken.

>>> The Tau player scores 1 VP if none of his formations is reduced to half strength. (They care about lives, don't they?)

>>> The Tau player scores 1 VP for controlling any 4 objectives on the table.

>>> If the Tau player scores the BTS objective, he gets another VP for destroying the second most expensive opposing formation.

I'm not sure all (or any?) of these suggestions are perfectly balanced, but they're just wild ideas.  

I shudder at the thought.

Nids don't hold ground, Necrons don't hold ground, Eldar don't hold ground, heck Marines don't often hold ground...Orks rarely hold ground, and so on.

The objectives only really make sense for Guard.

But having a consistent and identical set of mission parameters to your opponent is the whole point of a tournament mission, to remove bias.

So yes, I think the fluff that Tau don't hold ground is blown way out of proportion, similar to the non-fluff that Tau never engage the enemy (the Fire Warriors firearm is just for show...).

The Suggestions-

-Tau should get Objective Points for killing formations rather than the standard ones. It's a lot easier to just play line up and kill stuff than actually have to fight over and move to objectives.

-Tau win if the enemy doesn't hold 3 home objectives. It is very much easier to contest 1 enemy objective than for the enemy to control all 3 of his own.

-Tau win if they have unbroken formations in enemy half. It is a lot harder for the opponent to achieve Hold the Line, than to just move a few Tau formations forward.


The danger is slipping into fanboyism, if Tau only had to achieve these things they'd be nigh unbeatable- and that would put a lot of ppl of playing against them.

I'm not being a fanboy here, I don't even play Tau!  

I just wanted to contribute to Dobbsy's brainstorming because I like to come up with new ideas, even if most of them turn out to be unworkable, and also because I think the idea of new objectives for the Tau has some appeal.

BTW, the suggestion "The Tau player scores 1 VP if none of his formations is reduced to half strength" would encourage Tau players to shoot at the enemy rather than Engage them. This may be a good way of representing the Tau's preference for shooting at close range rather than start risky engagements without upping their FF value or giving them extra shots.


That said:

Nids don't hold ground, Necrons don't hold ground, Eldar don't hold ground, heck Marines don't often hold ground...Orks rarely hold ground, and so on.

The objectives only really make sense for Guard.

How about a very simple change, that reflects the Tau philosophy yet doesn't require us to come up with new objectives entirely (which are bound to be unbalanced)

The Tau method of warfare is swift and mobile, placing little emphasis on the control of territory. The Tau player may not contest objectives, but may capture them as normal. Any objectives which are not controled by either player count as being captured by the Tau player.

This way the Tau player has to push enemies off objectives by shooting them rather than running up to contest, but doesn't have to actually hold the the objectives themselves.

I think this really could work.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

This would turn the Tau in an immobile line of fire again.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

They'd still have to come forward to deny hold the line, and the long ranged firepower of the list has been reduced of late with the ML changes and the loss of the Moray.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Toyed with the idea but I think it's best for Tau to use the normal rules, one can easily imagine objectives that they would consider worth fighting for - crashed/badly injured important commander/ethereal, important communications/scanning towers helpful to the war effort, buildings inhabited with lots of tau civilians the enemy came upon too quickly to evacuate, etc.

I guess we need to remember that designing a Tournament Army List is just that- designing something that works with both the other Tournament Army Lists and the Tournament Scenario.

If you have to invent a different Scenario (i.e. different objectives for Tau) then it's no longer a Tournament Army List.

I am hesitant to change tournament objectives for any army, the Tau included.  There are far more reasons for Tau to hold objectives than Eldar and yet we maintain the objectives for the space elves.  The objectives are abstract ideas: control points on the battlefield, locations for supporting reinforcements, lost equipment, enemy technology, etc.  Also, I don't like the idea of an army being balanced around objectives rather than points, stats, and construction (personel preference).

I don't want to crush Dobbsy's ideas and I think that there are ways of flushing these concepts out.  They are ideas probably best for scenarios.  While that may seem like a brush off, I can assure you it isn't.  With the Tau development moving along smoothly, a supplement featuring the Tau is not so far out of the question and we're already discussing preliminary ideas.  Scenarios are a great thing to add to a supplement.

EDIT: This got me thinking that something like these alternative objectives would be fun to put in the Epic scenario supplement that is being tinkered with (Chroma calls it Epic: Total War but I refuse out of protest on the title).  Creating alternative objectives for each race might be a fun way to do things for a change.  They wouldn't be 'tournament play', but they'd be for equal cost armies to play.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Hey Moscie!  Believe me, that's something that's being worked on for "the supplement"... particularly for campaign play as different race/army objectives achieved can give them a bonus (or a penalty to the enemy) in subsequent games...

Any suggestions are more than welcome!

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Well if you like my suggestions, feel free to use them Chroma!